A word on 'Michael Jackson Was My Lover'...

my book collection. 

(not shown: all Vanity Fair back issues featuring Maureen Orth's articles and a vintage biography given to me by a friend)

As you can see above, I've got two...

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the fan community about this extremely rare and controversial book.

For example, here and here on my favorite pro-Michael's innocence fan site, Vindicate MJ. 

I've read Victor Gutierrez's book Michael Jackson Was My Lover: The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler and have referenced it numerous times here on the blog because, for a completely holistic understanding of Michael Jackson's child molestation cases, it is imperative to know as much as you can.

However, I am an anomaly; most fans, certainly not all, have not read Gutierrez's book and have no clue as to its content. Most of them believe Michael Jackson Was My Lover was merely ghost-written by Evan Chandler and credited to Victor Gutierrez so he could get around the confidentiality agreement.

The fan thought process regarding the exposé is this: Evan Chandler wrote the book and, by writing the book, he proved that all of Jordie's accusations of molestation against Michael were false. Why are the accusations moot? Because no father of a son who had truly been molested would ever write a book detailing his child's molestation!

Well, that was my belief when I first read the book. I had believed all of the PR; honestly, I probably didn't know as much about his trials and tribulations with boys as I thought I did. Upon first reading, I was totally convinced of Michael's innocence.  However, that belief and the belief of fans who respond in a knee-jerk fashion to Michael Jackson Was My Lover was wrong.

Dead wrong.

For the sake of clarification, I'll address some important points about Victor Gutierrez's book:




(i) The goal of Michael Jackson Was My Lover was to present the 1993 case with a pedophilic, 'man-boy love story' twist.

Possibly a fanfiction?

When I say the above, I do not at all mean Gutierrez's book is inaccurate or fictional; on the contrary, it is quite accurate and very factual. But the goal of MJWML is quite clear: Gutierrez, regardless of whatever his intentions were when he began his investigations, set out to sensationalize the Jordie Chandler case in the most lurid way imaginable.

On page 10, he reveals his intentions:

The events of this investigation have unfolded like a melodramatic spy novel: death threats, suicide attempts, extortion, divorce, firings, betrayal, love, sex and perversion.

For the Los Angeles authorities that investigated Jackson, there's no doubt about the guilt of the singer.  Michael Jackson is a pedophile, which in the eyes of society makes him a "criminal".  Not so for the young sexual companions to the singer,  for whom sex with Jackson was, in their own words, "healthy" and "normal"....  For me it was confusing, not knowing whether to refer to the boys as victims or ex-lovers.

I leave you with the evidence, which was neither edited nor censored.  It is a tale of dreams and sexual games between the King of Pop and his young lovers.  I ask only that you read with an open mind; you will need it.  

 Near the consummation of the book, on page 201, Gutierrez reiterates:

Jackson loved Jordie.  The King of Pop had had sexual relations with many children, but Jordie was special.  Jordie was his lover, his companion.  He desired him physically and couldn't be separated from him.  He was his top priority, his life, the only person he wanted close to him.  That's why he told Jordie, "I've never gone so far sexually with a boy as I have with you."(1) Jordie felt the same.  He was attracted to his friend, his idol, and loss his virginity, so to speak, with him.  He enjoyed sex with his friend.  He received his friend's attention, care and gifts.

The point was to paint Michael and Jordie Chandler's friendship as romantic and the alleged molestation as consensual sexual contact. Some of this sexual contact is displayed in the book in graphic detail, to the point the piece becomes pornographic.

While searching for information on MJWML, I found the following GQ magazine scan, which provides further evidence that Gutierrez's objective was to turn the 1993 case into a pedophilic love story.

The article, dated to September 2006, details a tentative then-plan to make a movie with a production company called World of Wonder based on the book, 'Jordie's movie' as one of the producers stated. The most important aspect of the film would be to present Jordie as never having been a victim and that he was betrayed by his parents who had not merely destroyed a 'friendship' through alleged avarice but the burgeoning sexual connection Jordie had had with Michael.

(click for bigger)

In his final chapter, 'Jackson and Pedophilia', Gutierrez cites the pedophile organization NAMBLA (he also thanks them in his Author's Notes at the end of the book and includes a scan of one of their newsletters that featured a picture of Michael giving the camera a 'knowing' look while his arms are around a young boy's shoulders). According to him, members of the group believed Michael was 'one of them', not only because of the Jordie Chandler case, but also because of Michael's behavior with young boys years before the 1993 scandal.

To these pedophiles, Michael's behavior--the amusement park-like 'boy trap' Neverland, with it's candy, games, rides, and 'Pleasure Island'-like rules (nod to Pinocchio if you are unaware), his endless stream of 'special friends', and sleepovers--belied his protestations of normal sexuality. To them, Michael could live the dreams of any pedophile because he had the luxury of money and celebrity status.

His behavior and the 1993 scandal, coupled with his popularity and talent, could have been the vehicle to get society to become more lax in their penalties towards pedophilia, the organization believed.

Most importantly, however, was the final paragraph, which is the entire book's premise (sans the investigation aspects). From page 213:

Pedophiles fall in love, they become obsessed and feel desire, just like a heterosexual or homosexual persons.  In most cases the relations between "couples" don't last for long, since when the child grows, the pedophile loses interest, at least in sexual terms.  Now that we better understand the sexual drive some adults feel for children we are able to comprehend more completely Jordie and Jackson's experience, a couple that loved intensely in a very erotic way.  

It makes you wonder whether Gutierrez could have possibly been appealing to the NAMBLA base in his book, knowing his objectives; of course that is only speculation...

There was a reason Gutierrez titled Michael Jackson Was My Lover as he did. In Gutierrez's mind, 1. Michael Jackson and Jordie Chandler were lovers; and 2. all of Michael's alleged liaisons with boys were a part of the consensual and mutually stimulating relationship between man and boy.

Victor Gutierrez's point was that although Michael had molested Jordie (and he provides the investigative research to back up this claim), it is society that views their alleged sexual encounters as wrong. In sum, Jordie enjoyed it.(2)

(ii) Michael Jackson Was My Lover was NOT written by Evan Chandler.


Given the above excerpts and the total explanation of point (i), it should be enough to figure out Michael Jackson Was My Lover was a book totally of Victor Gutierrez's own invention. The point is why would a father, whether you believe Jordie Chandler or not, write a book in which his son and his son's alleged abuser have a sexual kinship?

To 'embarrass' Michael Jackson? If Evan Chandler was to author a book for the simple purpose of embarrassing Michael Jackson over his alleged pedophilia, he would not have made it somewhat of a 'love story'.

Nor would he have said all Michael's alleged sexual contact with other boys was  mutually pleasurable, that molestations by law were never molestations! No, that would not happen.


To just briefly reiterate this point, would a father, especially one who claimed his son was sexually abused by Michael Jackson, 'ghostwrite' this, from page 121:

At 9 AM, Jordie was being interviewed alone by Dr. Abrams. The session lasted more than three hours.  Jordie told the doctor about how much fun he had with Jackson, and that he did not feel abused since he had of his own free will participated in all their sexual relations. He said that on many occasions, he initiated the sex himself.

Or, how about this, from page 112:

In a way to rebel against what was happening, Jordie decided to keep wearing the Calvin Klein underwear that were Jackson's favorite.  The underwear was size 34, very large for the skinny boy.  Jackson asked him to wear that size so that his genitals would hang down, and Jackson could see them through the spaces.  And other garment that Jackson likes to see his friend wear were his blue gym shorts with the school logo from Saint Matthew school.  The shorts had "Jordan Chandler" printed on the left leg, next to the school logo.  They were also among Jackson's favorite to take off.

Certainly nothing a father would write about his son!

However, point (i) and the above examples are not the most obvious.

Victor Gutierrez, as I said earlier, billed the book as a pedophilic love story that ended because the parents of the boy 'in love' extorted money from Michael, using the 'love affair' as blackmail.

That leads to the question: why would Evan Chandler ghostwrite a book portraying himself as a greedy, evil (evil because he broke up love) extortionist, especially when he had been accused of extortion by the Jackson side?

Why would he write a book after agreeing to a very strict confidentiality agreement under the settlement terms?

Simple: he wouldn't.

No intelligent person--and Evan Chandler was very intelligent--would write a book making themselves look suspicious. No one would write a book so soon after a settlement, especially one detailing the case from their side and calling someone a pedophile. No one would do that!

This book--first published in Santiago, Chile in the Spanish language under the title Michael Jackson Fue Mi Amante: El Diario Secreto de Jordie Chandler--was written by Victor M. Gutierrez, a freelance writer and Chilean native, not Evan Chandler. I don't know if I can stress this enough, especially given point (i). The only recommendation I can give to naysayers is to read the book themselves. You will be thoroughly convinced!(3)

(iii) Michael Jackson Was My Lover is NOT Jordie Chandler's diary.

Gutierrez claimed it was Jordie's diary that was the centerpiece of his book. In his introduction on page 9, he writes:

When Michael Jackson paid 20 million dollars to Jordie Christopher Chandler, the 13 year old minor who accused Jackson of sexually abusing him, the agreement was that neither the accused and nor the victim would reveal the intimate details of their sexual relations.  Jordie, now 16 years old, had kept a diary with all the details of their friendship, including the sexual ones. When Jackson learned of the existence of the diary, he decided to pay Jordie off in order to keep the diary out of the hands of the police.  Nevertheless, the diary became the pillar of my investigation. Together with information obtained from numerous  interviews, it is presented within this book.  Jackson and Jordie know that when you read the following chapters you'll know about their most intimate sexual relations and games, in full detail.

On page 187, Gutierrez mentions the diary again:

Then on Monday, May 9th [1994], I presented to the world excerpts from Jordie's diary as a precursor to my book.  The presentation included photographs of Jackson dressed in pajamas in jordies room.  I also included Jordie's suicide note and other things of interest.  I never expected that the Santa Barbara and LA District attorneys and detectives would react with surprise.  I thought that Jordie had told them everything, and that they had seen the photos.  The district attorneys contacted Larry Feldman, and demanded Jordie's entire diary, however, Feldman refused to turn over the evidence.

I received calls from colleagues who heard that the DA said that if I didn't give them the diary and the photos, they would force me to do so legally.  How did the photos and diary come into my possession asked the detectives and Jackson's lawyers?  Jackson's lawyers were bothered, since Jackson had paid $20 million in exchange for the boy's silence.  Jackson's people were concerned they had paid for nothing, since the truth would be known through this book.

The book as a whole is nothing more than an investigative piece, and, although thoroughly researched, I highly doubt Victor Gutierrez ever saw a diary, let alone had unfettered access to Jordie's!

I truly suspect Gutierrez only brought up a diary to sell units or pique interest in his project.

Originally, I assumed if there had ever been a diary in existence, the police would have most likely confiscated it as evidence. However, Gutierrez, as quoted in the excerpt above, claims the diary had been in Larry Feldman's possession and the police had no access to it due to his refusal to turn it over. (This would be consistent with Feldman's behavior after the settlement.)

So, I do not know for sure if Jordie ever had a diary. If he had kept one (and Victor shows a picture of a file cabinet where the alleged diary was held), it would either be too much of a paper trail if an actual extortion had taken place, or it would be explosive proof of sexual abuse, enough to garner a settlement in the hundreds of millions.

However, I just find the possibility dubious.

Gutierrez uses quotes allegedly from Jordie throughout the book, but some of these quotes are written in a similar style to the book itself. For example, why would Jordie, in a conversation, ever refer to Michael as 'Jackson'?

Many quotes from Jordie are from the declaration Jordie gave to Feldman, other interviews given by Jordie, or other interviews or depositions given by alleged eyewitnesses, simply embellished to make for good prose.

For example, the chapter 'Privacy in Monaco', is directly linked to court documents (and Evan's chronology of events) of sexual molestation occurring during the World Music Awards trip but written in graphic detail as a long, first-person quote from a 'diary'. There is a possibility Gutierrez could have extrapolated the alleged incidents of abuse using poetic license.

I don't need to go into any more examples, but, trust me when I say some of it is fantasy fiction to make the timeline of events more enjoyable to read.

More accurately, however, is that Gutierrez probably set up his book (which has events marked by days and weeks) similarly to the chronology, which he cites as a 'chronology', not a diary, when he directly quotes from the document. I believe that is where much of the confusion lies: Victor's 'diary' is most likely based on the chronology Evan and Jordie made for their lawyers (although Gutierrez makes a clear distinction between a quote from the chronology and a quote from this nebulous 'diary', which probably doesn't exist).

In accordance with point (i), Gutierrez's use of a 'diary' to sell units of a book that paints the Michael/Jordie relationship as non-predatory, please see ((2)) at the bottom of the entry. I think that, along with the basic premise of making a product attractive to consumers, is the real reason he subtitled the book The Secret Diary of Jordie Chandler.

Because it isn't...

(iv) Michael Jackson Was My Lover was tediously researched.


Regardless of what anyone reading this blog entry believes about Victor Gutierrez so far, MJWML is a  startlingly well-researched and minutely detailed book about the Jordie Chandler allegations.

That point should not be understated. The book is a fabulous source of information(4).

Gutierrez claims he began researching Michael Jackson's penchant for boys a few years before the allegations ever became reality and had already discovered Michael had been a pedophile. Of course, none of that can be verified but the book is an obvious result of tedious inquiry into Michael Jackson's life and alleged boy habits.

According to page 444 of Maureen Orth's article "Losing His Grip", she claims sources she interviewed who were close to the prosecution said Gutierrez's book is 'essentially accurate'. In terms of the investigative aspect of the book alone (disregarding the bits about Jordie's alleged 'diary'), the book is too detailed and too meticulously chronicled (days and months are given) to lack merit.

But what makes Gutierrez's book invaluable is the seemingly unfettered access he had to documents and pictures which were scanned and inserted into the middle of the book. If one ever doubted his journalistic thoroughness, they'd be mistaken.

As I have shown from some pictures I've taken of the book here on this blog (so many more have yet to be taken), many of the documents in MJWML are from the side of the Chandlers, a side totally underscored because most of the attention is focused upon 'vindicating Michael'.

But it is these documents that are the most damning evidence against Michael's protestations of innocence! These include a letter written by Evan Chandler to Barry Rothman; a typed letter by Evan after he'd been accused of extortion by Pellicano; Evan's notes; official rape center reports; and a picture of Michael Jackson in pajamas while in Jordie's bedroom.

Let us not forget the rare photocopy of Jordie's description of Michael's genitalia and details of Brett Barnes' anatomy given to his lawyers that I have already revealed here on this blog. Or the odd list of wishes Michael allegedly told Jordie to repeat 'three times a day'. From page 77:

1. No wenches, bitches, heifers, or hoes.

2. Never give up your "bliss" (sex acts)

3. Live with me in Neverland forever.

4. No conditioning.

5. Never grow up.

6. Be better than best friends forever (lovers)(5)

Most important is several pages of Evan Chandler's typed chronology surrounding his son's molestation, which show the process of Evan and Jordie trying to remember everything that had happened.(6)


Again, to reiterate: it is the documents inside of Gutierrez's book, especially those during the negotiations, that make Michael Jackson seem guiltier than he had led us to believe. Remember, these documents are merely scans of documents during the goings-on of the 1993 case, nothing created by Gutierrez himself.

Outside of the 1993 case, which makes up a bulk of the book, MJWML contains numerous interviews with various Jackson employees, whether you decide to believe them or not.(7) For example, Orietta Murdock's anecdote about Michael not liking blacks and her eventually filing a complaint against him with the EEOC of California (Gutierrez even cites the case number). Another example, a story of rocks being pelted at the lion of Michael's Neverland Zoo, which can be cross-referenced with Wade Robson's testimony on the stand (although Wade said the whole thing was practically innocent).

Of course, the veracity of some of the interviews cannot be ascertained, such as a truly odd alleged interview with Joy Robson. Nevertheless, the value of MJWML is that these interviews were done, many of the individuals being named, something lacking in Michael Jackson books.


(v) The truthfulness of Michael Jackson Was My Lover was never challenged in a court of law.


It is well known by many of Michael's fans that Victor Gutierrez was successfully sued after Michael filed a slander lawsuit against him.

However, it should be noted that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the accuracy of MJWML. It had to do with an alleged 27-minute video Gutierrez claimed to witness that allegedly showed Michael Jackson engaged in a sex act with an adolescent boy.

A newspaper scan from the January 9, 1995 edition of the Herald-Journal shows the story:

According to Margaret Maldonado Jackson's (Jermaine Jackson's second wife) book, Jackson Family Values, her son, Jeremy, was the young boy to whom Michael molested on the security tape and she was the mother in question possessing the tape. However, she said none of it was true, and was very adamant about it not being so. From pages 288-289:

Weeks later, they [Jeremy and Jourdynn Maldanado Jackson] were still talking about the fun they had with their uncle [Michael] when I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson.  I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity.  It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear.  "I wanted to warn you, Margaret," she said.  "There's a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape." 

If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone.  Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response.  I told her that it wasn't true, of course, and that I wanted this story stopped in its tracks.

She had been in contact with someone who works at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper.  Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story.  Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished.  To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece.

"Hard Copy," however, decided it would.  "Hard Copy" correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael.  She had also made the allegations on LA radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. 

Dimond's claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez.  The story was an outrageous lie.  No one part of it was true.  I'd never met the man.  There was no tape.  Michael never paid me for my silence.  He had never molested Jeremy.  Period.

Other newspapers detail the entire case in print so I will paste them below in a rough chronology. Click all screenshots for larger resolution.

From the January 11, 1995 edition of the Sun Journal and the January 13, 1995 edition of The Sunday Gazette, respectively:

 The January 13, 1995 edition of the Sarasota Herald-Tribune:

Apparently, Michael's $100 million lawsuit only involved the allegation of a sex tape and the allegedly slanderous reports from media outlets (he targeted Diane Dimond and Hard Copy, in particular) of an investigation being reopened concerning more child molestations. 

According to the June 6, 1996 edition of the Ocala Star-Banner and later the September 8, 1996 edition of The News, Victor Gutierrez, having lost his journalistic rights to keep a source confidential, was ordered to reveal the individual who allegedly knew of the tape or of where it was. Gutierrez later refused to reveal his source, kicking off Michael's slander suit against him:

On October 28, 1997, the Lodi-News Sentinel reported Michael's lawsuit against Hard Copy and Diane Dimond had been dropped (although I am not entirely sure why, I believe it had something to do with Diane and Hard Copy being protected under California's Shield Law; Gutierrez was directly their source and they were only repeating information from the source, who was 'sketchy').

The portion of the lawsuit against Gutierrez, however, stood. Gutierrez then filed bankruptcy, protecting his assets from seizure by any creditors, including any company or persons who may file a monetary claim against him. That encompassed Michael Jackson.

Eventually, reports the Reading Eagle on April 10, 1998, Michael won a $2.7 million against Victor Gutierrez. Michael's attorney, Zia Modabber, stated the jurors for the civil trial wanted to 'send a message' through their decision that tabloids had to be stopped, or something like that:

Gutierrez later fled the United States for his native Chile to avoid having to pay Michael. Although a court of law found his story of a security camera sex tape featuring Michael and a young boy completely dubious, Gutierrez continued to maintain he had seen one.

Of course, it is doubtful, if, indeed, Jeremy Maldonado was the boy Victor claimed to have seen with Michael on a tape since Margaret had been so emphatic over the rumor being absolutely false. On page 29-30 in the chapter 'Jackson Prefers Boys', he even mentions Jeremy:

While Jackson often makes public appearances would show him kissing babies, girls and stepchildren, these are a part of his publicity campaign.  The way he treats his own nieces and nephews that is illustrative.  He doesn't dedicate the time and attention to them the way he does his "friends." He only spends time with one of his nephews, eight year old Jeremy Maldonado, the  biracial son of his brother Jermaine, and his wife Margaret, who is of Mexican origin.  Jackson approves of this nephew for two reasons: his mixed-race appearance and his age.  His other nieces and nephews are younger than seven or older than thirteen, and black.

What is unavoidable is that this whole case--and Gutierrez losing it, even if it was because he was obstinate about revealing a confidential source--seems to make Victor Gutierrez look totally untrustworthy.

The reality is Gutierrez did most likely lie about seeing a tape because he had a book to sell: Michael Jackson Was My Lover. Controversy seems to draw interest, no? However, Michael Jackson never sued Gutierrez over the accuracy of his book, even though Gutierrez challenged him to do so. The book, given the above analysis, could be seen as even more slanderous, seeing that Gutierrez so carefully detailed Michael's alleged pedophilia and string of young boy lovers.

If I were to do as so many fans do and try to know what was going through Michael's head, his refusal to challenge Gutierrez's book (but, instead, buying out all of the copies of MJWML in bookstores(8)) is simply based in Michael's fear of being questioned about anything pertaining to the alleged molestation of Jordie Chandler. Let's remember his body language when asked about the boy in the following video dubbed 'Video Nasty' by the UK's News of the World:

Fluttering eyes and hard swallowing, Michael Jackson was visibly terrified...(9)

So, what have we learned about Victor Gutierrez and his exposé Michael Jackson Was My Lover? 

You know, the goal of this blog entry is not so much to review or reveal the contents of this scarce and expensive book. My point was to defend its use in my Michael Jackson blog posts.

Whether fans want to take Gutierrez's sins and make him look like an untrustworthy, salacious pedophile sympathizer, that is their prerogative. But the evidence stands: MJWML is one hell of a book of totally solid reportage.

Yes, it paints Michael and Jordie's relationship as consensual; it does, by the end of the book, provide a list of pedophilic relationships in history in order to sort of justify the 'okay-ness' of their alleged sexual connection; it does, gratuitously, turn Jordie's simple affirmations of abuse into pornographic fantasy fiction.

However, none of the above discount the book's overwhelmingly high quality and fastidiousness.

Challenge Victor Gutierrez's taste level all you want but I will continue to use this factual work for the simple reason it was never repudiated by Michael as false and the boys implicated in the book never sued. I suspect it is because the vast majority of the details are true and would stand up in a court of law.

____________________________________________________________________________

(1) I originally thought that this was merely for effect but it turns out that particular line can be cross-referenced with an interview given by Sergeant Deborah Linden, former deputy for Santa Barbara County; from page 445 of Maureen Orth's "Losing His Grip":

"Jordan stated that Jackson told him if Jordan ever told anyone about the molests, Jordan would be placed in Juvenile Hall and both Jordan and Jackson would be in trouble. Jordan said that Jackson told him he did this with other boys; however, Jackson said that 'he didn't go as far with them.'"

(2) There are many elements in this book that are fodder for pedophiles. From the cover art, with 'was my lover' scrawled in child-like handwriting; to the captions beneath some of the photos (for example, beneath a photo of Jordie's bedroom: "The young boy's bedroom, where he lived with his mother, was decorated with gifts from Jackson. In this bed is where some of the most erotic moments between them occurred.") and the photos themselves (for example, a spread of boys' underwear and boxer shorts); to the graphic descriptions of sexual activities between Michael Jackson and Jordie Chandler, Gutierrez's book is rife with 'child erotica', which is discussed here (pages 75-76 of the .pdf file):  

...defined...as "any material, relating to children, that serves the purpose for a given individual [pedophile]." ...[Child erotica] is a broader, more encompassing, and more subjective term than child pornography. It includes things such as fantasy writings, letters, diaries, books, sexual aids, souvenirs, toys, costumes, drawings, and nonsexually explicit visual images. Such child erotica might also be referred to as "pedophile paraphernalia".

In my opinion, there is no way Victor Gutierrez didn't have the interests of pedophiles in mind when he wrote the book. However, that does not discount the accuracy, incredible detail, and invaluableness of the piece as a whole.

(3) If there still exists any doubt about who could have provided Victor Gutierrez with the seemingly very personal information he had, he did cite Dave and June (Chandler) Schwartz as sources of information in the back of his book. It would make sense they are the sources of his info because Evan had a toxic relationship with both of them; it is clear in the book that Evan is made out to be the 'bad guy'...


(4) While researching this book, I stumbled upon a Fox News article by Roger Friedman. Near the end, he haphazardly states MJWML was 'made up' by Gutierrez weaving together 'bits and pieces' of speculation he'd gotten from the Chandlers' then-maid. He also stated that the book was 'more pornographic' than anything the police say they found. All of that is ridiculous and such analysis shows Friedman most likely did not read the book. There is nothing pornographic about MJWML that would make it so the police would have more than circumstantial evidence a crime had occurred. Gutierrez details sex acts, not child porn or anything else of that nature. Friedman's flippancy towards Gutierrez's book has a basis in nothing else but ignorance.


(5)  The list is interesting. It would certainly jive with what Jordie told Dr. Richard Gardner (and, by extension, the discussion Michael had with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach as detailed in his book The Michael Jackson Tapes, page 238) about levitators and conditioning. 


(6) The thought of Evan and Jordie trying to remember the events that occurred surrounding the alleged molestation would make it seem, according to many of Michael's fans, that they are just trying to get their 'story straight'. Well, a look at the chronology as provided in the book, there are many times Evan writes question marks near dates or says 'Jordie can't remember'. If their accusations were false, wouldn't they have been able to remember everything perfectly?


(7) In my last blog post, I mentioned Kassim Abdool's tale of Michael requesting Vaseline. Originally, I used it as a way to cross-reference the accusation by Jordie that Michael would apply Vaseline to Brett Barnes' anus in order to 'soothe his constipation'. However, I did not totally believe Abdool's anecdote because he never related it to the Grand Jury for Michael's 2005 case. In MJWML, Gutierrez mentions the story (presumably he is interviewing Abdool, which explains his direct quotes). I found this startling for the simple fact the story dates to at least 1995 or 1996! Why Abdool didn't tell it to the Grand Jury but later would tell it to District Attorney Tom Sneddon mid-trial is still a mystery...

(8) Maureen Orth's "Losing His Grip" from the April 2003 issue of Vanity Fair, page 445: 

The book [Michael Jackson Was My Lover]--which no U.S. publisher would touch after the slander lawsuit--was first published privately in Chile, and all copies soon disappeared.... Two prosecution sources told me they had heard that Michael Jackson had people go around and buy up all the available copies.

(9) According to a 1994 Los Angeles Times article and page 356 of Christopher Andersen's Michael Jackson: Unauthorized, Michael Jackson pled the Fifth Amendment 17 times in the deposition for the Hayvenhurst bodyguards' lawsuit to avoid answering questions regarding any possible child molestations, as he might've incriminated himself.