I know, it sounds like the far-fetched and paranoid rantings of conspiracy theorists. But the shocking answer to the title question is that yes, there is plenty of evidence to suggest this has not only happened with shocking frequency in the past, but is continuing to happen even today, nearly six years after the man’s death.
As this May 16th Facebook posting from Michael Jackson tribute artist Carlo Riley suggests, the desperate attempts to frame Michael Jackson by creating fake evidence against him continues to be big business. And it is big business for one very simple reason: The fact that there was never any actual evidence to link him to any molestation allegation. Looking at the history of this phenomenon, it’s shocking indeed to see what cartwheels these sinister accomplices are willing to perform in order to create that elusive “smoking gun” against Michael that has simply never existed. This quote from notorious MJ hater/stalker Diane Dimond, taken from a January 1995 radio interview on KABC-AM radio, actually says it all. The full interview was concerning an alleged tape of Michael Jackson and a young boy that, as it turned out, was a complete fabrication. But note what she says here:
“You know, I remember way back when, more than a year ago, we interviewed the head of the pedo[ph]ile unit at the FBI in Quantico, Virginia and he said you know the down fall of pedo[ph]iles is that they love to keep a memento of their victims. Or, they love to take pictures or take videos. We don’t know why, but they do this. It is for their own self gratification later but it always comes back to bite them.”-Diane Dimond
Of course, Dimond is referring here to none other than Jim Clemente, whose public comments about Michael Jackson and the case have revealed much bias and ignorance. But casting aside my own personal feelings and reservations about Clements, what he says here is absolutely true. And it is exactly why so many child molestors are caught red-handed. Their urge to photograph and videotape their “conquests” or to sex chat and text their victims, leaves an unmistakable trail of evidence, the kind which is 100% guarantee of a criminal conviction once introduced into court. True pedophiles, it should be noted, seem notoriously immune to resisting this urge, even when knowing full well they are hanging themselves with their own rope. And so the fact that even after an intensive four month trial, repeated searches of Michael Jackson’s home and seizure of his belongings (including searches of every computer in his home)and over a decade of FBI surveillance, not one such explicit, smoking gun piece of evidence ever emerged remains the biggest craw in the necks of Michael’s enemies. The best that prosecutors were able to do at the time-and, to this day, the best that his detractors have been able to continue to do-is to cobble together a flimsy case for circumstantial “evidence” out of certain items that the prosecution attempted to have included at trial but were subsequently precluded due to their complete lack of relevance to the case. You can read more about those items here:
In short, we’ve heard a lot of loud flapping about male DNA found on sheets (none linked to any alleged “victim” of Michael), a pair of soiled underwear, some legal art books…and not a heck of a whole lot else, other than “he said; she said” testimony.
So if Michael Jackson really was this horrific pedophile and serial child molestor that his detractors and accusers try to paint, then WHERE ARE the photographs, the video tapes, the love letters, the sex chat logs, the text messages and all of the usual evidence that pedophiles can’t seem to resist accumulating? To get around that problematic issue, there are some who like to try to portray Michael as an incredibly slick and savvy pedophile who was smart enough to never get caught with such smoking gun evidence, but the odds of Michael being able to get away with such a ruse while being under twenty years’ worth of intense scrutiny is simply highly nil. Are we to believe that in all that time, no one would have ever taped an incriminating phone conversation? That none of those busybody Neverland employees, only too anxious to sell a story to the tabloids, would have rigged a camera to catch something suspicious? Or that, more importantly, if Michael had been an actual pedophile, that he could so successfully resist the innate urge to document his “conquests” in some tangible form?
Let’s face facts. If any such evidence had ever existed, it most certainly would have surfaced long ago. For sure, it would have been seized upon by Tom Sneddon and used in the trial, and no amount of arguing from the defense would have kept such evidence out of court. The lack of such hardcore evidence is precisely why Michael was acquitted, and why the issue of his guilt or innocence continues to be an issue that his haters and detractors have to debate, rather than being the foregone conclusion they so wish that it was.
In our tabloid-driven culture, of course, the idea of fabricated stories and even fabricated “evidence” shouldn’t entirely surprise. The lengths that tabloid publications will go to get dirt on a celebrity, sometimes offering upwards of six figures to entice friends to “dish dirt” or even fabricate stories completely, is not exactly a secret practice. But some celebrities have obviously been bigger targets than others. The Michael Jackson case presented the perfect storm for fair weather friends, disgruntled ex-employees, those sour over fallen deals, checkbook journalism, and unscrupulous journalists with their own agendas to converge in a feeding frenzy that has had few precedents in the whole, sordid world of celebrity gossip. When I spoke with Michael’s longtime friend David Nordahl in 2010, he told me that he had been offered as much as $500,000 by a tabloid publication to make up stories about Michael. He was given offers to fabricate stories about the children who had modeled for his paintings with Michael. This was absurd on many levels, number one because all of the paintings were quite innocent, and two, because no actual children were used to model in those paintings. They were all either products of Nordahl’s and Michael’s imaginations, or in some cases, childhood images of people they knew as adults, such as Nordahl’s wife who appears in Michael’s “Field of Dreams” painting as the mischievous little girl crouched behind Michael’s arm. Yet the conspiracy to fabricate false stories about these images was and remains a big business, and it is fortunate that Michael had a loyal friend in David Nordahl, someone who considered his friendship with Michael much more valuable than half a million dollars.
That has not always been the case. As we know too well, not only did Michael have acquaintances (the word “friend” just can’t apply here) willing to sell him out, but also those who were willing to make up complete fabrications if the price was right. However, we all know that the tabloid business is what it is. I’m talking of something even more sinister, which is the outright planting or fabricating of false “evidence” in order to create either cases and victims that never existed (the so called “phantom victims’) or to create substantiating “evidence” where no such evidence exists. In Michael’s lifetime, this sort of thing happened with alarming frequency, usually as an attempt to blackmail him by creating a potentially damaging scenario. In death, the practice continues, and namely for two very specific reasons-because his brand and image is still very big business, and because there is a faction determined at all costs to “prove” him a pedophile for the sake of their own glory. Some of these people are so determined and desperate, in fact, that they will stop at no means-however sinister-to achieve that end. Creating falsified documents, fake conversations, and even fake photos are not above them. In some of the more well known cases, the perpetrators had no conscience about even involving actual children as part of their schemes!
One of the earliest and most blatant cases was that of Rodney Allen aka John Templeton, a Canadian man who, in the mid 90’s, ran a prostitution ring of young, underage boys in Toronto. Although I assume most hardcore fans are familiar with the details of this case, I will summarize briefly for the benefit of the casual fans and researchers who perhaps aren’t. The story was first broken on Hard Copy in 1995 by notorious MJ hater/stalker Diane Dimond. Although Dimond tries hard to present herself as an unbiased reporter here, that is in reality not the case at all. The reality was that she had to back pedal her way out of a very potentially embarrassing situation for herself and Hard Copy. But it turns out there was also another motive for Diane Dimond to present herself as an unbiased reporter of Michael Jackson. However, I will comment more on the problems with her “investigation,” as well as her OWN role in fabricating fake evidence against Michael, shortly. For now, we will focus simply on the facts of the Rodney Allen case as they were originally reported.
Here is the story as it was first presented on Hard Copy in 1995:
The story might leave some with a case of the warm and fuzzies. Diane Dimond investigated what “could have been Michael Jackson’s worst nightmare” and uncovered a scam to frame him. In truth, Michael Jackson’s worst nightmare had unfolded long before this, and Diane Dimond was one of its key players!
The real question here is why, after learning the truth about Rodney Allen, did Diane Dimond-this woman who gives so much lip service to truth, integrity, and of being a champion for the rights of child victims- simply walk away from this case, content to leave it to Canadian authorities to untangle? Apparently her concern for this fifteen-year-old kid (who subsequently was arrested for public mischief) ended when the story became a dead end as far as Michael Jackson’s involvement. Rodney Allen was eventually arrested and convicted to a life sentence in 2001, a full six years after this story aired. In the meantime, the fact that he was head of an ever increasing “family” of teenage boys didn’t seem to phase Diane Dimond or anyone at Hard Copy, who were all too busy chasing the next phony Michael Jackson story.
In 2010, Helena of Vindicating Michael wrote a great piece on this story and raised many disturbing questions about how and why the whole Rodney Allen story was handled in such a cavalier fashion:
I agree with most of the questions raised in this piece. For example, just who was this guy Rodney Allen, what was his stake in so determinedly creating a case against Michael Jackson, and most importantly, how did he manage to have such detailed information of Hayvenhurst, Neverland, and of Michael’s employees? Information that he then used to coach a teenage boy so convincingly that he almost had the Canadian police fooled?
Well, as it turns out, both Rodney Allen and Diane Dimond had a long-time source in common: A man named Victor Gutierrez, who was certainly no stranger to fabricating false stories about Michael Jackson, and who had been obsessed since as far back as 1986 with the idea of “outting” Michael as a pedophile.
I have already written quite extensively about Victor Gutierrez, his NAMBLA connections, and his obsession in past posts:
By far the most detailed and well researched account I have yet read on the connection between Victor Gutierrez, Rodney Allen, and Diane Dimond can be found here.This is from an author who has done much extensive investigative reporting in an attempt to unravel the long, dirty history of Victor Gutierrez’s role in the Michael Jackson allegations. You can also find here many actual court documents that verify the long and convoluted role these individuals played in making Michael Jackson’s life a living hell:
The connection between Dimond, Gutierrez, and Allen is one that can’t be emphasized enough when it comes to the topic of creating false evidence against Michael Jackson, even though Dimond on at least one occasion was able to effectively use the Shield Law to protect her from being sued by Michael. So let’s back up and look at one of the most notorious and blatant cases of creating phony evidence against Michael, and how all three of these players were involved.
The blogpost I have linked to above is fascinating in that it both confirms the connection between Rodney Allen and Victor Gutierrez (via the author’s own correspondence with Rodney Allen) and also confirms a long suspicion I had held regarding the strategic timing of the broadcast of the Rodney Allen story by Hard Copy in April of 1995.
To briefly summarize a very dirty and convoluted story, in December of 1994 Victor Gutierrez had tried without success to sell a story to the tabloids about an alleged videotape that he claimed featured Michael engaging in lewd acts with his own nephew Jeremy. Gutierrez cited the alleged source of the tape as Jeremy’s mother Margaret Maldonado, ex wife of Jermaine Jackson. Gutierrez had claimed that he met with Maldonado at the Century Plaza hotel to view the contents of the tape. Maldonado denied this vehemently in court, claiming she had never even met Gutierrez, and the Century Plaza hotel had no record of Gutierrez ever being there.
Gutierrez had no luck selling the story to tabloids. It was late 1994, over a year since the Chandler story had been hot news, and OJ was now the big story. Secondly, no one really wanted to touch the story because Gutierrez was not able to substantiate the actual existence of the video.
He finally turned to his friend Diane Dimond, and found a more than willing ally to spread the story, even though she had never personally seen the alleged tape or its contents. Based on no more information than her “source” (Gutierrez) she went on record in January of 1995 on a radio interview show and not only reported the existence of a tape she had never seen, but also falsely reported that the investigation of Michael Jackson was being reopened. This was blatantly untrue. The LA County DA had, in fact, already dismissed the story as bogus (or at the very least, as a story that had failed to hold up under scrutiny) and had no intention at that point of re-opening the investigation.
Although no one had even seen the alleged tape other than, supposedly, Gutierrez, this didn’t stop Hard Copy from running with the story a few days after Dimond had first let the cat out of the bag during the radio interview on January 5. On January 9, 1995, Hard Copy reported the story in a segment featuring Gutierrez, and several British tabloids followed suit.
Still, one very big problem remained…where was this alleged videotape, why had no one seen it, and why couldn’t the “source” simply turn it over if indeed it existed? The fact was that it didn’t exist, and never had.
Michael filed a lawsuit against all parties involved in spreading the slanderous story-including Gutierrez, Dimond, and Hard Copy-for $100 million on January 12, 1995. However, Dimond got her good friend Tom Sneddon to write a long-winded declaration in her defense, citing The Shield Law and that as a journalist who was simply reporting, without malice, what had been told to her by her “source” she should not be a party to the suit.
The courts were apparently convinced by Sneddon’s passionate plea for his friend’s case, and Dimond eventually had to be dropped as a party in the suit. The upshot was that Victor Guiterrez was ordered to pay Michael Jackson $2.7 million in damages, but skipped the country and returned to his native Chile in a cowardly act that enabled him to circumvent ever having to pay the money. In a signed declaration, Gutierrez stated that he had returned to Santia to “get a good job” but hadn’t gotten a job and therefore “I do not have money to buy a plane ticket to return.” (Despite the fact that he later bragged about living in a 21-bedroom mansion!).
But here’s where the whole thing gets interesting. Apparently, Victor Gutierrez and Rodney Allen were more than well acquainted in 1995, when this story broke (the author of the above blog mentions Allen stating that he stayed with Gutierrez in LA and attended a book convention with him in the summer of 1995). And Diane Dimond, who was not only utilizing Gutierrez as her main “go to” source but considered him a personal friend as well, would almost surely had to have been aware of this fact! If this is all indeed true, then there was never any “great mystery” about the real identity of Mr. John Templeton, and Diane Dimond would have already been well aware that a pedophile in Toronto, Canada named Rodney Allen and her “source” Victor Gutierrez were working and hanging out together!
Secondly, it is interesting that Diane Dimond chose to run the Rodney Allen story on Hard Copy in April of 1995, at the exact time when she was still involved with the litigation of Michael Jackson’s lawsuit against her. I agree 100% with the blog’s author that the timing made it all seem like a well planned strategy to show that Dimond and Hard Copy were being objective and fair in their reporting on Michael Jackson, at a time when it served their best interests to prove this. It also occurred during a period when Michael was undergoing intense pressure to drop the case against Diane Dimond and Victor Gutierrez. Gutierrez, in particular, through his attorney Robert Goldman, engaged in many threatening tactics, particularly the threat that Gutierrez would promote his fictional fantasy book Michael Jackson Was My Lover at every opportunity if the case went to trial.
I can’t say beyond a shadow of doubt that Diane Dimond was complicit in knowingly fabricating the story of the phantom video tape, but for sure, she willingly aided and abetted the perpetrator of the hoax and reported false information when she stated that the case was being re-opened (Sneddon, it should be noted, was very careful in his declaration of defense for her to make his wording on this ambiguous, stating that the investigation was “inactive but not closed” in order to mitigate the lie and to make it seem understandable how she might have reached that conclusion). She also knowingly and willfully provided details about the video tape for which she had no first hand knowledge as she had never seen it, and thus had no verification that what she was reporting was even true.
But even more disturbing is how she could have possibly been so blindsided by Rodney Allen. And even worse, if she was already aware of his identity and what he was up to in Canada, why was she still wasting time chasing after false leads on Michael Jackson instead of investigating this guy?
Knowing the connection that both Rodney Allen and Diane Dimond have to Victor Gutierrez suddenly makes all of the puzzle pieces fit together. This would have explained, for instance, how Allen acquired much of his seeming first-hand knowledge of Hayvenhurst and Neverland (information he was then able to pass on to the boys in his circle). It doesn’t answer the question of who the “other” Jackson family member might have been who allegedly molested Allen, but given the ability of both Allen and Gutierrez to completely fabricate stories, there is no real reason to believe (without solid proof) that Allen was ever molested by anyone in the Jackson family.
Could the whole story have been part of an elaborate scam cooked up by the three parties involved-Diane Dimond, Victor Gutierrez, and Rodney Allen? I can’t say for certain, but based on the facts, I certainly wouldn’t rule it out as a possibility.
The whole situation reeks to high heaven. The best we can say, if we’re generous about Diane Dimond’s involvement, is that she used her connections with Gutierrez and Rodney Allen to create a fake story that would help to make her look good as litigation moved forward in Michael Jackson’s lawsuit against her. But the worst case scenario-that she may have actually been an accomplice with these two in a scam to fabricate a case against Michael (a case that subsequently unraveled under scrutiny) is even more damning.
Unfortunately, attempts to frame Michael Jackson with phony evidence doesn’t end there.
In 2012, I broke the story of Alexander Montagu, a distant relation to Princess Diana who capitalized on this tenuous connection and Michael’s known affection for the late princess to concoct an unsavory plan. He invited Michael to attend a Los Angeles memorial service for Diana in September of 1997. However, the invitation as it turned out was merely a front to gain Michael’s trust. He even went so far as telling Michael that he knew, personally, that Michael was not invited to the London memorial and that his only option to honor his friend was by attending the Los Angeles event. However, Montagu’s real plan was that after the service, he would invite Michael back to his hotel to meet his young son Alex, Jr. Montagu had picqued Michael’s interest by talking about his airplane business, and it seems Michael had considered purchasing a plane from Montagu. During the two hour visit, Montagu filmed Michael playing hide and seek with Alex, and in fact, seemed to be going suspiciously above and beyond in filming every interaction between Michael and his son. Although Michael later invited the family to Neverland on at least one occasion, whatever friendly relations he may have had with Alexander Montagu apparently soured when the deal to buy the plane fell through. However, it was later revealed by Montagu’s wife Wendy that the entire plan had been a setup from the very beginning, with the intention of framing Michael by claiming that Michael had molested Alex, Jr! Thankfully, I had a wonderful source during the writing of this article, Melinda-Pillsbury Foster, a personal friend of Wendy Montagu’s who had been privy to the whole, sordid scam! You can read my entire, original post on Alexander Montagu and his scheme here:
Years later, during the Arvizo trial, Montagu had contacted Tom Sneddon and was subpoenaed to appear as a witness for the prosecution. Although he had never been successful in creating a convincingly compromising situation between Michael and his son, he still figured the very innocent footage he had filmed of Michael playing with Alex, Jr. could be put to good use. He figured he would use it to help strengthen the prosecution’s case by claiming the film as evidence of how Michael “groomed” his potential victims. This was all part of an elaborate plan from the the prosecution to “expose” Michael’s previous lifestyle, which included the notorious Neverland Five, a group of five disgruntled ex-employees who re-surfaced in 2005 ten years after they had sued their boss and had been successfully counter sued, and were likewise never able to produce any hardcore evidence of Michael abusing children. Mostly they had succeeded only with selling stories intended to embarrass and humiliate their former boss to the tabloids. However, stories of uncontrollable diarrhea and such nonsense (even if true, which they probably weren’t) did not construe evidence of a crime, and such feeble attempts as introducing Montagu’s staged footage as “evidence” of a grooming process in place, while utterly absurd, was apparently the best they could do. It is heartbreaking in these clips to see Michael so innocently playing with this kid, thinking he is among friends, when the reality was that he was being set up.
In the defense’s motion to have Montagu’s false testimony thrown out, it was explicitly stated:
“There is something disturbing about how badly Mr. Manchester wants to testify about an incident in which his own son denies that any wrongful attacks occurred.”
The plans to testify fell through when Wendy Montagu refused to cooperate and threatened to expose the scam. Even worse for him, his son Alex, Jr. refused to accuse Michael of wrongdoing. The boy had only fond memories of his brief time spent with Michael, and chose to stand by his mother’s version of events. Montagu weasled out of testifying by claiming that he was being threatened by Jackson’s camp to stay away from the trial, but the reality was that he knew his story would not hold up if not substantiated by Wendy, and he couldn’t risk the fact that she might make true on her threat and talk.
Alas, there is a direct link of Alexander Montagu to yet another notorious fabricator of stories about Michael Jackson-none other than Scott Thorson!
And, to add further to the topic of those attempting to plant false evidence against Michael, there is a fascinating discussion here regarding Marc Shaffel’s alleged attempt to plant child porn on Michael:
The post is mostly a scan from a chapter of Andrew Brietbart’s book Hollywood Interrupted which is well worth the read. Brietbart’s source for this info was Paul Baressi, who apparently ended up feeling quite bitter when his exposure of Schaffel’s intended scam was not repaid by Michael’s attorneys. Brietbart is hardly a Michael Jackson fan, but all the more reason why he would have little motivation to lie about something like this. Schaffel’s plan, in a nutshell, was to plant one of his own gay porno films featuring two underaged boys on Michael, in the hopes of receiving a $25 milion dollar payout. And he claimed, according to Baressi’s source David Aldorf, an associate of Shaffel’s, that if he didn’t get his $25 million the next step would be the tabloids.
And, speaking of famous set-ups, let’s not forget that one of the most notorious was when Martin Bashir (whom it is now known was using Victor Gutierrez as a consultant during the filming of Living With Michael Jackson) coerced the scene of Gavin Arvizo lying his head on Michael’s shoulder!
I am certain that every incident I’ve touched on here is still only the tip of the iceberg. As I stated before, the practice of bringing false allegations against Michael, and/or of planting fabricated evidence and/or creating phantom victims has been going on at least as far back as the Chandler case, and perhaps even earlier (in fact, it stands to reason that the Chandler case may have simply been the first and only such fabricated case that actually succeeded according to plan, no doubt setting the stage for many other attempts to follow). In that case, also, no explicit or “smoking gun” evidence was ever produced, but the pressure and embarrassment garnered by negative publicity was enough to set the wheels in motion for a payout. Thus, the motivation for blackmail from unscrupulous parties was ever present. Although as Victor Gutierrez and others had to learn the heard way, even the tabloids have their limits. However, many such unscrupulous gumshoe “journalists,” ex business partners, and others with axes to grind all learned how to play the system, and how to navigate the balance between the tabloids on the one hand, and the police on the other-and how to play both. The wisdom, of course, is that if one potential avenue doesn’t pan out, the other will (usually with the idea being that police involvement will force the tabloids’ hand). Either way, many consider it a win-win, thinking that either the threat of negative publicity will force a settlement or that the income generated from the tabloids alone will be sufficient. In the best case scenario, they are usually hoping for both-that is, that a deluge of embarrasing headlines will ultimately force a settlement offer.
However, in the particular case of Michael Jackson, the motive and the stakes for creating fake evidence against him has an even more sinister agenda for some than mere money or greed. For some, it is a life’s ambition to “prove” what has remained frustratingly and elusively “non provable” for them.
This brings us back to Carlo Riley’s recent post. Apparently, according to what I have been able to gather from Riley himself, this is not the first time. Over the last few years, he has been offered money to fake supposedly incriminating photos with children. He has been asked to pose in casket photos (the latter, perhaps, not as serious as the child photos, but still, a duplicitious scheme nonetheless) and it seems to be a practice that has targeted at least a few of the more well known tribute artists. I suppose it’s an idea that may make sense in theory to some. Let’s get a Michael Jackson tribute artist-someone who bears enough of a passing resemblance to MJ to pull it off-and pay him enough money to pose in a photo or video tape (that, of course, is made to look incriminating). The problem is that most MJ tribute artists-at least the ones I know-are people who love, respect, and admire the man they emulate. He is their hero, and they would never do anything so lowdown as this. However, not all tribute artists are scrupulous (there was even one who made some embarrassing headlines a few years back after he molested a child) and I am sure there are some who, just like anybody else, would do “anything for money.” There are some who imitate Michael Jackson simply because it is a way to make money and gain some notoriety. I sincerely hope they are a minority, and I believe that they are. Of course, it is highly doubtful that such a ruse could hold up for long, under intense scrutiny. Michael Jackson fans know what Michael looks like, and a phony can be sniffed out pretty quickly. Also, there are still enough reputable journalists out there whom I believe would see through such a scam pretty quickly. Photographs can be authenticated easily enough. But in today’s world of instantaneous, cut and paste journalism (where facts are seldom checked and a phony story can spread like wildfire within hours) all it would take is one tabloid outlet willing to pick up the story for the damage to be done.
While I have not been able to verify among the MJ tribute artists I know personally just how prevalent this practice is, it stands to reason that the more well known ones like Riley would be targeted. Riley has been featured on TMZ and is a routine presence at many Michael Jackson functions across the country. If someone was going to plot to hire an impersonator to pose for an incriminating photo with kids, it makes sense that they would start by first going after the more well known ones who would be easy to track down.
Could it be coincidence that Carlo Riley broke his silence just a few days prior to the probate case dismissal of Wade Robson’s claim? Could this have been a last minute, desperate effort on the part of Robson and his attorneys to drum up some kind of evidence, any evidence, to support his case? There is no way to know for sure and, unfortunately, I can only chalk up any such speculations to just that. Speculation. Riley has said that the persons behind this were not forthright in either identifying themselves or their motives, and if he does know more, he apparently is not at liberty to say. However, what is not coincidence is just how prevalent these types of stories become whenever Michael’s name is in the news. Whether it is positive or negative, press coverage always has a way of drawing the roaches out of the woodwork.
To return to the original question, the answer to just how prevalent is this practice is very. The scary part is that this practice apparently remains such big business even six years after Michael’s death. It apparently remains big business because a trial, an acquittal and at least twenty-two years’ worth of ample opportunity for that elusive “smoking gun” to surface, without luck, have not been enough to satisfy those who so desperately want the world to believe that Michael committed these crimes. Whether the motive is profit or just to “prove a point” there are some who will stop at no ends to do whatever it takes.
Even if that means stooping to create evidence that never existed, and never will.
ETA: I wanted to add to the main post some additional links that were provided by Suzy which are definitely worth checking out.
Here is the story of the Newts, another family that tried to set up a false claim against Michael during the height of the Arvizo trial publicity storm:
More on Marc Schaffel and the even dirtier scam he pulled to try to force a settlement from Michael, inventing a tale of a phantom “pay out” to a family in Brazil:
Document verifying Victor Gutierrez’s “confession” to tabloid broker Ken Wells that his stories are “BS”: