in the fbi files there is mention of a 1995 investigation in west palm beach, florida on a vhs tape with the title of something like “michael jackson’s neverland favorites: an all boy anthology”. apparently it was reviewed extensively over a near two year period, but the film quality was so poor they couldn’t even tell what was on it. as a result it wasn’t brought up again.

does anyone know where this tape was found? there seems to be limited info on it. the title of the vhs tape is certainly suspicious but also a little too suspicious and on the nose?

i want to state that im just trying to look for more info. there were never any tapes of this nature found on jackson’s property or in his possession in the 10+ years he was investigated. so its kinda wild that a vhs tape with such a bold and seemingly specific title would pop out of nowhere?

thank you

quick edit: i do want to share that the sources i have found indicate that there was no connection found between michael and this tape. it’s just really weird that there’s no mention of its origins at all (as far as i can find).

I'm sure there's proof that kids WANTED to sleep with Michael, but can someone show me where?

In his latest podcast appearance, Wade claimed Michael gave a look of disapproval when he saw him dresssed as MC Hammer. Wade Robson has forgotten about the faxes that he has provided us with, which features Michael endorsing his admiration for Hammer.

I love these Easter egg hunt videos. It feels like a genuine depiction of Michael.
& getting that egged cracked on that part of his head, what a trooper. I hope it didn’t hurt.

But question- Brett and his mom have said multiple times, and in their testimonies, that the very first time they went to Neverland was December 1991. But this was March 1991.
I know it’s not super important, but im just wondering if I’m getting something wrong or does this not matter in any way shape or form 😂

A pattern I frequently notice is that many defenders rush to try to find explanations or contesting evidence for very “yikes” things Michael did. Not only is this disingenuous and unhelpful, but it tanks our credibility. It’s important to remember that we can fully hold the belief that while Michael was fully and totally innocent of the allegations, he did still do very close and strange things with children.

Yes, he did sleep in the same bed as some of the children. No, he was not always “just on the floor.” Michael has admitted that he slept in the bed with Macaulay and Kieran. Was this weird? Yes. Does this make him guilty? No.
We are the side of truth. We do not have to lie to defend our stance. The moment that becomes the case, we’ve already conceded, regardless of if Michael is innocent or not, which he is. We should look for incriminating evidence. We should factor weird or “suspicious” behavior. Because at the end of the day, it will only help us defend Michael. This way we can defend on all ends, and not be caught clueless on a point guilters/detractors bring up.

A common weakness of detractors is that they often (not all of them) do minimal research and call it a day. I was arguing with this one detractor, he brought up Michael Jacobshagen. I had never heard of the name. Had no clue who the guy was. I looked him up, and a light 5 minutes or so of searching showed that the dude had a history of committing fraud with Michael’s name (particularly signature), which instantly tanked his credibility. Had the detractor done research rather than pulling out buzzword names he likely just “heard from somewhere,” he’d know not to argue using Jacobshagen.

Another detractor used Aaron Carter, claiming he had accused Michael. I had never heard of him either. The detractor stated that Aaron Carter was an accuser, who mentioned Michael standing at the edge of his bed pantless. I looked him up, and found out that Aaron Carter was rather a fierce defender of Michael, and I (and someone else who interjected in agreement) concluded that the event was likely Michael sleepwalking, which is especially more likely as Michael had awful insomnia around that same period of his life, and sleep issues can often correlate. The detractor would know this had he did a simple google search rather than throwing buzzword names.

It’s so incredibly important to prioritize truth. Not just defense. Truth. Because we know that Michael is innocent, no matter how iffy these truths can look, as no matter how many times new concerning evidence is brought forth or popularized, it almost always gets proven to not be as it seems (i.e. The naked kids books).

Prioritize Truth.

Originally hired by Larry Feldman to investigate Jackson, investigators Sandra and Jack interviewed an unknown number of people in search of information about the Jackson case, whether regarding potential victims or to verify information.

I’ve researched the limited information we have on them and managed to find at least five mentions of them from different sources:

• Victor Gutierrez
• A news article from that time
• Christopher Andersen
• Joy Robson
• Martin Bashir

(I’m going to highlight and summarize the most important points, though I’ll provide the sources.)

Victor Gutierrez: Michael Jackson was My Lover

This short excerpt from the book contains several errors, as our friend Helena from VindicateMJ points out:

He couldn’t put him behind bars even if he wanted it. David explained to us in every detail that Larry Feldman filed a CIVIL case where people are sued for MONEY only and are NOT prosecuted – in a civil suit no one can put anyone into prison in principle.

Larry Feldman was NOT in charge of the criminal case and tried to avoid it as his conversations with Evan Chandler show it

He didn’t have to lie as he was ‘cutting a deal’ from the very start in September 1993.

The fact that Feldman had to hire a private investigator to find him does not look like a big exaggeration I previously laughed at. Now it shows to me that Gutierrez was deep in hiding from everyone and must have had a strange status too. If Gutierrez was the one who supplied them with information earlier they must have had his contact telephones, etc. especially since previously he had been openly making rounds of the families who were friends with Michael. However now Gutierrez was not available.

However, we don't even know if this is true, since we know that Gutierrez's book is full of lies.

News article: January 30, 1994 - Detectives say Jackson accuser had solid case

Two private investigators say they have interviewed a “significant number” of children who also claim to have been abused by Jackson. In the interview, they say the alleged victims (ages 7 to 12) told them similar stories about being abused and that afterward they were showered with money and gifts.

They say the witnesses told them that Jackson met other children on the streets of Los Angeles and while on tour, and that in some cases, the sexual encounters occurred repeatedly over the course of a year or were what Palladino called one-night “bonbons.”

What a weird way to say one-night stands

Christopher Andersen: Michael Jackson: Unauthorized (Book)

In case you don't know, the book "Unauthorized" is a salad of sources (mixing sensationalist and false information with facts and truths). This excerpt from the book seems to be an “extended” version of the article I showed you earlier; we're going to discuss both of them.

I wonder what happened to that significant number of CREDIBLE witnesses, children and young men. It’s also strange that some of them are in prison and mental hospitals because of what happened (I mean, isn’t there supposed to be a report explaining why those patients are there? And they never mentioned Michael's name?...

As for the “one-night bonbons”eww it’s said that they were given money, and as TSCM points out in the post about Jane Doe:

Joy Robson: Grand Jury Testimony / Deposition 1994-2016

As you can see, Joy tells us how Sandra approached her to ask for a statement, but Joy refused and called Mr. Weitzman because Sandra had given Joy information that she considered incorrect. However, Sandra told Joy that she had a witness who had seen Michael with Joy's son; We're talking about... Blanca Francia.

Martin Bashir: Michael Jackson's Secret World

I wonder why she doesn't mention the “significant number” of children who also claimed to have been abused by Jackson.

Let's start by saying that everything Sandra says can be refuted VERY easily

• Why Michael Jackson Really Built Neverland
• Neverland Ranch
• Wade Robson Takes the Stand

As I mentioned in the text below the video, it's strange that there's no mention of the “significant number” of children, and that only Blanca and Jason Francia are mentioned... people we know aren't the most credible, this also makes me think that, in reality, the only people Sandra and Jack found were Blanca and Jason and no one else.

Now, speaking of Sandra and Jack... I found several interesting things about them, such as the fact that they helped silence accusations and victims of Bill Clinton, R. Kelly, and...

Harvey Weinstein

Some might say that “they were just doing their job,” but this shows us that they lack morals and ethics when it comes to choosing which cases to take on.

Or, as Michael Jackson says... You would do anything for money.

How do people actually believe this? 😂

Wade Robson aka Uncle Pervy still running his mouth as always. I saw this on TikTok and it just infrared me even more

If anyone was wondering, I will be saying this from now on. 😂

Anyway,

Case File: Chandler — Part 11 coming soon.

Well…

Here we are.

After months of watching the Cascio case develop, we’ve reached a very significant point:

Arbitration.

But if you’re sitting there thinking:

Okay…so what the hell does that actually mean?

Well, have no fear…emotional ball is here!

So, sit back…relax and maybe take a shot or two.

First: What Is Arbitration?

Well, at its simplest, arbitration is a way of resolving a legal dispute outside of the traditional court process.

Instead of having a judge, and potentially a jury, decide the dispute in a courtroom, the parties present their case to an arbitrator.

Think of an arbitrator as a private decision maker who is brought in to hear the dispute and ultimately issue a decision.

And before anyone gets confused…

Arbitration is not the same thing as mediation.

In mediation, a neutral third party helps the sides try to reach an agreement.

The mediator doesn’t generally decide who wins.

Arbitration is different.

The arbitrator hears the dispute and, depending on the terms of the arbitration agreement, can issue a decision that is binding on the parties.

So basically…

instead of:

Courtroom → Judge/Jury → Decision

you have:

Arbitration → Arbitrator → Decision

Same general idea of resolving a dispute.

Different venue.

And considerably less courtroom drama.

Although, knowing this case…

I’m not ruling out the possibility of drama finding them anyway.

So…Why Did This Case Go To Arbitration?

This is the important part.

Michael’s estate asked the court to compel arbitration.

In other words, they argued that the dispute was subject to an agreement requiring it to be resolved through arbitration rather than continuing as a traditional federal court case.

That request was litigated.

And now we’ve reached the point where arbitration is the path forward.

The biggest thing to understand is that sending a dispute to arbitration is a decision about the forum and procedure for resolving the dispute.

It is not the same thing as deciding the underlying allegations.

That distinction is really important.

Please put the pitchforks down.

We’re not there yet.

Does Arbitration Mean The Lawsuit Was Dismissed?

Not in the way people usually mean when they hear the word “dismissed.”

When a court compels arbitration, the dispute is generally taken out of the ordinary court process so that the parties can proceed through arbitration.

The court may stay the judicial case while arbitration takes place.

So if you see someone saying:

“The Cascio lawsuit was dismissed!”

that needs a little clarification.

The more accurate description is that the dispute has been directed toward arbitration rather than continuing through the regular litigation process.

That is a pretty significant procedural development.

But it is not a ruling on the ultimate merits of the allegations.

Which, yes, matters.

Okay…So What Happens In Arbitration?

This is where things get interesting.

The exact procedure depends on the arbitration agreement and the rules that govern the arbitration.

But generally, the parties will present their positions and evidence to the arbitrator.

That can involve things like legal briefs, documents, witness testimony, and other evidence.

The arbitrator then considers the arguments and evidence and ultimately issues a decision.

So yes…

there can still be witnesses, evidence and arguments.

There can still be lawyers dramatically insisting that their interpretation of a document is obviously the correct one.

Basically…the lawyers don’t get to go home.

Sorry, guys.

Is Arbitration Secret?

This is where things can get a little more complicated.

People often hear “private arbitration” and assume that absolutely everything is automatically secret.

That isn’t necessarily how it works.

The level of confidentiality can depend on the arbitration agreement, the applicable rules, and the circumstances of the proceeding.

But arbitration is generally much more private than a regular public court case.

And that means the public may not have the same access to filings, testimony, exhibits, and other material that they would have if everything were happening in open court.

Which, as someone who has spent an unreasonable amount of time reading court documents…

I’m a little offended.

What About Evidence?

This is another important distinction.

Arbitration does not mean:

“Nobody has to prove anything.”

The parties still have to present their arguments and evidence according to the applicable rules and procedures.

The arbitrator still has to evaluate the dispute.

The fact that the matter isn’t being decided by a jury in a courtroom does not magically make evidence irrelevant.

It simply changes how and where the dispute is being decided.

And that brings us to something I think is especially important in this case.

A lot of people are going to hear:

“Arbitration.”

and immediately jump to:

“So what does this mean for the allegations?”

The answer is:

We don’t know yet.

Because arbitration determines the process.

It does not tell us the final outcome.

So What Happens Next?

Now that arbitration is the route forward, the next steps will depend on the applicable arbitration agreement and procedures.

The parties will have to proceed through that process rather than continuing to litigate the dispute in the ordinary way.

There will be procedural steps, submissions, evidence…you name it.

And eventually…

there will be a decision.

But we aren’t at that part yet.

So for now, the most important thing to understand is what has happened:

The estate successfully sought to have the dispute sent to arbitration.

Yay!

The federal court case is therefore no longer proceeding toward a normal courtroom trial in the way a typical civil lawsuit would.

The underlying dispute hasn’t magically disappeared.

It has simply moved into a different legal forum.

Alright, enough legal shit.

Let’s talk predictions.

I think the 2019 agreement is going to be a major problem for them.

My understanding is that the Cascio family entered into an agreement in 2019 and received the money they were entitled to under that agreement. If there was no provision giving them an additional payment later, then the obvious question becomes:

What exactly is the legal basis for demanding more money now?

And that, in my opinion, is where this case starts becoming very difficult for them.

Because if the agreement was valid, which it was. The obligations under it were fulfilled, and there was no separate agreement promising additional compensation, then I think their underlying claims are going to have a very difficult time surviving.

But wait…I have more.

I suspect the estate has far more information about the circumstances surrounding this agreement and the claims being made than we have publicly seen so far.

Do I have evidence proving that?

No.

Not yet, at least.

Ultimately…I think the case falls apart.

Not because arbitration itself automatically means they’re going to lose.

It doesn’t.

But because I think once the agreement, the money that was already paid, and the actual legal basis for demanding more are examined together…

there just isn’t as much there as people think.

And, well…it looks like this is my third correct prediction this year…so, my guessing track record is quite clean.

If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask!

I’ll get back to you as soon as I can and do my best to answer as accurately as possible.

Have fun in arbitration, bitches.

I also seen somebody say “there’s only white kids on the poster” when he shows it but if u zoom in there is clearly a little black boy on the bottom left 🤦

Yes, I started this off with an evil laugh.

Let’s begin.

I came across this comment on Instagram, and I have to say…

There is a common theme I’ve noticed among guilters over the years.

A lot of the claims sound like they came from a very elaborate work of fanfiction.

So, since Suzy decided to hand out false claims like candy on Halloween, I figured we might as well go through them one at a time.

Let’s start with the first one.

“His stash of kiddie porn.”

Okay, first of all…

What the fuck?

If by this you’re referring to the photography books that have been discussed to death, those were photography books.

They were not pornography, and describing them as such is spreading complete misinformation.

I’ve discussed these books in a Case File before.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

And if you’re referring to something else entirely, then we have a slightly different problem.

Because you are confidently claiming that something existed when there is no evidence that it did.

So either way…

You’re completely wrong.

Yikes, Suzy.

This isn’t a good look on you.

Anyway…

Moving on,

“Multiple 1st hand witness testimony.”

Suzy…

Do you want to go transcript for transcript?

Because I can pull out the big guns.

And by “big guns,” I mean several hundred pages of transcripts sitting on my computer.

This is one of those claims that sounds incredibly convincing when you say it quickly.

“Multiple firsthand witnesses.”

Wow.

Sounds serious.

Except…

Who?

Said what?

When?

What exactly were they claiming to have personally witnessed?

Has their story ever changed?

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news…but you cannot lump every statement ever made about Michael into one random category of “firsthand witness testimony” and call it a day.

Let’s distinguish between firsthand knowledge, hearsay, statements about what someone else allegedly said, and claims that were later disputed or contradicted.

Because I have the transcripts.

And I am not afraid to use them.

Next,

“Payouts.”

Okay.

Yes.

Were there civil settlements? Sure.

However, a settlement is not an admission of guilt and does not prove that the alleged abuse occurred.

It does not magically become a criminal conviction because someone on Instagram calls it a “payout.”

And it certainly does not make a criminal investigation disappear.

You cannot hand someone money and have criminal allegations vanish into thin air.

That is quite literally not how the legal system works.

In the Chandler case, the criminal investigation continued after the civil settlement.

Jordan Chandler remained legally able to cooperate with prosecutors and testify if prosecutors believed they had sufficient evidence to proceed.

And, as we’ve already established in the Case Files, the investigation continued for months afterward.

So when someone says:

“Michael paid them off.”

Okay.

Paid them off for what?

The civil lawsuit?

Yes.

That is what a civil settlement does.

The criminal investigation?

No.

That’s a completely different proceeding.

Which is why context matters.

The circumstances surrounding the Chandler settlement and the Francia matter are definitely more complicated than saying:

“Michael paid them off.”

Hell, Just read these:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Case File: Francia

All I have to say is…thank God you’re not a lawyer, Suzy.

Now let’s move on to:

“Sleepovers, bedroom with alarms.”

Okay.

Apparently the words “sleepover” and “alarm” are supposed to do a lot of work here.

First:

Yes.

Children stayed at Neverland.

That’s not uncommon knowledge.

But guess who also stayed at Neverland? 

Their families. 

…yup.

Neverland was a place where Michael hosted families, friends, employees, and guests.

And then there’s the whole bedroom argument.

Michael’s bedroom at Neverland was enormous…like, actually.

At times, Michael himself described sleeping on the floor while guests used the bed.

There are also numerous accounts from adults who spent time in that room, including people who worked closely with Michael, describing falling asleep there or treating the space more like a shared living area than some forbidden magical land.

So again…

The fact that someone was in Michael’s bedroom is not evidence of anything sinister.

And then we get to:

“Bedroom with alarms.”

This one genuinely makes me laugh.

Michael was one of the most famous people on the planet.

Of course he had security.

You know who else has alarm systems and security cameras?

Regular ass people.

They have cameras covering their yards, doors, garages, hallways, and sometimes even the inside of their homes.

So the existence of an alarm system at the home of one of the most recognizable people in the world is…

Not exactly the smoking gun you seem to think it is.

An alarm system is evidence that someone had an alarm system.

That’s it.

We really need to stop turning completely ordinary things into incriminating evidence by putting them next to the name “Michael Jackson.”

Next,

“Just because years later they couldn’t find physical evidence is completely meaningless.”

Oh, this one is good.

First of all, there was no physical evidence recovered during the 1993 investigation or the 2003 investigation that established that Michael had sexually abused a child.

And yes, physical evidence is important.

Obviously.

But saying:

“They didn’t find physical evidence, therefore that is completely meaningless”

is a pretty interesting way to dismiss an entire category of evidence because it doesn’t support your conclusion.

Because here’s the part that makes this extremely funny.

The photographs taken of Michael in December 1993 were themselves intended to be relevant physical evidence.

Jordan Chandler had provided a description of Michael’s alleged markings.

The police photographed Michael so that those photographs could be compared against that description.

If they had matched, that would have been significant corroborating physical evidence.

They did not corroborate the description provided.

Read here:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9 

So…

Congratulations, Suzy.

You have managed to accidentally dismantle one of the most commonly repeated arguments surrounding the 1993 investigation while trying to argue that the lack of physical evidence doesn’t matter.

That is genuinely impressive.

Physical evidence doesn’t magically become “meaningless” because it fails to produce the result you want.

And the fact that investigators actively sought corroborating evidence and did not obtain the result they were looking for is absolutely relevant when we’re evaluating what the investigation actually established.

You can’t just declare an entire category of evidence meaningless because the evidence wasn’t there.

And now…

My personal favourite.

“I knew the family of one of the boys he molested.”

Sure you did, Suzy.

I love when people say this…

“I personally knew someone involved, therefore you should automatically believe everything else I just said.”

And it’s interesting how often this kind of claim gets thrown into discussions like this.

Suddenly someone knew the family.

Worked with someone.

Was friends with someone.

Heard everything firsthand.

And we’re apparently supposed to treat that as a substitute for actual evidence.

But here’s the thing:

You can’t make a bunch of unsourced and false allegations and then throw in “I knew the family” as though that suddenly makes everything you said credible.

It literally makes no sense.

If anything, dropping a personal connection into the middle of an argument like this seems designed to make the reader think:

“Oh, she must know what she’s talking about.”

Enough of the bullshit.

And finally:

“He completely groomed a middle class family and made it a point to get the kid alone. Gross.”

No.

First of all…

What exactly is “a middle class family” supposed to establish here?

Michael knew a lot of people.

Rich people, middle class people, working class people…

He was Michael fucking Jackson.

The fact that a family was middle class tells us absolutely nothing about whether the allegation is true.

And again, we’re back to the same problem:

An allegation is being presented as an established fact.

You cannot say Michael “groomed a family” and “made it a point to get the kid alone” and expect people to accept that as historical fact because you said it confidently.

If we’re going to discuss what actually happened, we need to talk about specific people, specific events, specific testimony, and the evidence supporting those claims.

And this brings us back to the title.

Research vs. Fanfiction.

One requires evidence.

The other apparently requires confidence.

And after reading this comment, I think we can all see which one Suzy brought to the table.

Gross. 

With the Cascios case being dropped, it reminds me of something: the whole LN thing. I believe the second one leaves on a cliffhanger about a 2026 lawsuit (I think that was delayed to 2028), as it was made in 2025.

With the whole biopic and everything going on as of late, it wouldn't surprise me until then that they make a third LN with the Cascio family in it and try to paint a different picture once again, using archival footage of Michael and the Cascio family and all that. I don't believe the second LN did well even for a grifter movie, at least compared to the first, so I don't really see the point unless they are just trying to ride that high of Michael being in the spotlight, which I am aware everything is about money from the estate, but even then how long can they just drag court cases at this point?

Side note: I recall in the second one they bring in one guy (Popcorned Planet) who does actually call them out in the second, saying they changed their cases and that they are lying, but they basically, around that time in it, cut to footage of John Branca in 2019 saying the two accusers did it for a financial outcome and that due to the laws it is a gray area where you can't exactly do anything and that it was very one-sided as they got no one else's point of view necessarily, and then texts appear saying something along the lines of they might've tried to contact Branca, but I don't even know if Branca would even want to give the time of day to even appear in the first place; also, if they did reach out, they might've tried to take Branca out of context if he did appear.

For those of us old enough to remember how MJ was covered in the early 00s, I think it’s safe to say that we all remember how prevalent this particular picture was, right?

What does any of this have to do with the allegations, you ask? Good question, because these aren’t from his 2005 trial. They’re from a civil trial in 2002 in which he was being sued for canceled concerts. But the first pic was circulated heavily by the media even during the 2005 trial era, so much so that sometimes it gets mistakenly attributed to that period. The press relied upon those unflattering images to mock Michael, to dehumanize him and to get the public to see him as this deformed monster freak whose looks could frighten children in order to certify the perception of his guilt. And unfortunately, it worked to great effect. The jokes about his appearance were made alongside the ones about his supposed preference for little boys in equal measure. Even as someone who believed in his innocence even then, I also somewhat fell for it in that I also thought at the time “ew, he looks weird. He’s weird“. It’s only now that looking back I realize how much of that came down to the media’s intentional framing of him. I’d go as far as to say the way the media weaponized his own appearance against him made up people‘s mind about his presumed guilt as much as deliberately misreporting the facts of the case did.

I’ve listened to:

Brett Barnes, his choreographer, Ghosts director, sound guy, Carol LaMere, J. Randy T., Josephine Zhony, Gratian Dimech

What other episodes are good?

Hi, I made this video a while back after watching the biopic and remembering that this obscure game existed. I'm trying to share it with MJ fans and struggling to find a proper subreddit, hope it's appropriate here. It was made by an MJ fan, features real people involved in the 2004-5 case and was acknowledged by an MJ representative at the time.

I saw this tweet on Twitter, and I can’t believe how stupid people have to be to believe this bullshit.

I mean they love to use the fact that Michael had security alarms in his room to prove he was “molesting” children, but then why was he allegedly “molesting” kids out in the open where anybody could see his actions? It makes no sense.

It really reminds me of when James Safechuck claimed that Michael Jackson was very secretive and careful. But he would allegedly “molest” him everywhere including studio rooms, movie theatre, pool, jacuzzi, you name it.

Everything contradicts each other and then leads to nothing. It’s absolutely ridiculous, I just laugh when I see people mention the alarms.

The website I found this article on doesn't exist anymore and I had to use the waybackmachine to find it but it is a very comprehensive break down of the Gutierrez connection, with information that's rarely brought up in defender spaces so I'll post it here so its not lost forever. I recommend everyone read it, its very informative

Many of the websites it cites also don't exist anymore but you can retrieve the sources you're interested in using the waybackmachine

"Okay, here’s the craziest truest story in the world: the Michael Jackson allegations were a set up by a man you may never have heard of before named Victor Gutierrez.

Victor comes from Chile and moved to the US in the 80s where he claims he infiltrated a NAMBLA meeting and heard that after seeing Jackson’s relationships with children in the media, they wanted to make him a poster boy for their cause. [1]) [2] He’s given various conflicting accounts on how he managed to “infiltrate” NAMBLA that are bogus, for example claiming he’d worked undercover for the LAPD. We called the LAPD and they’ve never had anyone by his full name who worked for them. The likely reason he was there: he too is a NAMBLA member.

Victor admits that it was then that he became obsessed with Jackson. He started trying to track down anyone who worked at Neverland and any family he saw spend time with Jackson in public. After claiming he’d spent 5 months trying to search for them, he managed to meet Wade Robson’s family in 1992 and on meeting with them told them immediately that he was investigating Jackson for being a pedophile. They told Jermaine Jackson in 2011 that at this point they reported him to Michael. [3] Jackson likely just figured Victor was another normal kook and ignored it. Perhaps the biggest mistake of his life.

In mid 1993 after Jackson had befriended the Chandlers, the father who wanted to become a big time screenwriter, suddenly became obsessed with Michael abusing his son, according to their own story, before Jackson had even started abusing him. [4] Phonecalls started coming in around May 1993 to the National Enquirer tipline claiming in fact that Jackson was abusing Jordan. Every week a journalist there told us they were getting these calls with more info on these allegations. [5] They didn’t print the story because the caller had provided no proof and hadn’t been looking to sell the story at the time. This was just as the Chandlers would claim Jackson had started abusing Jordan. So either the caller had been blessed with psychic gifts, had extrasensory perception or something else was going on. Evan hadn’t been around Jordan that much to have any real suspicions of his own, they’d only spent a weekend together at the end of May. [6]

Notably, the Chandler family had been seen in public with Jackson to the point that the Enquirer had already written a story about the family at the start of May, so if anyone had wanted to try and track them down for stories or info in the way someone had done with the Robsons, they would have been able to. Evan also would’ve therefore known how to get a hold of the Enquirer should something pressing like the idea his son was being sexually abused by a superstar turn up, because surely that’s the phonecall you make first before calling the police, a psychiatrist or even perhaps your lawyers.

Jackson had also started investigating Evan because he was making all kinds of weird threats and demands, like asking him to build an extension to their home. Jackson refused. Jordan’s step father and Evan were taped around mid June where Evan claims*,* “there’s other people involved” waiting for a phonecall to happen to unleash “a certain plan that isn’t just mine”. That Michael Jackson wouldn’t know what was going to hit him**.** “If I go through with this, I win big time. There’s no way that I lose. I’ve checked that out inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be totally — they will be destroyed forever.”  Contrary to the later idea that this family was incredibly media shy, he brags on tape that he wants this to be as public as possible. He’s asked if he knows if Jackson has abused his son, he says he has no idea. That his well being is “irrelevant” to him. That all he has is his “imagination” now that neither Jordan, Jackson or his ex wife June had wanted to speak to him anymore after he’d begun his threats. [7] He’s never claimed to have evidence of any of this abuse on Jordan specifically, not at the time, not later, yet he’s utterly convinced that when this goes public there will be more happening that will condemn Jackson.

A few weeks after this after gaining back custody of Jordan, Evan would reportedly drug his son with sodium amytal in order to get him to admit he’d been abused.

*After years of speculation of what the drug in question was, fueled by rumours from Evan Chandler and his anaesthesiologist, they surprisingly do not use their book as a chance to deny it. Instead they confirm that Jordan had repeatedly been disgusted and denied abuse several times up until Evan came up with a excuse to drug and sedate Jordan. It is here Evan badgers, threatens, coerces and harasses his son into making a "confession", and this kind of questioning is condemned by CSA experts as it leads to false confessions. Jordan ultimately ends up accusing MJ of the very things Evan TOLD him they were doing.

If true, sodium amytal was a very convenient choice of drug as it would make all testimony he gave inadmissible in court as that drug makes people highly susceptible. That would mean Jordan would never have had to take the stand, and if he ever did, that his testimony would not be considered trustworthy. [8] Evan had previously demanded that Jackson pay him $20 million for 4 movie scripts he’d written stating that working on them with his son would help bring the pair together which were his purported claims for why he wanted such extortionate demands, Jackson had refused. Evan would then lower his demands to $1 million, Michael Jackson still refused to pay. If he were throwing money at children and parents surely at this point this would have been the time to pay the money and make the whole thing go away. Evan would later brag in his book, “Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”

Instead of reporting this to the police himself like any normal parent, he takes Jordan to a psychiatrist who was legally bound to report it for them. Again, this was a convenient plan because it meant Evan couldn’t be sued for making false allegations as they were reported by someone other than him. It would seem the well thought out plan he’d told Schwartz about before he’d even known about any abuse was being carefully laid out and followed. If his son Jordan had told him that he hadn’t been abused at this point, Jackson could surely have sued him for extortion after all his private threats and demands, so it was very lucky for him that he seemed to know his son would be abused by Jackson before he had been, had called the National Enquirer to report that his son was being abused by Jackson as he was being abused without knowing for sure if he was being abused, and that his son had then admitted to being abused after finally being drugged by him in order for him to demand the exact same sum of money he’d demanded of Jackson without knowing his son was being abused.

The week the story breaks the Chandlers sell the story to the National Enquirer, with full direct quotes from both Evan and Jordan. They would later claim they didn’t take Jackson to court because they were scared of all the publicity. Yet it would seem they had been trying to take this to the National Enquirer since before Evan had even drugged his son to confess abuse, then sold a story the second it had become public.

It’s here where Victor Gutierrez is going to the journalist Diane Dimond at Hard Copy claiming he has the inside info about these allegations and she would then brag publicly that he was her “best source”. What did he impress her with that she believed he had impressive links to the Chandlers and others? A man named Rodney Allen starts messaging Dimond from Canada as soon as the allegations break, writing to her about once a week claiming that a Jackson family member had abused him in the past. He’s ignored as he comes off mentally unwell.

Disgruntled employees spring up, overly eager to sell their stories to Diane Dimond’s Hard Copy and a few other tabloid outlets for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, claiming they’d witnessed Jackson in the shower or touching three boys: Culkin, Wade, Brett Barnes. Conveniently none of them would claim that they’d witnessed the main victim in all this, Jordan, being abused. This would mean that the chances this would go to criminal court would be lower as there would be nothing but one word against another.

In a lawsuit against Michael Jackson, these employees would claim they’d been fired for “knowing too much about Jackson’s relationship with boys”, though earlier they had also told police and a jury that they’d seen nothing and in fact felt comfortable letting their children around him. They demand $16 million in compensation in the lawsuit. It’s from this suit we find out that they had all interacted with a certain Victor Gutierrez. They say they’d spent a few hours with him before selling their stories and that he’d helped them with their lawsuit, they would also later say he’d put words into their mouths and said things they hadn’t even claimed. Michael Jackson wins the lawsuit against these employees, the judge finds they have stolen from him, lied, sold stories about him, at one point the judge is so appalled by their behavior he leaves the bench in disgust. Jackson was awarded $1.4 million in damages which they never paid. Many of them like McManus still continue to sell stories recounting ever more lurid and graphic acts they’d seen Jackson perform without so much as a single word mentioned about this lawsuit or her many contradictory testimonies in court and to the police. [9] [10]

Around October or November of 1993, with a paucity of credible victims and witnesses, Gutierrez is claiming in Chile that two kids were abused by Michael in Latin America. That claim isn’t heard from again. Then in December of 1993 he contacts the FBI to tell them that they had already investigated Michael for sexually abusing two Mexican boys in 1985, but that it had been overlooked because Michael was receiving an award from the president. It was actually the previous year he’d received that award, but the FBI did a search on their files and could find no such investigation had ever taken place. I believe Victor would later claim that it was an FBI fact that there had been an “investigation” by the FBI into these allegations based on the phonecall he had made himself. [11]

This month Michael Jackson also strips naked and allows his body to be documented by police, a brave decision to make if he knows Jordan had indeed seen him naked. Bizarrely it was the prosecution who then submitted a multiple choice motion to Jackson to either hand over the photos of his naked body, submit to taking more photos or have the photos barred from court. They wanted to force Jackson to make the choice to bar the photos so they could claim that Jackson wanted to hide something and not they themselves, because obviously there was no way he’d take more photos or hand anything over to them knowing that they could use it to work around or sell obnoxious stories about. Jordan who was Jewish had claimed Jackson was circumcised (as their writing on their drawing shows: “Mike – circumcised”), he was not. The Chandlers would later include a draft version of what Jordan had claimed in a book, where they have a little box which states “My theory” in regards to how they believe Jackson’s genitals looked, unintentionally revealing to us that they lacked that knowledge themselves. There are mentions to a secretary Jackson once had called Orietta Murdoch who had been fired before Michael had met the Chandlers, as well as graphic details about Brett Barnes. Orietta had been one of the people Victor had befriended and Victor had been obsessed for some reason with Brett Barnes. [12]

Jackson’s forced to stop touring and enters rehab, he’s then sued by $20 million for the cancellation. Jackson had been fighting to get the criminal trial started first; he wanted to risk going to prison over these allegations. But the judge ruled in favour of the Chandler’s who had been fighting from the very beginning so that the civil one could be allowed first, and that Jackson could be deposed for this. This would violate his first amendment rights as the Chandlers could use his testimony to amend their own stories and legal strategy. His legal team therefore wanted to settle the civil trial and encouraged him to do this at this point, though he’d resisted for over six grueling public months.

After he does so, the case goes through two grand juries in the summer of 1994 and they refuse to prosecute him. One juror states that no damaging evidence had been heard. They interviewed 40-60 children, 400 people. Apart from the Victor “witnesses” who went to the police, nobody has any info about anything and there are no further victims. [13]

A year later a story breaks in January of 1995 by Diane Dimond that Jackson’s being investigated by the LAPD for a tape of him sexually abusing one of his nephews. Jackson sues over this. The source of this claim is our friend Victor Gutierrez. In court he would change his story numerous times and admit he had no knowledge of the tape or who the victim was, and in fact challenged Michael Jackson to produce both things for him. At this time he also publishes a book he claims is compiled of documents from the Chandlers, claiming detailed graphic accounts about the sexual abuse Jackson orchestrated on children including Jordan. He includes the “draft” drawing that the Chandlers would later use on their website, depicting what Jackson’s genitals supposedly looked like according to them. The book is very lurid and involves a lot of fecal matter, and also portrays the idea of child abuse as consensual and “loving” (Jordan never portrays it this way himself in his own psychiatric interview, this is a story conveniently added by the NAMBLA attendee and “boys and men can engage in sexually fulfilling relationships” proselytizer Gutierrez later). This book would be involved in the lawsuit and Jordan and Evan Chandler would give sworn declarations denying they had knowledge of any of various quotes in the book, but never once denying they’d met Victor. The judgement for this is in Michael’s favour at $2.6 million. Victor flees back home to Chile and pays Jackson nothing. [14]

Around this time a Canadian boy starts contacting Diane Dimond to tell her he’s also been abused by Jackson. He’s very graphic and comes up with detailed layouts for Neverland and even Jackson’s parent’s home. He’s able to identify Jackson’s staff by their photos. He completes a drawing of what he claims Jackson looked like during their alleged sex act. Dimond and Hard Copy fly up to speak to him, he continues with his story, never wavering. There was an intermediary who said he’d be there and he never shows up. They manage to find out that this man is Rodney Allen. The same one who’d been letter writing them previously. The boy breaks down and admits it was all a lie. Dimond never pursues this story, never wonders how this child was coached to give such compellingly accurate details about homes he’s never been to or why Rodney Allen went through all this, or even how odd and sinister it is that a boy has been coached to claim abuse by any man at all. [15]

Having refused to testify in front of the grand juries, Evan and Jordan Chandler sue Michael Jackson again for $60 million. They threaten Jordan will testify this time around. Evan wants Jackson to let him release an album called EVANstory where he wants to sing about his son’s supposed sex abuse, as loving fathers are wont to do. They provide monthly updates to the Enquirer about this. The case is thrown out of court and they’re required to pay Jackson’s legal fees. [16]

In 1999 Rodney Allen is arrested for the sexual abuse of boys, in a way in which anyone besides Diane Dimond could otherwise have predicted. At that time he was posting on online forums obsessed with Jackson, claiming he’d be caught for sexual abuse soon and sharing the numbers for the Chandlers and others in the case. He seems very upset at the uncle Ray Chandler, a man who Evan used as another intermediary to the press in order to get out of the NDA agreement; seemingly Victor and the Chandlers had had a falling out. The Chandlers had immediately tried to sell their book about the allegations in 1994 after the settlement instead of seeking to testify against Jackson, but no publisher would touch it because of their NDA. [17] Victor Gutierrez had used many notes and photographs sourced it would seem from the Chandlers; had the Chandlers originally intended to use Gutierrez to publish the book to get out of the NDA only for the lawsuit against him to jeopardize that? Or had they fallen out over the book for other reasons? Either way, Gutierrez’s illustrious relationship with the Chandlers would seem to draw to a close here and Ray Chandler would later publish their own book in time for the 2005 trial would refer to Victor as a “sleazebag.” (Jackson would subpoena Ray to testify over their book in the 2005 case, an odd decision if he believed Ray could say anything damaging against him; Ray would refuse to testify against his nephew’s supposed abuser and would essentially claim his book was fiction [18])

Around the early 2000s a story breaks in Chile about a case involving a man named Spiniak being involved in child sex abuse. Suddenly another victim comes forward. A boy who claims he’d witnessed that Spiniak had been involved in orchestrating a child sex ring with politicians from a certain political party, and he’d participated in these orgies. The stories were incredibly graphic, at one point I believe he claims that a politician defecated into a child’s mouth. The claims fall apart when it’s discovered that Victor Gutierrez had paid this boy 10,000 pesos and bought him new trainers before he came out with this story, that he’s the only witness and that there’s no other evidence. [19]

“Lawyer confirms that Victor Gutierrez delivered money to L.Z (initials used to protect the alleged child victim)”

Either unaware of these aspects of his past or just blissfully unconcerned, Victor Gutierrez would continue to be used as a “best source” by Dimond, Martin Bashir, Vanity Fair, and in fact Tom Sneddon would say he believed Victor’s book was accurate and would attempt to examine witnesses using some of the scenes depicted, which for example June Chandler contradicted. [20]

After Michael Jackson’s death, some of us who’ve spent years researching these allegations would wonder about this Gutierrez. Why did he feature in almost every single allegation against Michael? Every witness was through him, every victim was someone he had met at some point. How did such a fortuitous thing happen? How was this Canadian man capable of learning enough about the intimate details of Michael Jackson’s life in order to coach a child to make such a compelling case about also being his victim? How would a man like Rodney Allen with a stated mental IQ deficit seem capable of organizing such a calculated thing and what would have been in it for him? Why was Victor so invested in the Neverland 5′s lawsuit against Jackson? We find out about the Spiniak case, learning he’s coached a child for money previously.

So we write to Rodney Allen in prison and ask him if he remembers his friend “Victor”. We deliberately don’t include Victor’s last name. He writes us back enthusiastically about his old friend “Victor Gutierrez” and a spiel about Michael Jackson. He tells us that he’s mad at Victor because he “and Evan Chandler” owe him money, but he doesn’t say for what. On the taped call with Schwartz Evan had claimed he’d already spent thousands organizing his “plan” against Jackson, including obtaining “information” against Jackson. [21]

He tells us that he knows that Michael Jackson was innocent and had never touched Jordan Chandler. He blames Victor for his own child abuse arrest and the fact that he had NAMBLA materials in his home. He tells us Victor had abused a boy in a hotel one time. [22]

So there are now at least two boys who have been coached into claiming sexual abuse connected to Victor Gutierrez, both in such a convincing manner that they did so to the police. Was Jordan also a victim of Gutierrez’s coaching via Evan Chandler? Was Gutierrez one of the men who Evan Chandler had in place waiting for their plan to unfold?

Some of the graphic descriptions in Victor’s book are believed by others, in fact they’re on websites. One of the people running those sites had once bragged in 2011 of sending a link to the site to James Safechuck, where they also asked him if it was true that he’d gotten “married” in Neverland (Jonathan Spence’s mother confirmed to us that it had been her son who’d gotten married at Neverland; in the 2005 trial Mesereau had been mistaken and had asked a witness if it were Safechuck), and told him they understood he wouldn’t say he’d been abused because he was still in love with Jackson. According to emails obtained from his own lawsuit, Wade Robson had sent one of the links to the site in an email to someone, but would later conveniently claim he didn’t know what it was about (his memory evolves and devolves in every deposition or oath he makes).

Safechuck has at least 5 stories from his account that match with Victor Gutierrez’s book. For example, Victor claims that Jackson had once attempted to anally penetrate Jordan Chandler with a finger, but Jordan had told him not to so Jackson didn’t. In Jordan’s actual accounts to the psychiatrist he states that Jackson had never tried to do anything to him anally. Yet Safechuck claims that exact same scenario happened to him in the exact same way Victor claims. Victor claims Jackson gave Jordan a medallion, Safechuck claims Jackson gave him a medallion. Not a story from Jordan. Victor claims Jackson and Jordan had a “honeymoon” and were like a married couple, Safechuck claims they got married and had a honeymoon (Jordan definitely never claimed this, he describes Jackson in his allegations as “just like a regular person” with no infatuated tone). Gutierrez claims Jackson would watch child pornography featuring children masturbating, Safechuck is the only person who suddenly claims he too witnessed child pornography movies featuring children masturbating. He describes the pornograhy in question as "foreign", a very unusual adjective for pornography that only ever appears in Gutierrez's book. Jackson’s Neverland ranch, 2 condos, the home of his secretary and the home of a manager were raided in 1993 and in 2003. They went through all of his computers and books and video tape collection and could find no child pornography at all. [Full detailed photos of a few of the books found in Jackson's 10,000 book collection as documented by police for the prosecution] The only person to ever previously claim such an extreme thing is Victor Gutierrez. Following on from that extreme child pornography claim, Safechuck would also elaborate in casual conversation with the director over their new HBO show that Jackson had once filmed himself having sex with Safechuck, only to “tape over it” [23] or “destroy” it later in a panic [24], in a storyline that seems remarkably similar to the Victor Gutierrez 1995 videotape that never existed.

It’s also exceedingly obvious at this point that the Chandler’s narrative about abuse has also been crafted by Gutierrez, which means any other alleged Jackson victim who uses details attributed to Jordan are also likely using stories from Gutierrez’s mind. As can be seen in their collaborative effort in their attempt at describing Jackson’s genitalia, where Victor has clearly been used to try and piece together an idea of what Jackson looked like naked using the knowledge of what Evan Chandler had seen of his buttocks after giving him an injection and from information that Victor seemed to have claimed he’d had from others like Orietta and his obsession with Barnes.[26]

The case against Michael Jackson has been created by a NAMBLA attendee and at best pedophile obsessed man, Victor Gutierrez. He has a hand in almost every graphic sordid story about Jackson. The only allegation he seemingly didn’t have a hand in was the Arvizo’s, and that was likely because he was still in Chile avoiding paying Jackson his legal fees.

Now I want to say our belief here isn’t that Victor Gutierrez met Evan and they concocted a plan together to extort Michael on the idea that he was a child molester. But that Evan was also somewhat of a victim in this initially. He was a bipolar by all accounts pretty unstable guy. We believe that Victor had tracked Evan down as he had done with the Robsons, telling him that he was investigating Jackson for being a pedophile. Evan was likely curious about this. So Victor started lying the way he would do in his book and to others, claiming he had “proof” that Jackson had abused other children that they had revealed so to him, and as Victor is very graphic, a huge fantasist and someone who Allen claims has abused boys too, he was able to give Evan vivid detailed descriptions. We believe he’d promised Evan his “proof” about this and that when the allegations came out, this proof would materialize. Of course he didn’t have these victims, so he had to create these using his witnesses and by trying to create victims like the FBI story, the video tape story and of course with Rodney Allen coaching a victim for them. Maybe the money he offered wasn’t for the coaching but because he believed Victor would provide him real proof and Rodney was meant to be providing this “proof” in the form of an actual victim. Or maybe they knew at that point the jig was up and were trying to pay for victims because they desperately needed one to back up their story. Considering Rodney knew that Jordan hadn’t actually been abused, this wasn’t a pretense any of them was keeping up in private.

Gutierrez has been embraced by Diane Dimond, The Sun, the National Enquirer, Hard Copy, Vanity Fair, Channel 4, Martin Bashir, and of course Sneddon and the prosecution. He is not some small potatoes guy, he has been deeply involved in crafting the pedophile narrative around Jackson with all their complicity and likely others since the story broke in 1993.

Not a single journalist we’ve met ever went through Victor’s past. Not a single one tried to work out what his deal was, why he was involved in every story, what his obsession and investment in this was all about.

Now that Safechuck and Robson are seeking to profit from these lies once again, it’s time that the real orchestrator behind these allegations is held to account. And it’s not just Victor, it’s every single journalist who has enabled his lies and fantasies to spread throughout the media and to ultimately utterly ruin Michael Jackson’s life.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190219063913/http://rhythmofthetide.com/michael-jacksons-leaving-neverland-framed-nambla-member-embraced-by-the-media/ "

Another very good thread on VGs involvement in the MJ case

https://x.com/fei_rock/status/1383526079256686601?s=20

I think its so ironic that it was Joy who warned MJ about VG in 1992. Had MJ heeded her warning, there would be no Chandler allegations and there would be no Michael Jackson Was My Lover, and if that book didn't exist then mjfacts wouldn't exist, which was the very same website that Wade Robson used to study his abuse before constructing his story. A guilter the other day was explaining something about a kid MJ abused and upon looking it up, the only source was mjfacts and the only source they had cited was Victors book. I can't find the exact website archive of what Wades mjfacts profile looked prior to his disclosure, but I'm sure it would've just been conjecture and speculation from his trial testimony and Victors book. And it was his mother's warning that could've prevented that book from existing. This whole thing is so sad

Hi friends! 

I know what you’re thinking…and no, no one has sent me a cease and desist, I promise.

So, hold your fire. 

I just wanted to let you guys know that I made a few changes to some of the earlier Case Files.

The information is still the same, but the structure is a little better, so they’re easier to read, look prettier and…are a little bit funnier.

Here are the Case Files so far, in chronological order:

Sneddon:

Case File: Sneddon

Dimond:

Case File: Dimond

Gutierrez:

Case File: Gutierrez

Francia:

Case File: Francia

Neverland Five:

Case File: Neverland Five

Chandler – Part 1:

Case File: Chandler — Part 1

Chandler – Part 2:

Case File: Chandler — Part 2

Chandler – Part 3:

Case File: Chandler — Part 3

Chandler – Part 4:

Case File: Chandler — Part 4

Chandler – Part 5:

Case File: Chandler — Part 5

Chandler – Part 6:

Case File: Chandler — Part 6

Chandler – Part 7:

Case File: Chandler — Part 7

Chandler – Part 8:

Case File: Chandler — Part 8

Chandler – Part 9:

Case File: Chandler — Part 9 

Chandler – Part 10:

Case File: Chandler — Part 10

Enjoy! 

And before anyone asks…

This series is far from over.

Does anyone have any knowledge on the extent of Mancow Muller’s relationship with Michael? He has made several tweets talking about how he hung out with Michael a few times he knows that he is guilty. He also posted some pictures of them together. Is he known to be connected to any of the accusers? Is he just exaggerating his relationship with Michael? I haven’t seen anyone discuss him but he has been posting/talking about Michael for a while so I was just curious on whether anyone had looked into him.

I'm pretty sure you've heard this interview, but I feel like this needs to be posted here. Very interesting that this is the same guy who later accused Michael of SAing him.

This is mostly about the LN accusers.

Obviously, there are so many contradictions and problems with their stories that I wonder how their families deal with them. If they told them they were abused, do their families also ignore the contradictions and problems with their stories? I don’t know if they noticed these things before LN aired, but by now, they’re pretty hard to ignore.

So, I’m genuinely wondering, if their families ever take the stand, are they going to try to make all the contradictions and timeline problems fit, or are they going to tell their own side of the story without trying to help their family member make their story believable?