Part2: More Lies from Dateline – MJEOL Bullet #192-B

Posted by

Part 2: More Lies from Dateline as 1993 Shysters Resurface – MJEOL Bullet #192-B What Dateline NBC Didn’t Tell You In part two of this report concerning what Dateline didn’t tell you about the 1993 Jackson “case”, we pick up with new information about Victor Guiterrez and his close ties to Dateline NBC.

It has also been revealed that Victor Guiterrez was a “consulting producer” for the defamatory Dateline report, as you can see from a screenshot here of Dateline’s credits.

For the record, Gutierrez is the loser who was successfully sued by Jackson for claiming there was a videotape of Jackson molesting a kid. This, of course, was a malicious lie. There is some question as to who this “kid” was supposed to be. At one point, it was reported to be the maid’s son, Blanca Francia. What’s worse, Margaret Maldonado, Michael Jackson’s ex-sister-in-law, was dragged into Gutierrez’s lies. At one point, it was reported by Gutierrez to the tabloid the National Enquirer that Maldonado was the one who was the source of this videotape and that her son was molested. Maldonado, who also wrote a book entitled Jackson Family Values, calls that claim “an outrageous lie” and threatened to basically sue the hell out of anyone who made that outrageous claim:

“I received a telephone call from a writer named Ruth Robinson. I had known Ruth for quite a while and respected her integrity. It made what she had to tell me all the more difficult to hear. “I wanted to warn you, Margaret,” she said. “There’s a story going around that there is a videotape of Michael molesting one of your sons, and that you have the tape.” If anyone else had said those words, I would have hung up the phone. Given the long relationship I had with Ruth, however, I gave her the courtesy of a response. I told her that it wasn’t true, of course, and that I wanted the story stopped in its tracks. She had been in contact with someone who worked at the National Enquirer who had alerted her that a story was being written for that paper. Ruth cross-connected me with the woman, and I vehemently denied the story. Moreover, I told her that if the story ran, I would own the National Enquirer before the lawsuits I brought were finished. To its credit, the National Enquirer never ran the piece. “Hard Copy,” however, decided it would. “Hard Copy” correspondent Diane Dimond had reported that authorities were reopening the child molestation case against Michael. She had also made the allegations on L.A. radio station KABC-AM on a morning talk show hosted by Roger Barkley and Ken Minyard. Dimond’s claims were based on the word of a freelance writer named Victor Gutierrez. The story was an outrageous lie. Not one part of it was true. I’d never met the man. There was no tape. Michael never paid me for my silence. He had never molested Jeremy. Period.” (Jackson Family Values; Margaret Maldonado

Gutierrez told Hard Copy’s Diane Dimond these defamatory lies years ago. She repeated it over and over again, which sparked a $100M lawsuit. Jackson filed suit in 1995. Putting the blame all on Gutierrez, Dimond and her bosses narrowly escaped culpability. Gutierrez filed for bankruptcy in October 1997. The maneuver to get out of paying any possible judgment didn’t work despite the snippy remarks by Gutierrez’s attorney Robert Goldman who said at the time, “He is now protected from all creditors. That includes Michael Jackson.” Well he’s certainly not “protected” anymore. And with him being a paid “consulting producer” for Dateline, this is income that could be subject to the judgment against him. The jury awarded Jackson $2.7M in the slander suit. An article by, dated April 10 1998, reports:

A jury looking to “send a message,” sent it loud and clear–vindicating Michael Jackson and awarding him $2.7 million in a slander suit against an author who claimed he’d seen a video showing the pop star having sex with a boy… “Jurors told us that they not only wanted to compensate Mr. Jackson and punish Victor Gutierrez, but to send a message that they are tired of tabloids lying about celebrities for money,” Jackson’s attorney Zia Modabber told Associated Press. (see Michael Jackson’s Victory)

After declaring Gutierrez no longer covered by the California Shield Law—which allows reporters free reign to defame public figures as long as they can blame it on a “source”—Judge Dunn concluded that the story was false and that Gutierrez did act with malice towards Jackson in spreading the story. Instead of paying up, Gutierrez fled the country and wrote one of the most outrageously defamatory books ever written about Jackson in a sorry effort to make money off of a scandal he helped create. The book has been banned from sale in the United States. After Jackson won a lawsuit, his attorney Zia Modabber commented about the Gutierrez case. He says that Gutierrez admitted, before trial, that the source of his sex-tape lie was this non-existent boy’s “mother”. Which mother? Which boy? Those are the questions the judge tried to make him answer. But of course he couldn’t give an answer without putting himself at risk of another lawsuit from the person who he claims was his source. An article titled “$2.7 million to Jackson for free-lancer’s sex tape lie” dated April 13 1998 from the Hollywood Reporter quotes Modabber:

“Gutierrez told a D.A. Investigator and two witnesses who testified at the trial that the boy’s mother was his source,” Modabber said. “He told anyone who would listen. The only people he would not tell were the ladies and gentlemen of his jury — that’s when he became ‘ethical’. Now he’s getting on his high horse saying he’s protecting his source.” (see $2.7 Million to Jackson for Free-Lancer’s Sex-Tape Lie)

Its clear Gutierrez can’t deflect blame by claiming he didn’t reveal a source and that’s why he lost the case against Jackson. He already told investigators the source of the lie was “the mother”. He provided no name, no evidence, no tape, no details, and no independent corroboration. Not thinking the case would get as far as it did, or that he’d actually have to produce “a mother”, he had no choice but to clam up or risk jail time for perjury. Gutierrez has kicked up noise outside of the country, making threats and spreading further garbage in an effort to continue to profit off of Jackson. Sources report that in a November 23 2003 interview in the “La Cuarta Diario” entitled, “Victor Gutierrez Plans His Revenge”, he’s quoted as saying “This time, the Neverland ranch will be mine.” Thus the questions become what, if anything, does Gutierrez have to do with this current accusing family? Can we put any stock into anyone who’s already made comments of claiming he’s going to own Jackson’s Neverland Ranch and will do anything to make that happen? What does he have to do with this “case”? Is he working in concert with prosecutors? Or is he just another leech trying to profit from the publicity of this current “case” as well? Modabber did an interview with Access Hollywood April 14 1998 in which he spoke about Gutierrez. He confirms that Gutierrez made the story up out of thin air:

Modabber: “This guy [Guiterrez] made this up out of thin air. Maliciously to hurt Michael. And he told anybody and everybody and when it came time to prove it in this court he couldn’t prove it. ” … Gizelle Fernandez: “Jackson’s decision to take it to court also came as a result of 5 lawsuits brought against him after he agreed to settle a lawsuit brought against him by a boy and his family in 1994. According to Jackson’s attorney, the 5 lawsuits accused Jackson of — defamation, invasion of privacy, sexual discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination. His attorney says they were frivolous and Jackson won them all.” Modabber: “Unfortunately, anybody can walk into a courthouse with a couple of hundred dollars and file a lawsuit. It doesn’t take anymore than that. And if you happen to be suing Michael Jackson or any other celebrity for that matter you are going to find yourself all over TV and you can tell the whole world about your scandalous accusations and people are going to listen to you.” (see Transcript: Zia Modabber – MJ’s Lawyer speaks April 14 1998)

Keep in mind that these are the types of “scoundrels” Dateline used for sources of their story. They didn’t talk to the 1993 accuser or his father. They certainly didn’t talk to Hughes, Fischer, or any of Jackson’s people who have first hand knowledge of how this situation materialized. Out of nowhere, we find out that a non-english speaking “nanny” of the 1993 accuser has a “story” to tell. How convenient! Either the Chandlers know how to speak fluent Spanish or someone’s not fully telling the truth. No one has ever talked about the existence of a Spanish speaking “nanny” before now. Sources say Gutierrez originally claimed that the Chandlers had a French nanny, who was allegedly almost “run over” by one of Jackson’s “people”. Without rehashing her suspicious claims, one has to remember to try to assess the validity of these claims. And, no, she doesn’t provide any proof or corroboration for anything she says either. As of now, we can’t even verify that she has worked for the Chandlers or was there at a time before the family executed their “plan” against Jackson. I guess they needed someone to take the fall once the lawsuits and charges come flying in. The producers of Dateline turn to these persons and try to pass off their ramblings as legitimate “sources” for information about the 1993 “case”. I can only hope Dateline and NBC get what they deserve by using these dubious sources. Stay tuned for Part Three of this special report which will deal with the family feud between the 1993 accuser’s father and step father, as well as more information surrounding the events of the 1993 key players that Dateline didn’t tell you. (You can read Part 1 here: -MJEOL

Leave a Reply