Skip to content

April 11th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, June Chandler, and Dwayne Swingler, Part 2 of 4

January 3, 2013

Next, June was asked to recount her recollection of Jackson’s time at the home of her ex-husband Evan Chandler, and Evan’s thoughts about Jackson’s relationship with Jordan. He was upset at the time because Jordan wasn’t calling him anymore or spending any time with him:

21 Q. Now, to your knowledge, was there ever an


22 occasion where your son Jordan and the defendant in


23 this case, Michael Jackson, were at your


24 ex-husband’s house, Evan Chandler?


25 A. Yes. Yes.


26 Q. And do you remember on how many occasions?


27 A. I would say one or two occasions.


28 Q. And do you remember the length of the stays 5641


1 on those occasions that Jordan stayed there?


2 A. A few days each time.


3 Q. So during this period of time you had


4 custody of Jordan, correct?


5 A. Correct.


6 Q. Now, you told us, I think, that there were


7 two trips to Florida?


8 A. Yes.


9 Q. Do you remember when the second trip was?


10 A. After June. July, early July possibly.


11 Q. And do you recall how long you stayed there


12 on that occasion?


13 A. I would say two or three nights.


14 Q. And where did Jordan sleep on those


15 occasions?


16 A. With Michael.


17 Q. Did Lily go with you on that trip?


18 A. Yes, she did.


19 Q. Had Jordan’s behavior or attitude changed in


20 any respect since the first time you described his


21 change from Florida, the first trip?


22 A. It was the same. Same.


23 Q. Father’s Day is in June, okay?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. Do you remember a situation where you were


26 with Jordan, your son, on Father’s Day?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. In 1993? 5642


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. I’m sure you were with him on other


3 occasions. Do you recall where you were in 1993 on


4 Father’s Day?


5 A. Yes, I was in New York.


6 Q. And to your knowledge, in your presence, did


7 Jordan call his father on Father’s Day?


8 A. Eventually he did, yes.


9 Q. And initially, did you have a conversation


10 with him?


11 A. Yes, I did.


12 Q. Did he want to call his father?


13 A. No, he didn’t.


14 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay; move to


15 strike.


16 THE COURT: Sustained. Stricken.


17 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of the


18 conversation that you had with your son Jordan, did


19 he eventually call his father?


20 A. I think he did, yes.


21 Q. All right. At some point in time, did you


22 receive a message of some sort from your ex-husband


23 Evan about Mr. Jackson?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. And don’t tell us what was said, okay? I


26 just want to get the facts and the background to it.


27 Where were you when you first heard the message?


28 A. In Michael Jackson’s car. In his limo. 5643


1 Q. And was Mr. Jackson with you?


2 A. Not when I got that call.


3 Q. Did the call come directly to you or did you


4 access it in some other fashion?


5 A. From another fashion.


6 Q. How was that?


7 A. Answering machine. I dialed in.


8 Q. So you dialed the answering machine on whose


9 answering machine?


10 A. My answering machine at home.


11 Q. And there was a message on the machine from


12 your ex-husband Evan, correct?


13 A. Correct.


14 Q. Did you at some point later play that


15 message for Mr. Jackson?


16 A. I don’t recall.

Here’s what Evan Chandler said on the voice message to June, according to Ray Chandler’s book, pages 61-63 :

Barry Rothman was still optimistic. He bad prepared two legal documents; a restraining order aimed at Michael to keep him away from Jordie, and a modification of custody to prevent June from taking Jordie on tour. When filed with the court, Barry told Evan, these documents would guarantee an end to the relationship’

His lawyer’s assurances notwithstanding, Evan was hesitant to take the legal route. He had an intense distrust of the courts, and feared, as did Monique, that they’d all end up losing if “the system” became involved. Not that be wouldn’t do it in a heartbeat if that’s what it took to get his son back, but he preferred to use it only as a threat to pressure June into getting rid of Michael.

The problem now was how to get June and Michael to meet with him. Evan had already asked June half a dozen times to talk to him about Jordie. He had asked nicely, and not so nicely. He bad screamed and begged, but all to no avail. What was left? Evan figured that if he made it crystal clear that tins would be their last chance to avoid a legal confrontation, they would have to talk to him. “Did they think I would just give up and never see my son again? Surely June knew me better than that!”

Rothman approved of the plan, but advised Evan not to mention anything about having a lawyer; it might be interpreted as a threat and sour the chances for a meeting. He suggested that Evan prepare a written message and read it to June over the phone. Not only would that avoid any misunderstanding on June’s part about what Evan wanted, it would prevent the phone call from degenerating into an argument — the fate of all of Evan and June’s communications over the past few weeks.

June was out when Evan called and he was about to hang up when it dawned on him that leaving his message on her answering machine was better than talking to her in person. There’d be no arguing, that’s for sure, and Michael could hear it directly from the horse’s mouth, as opposed to June’s interpretation.

“It’s Wednesday, July 7. June, make sure you play this message for Michael and Jordie. I’m going to repeat that. June, make sure you play this message for Michael and Jordie. All three of you are responsible for what is going on. No one is a neutral party. Since Jordie has repeatedly refused to return my phone calls, this will be my last voluntary attempt to communicate. I will be at your house at San Lorenzo this Friday, July 9 at 8:30 in the morning. Take my word for it, there is nothing else any of you has to do that is more important than being at this meeting.”

June and Michael picked up die message later that evening when she called her answering machine from the limo.

Despite the numerous arguments Evan and June had had over the past month about Jordie and Michael, and that June knew Evan had not seen or spoken to Jordie for over a month, and despite the fact that Evan’s message specifically mentioned Jordie’s refusal to talk to him, June later testified that she had no idea why Evan wanted to meet.

When asked, under oath, if Evan had voiced his concerns about Jordie and Michael to her during the month he did not see his son, June’s attorney would not permit her to answer.

June testified that she found Evan’s message “threatening” and “ominous,” and that her immediate response was to call Dave to see if he could figure out what Evan had wanted — though she and Dave “had not been on speaking terms” at the time.

Dave testified that when he heard Evan’s message, he, like Evan, “was very frustrated about what was going on with Michael Jackson. I can’t tell you the frustration and depression and gut-ripping feelings I had about Michael Jackson . . . maliciously and with intent trying to disrupt my family.”

Despite these strong admissions from Dave, and his further testimony that between March and August he asked June numerous times if she thought there was any sex between Jordie and Michael, and despite Evan’s coming to him just five days before to seek his help in ridding the family of Michael, and despite Evan’s clear reference to Jordie on the message, Dave also swore, so help him God, that he had no idea what Evan wanted to talk about.

When Michael heard the message, he immediately called his attorney, Bert Fields. What happened next is best heard from Fields himself, in a 1993 interview he gave to Vanity Fair.

He [Fields] remembers hearing in early July that Jordie’s father was very angry and was demanding a meeting with Michael, because Jackson called Fields about it. “I stopped Michael from going to a meeting,” Fields says. The next thing Fields did was call Anthony Pellicano to say the father was accusing Michael of molesting Jordie. Then they got on a conference call with the mother and stepfather. On the very first call, Fields says, the stepfather told him that he thought the father “wants money.” In an effort to help his wife, the stepfather secretly recorded three conversations with the father, and reported back to Fields and Pellicano.


Next, Sneddon questioned June about her interactions with Jackson’s private investigator Anthony Pellicano. He was hired by Jackson and his attorney Bert Fields after they heard Evan Chandler’s voice message to June. She was present during his interview with Jordan Chandler, in which he denied any and all abuse against Jackson, although she wasn’t in the room with them:

17 Q. Are you familiar with a person by the name


18 of Anthony Pellicano?


19 A. Yes, I am.


20 Q. And who is Anthony Pellicano, to your


21 knowledge?


22 A. A private investigator.


23 Q. And was Mr. Pellicano introduced to you by


24 somebody?


25 A. By Bert Fields and Michael Jackson.


26 Q. In relationship to this voice message that


27 you received on your message machine at your house,


28 do you recall how many days after that particular 5644


1 message, you received that message, that you were


2 introduced to Mr. Pellicano and Mr. Fields by Mr.


3 Jackson?


4 A. It could be a week later.


5 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Move to strike;


6 misstates the evidence; and no foundation.


7 THE COURT: Sustained, stricken.


8 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you meet Anthony


9 Pellicano through the defendant, Michael Jackson?


10 A. Yes.


11 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.


12 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer is,

13 “Yes.” Next question.


14 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you meet Bert Fields


15 through the defendant, Michael Jackson?


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. Were you present during conversations with


18 Mr. Pellicano and Mr. Fields and Mr. Jackson?


19 A. Yes, I was.


20 Q. And this all occurred after the voice mail


21 had been left on your message machine by your


22 ex-husband Evan Chandler?


23 A. Yes, sir.


24 Q. Now, did the defendant, Michael Jackson,


25 tell you who Anthony Pellicano was?


26 A. Yes, he did.


27 Q. What did he say about Mr. Pellicano?


28 A. “He can find out anything. He’s really good 5645


1 at this. He’s really good at investigating. If


2 you’re having a problem, he’ll get to the bottom of


3 it.”


4 Q. And Mr. Fields, Bert Fields, is what — you


5 know him by name. What occupation is he?


6 A. He’s an attorney.


7 Q. And he’s an attorney who works for who? Or


8 at this point in time, who did you know he was


9 working for?


10 A. He worked for Michael Jackson.


11 Q. Now, at some point in time, did you go to


12 Mr. Pellicano’s office to be interviewed by Mr.


13 Pellicano?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. And did somebody go with you?


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. Who was that?


18 A. My ex-husband, Dave Schwartz.


19 Q. And was there anybody else present during


20 this conversation?


21 A. I don’t remember. It could be Bert Fields


22 also.


23 Q. Now, after that conversation, did you go


24 somewhere else? Do you recall where you went?


25 A. To Michael Jackson’s home in Century City,


26 apartment in Century City.


27 Q. And was Mr. Jackson there?


28 A. He might have been. 5646


1 Q. At that particular location, was your son


2 Jordan Chandler there, can you tell us?


3 A. Yes, he might have been there, too.


4 Q. Do you recall whether or not or do you


5 recall an incident — doesn’t have to be on that


6 particular occasion, but do you recall an occasion


7 whether or not your son Jordan Chandler was ever


8 interviewed by Anthony Pellicano?


9 A. Yes, he was.


10 Q. Where did that interview take place?


11 A. In the Century City apartment.


12 Q. Were you present?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Were you present during the conversation?


15 A. No.


16 Q. Where were you?


17 A. Upstairs or in his — somewhere else.


18 Q. And do you recall how long that conversation


19 took?


20 A. Could have been 45 minutes.


21 Q. Now, after Mr. Pellicano and Mr. Fields were


22 introduced to you by Michael Jackson, were you


23 involved in some issues involving a change in


24 custody of your son Jordan?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. And were you — were you presented with some


27 papers to sign?


28 A. Yes, I was. 5647


1 Q. And those papers did what?


2 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;


3 foundation; relevance.


4 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.


5 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: The papers were presented


6 to you by whom?


7 A. By Pellicano.


8 Q. And was Mr. Fields present?


9 A. I don’t think at that time.


10 Q. Do you recall if the defendant, Michael


11 Jackson, was present?


12 A. No, he wasn’t.

 Next, Sneddon questioned June about the child custody papers that Jackson allegedly asked her to sign that would give Evan temporary custody of Jordan. According to June, Jackson was very nervous about the possibility of Evan filing a lawsuit against him:

13 Q. At some point in time did you have a


14 conversation with Michael Jackson about signing


15 those papers?


16 A. I don’t recall talking to Michael about the


17 papers.


18 Q. Do you recall giving a statement to an


19 attorney, a Deputy District Attorney with the Los


20 Angeles District Attorney’s Office on September 3rd


21 of 1993?


22 A. Yes, I do.


23 Q. And it was Miss Lauren Weis?


24 A. Yes, it was.


25 Q. And you gave a rather lengthy statement to


26 Miss Weis?


27 A. Yes, I did.


28 Q. Do you recall telling Miss Weis that – 5648


1 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Leading; hearsay;


2 move to strike.


3 MR. SNEDDON: It’s foundational, or to


4 refresh her recollection.


5 THE COURT: If you want to refresh her


6 recollection with something, you can approach her


7 and show the item.


8 MR. SNEDDON: All right. Counsel, page 95,


9 lines 15 to 19.


10 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation, Your


11 Honor.


12 THE COURT: You have to ask her if it will


13 help refresh her recollection, or it might.


14 MR. SNEDDON: Can I show it to her first?


15 That’s the way counsel’s been doing it.


16 MR. MESEREAU: No, I haven’t at all.


17 THE COURT: Actually, he’s been asking them


18 if it would refresh their recollection if he showed


19 them something.


20 MR. SNEDDON: All right.


21 Q. Do you recall that conversation?


22 A. Yes, I do.


23 Q. And — and it occurred at a point in time


24 when things were a lot fresher in your mind than


25 they are now?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. Would it help, perhaps, if you looked at the


28 statement, that it might help refresh your 5649


1 recollection?


2 A. Yes.


3 MR. SNEDDON: May I approach the witness,


4 Your Honor?




6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Just read it to yourself.


7 Start here and right down to here. How’s that?


8 Counsel, I’m having her read lines 11 to


9 line 25.

10 MR. MESEREAU: I’m going to object to that.


11 That’s improper refreshing of recollection and it’s


12 hearsay, foundational, to have her just read it.


13 MR. SNEDDON: That’s all I’m asking her to


14 do. I’m just trying to help you try to find out


15 where it is.


16 THE COURT: All right. Just let her look at


17 it. Counsel knows you can refresh a person’s


18 recollection with anything.


19 MR. MESEREAU: Your Honor, I thought she was


20 reading it out loud. That was my mistake. I


21 withdraw the objection.


22 THE COURT: That would have been improper.


23 MR. SNEDDON: We’ve been down that road


24 before.


25 THE COURT: All right, I’m sorry. Did we —


26 where are we?


27 (Laughter.)


28 MR. SNEDDON: I know where we are. 5650


1 THE COURT: Is it break time yet? No.


2 (Laughter.)


3 MR. SNEDDON: I’m sorry, Judge. You’re


4 going to have to suffer for six more minutes and


5 you’re not getting out of here a minute early.


6 Payback is you-know-what.


7 Q. All right. Mrs. Chandler, with regard to


8 whether or not the defendant was present, did that


9 refresh your recollection?


10 A. Yes, it does.


11 Q. And do you recall whether the defendant was


12 present?


13 A. He was present.


14 Q. And does it refresh — did the defendant,


15 Michael Jackson, make statements to you with regard


16 to the particular documents that you were being


17 asked to sign?


18 A. Yes, he did.


19 Q. And do you recall what he told you?


20 A. He was frantic. He was begging me to, “Come


21 over and sign this so there won’t be any lawsuits or


22 anything. Just sign it, sign it.”


23 Q. And, in effect, what you signed did what to


24 you personally?


25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;


26 foundation.


27 MR. SNEDDON: Let me go back, Judge. I


28 think I can correct this. 5651


1 Q. I am assuming you read the document before


2 you signed it?


3 A. Briefly.


4 Q. And you understood what it meant when you


5 were signing it?


6 A. Not really.


7 Q. Okay. You understood — well, let me ask


8 you this: Did you understand — if you didn’t


9 understand all of it, you understood some of it,


10 correct?


11 A. Yes, I did.


12 Q. Did you understand a part of it that had to


13 do with who was going to have custody for the


14 children temporarily?


15 A. Exactly, yes.


16 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; leading.


17 THE COURT: Overruled.


18 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: I’m sorry?


19 A. Yes.


20 Q. And it wasn’t going to be you anymore?


21 A. Exactly.


22 Q. Did you sign that paper?


23 A. I did.

Here’s an excerpt from Geraldine Hughes’ “Redemption”, pages 76-82 , where she discusses the temporary custody agreement for Evan Chandler:

Dr. Evan Chandler and June Chandler divorced in 1985 due to a series of problems in their marriage. June Chandler received sole custody of their son, while Dr. Chandler was ordered to pay five hundred dollars a month in child support. Both June and Evan later remarried, and at the time of the child molestation allegations appeared to be sharing custody of their son without any problems.

As mentioned before… Michael Jackson met the Chandler boy, a friendship developed and Michael Jackson began spending a lot of time with the boy, his step-sister and mother at his Neverland Ranch. His mother, June Schwartz (June Chandler), admired Michael Jackson and did not have a problem with their friendship. In the beginning, Dr. Chandler did not mind sharing the affection of his son with the superstar, but after a while, the relationship between his son and Michael Jackson appeared to begin to take its toll when the 13-year old boy started spending more time with Michael Jackson than Dr. Chandler.

Dr. Chandler encouraged Michael Jackson to start spending time with the boy at his house. It began to appear as if he wanted a piece of the action as well. It was reported that Dr. Chandler asked Michael Jackson to build an extension on his house, a request that Michael Jackson considered. When Michael Jackson’s request to build an addition onto his home ran into difficulty from the zoning department, Dr. Chandler boldly suggested that Michael Jackson simply build him a new house elsewhere.

The relationship between Michael Jackson and Dr. Chandler was becoming strained because of Dr. Chandler’s threats. (More on the threats later.) For a short time after this, Michael Jackson began to withdraw from visiting the boy at Dr. Chandler’s home. Dr. Chandler, in the recorded phone conversation with Dave Schwartz, reported he didn’t know why Michael Jackson had stopped visiting him.

On the other hand, Michael Jackson’s relationship with the Chandler boy and his mother continued to flourish. The boy, his step-sister and mother began traveling with him and were going to accompany Michael Jackson on his Dangerous Tour. Dr. Chandler became furious when he got word of this news. Some say that Dr. Chandler was furious because he was being cut out of the relationship with his son and Michael Jackson.

Dr. Chandler told Mr. Schwartz, in the recorded phone conversation, that he was mad at Michael for breaking up his family. He also admitted that he told Michael Jackson exactly what he wanted out of the deal.

It was at this point that Dr. Chandler hired Barry Rothman. It appears to me that if custody was the main issue he should have hired a family law attorney. Mr. Rothman was primarily known as an entertainment attorney, but had recently handled a child abuse case in which a female client accused the father of child molestation. Please note that Mr. Rothman, once again, represented the accuser.

In order for Dr. Chandler to carry out his plan, he needed custody of his 13-year old son. It would have been difficult to carry out such a plan without full custody or with interference from the child’s mother.

In July 1993, Bertram Fields of Greenberg, Glusker, Fields, Claman & Machtinger, who was Michael Jackson’s attorney, acted as an intermediary between June Schwartz and Barry Rothman during the custody battle between Dr. Chandler and his former wife, June Schwartz. Mr. Fields stated that he did not represent either party, but was merely carrying messages back and forth between them.

Dr. Chandler wanted June Schwartz to let him have custody of their 13-year old son for one week, beginning on July 12,1993. Mr. Rothman promised June Schwartz that her 13-year old son could be picked up at Dr. Chandler’s home on the evening of July 18,1993 and returned to her custody. June Schwartz did not trust her former husband and was reluctant to honor his request. Only after Mr. Rothman had given his word to Mr. Fields, as a fellow attorney, that Dr. Chandler would live up to his commitment and return the boy on the evening of July 18,1993, did June Schwartz allow Dr. Chandler to have custody of their son for the week.

On July 12,1993, immediately after gaining custody of his 13-year old son, Dr. Chandler demanded that June Schwartz sign a stipulation prepared by Mr. Rothman. (A stipulation is a legal document that binds the parties to the terms specified and mutually agreed upon as set forth therein.) The stipulation stated that— 1) June Schwartz would not take their minor son from the County of Los Angeles without the prior written consent of Dr. Chandler; if she did she would do so in writing, setting forth where the minor will be taken, how long he will be gone, and who he would be with. 2) It allowed June Schwartz two days visitation per week based upon the terms and conditions that she not allow their 13-year old son to have contact or communication with Michael Jackson. 3) That if June Schwartz violated this term and condition, her visitation with her son would be limited and require supervised visitation, which she would bear the cost. 4) That all outstanding child support obligations from Dr. Chandler be deemed paid in full and that no further child support be required as long as he maintained full physical custody of their 13-year old child.

On the evening of July 18, 1993, Dr. Chandler failed to return the custody of the 13-year old boy to his former wife as he had promised, despite Mr. Rothman’s word as a fellow attorney. He also ignored her repeated requests to return their son to her custody.

It appeared as if Dr. Chandler was holding his 13-year old son hostage from his mother when he presented her with the stipulation. June Schwartz stated that she signed the stipulation, as unreasonable as it was, because Dr. Chandler told her that if she didn’t sign it he would not return their son to her custody. Ironically, even though June Schwartz signed the stipulation on July 12,1993, Dr. Chandler still did not return the 13-year old boy, as he had promised, on July 18,1993.

On August 16,1993, Mr. Rothman received a call from June Schwartz’s attorney advising him that an Ex Parte hearing would be held on August 17,1993, demanding the immediate return of the 13-year old boy to her custody. As of that date, Dr. Chandler had custody of the 13-year old boy for one month and five days. He had ample opportunity to carry out the threats previously mentioned to Mr. Schwartz.

An Ex Parte motion is an emergency hearing which the Court places on its calendar to be heard the next day. It only requires notification by telephone to all the concerned parties, and opposition paperwork must be served on the parties in the courtroom and argued before a Judge during the hearing.

Ex Parte Motions allow both parties to present a memorandum of points and authorities, which presents the Judge with established laws and past cases —referred to as precedents. In other words, standards, guides and patterns. An Ex Parte Motion also allows both parties to submit a declaration, which is a signed affidavit under oath, containing pertinent facts pertaining to the action that is before him/her, along with exhibits that can offer proof of the submitted statements.

On August 16,1993, the law office of Freeman and Golden, June Schwartz’s attorneys, called the law office of Barry Rothman and informed him that they would be appearing in court the very next day to obtain an Ex Parte order demanding the immediate return of the 13-year old Chandler boy. This motion filed by June Schwartz’s attorney must have caught Mr. Rothman and Dr. Chandler off guard — it obviously was not a part of their plan and must have placed them in a panic as to how to deal with it.

I feel it’s worth mentioning that attorneys are like doctors; they specialize in certain areas of law. Mr. Rothman, being an entertainment attorney, which primarily deals with contracts and negotiations, was lacking in the area of litigation skills.

Because Mr. Rothman was not a litigation attorney, he simply responded to the Ex Parte Motion by filing a declaration on behalf of Dr. Chandler. There were no points and authorities in the declaration giving the Judge legal grounds for their position, nor did it include anything to defend their position. More importantly, there was no mention whatsoever about any suspicion on Dr. Chandler’s part in regards to his 13-year old son having been sexually molested by Michael Jackson. (There was absolutely no mention of child sexual abuse in the response to the motion.)

A real case of child molestation would have caused any normal parent to simply pick up the telephone and call the police or the child abuse hotline. Giving Dr. Chandler the benefit of the doubt in not doing what a normal parent would have done, the second course of action would have been to seek an order from the Court for custody that would guarantee the safety of his son. I know of no Judge anywhere who would not have granted Dr. Chandler an order for custody had he made any mention of sexual molestation in his response to June Schwartz’s Ex Parte Motion.

When Mr. Rothman filed the declaration in response to June Schwartz’s Ex Parte Motion on August 16,1993, Dr. Chandler had already been negotiating with Michael Jackson since August 4,1993, for money in exchange for not going public with his suspicion of child molestation.

This point, however, speaks for itself. Let me break it down and make it more easily understood. The Ex Parte Motion filed by June Schwartz caught Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman by surprise because they had not anticipated for it in their plan. (She had thrown them a curve ball…. as Dr. Chandler had admitted “we were moving according to a plan.”) Because it required immediate response and attention, they were not prepared to adequately deal with such a crucial issue on the spur of the moment.

The fact that the declaration filed by Mr. Rothman in response to June Schwartz’s Ex Parte Motion did not mention anything about Dr. Chandler’s suspicion of child molestation validates, in my mind, that they were indeed moving according to a certain plan, because that would have been the perfect opportunity for Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman to officially bring up the issue of child molestation if they wanted to make certain his son was safe. (It appeared that Dr. Chandler was holding off on reporting his allegations as part of the plan.)

When someone calls the child protection hotline and reports an incident of child abuse, they immediately assign a social worker who comes to interview the child and family. If a determination is made on the part of the social worker that the child is in danger of any type of abuse, the worker will immediately remove the child and place him, or her, in protective custody. The law requires that a hearing is set within 48 hours, giving the parents an opportunity to be heard and recommendations to be made by the social worker. Either way, it all still leads back to the court system where a determination as to what is in the best interest of the child will be made.

As a result of Dr. Chandler and Mr. Rothman not supplying the Judge with any evidence or information in the declaration stating they had good reason to keep custody of the 13-year old boy, the Court ordered, forthwith, (immediately) that Dr. Chandler return custody of his son back to June Schwartz.

The Court also ordered the stipulation that Dr. Chandler insisted June Schwartz sign be overturned. Dr. Chandler lost the Ex Parte Motion and the Court ordered him to return the 13-year old child to June Schwartz’s custody forthwith.

After being ordered to return the custody of the 13-year boy old to June Schwartz, instead of obeying the Court’s order, Dr. Chandler, instead, took the boy to see the psychiatrist, who then reported the child abuse on the same day of the Ex Parte Motion hearing—August 17,1993. It was only days after Dr. Chandler took his 13-year old son to the psychiatrist that the child molestation allegations were leaked to the news media and became public knowledge.


Sneddon then backtracked to an alleged incident at Neverland where she and her brother and sister-in-law walked into Jackson’s bedroom and saw Jackson and Jordan sitting on the bed. (Big whooptie doo!) June was then asked about the lawsuit that was filed against Jackson by Larry Feldman in 1993, and she contradicted herself by stating that she participated in it as a representative of Jordan, and she supported him, but did not “ask” for any financial compensation! What the hell was the purpose of the lawsuit if she didn’t expect to be compensated?

24 Q. Mrs. Chandler, I neglected to ask you about


25 one other incident that occurred at Neverland Ranch,


26 okay?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. So pardon me if we can go back in time from 5652


1 where we are presently. And then we’re almost done,


2 okay?


3 A. Okay.


4 Q. Do you recall whether there was ever any


5 occasion where your brother and your sister-in-law


6 ever visited Neverland Valley Ranch?


7 A. Yes, I do recall.


8 Q. Do you know approximately when it was that


9 they visited Neverland Valley Ranch?


10 A. Approximately May.


11 Q. And do you know how long they were there?


12 A. For the day.


13 Q. Just came up for the day?


14 A. Yes. For the day.


15 Q. And do you recall, were you with them while


16 they were at the ranch?


17 A. Yes, I was.


18 Q. Was Jordan at the ranch?


19 A. Yes, he was.


20 Q. Where was Jordan?


21 A. With Michael.


22 Q. Now, do you remember about what time it was


23 when you left that day, you personally?


24 A. Before eight o’clock.


25 Q. Eight o’clock —


26 A. P.m.


27 Q. P.m. Now, do you recall seeing Mr. Jackson


28 and Jordan before you left? 5653

1 A. Yes.


2 Q. And where did you see them?


3 A. They were in Michael Jackson’s bedroom.


4 Q. And do you recall — did you go into the


5 bedroom?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. Did you go in there with your brother and


8 sister-in-law?


9 A. Yes, we did.


10 Q. And when you went into the bedroom, where


11 was Mr. Jackson?


12 A. In the bedroom with Jordan.


13 Q. Do you recall where?


14 A. Could be on the bed.


15 Q. You don’t remember specifically?


16 A. Not specifically.


17 Q. Okay. And Jordan, do you recall where he


18 was?


19 A. On the bed, too.


20 Q. Now, at some point in time, Mrs. Chandler,


21 your son Jordan Chandler was involved in a lawsuit,


22 Chandler versus Jackson, a civil lawsuit. Do you


23 recall that?


24 A. Yes, I do.


25 Q. And were you a participant in that lawsuit


26 as a representative of your son?


27 A. Yes, I was.


28 Q. And who was the lawyer who represented your 5654


1 son during the majority of that litigation?


2 A. Larry Feldman.


3 Q. And to your knowledge, was a lawsuit filed


4 on behalf of your son against the defendant, Michael


5 Jackson?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. And did you assist or help Mr. Feldman in


8 the preparation of that lawsuit?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. And did you support your son during that


11 lawsuit?


12 A. I did.


13 Q. Now, as a result of the lawsuit, did your


14 son — and please — don’t tell us the amount,


15 please. Did your son receive monetary compensation


16 from Mr. Jackson?


17 A. Yes, he did.


18 Q. Now, also as a result of that lawsuit, did


19 you receive some monetary compensation?


20 A. Yes, I did.


21 Q. Did you ever ask to be compensated in any


22 way as a result of what had happened?


23 A. No.


24 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Foundation; and


25 hearsay.


26 THE COURT: All right. Overruled.


27 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: You did not?


28 A. No. 5655


1 Q. And where did the idea for you receiving


2 compensation come from, to your knowledge?


3 MR. MESEREAU: Objection, to the extent it


4 calls for hearsay.


5 THE COURT: Sustained.


6 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: As a result of this


7 lawsuit, did you receive money?


8 A. Yes, I did.


9 Q. Did you have to sign something in exchange


10 for that money?


11 A. Yes, I did.


12 Q. And what did you sign?


13 A. A disclosure agreement.


14 Q. And what does that mean?


15 A. Confidentiality agreement.


16 THE COURT: All right. Let’s take our break.


17 (Recess taken.)

In order to pound the jury with the message that Jackson pays off the parents of his “special friends” in order to gain their trust and have the ability to spend exorbitant amounts of time alone with their songs, Sneddon again questioned June about the extravagant gifts that she received from Jackson:

18 THE COURT: Go ahead.


19 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Mrs. Chandler, I just have


20 a couple of questions.


21 I want to go back to something we talked


22 about before. You told the jury that the defendant,


23 Michael Jackson, gave you a gift certificate at one


24 point in time?


25 A. Correct.


26 Q. And it was to Segal?


27 A. Fred Segal is a store in Santa Monica.


28 Q. Okay. And what was the amount of that 5656


1 certificate?


2 A. $7,000.


3 Q. Okay. Now, let’s just go back and finish up


4 the last part of what we were talking about.


5 With regard to the lawsuit, you signed some


6 kind of an agreement, correct?


7 A. Correct.


8 Q. In exchange for that, you were given some


9 money?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. Do you recall, based upon what you know,


12 what the agreement was, what it required of you?


13 MR. MESEREAU: Objection; hearsay.


14 THE COURT: Sustained.


15 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: What did you give up in


16 return for receiving money?


17 MR. MESEREAU: Same objection. Hearsay and


18 foundation.


19 THE COURT: Sustained.


20 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Did you read the agreement


21 before you signed it?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. And who presented it to you?


24 A. Larry Feldman.


25 Q. Did he go over it with you before you signed


26 it?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. And you understood what you were signing? 5657


1 A. Yes, we did.


2 Q. And you read the document?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. And what did it require you to do in order


5 to obtain money from the defendant, Mr. Jackson?


6 You personally.


7 A. We couldn’t —


8 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay and


9 foundation.


10 THE COURT: Sustained.


11 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: Have you ever written any


12 books —


13 A. Never.


14 Q. — about what happened?


15 A. No, I have not.


16 Q. Did any interviews?


17 A. Never.


18 Q. Made any money selling anything —


19 A. No.


20 Q. — about your experience?


21 A. No.


22 MR. SNEDDON: Nothing further.


23 THE COURT: Cross-examine?


24 MR. MESEREAU: Yes, please, Your Honor.

Under cross examination by Thomas Mesereau, June was grilled about the stipulation that she signed in July 1993 that allowed Jordan Chandler to stay with Evan for a one week visitation. In 1993, she signed it under penalty of law stating that the only reason she agreed to it was Evan’s threat that Jordan wouldn’t be returned to her if she didn’t sign it, and NOT because Jackson or his attorneys forced her to, as she insinuated under direct examination:





28 Q. Mrs. Chandler, my name is Tom Mesereau and I 5658


1 speak for Michael Jackson, okay?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. If anything I ask you is not clear, please


4 don’t answer. Just say you don’t understand it, and


5 I’ll try to rephrase it, okay?


6 A. Okay.


7 Q. Now, in response to the prosecutor’s


8 questions, you said you entered into a stipulation


9 regarding custody of your son Jordie, correct?


10 A. Correct.


11 Q. And in response to the prosecutor’s


12 questions, you said you did it because Michael


13 Jackson told you to do it, right?


14 A. One of the people. He was one.


15 Q. Well, do you remember signing a sworn


16 declaration regarding that stipulation?


17 A. I remember signing something about custody


18 of Jordie.


19 Q. Do you remember signing a sworn declaration


20 in which you said the only reason you signed the


21 stipulation was because your ex-husband wouldn’t


22 return Jordie to you if you didn’t, right?


23 A. Correct.


24 Q. And you said further, you thought the


25 stipulation was merely for a one-week visitation


26 period, right?


27 A. Correct.


28 Q. Nowhere in that declaration did you say 5659


1 anything about Michael Jackson telling you to sign

2 anything, right?


3 A. That’s not correct.


4 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to look


5 at your declaration?


6 A. I’d be happy to.


7 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?




9 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Miss Chandler, have you


10 had a chance to look at that sworn declaration?


11 A. Yes, I have.


12 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what


13 you said in the declaration?


14 A. Sort of.


15 Q. Isn’t it true you said the only reason you


16 signed it was because your ex-husband told you that


17 if you didn’t sign the stipulation, you would not


18 have Jordan returned to you, right?


19 A. That’s correct.


20 Q. You said that was the only reason, correct?


21 A. That’s not the only reason.


22 Q. Well, you signed it under penalty of


23 perjury, did you not?


24 A. I wasn’t asked who else was asking me to


25 sign it.


26 Q. Who prepared the declaration for you to


27 sign?


28 A. Evan Chandler’s attorney. 5660


1 Q. Were you represented by counsel when you


2 signed this declaration?


3 A. Oooh. I might have been.


4 Q. You actually were, weren’t you?


5 A. I — I don’t recall.


6 Q. You were represented by counsel because you


7 were trying to set aside the stipulation in court,


8 right?


9 MR. SNEDDON: Well, Your Honor, I’m going to


10 object to that. That’s misleading as to point and


11 time, and vague.


12 MR. MESEREAU: It’s not misleading at all.


13 MR. SNEDDON: Wait a minute, Counsel.


14 Judge, I object as vague as to time as to


15 when she was represented.


16 THE COURT: All right. I’ll sustain the


17 objection. It’s an argumentative question.


18 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Miss Chandler, at some


19 point you hired a lawyer to help you set aside that


20 stipulation, right?


21 A. I don’t know if that was the reason why an


22 attorney was hired, if it was for that reason.


23 Q. And your attorney prepared your declaration,


24 true?


25 A. I don’t recall.


26 Q. Do you recall if the stipulation was ever


27 set aside by your attorney?


28 A. I don’t recall. 5661


1 Q. Do you recall being represented by an


2 attorney named Freeman?


3 A. Yes, I do.


4 Q. And who is Mr. Freeman?


5 A. He’s an attorney that represented me for a


6 short time.

According to Mary Fischer, Freeman resigned in disgust when June Chandler decided to side with Evan Chandler out of fear that she would be accused of parental neglect for allowing Jordan to sleep in bed with Jackson. Freeman also wholeheartedly believed in Jackson’s innocence; here are a few excerpts from Fischer’s 1994 GQ article “Was Michael Jackson Framed?”

The seeds of settlement were already being sown as the police investigation continued in both counties through the fall of 1993. And a behind-the-scenes battle among Jackson’s lawyers for control of the case, which would ultimately alter the course the defense would take, had begun. By then, June Chandler Schwartz and Dave Schwartz had united with Evan Chandler against Jackson. The boy’s mother, say several sources, feared what Chandler and Rothman might do if she didn’t side with them. She worried that they would try to advance a charge against her of parental neglect for allowing her son to have sleepovers with Jackson. Her attorney, Michael Freeman, in turn, resigned in disgust, saying later that “the whole thing was such a mess. I felt uncomfortable with Evan. He isn’t a genuine person, and I sensed he wasn’t playing things straight.”

Here is Freeman’s thoughts on Jackson’s innocence:

The sole allegations leveled against Jackson, then, remain those made by one youth, and only after the boy had been given a potent hypnotic drug, leaving him susceptible to the power of suggestion. “I found the case suspicious,” says Dr. Underwager, the Minneapolis psychiatrist, “precisely because the only evidence came from one boy. That would be highly unlikely. Actual pedophiles have an average of 240 victims in their lifetime. It’s a progressive disorder. They’re never satisfied.” Given the slim evidence against Jackson, it seems unlikely he would have been found guilty had the case gone to trial. But in the court of public opinion, there are no restrictions. People are free to speculate as they wish, and Jackson’s eccentricity leaves him vulnerable to the likelihood that the public has assumed the worst about him.

So is it possible that Jackson committed no crime— that he is what he has always purported to be, a protector and not a molester of children? Attorney Michael Freeman thinks so: “It’s my feeling that Jackson did nothing wrong and these people [Chandler and Rothman] saw an opportunity and programmed it. I believe it was all about money.”


Mesereau then questioned June about a request for a $4 million dollar loan that Dave Schwartz made to Jackson.

7 Q. Do you recall asking Michael Jackson if he


8 would loan David Schwartz four million dollars?


9 A. Never.


10 Q. You say you never did that?


11 A. Never did that.


12 Q. Okay. Do you recall your ex-husband David


13 Schwartz asking you to do that?


14 A. Never.


15 Q. Do you recall him being five million dollars


16 in debt around the time you were associating with


17 Michael Jackson?


18 A. No.


19 Q. Don’t recall that at all?


20 A. Not at all.


Let’s see what Ray Chandler had to say about that loan in his book “All That Glitters” , pages 75-76:

Dave Schwartz had become a wealthy man since founding die world’s first discount car rental agency. Wealthy enough to be featured on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous. But by July of 1993 he was heavily leveraged in a depressed Los Angeles real estate market and his fortune was precarious.

A day or so before Evan went to Dave’s office to seek his help, Dave approached June with a request. One of his creditors was demanding payment of a five million dollar note but was willing to settle for a lump sum of four million. Dave asked June to present a proposition to Michael in which the star would loan him four million as part of a business deal. June agreed to pass the request on to Michael.

Survival Mode. Dave was starved for cash and waiting for Michael Jackson to feed him. According to his own testimony, Dave already suspected that the relationship between Jordie and Michael was sexual. But rather than help Evan get rid of Michael, he helped Michael get rid of Evan.

Based off the following excerpt from pages 169-170, it’s safe to assume that Jackson did not load Dave Schwartz the four million dollars!

As the meeting came to a close, all that was left was to sign the retainer agreement with Larry. Anticipating a huge settlement, Dave assumed that Larry would take less than the standard 25 percent rather than pass up the opportunity, so he began negotiating for a smaller fee.

Larry politely explained that his fee was not out of the ordinary and tried to impart to Dave some idea of the amount of work involved should the case go to trial. But Dave was intractable. He became loud and pushy, demanding that Larry negotiate. Dave was also pissed off at all of the lawyers because they told him that if there was settlement he could not be included.

Larry remained calm. He informed Dave, once again, that because he was neither Jordie’s natural or adoptive father he had no legal claims that could be included in Jordie’s complaint. But Dave became increasingly belligerent each time the lawyers explained why it was not possible. He didn’t give a damn about legalities and kept demanding money. Four million dollars, to be exact. The same amount, according to June, that he attempted to borrow from Michael.

“You fucking son of a bitch!” Evan finally snapped. “If it wasn’t for you none of this would have happened. Shut the fuck up!”

“Fuck you! I’ve supported Jordie for ten years. I’ve been through hell. I’m losing money every day at work. I have as much right to the money as you and June.”

“You greedy bastard! How can you be arguing over money we don’t even have yet. We’re talking about what’s best for Jordie and all you can think of is how much you’re gonna get. That’s all you give a shit about. You stabbed me in the back, you fucking asshole!”

“Go fuck yourself!”

“Fuck you!”

Though recent events had already exposed Dave’s true colors, Evan never suspected they could “shine” this dark. Until now he had consciously subdued his resentment, but in the heat of this verbal battle he sprang from his seat and slapped Dave in the face. Several of the lawyers stepped between tbe two men and separated them.

While Larry and June babysat Dave, Bob Shapiro and Richard Hirsch ushered Evan into an adjoining office. Dave was way out of line, no one disputed that, but they needed everyone to remain united; dissention among the ranks was a weakness the other side was sure to exploit.

There was no telling what Dave might do in his present state. The lawyers were concerned that the press would catch him running amuck and shooting off his mouth, so they prevailed on Evan to swallow his pride and apologize to Dave.


In this excerpt, June made a startling revelation: she stated that she did not sue Jackson, despite the fact that she signed the retainer agreement! You can see her signature in the photo below:

1993 Larry Feldman retainer with Evan & June Chandler's signatures

And pay attention to the language she used to describe Evan and Jordan! She said “Jordan Chandler and his family”, which is a very odd way for her to describe her son and ex-husband!

But when you consider the fact that she had not spoken to Jordan in 11 years, no wonder she felt so detached from him!

21 Q. Okay. When you sued Michael Jackson, you


22 sued through Larry Feldman, true?


23 A. I did not sue Michael Jackson. Jordan


24 Chandler and his family were — that was his family.


25 We did not sue Michael Jackson.


26 Q. Okay. So you never sued him yourself,


27 you’re saying?


28 A. I don’t believe that’s how it was worded. 5662


1 Q. Okay. Do you recall meetings with your


2 attorney about that lawsuit?


3 A. Yes, I do.


4 Q. Now, you — you and Jordan’s father Evan


5 were divorced in 1985, true?


6 A. Correct.


7 Q. And you obtained sole custody of Jordan,


8 right?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. And you had an informal arrangement where


11 Evan could have custody or at least visitation


12 rights of Jordie from time to time, correct?


13 A. Correct.


14 Q. What year did you marry David Schwartz?

15 A. 1985.


16 Q. Now, is it correct that he became Jordan’s


17 stepfather?


18 A. Correct.


19 Q. And for how long was he Jordie’s stepfather?


20 A. For approximately six to eight years.


21 Q. What year did he cease to be Jordie’s


22 stepfather?


23 A. When we divorced.


24 Q. And what year was that?


25 A. 1994.


26 Q. And how old is Jordie now?


27 A. He is 25 years old.


28 Q. Can I ask you when you last spoke to him? 5663


1 A. 11 years ago.

June Chandler couldn’t recall Dave Schwartz’s lawsuit against Jackson, in which he claimed that Jackson “interfered” with his business:

2 Q. At one point, David Schwartz sued Michael


3 Jackson, correct?


4 A. I don’t recall.


5 Q. Do you recall him suing Michael Jackson


6 claiming that Michael had interfered with his


7 business?


8 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


9 object as immaterial; irrelevant; calls for hearsay.


10 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall.


11 THE COURT: It’s vague as to time.


12 MR. MESEREAU: Okay. I’ll rephrase it, Your


13 Honor.


14 Q. Around the time you and Evan and Jordie sued


15 Michael Jackson with Attorney Larry Feldman, do you


16 recall your ex-husband, David Schwartz, also suing


17 Michael Jackson?


18 MR. SNEDDON: Same objection, Your Honor.


19 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall.


20 THE COURT: Overruled.


21 You may answer.


22 THE WITNESS: I don’t recall.


23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Okay. Do you recall, in


24 response to your lawsuit, Mr. Jackson suing for


25 extortion?


26 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


27 object to that question.


28 THE COURT: Sustained. Foundation. 5664

Let’s look at what Mary Fischer had to say about Dave Scwhartz’s frivolous lawsuit against Jackson in 1994:

In what may turn out to be the never-ending case, this past August, both Barry Rothman and Dave Schwartz (two principal players left out of the settlement) filed civil suits against Jackson. Schwartz maintains that the singer broke up his family.


June once again downplays her role in the lawsuit that she signed on to, and received money from, against Jackson in 1993!

1 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: You sued Michael Jackson,


2 right?


3 A. Jordan Chandler sued Michael Jackson.


4 Q. Were you listed as a plaintiff?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. And in response to your suit, Mr. Jackson


7 sued for extortion, true?


8 A. I don’t recall.


9 Q. Okay. Were you and Evan and Jordie all


10 represented by Larry Feldman?


11 A. Yes, we were.


12 Q. Do you know approximately when that suit


13 settled?


14 A. I guess in ‘95.


15 Q. Do you recall Evan suing Mr. Jackson a


16 second time?


17 A. No.


18 Q. Don’t know anything about that?


19 A. Nothing.


20 Q. Never heard about it?


21 A. No.


22 Q. Do you know who Attorney Barry Rothman is?


23 A. Yes.


24 Q. Who is Attorney Barry Rothman?


25 A. He was Evan Chandler’s attorney.


26 Q. Do you recall Attorney Barry Rothman also


27 suing Michael Jackson?


28 A. No, I don’t. 5665

Well, June couldn’t recall Evan Chandler’s second lawsuit against Jackson in 1996, but I sure can! He sued Jackson, Lisa Marie Presley, Diane Sawyer & ABC News, Walt Disney Company, Sony Music, and “John Does 1 through 300”, claiming that they participated in slandering him on Jackson’s “HIStory” album, his interview with Diane Sawyer, and other outlets. He sued for $60 million dollars, and the rights to record a “rebuttal” album against Jackson called “EVANstory”! Seriously!

Here is a post on his lawsuit; be sure to open the link that is included so that you can read the lawsuit in its entirety!

Next, Mesereau questioned June about her knowledge of Jackson’s lucrative endorsement deals and ownership of the Beatles catalog. This was to show the jury that Jackson was a financial lottery ticket for the Chandlers, who filed their frivolous lawsuit against Jackson to get a piece of the pie! The fact that Larry Feldman was threatening to ruin Jackson’s music deals speaks volumes! Also, does anyone honestly believe that June and Larry Feldman didn’t discuss the current Arvizo case when they spoke a few days prior to her testimony? I surely don’t believe her, especially given the fact that Feldman admitted earlier in the trial that he spoke to Dr. Stan Katz about the case, which the defense used as a reason to have a mistrial declared, although Judge Melville ultimately ruled against it. (For more information on this, read this post.)

1 Q. Okay. Now, during your trips with Michael


2 Jackson, do you recall the name “Sony” ever being


3 mentioned?


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. And in what context was Sony mentioned?


6 A. The gifts that Michael Jackson gave were


7 from Sony. Sony recorders. We flew on the Sony


8 jet. That’s what I remember.


9 Q. And do you recall, around the time you were


10 associating with Michael Jackson, that Michael


11 Jackson had an endorsement deal with PepsiCo?


12 A. Yes.


13 Q. And to your knowledge, that was the most


14 lucrative endorsement deal anyone in the music


15 business had ever entered into with PepsiCo,


16 correct?


17 A. I didn’t know that.


18 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, that’s immaterial


19 and irrelevant.


20 THE COURT: Foundation; sustained.


21 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Do you recall learning


22 from Michael Jackson that he owned an interest in


23 The Beatles’ catalog?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. Did you discuss that with Mr. Jackson?


26 A. Never.


27 Q. Did you discuss his deal with PepsiCo with


28 Mr. Jackson? 5666


1 A. No.


2 Q. When you filed your lawsuit against Mr.


3 Jackson, your attorney was threatening to ruin Mr.


4 Jackson’s music deals, correct?


5 A. No. Not that I recall.


6 Q. You don’t recall that at all?


7 A. Not at all.


8 Q. Do you recall participating in settlement


9 negotiations?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. And when you participated in settlement


12 negotiations, where did you used to meet?


13 A. Larry Feldman’s offices.


14 Q. When did you last talk to Larry Feldman?


15 A. Oh, a few days ago.


16 Q. Did you talk about what you were going to


17 say in court?


18 A. No.


19 Q. Did you talk about what he said in court?


20 A. Briefly.


21 Q. Did he call you or did you call him?


22 A. I called him.


23 Q. Before this discussion a few days ago, when


24 was the last time before that you had spoken to


25 Larry Feldman?


26 A. Oh, um, maybe two months before that.


27 Q. And did you talk to him about this case in


28 that discussion? 5667


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. Did you talk to him about what you were


3 going to say?


4 A. No.


5 Q. Did you call him or did he call you?


6 A. I called him.


7 Q. Did you talk on the phone with him or did


8 you meet with him?


9 A. Yes, talk on the phone.


10 Q. Before that discussion, when had you last


11 spoken to Attorney Larry Feldman?


12 A. Perhaps ten years ago.


13 Q. Okay. But you never discussed anything


14 about this case in those discussions, right?


15 A. No.


16 Q. And you never talked about what you were


17 going to be asked in this courtroom in any of those


18 discussions, right?


19 A. Not to that effect, no.


20 Q. Did Mr. Feldman tell you he represents the


21 Arvizos in either of those discussions?


22 A. I don’t know what that is.


23 Q. Okay. So he never talked about his

24 representing anyone associated with this case,


25 besides you, right?


26 A. Correct.

June was then asked by Mesereau to confirm that Jordan dressed like Jackon for many years prior to meeting him, and this was very common back in the peak of Jackson’s fame in the 80’s and early 90’s (and even now after his death!), as the photos below clearly indicate:

Young MJ impersonatorYoung MJ impersonator 2Young MJ impersonator 3

27 Q. Now, you said something in response to the


28 prosecutor’s questions about your son changing the 5668


1 way he dressed at one point, right?


2 A. Correct.


3 Q. Didn’t your son used to try and dress like


4 Michael Jackson before he even met him?


5 A. When he was very young.

June was also asked about any meeting she had with prosecutors prior to testifying, and this time she was actually honest and admitted that she and Sneddon discussed what questions she would be asked, and what answers she would give:

6 Q. Did you meet with the prosecutor before you


7 testified today?


8 A. Yes.


9 Q. When did you meet with the prosecutor to


10 talk about anything you said today?


11 A. Two days ago.


12 Q. And where was that meeting?


13 A. In downtown L.A.


14 Q. And who did you meet with?


15 A. With my attorney.


16 Q. And who is your attorney?


17 A. Brad Barnholtz.


18 Q. Who else did you meet with?


19 A. Tom Sneddon.


20 Q. Okay. How long a discussion was that?


21 A. Oh, perhaps an hour and a half.


22 Q. Did you talk about what you were going to


23 say today?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. Did Mr. Sneddon go over some questions that


26 he was going to ask you?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. Did you ever go over some answers that you 5669


1 were going to give?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. When had you met with Mr. Sneddon before


4 that meeting?


5 A. Never.


6 Q. Have you talked to him on the phone?


7 A. Yes.


8 Q. How many times?


9 A. Once or twice.

Here is June’s description of her first time meeting Jackson:

10 Q. Okay. Now, where did you first meet Michael


11 Jackson?


12 A. At Rent-A-Wreck. The business of my


13 ex-husband.


14 Q. And that was the day that Mr. Jackson had a


15 problem with his car, right?


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. Okay. And when did you see him after that


18 initial meeting?


19 A. I guess maybe approximately a few months


20 after that.


21 Q. The first meeting was approximately August


22 ‘92, right?


23 A. Correct.


24 Q. Okay. And when do you think the next


25 meeting was?


26 A. Perhaps maybe in February.


27 Q. Okay. And again, how did that meeting


28 happen? Who called who? 5670


1 A. How did the meeting —


2 Q. The second meeting. The first time you saw


3 him when he had a problem with his car, right?


4 A. Correct.


5 Q. And then there was a meeting after that?


6 A. Right.


7 Q. How did that happen?


8 A. Through phone conversations with my son.


9 And he — and Michael Jackson invited us to


10 Neverland.


11 Q. Okay. How did you get to Neverland?


12 A. By car. By my car. I drove.


13 Q. Okay. And did you stay over at Neverland


14 that first time?


15 A. Yes, I did.


16 Q. How long did you stay?


17 A. I would say for two nights. One or two


18 nights.


19 Q. Okay. And your daughter was there as well,


20 right?


21 A. Yes, she was.


22 Q. Okay. And you said that you, your daughter,


23 your son, stayed in the guesthouses, correct?


24 A. Correct.


25 Q. Now, what did you do during the day during


26 that visit, during the two days you were there?


27 A. We watched movies. We went on rides. We


28 visited his zoo. Things like that. 5671


1 Q. Okay. And how did you get home? Did you


2 drive?


3 A. Yes, I did.


4 Q. When did you next talk to Michael Jackson


5 after that?


6 A. Oh, I think probably the day after we got


7 back.


8 Q. Did he call you?


9 A. Yes.


10 Q. Okay. Did you talk to him?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. And when did you get together again?


13 A. Perhaps a week later. A week or two later.


14 Q. Did you go to Neverland again?


15 A. Yes, we did.


16 Q. How did you get there?


17 A. He drove. His — sorry, his chauffeur


18 drove.


19 Q. Okay. And did you stay over —


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. — on that second trip?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. And how long was your stay over there?


24 A. A couple of nights.


25 Q. Okay. Do you remember what you did on that


26 second trip?


27 A. Same thing.


28 Q. Okay. Did you see Michael very often on the 5672


1 first trip?


2 A. The whole time, yes.


3 Q. Did you see him —


4 A. Yes.


5 Q. — very often on the second trip?


6 A. Yes.


7 Q. When you said you went to the zoo and did


8 these fun things, was Michael always with you?


9 A. The first and second time?


10 Q. Yes.


11 A. Basically, yes.


12 Q. Okay. Did you have dinner in the main house


13 with Michael?


14 A. Yes.


15 Q. And of course your children were there too,


16 right?


17 A. Correct.

Sneddon made a very strange objection in this excerpt; he objected to Mesereau referring to Jackson by his first name, and to me it seemed kind of odd that he would object to such a petty issue, but I guess because he knew his case was being blown out of the water he needed to find something to nitpick! Besides, I don’t recall him objecting whenever any prosecution witnesses referred to the prosecutors and sheriffs by their first names!

Mesereau then questioned June about her statements to the Sneddon in 1993:

18 Q. After that second trip, when did you next


19 have contact with Michael, if you remember?


20 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


21 object to the use of the first name.


22 THE COURT: All right.


23 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll say “Michael Jackson,”


24 Your Honor.


25 Q. After your second visit to Neverland, did


26 you have further contact with Michael Jackson?


27 A. Yes, I did.

28 Q. And please explain what your next contact 5673


1 was all about.


2 A. I don’t know if that was the time we again


3 went to Neverland or we had taken a trip to Las


4 Vegas.


5 Q. Now, in your discussion with the Los Angeles


6 District Attorney in 1993, you talked about your


7 visits with Mr. Jackson, right?


8 A. Correct.


9 Q. Have you looked at that transcript recently?


10 A. Yes.


11 Q. When did you last look at the transcript?


12 A. Briefly, today.


13 Q. And how did you get a copy of it?


14 A. Through Mr. Sneddon.


15 Q. Okay. Did he ask you to read it today?


16 A. Did he ask me to read it today?


17 Q. Yes.


18 A. No.


19 Q. Did he ask you to read it at any time?


20 A. Yes, he did.


21 Q. And when was that?


22 A. Last week.


23 Q. Did he give you anything else to read before


24 you testified?


25 A. That’s it.


26 Q. Okay. And did you read it from cover to


27 cover?


28 A. Tried. 5674


1 Q. Pardon me?


2 A. Yes.


3 Q. Okay. Okay. You told the District Attorney


4 in Los Angeles when describing your first trip


5 there, “Michael Jackson wasn’t the superstar. He


6 was a regular person, and we couldn’t believe how


7 nice he was,” right?


8 A. Correct.


9 Q. And you said that after you got there, he


10 offered to let you stay over, correct?


11 A. Correct.


12 Q. Your plan initially wasn’t to stay over,


13 right?


14 A. Correct.


15 Q. You said that first night, Jordie actually


16 knocked at your door and said he was going to stay


17 with you, right?


18 A. Correct.


19 Q. So the first night he stayed with you and


20 your daughter, right?


21 A. Correct.


22 Q. Okay. Now, when did you go to Toys-R-Us


23 with Michael Jackson?


24 A. Could have been the first visit or the


25 second visit.


26 Q. Okay. And did Michael Jackson offer to take


27 you there?


28 A. Yes. 5675


1 Q. And he did take you there, right?


2 A. Yes, he did.


3 Q. Did he drive or did you have a driver take


4 you there, do you know?


5 A. We must have had a driver.


6 Q. Okay. Now, at one time, did you visit Roy


7 Disney’s widow with Michael?


8 A. Never.


9 Q. Okay. At some point you told the Los


10 Angeles District Attorney that Michael was visiting


11 Roy Disney’s widow in Beverly Hills; do you remember


12 that?


13 A. Not really, but I don’t recall.


14 Q. Do you recall telling that to the Los


15 Angeles District Attorney?


16 A. I don’t recall.


17 Q. Would it refresh your recollection to let


18 you see that page?


19 A. Yes.


20 MR. MESEREAU: May I approach, Your Honor?


21 THE COURT: Yes.


22 THE WITNESS: Thank you.


23 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Have you had a chance to


24 look at that?


25 A. Yes.


26 Q. Does it refresh your recollection about what


27 you told the Los Angeles District Attorney?


28 A. Yes. 5676


1 Q. And what did you tell them about that?


2 A. I said that I was — we had left and Michael


3 was — I had left Neverland with Jordie and Lily,


4 and he was going to visit Roy Disney’s widow.


5 Q. Okay. Now, was that while you were visiting


6 Neverland?


7 A. After we left.


8 MR. SNEDDON: Object as to vague as to time


9 as to what visit.


10 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it.


11 Q. During what visit did Michael Jackson tell


12 you he had to visit Roy Disney’s widow?


13 A. The first visit.


14 MR. SNEDDON: Object as to hearsay.


15 THE COURT: Overruled.


16 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: Was it the first visit?


17 A. I think so.


18 Q. Do you recall if you and your family stayed


19 at Neverland while Mr. Jackson left the premises?


20 A. I don’t recall that.


21 Q. Okay. Do you recall him making a trip like


22 that?


23 A. Yes.

In this excerpt, June recalled the times that she spent at Jackson’s hideout apartment, and she once again reiterated the myth that Jackson spent 30 consecutive nights at her house (this will be refuted at the end of this post):

24 Q. Okay. You talked about gifts that Mr.


25 Jackson gave you, okay?


26 A. Okay.


27 Q. Did you ever ask for any of those gifts?


28 A. No. 5677


1 Q. Did he just give them to you on his own


2 initiative as far as you’re concerned?


3 A. Yes.


4 Q. Okay. Tell us all the gifts you recall him


5 giving you.


6 A. A gold bracelet. A pair of earrings. A


7 necklace. A ring. A gift certificate to a


8 boutique. That’s what I recall.


9 Q. Okay. And you said he gave you his credit


10 card to use?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. Did he do that more than once?


13 A. He might have, yes.


14 Q. And do you recall what you bought with


15 Michael Jackson’s credit card?


16 A. I know I — I think two handbags.


17 Q. Anything else?


18 A. Not that I recall, no.


19 Q. Okay. How many nights do you recall Mr.


20 Jackson staying at your house?


21 A. To the best of my recollection, 30 nights.


22 Q. And approximately what time period was that,


23 if you know?


24 A. Beginning the middle of April till the end

25 of May.


26 Q. Were you at your house on every evening that


27 Michael Jackson stayed over?


28 A. Yes. 5678


1 Q. You said something to the effect, I believe,


2 that Mr. Jackson would leave during the day?


3 A. Correct.


4 Q. Do you know where he went?


5 A. Not really. I —


6 Q. Did you ever ask him?


7 A. Sometimes.


8 Q. Okay. And where did he tell you he was


9 going?


10 A. Going home.


11 Q. To Neverland?


12 A. Working. No, not to Neverland. I think his


13 hideout, to his place that he calls “The Hideout” in


14 Century City.


15 Q. That’s the place you visited, correct?


16 A. Correct.


17 Q. How many times were you at that apartment?


18 A. Approximately three or four times.


19 Q. Okay. When you went to the apartment that


20 you’ve described as Michael Jackson’s hideout, were


21 you always with your son?


22 A. Yes.


23 Q. Were you ever with anyone else?


24 A. Not that I recall.

Here are June’s recollections of her interactions with Brett Barnes and Wade Robeson:

25 Q. Okay. You indicated you met someone named


26 Brett Barnes at Neverland, right?


27 A. Correct.


28 Q. Do you know when you first met him? 5679


1 A. It could have been the second time that we


2 were going to Neverland.


3 Q. And he was actually in the limousine that


4 Michael Jackson sent to pick you up, right?


5 A. Correct.


6 Q. Was that the first time you had met him?


7 A. Yes.


8 Q. Okay. Was that the trip you went to


9 Disneyland?


10 A. It could be, yes.


11 Q. And was Brett Barnes with you on that trip?


12 A. I would assume so. I’m — I don’t recall.


13 Q. Do you know if his mother was there on that


14 trip?


15 A. No.


16 Q. So it was you, Michael Jackson, your two


17 children, and Brett, right?


18 A. Perhaps Brett.


19 Q. You’re not sure?


20 A. Exactly.


21 Q. Did you go back to Neverland after the trip


22 to Disneyland?


23 A. I don’t recall.


24 Q. Okay. You indicated you met someone named


25 Joy, right?


26 A. Correct.


27 Q. And when did you meet someone named Joy?


28 A. Later on, in — could be May. April or May. 5680


1 Q. And where did you meet her?


2 A. At Neverland.


3 Q. Okay. Was she staying there when you stayed


4 there?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. And did she have a son, to your knowledge?


7 A. Yes, she did.


8 Q. And who was that?


9 A. Wade.


10 Q. Okay. How often did you see Joy Robeson and


11 Wade Robeson at Neverland?


12 A. I remember seeing Joy once. And Wade, I —


13 it could be a few times. I don’t recall.


14 Q. When you were at Neverland at the same time


15 that they were there, did you associate with them?


16 A. Yes.


17 Q. Okay. And what did you do with them?


18 A. I had dinner with Joy, where we talked. And


19 with Wade, if we went — if there was a movie


20 playing, I guess he was with us also.

Mesereau needed to dispel the prosecution’s assertion that Jackson’s only reason for spending the night at June’s home was to be close to Jordan, so he had her confirm that she and her entire family routinely ate dinner with Jackson, not just Jordan.  

21 Q. When Michael Jackson used to stay at your


22 home, were you in the middle of a divorce


23 proceeding?


24 A. No.


25 Q. Were you separated?


26 A. Yes.


27 Q. Did you used to discuss your problems with


28 David Schwartz with Michael Jackson? 5681


1 A. Yes.


2 Q. You actually had a lot of discussions,


3 didn’t you?


4 A. Not a lot.


5 Q. You told him it was a poor relationship,


6 didn’t you?


7 A. What was a poor relationship?


8 Q. Your relationship with David Schwartz.


9 A. I told whom? I’m sorry.


10 Q. Michael Jackson.


11 A. Oh. No. I — I don’t — I didn’t get into


12 my relationship about David Schwartz to Michael.


13 Q. So you never discussed it with Michael


14 Jackson?


15 A. I just said that we were separated and these


16 were not wonderful times for us.


17 Q. And you would discuss with him from time to


18 time the problems you were having, wouldn’t you?


19 A. No. No, I wouldn’t.


20 MR. SNEDDON: Object as irrelevant, Your


21 Honor, not to mention hearsay.


22 THE COURT: Overruled. The answer was,


23 “No.” Next question.


24 Q. BY MR. MESEREAU: During those 30 nights


25 that Michael Jackson stayed at your house, did he


26 have dinner at your house?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. And was it usually you, he, your son and 5682


1 daughter at dinner?


2 A. At times.


3 Q. Who else would join you for dinner?


4 A. That’s it.

Now, Mesereau is about to question June about the trip to Vegas where she confronted Jackson about Jordan sleeping in his room without her permission, and you’ll see that there is some interesting information that Sneddon intentionally left out of his direct examination (primarily the fact that she never suspected any improper conduct by Jackson towards Jordan):

5 Q. Did you ever have dinner yourself, without


6 your children, just with Michael Jackson?


7 A. No.


8 Q. Have you ever traveled with Michael Jackson


9 without your children?


10 A. No.


11 Q. When did you go to Las Vegas with Michael


12 Jackson?


13 A. Around the end of March.


14 Q. And what was the purpose of that trip?


15 A. I guess Steve Wynn, the owner of the Mirage


16 Hotel, invited Michael to come and stay and vacation


17 in Las Vegas for a few days.


18 Q. And did you meet Mr. Wynn while you were


19 there?


20 A. Yes, I did.


21 Q. How long were you in Las Vegas for that


22 trip?


23 A. Two or three nights.


24 Q. And again, how did you get there?


25 A. Steve Wynn’s jet.


26 Q. And did his jet take you back home


27 afterwards?


28 A. Yes. 5683


1 Q. All right. When you went to Las Vegas on


2 Steve Wynn’s jet, had Michael Jackson begun to stay


3 over at your home?


4 A. No.


5 Q. Did Michael Jackson begin to stay at your


6 home after that trip to Las Vegas?


7 A. Yes.


8 Q. Now, did you travel with Michael Jackson to


9 any other cities in America during this period of


10 time?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. Where did you travel to?


13 A. To Florida and New York.


14 Q. Was that Orlando, Florida?


15 A. Correct.


16 Q. And when did that trip happen,


17 approximately?


18 A. Oh, approximately April, I guess.


19 Q. And what was the purpose of that trip, if


20 you know?


21 A. To go to Disney World.


22 Q. Did you do that?


23 A. Yes, we did.


24 Q. How long a trip was that?


25 A. A couple of days.

26 Q. And then did you come back?


27 A. Yes.


28 Q. The rooms in your hotel, describe the rooms, 5684


1 if you would.


2 A. I don’t remember The Grand Floridian, what


3 the rooms were like.


4 Q. And did you have your own room?


5 A. Yes.


6 Q. Did Michael Jackson have his own room?


7 A. Yes, he did.


8 Q. And did your children have their own room?


9 A. I’m not sure.


10 Q. Do you know where your children stayed?


11 A. Yes.


12 Q. Where did they stay?


13 A. Jordie, my son, stayed with Michael, and


14 Lily stayed with me.


15 Q. And did you ever object, during that trip,


16 to your son staying with Michael?


17 A. No.


18 Q. You never suspected anything improper was


19 going on on that trip, correct?


20 A. Correct.

Mesereau pivoted to the topic of Neverland and children who hung out there, in order to give the jurors the correct impression of Jackson’s interactions with them. June testified that the reason Jordan asked to sleep in Jackson’s bedroom (and not the other way around!) during the third visit is because there were so many other children (boys AND girls) who hung out in his bedroom.

Also, pay attention to Mesereau’s question regarding the dissimilarities between Jordan Chandler’s and Macaulay Culkin’s looks; he wanted to refute the media myth that Jackson had a certain “type” of boy, and that many of his “victims” looked alike:

21 Q. You mentioned some children from New Jersey


22 that you met at Neverland, right?


23 A. Correct.


24 Q. And who were they again?


25 A. Frank and Eddie Cascio.


26 Q. Okay. And did you ever meet their parents?


27 A. No.


28 Q. When did you first see them at Neverland? 5685


1 A. I don’t recall. Could be the third visit to


2 Neverland. Fourth visit.


3 Q. When was the first time your son Jordan


4 asked if he could sleep with Michael Jackson?


5 A. I would say starting the third visit to


6 Neverland, second or third visit to Neverland,


7 because there were always boys around and staying in


8 his bedroom, and why couldn’t he? And that’s when


9 he started asking.


10 Q. And was it your understanding that there


11 were a lot of kids hanging around Michael Jackson’s


12 bedroom?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Did you see —


15 A. Boys.


16 Q. Excuse me. Did you see a lot of kids at


17 Neverland while you were there?


18 A. A lot of Michael’s —


19 MR. SNEDDON: Excuse me.


20 Object as to vague.


21 MR. MESEREAU: I’ll rephrase it. Let’s go


22 through the first trip.


23 Q. Did you see a lot of kids at Neverland


24 during your first trip?


25 A. No.


26 Q. Did you see a lot of kids at Neverland


27 during your second trip?


28 A. No. 5686


1 Q. How many other children at Neverland did you


2 see on your first trip?


3 A. No other kids on the first trip.


4 Q. How many kids at Neverland did you see on


5 your second trip?


6 A. One.


7 Q. How about your third trip?


8 A. Third — Frank and Eddie Cascio.


9 Q. Any other children on the third trip?


10 A. It could have been Macaulay Culkin also.


11 Q. Okay. Did you meet Macaulay Culkin at


12 Neverland?


13 A. Yes.


14 Q. Macaulay Culkin doesn’t look at all like


15 your son, does he?


16 A. No.


17 Q. Did you meet Macaulay’s parents?


18 A. Father.


19 Q. At Neverland?


20 A. Yes.


21 Q. And that was, you think, the third trip?


22 A. Could be. Could have been.


23 Q. Did you ever see him at Neverland again?


24 A. Yes.


25 Q. When did you next see Macaulay Culkin at


26 Neverland?


27 A. Fourth or fifth visit.


28 Q. Was anyone else from his family there; do 5687

1 you know?


2 A. His brothers were there.


3 Q. Okay. Was it your understanding that the


4 Culkins were good friends of Michael Jackson?


5 A. That Macaulay Culkin was good friends with


6 Michael Jackson.


7 Q. What about his family? Was it your


8 understanding his family were close friends of


9 Michael Jackson?


10 A. Not close friends.


11 Q. Did you really know?


12 A. It didn’t appear that they were close


13 friends, no.


14 Q. Do you know if his parents used to visit


15 Neverland?


16 A. His father used to visit Neverland with


17 Macaulay.


18 Q. Did you hang out with them when you were at


19 Neverland?


20 A. Did I hang out with —


21 Q. The Culkins.


22 A. No.


23 Q. Then how would you know whether or not they


24 were close with Michael Jackson?


25 MR. SNEDDON: Your Honor, I’m going to


26 object as argumentative.


27 THE COURT: Sustained.

To be continued:

24 Comments leave one →
  1. Pamela and pete permalink
    May 11, 2020 7:02 pm


  2. stacy2 permalink
    April 20, 2013 8:18 pm

    am i the only one who finds it odd that june still uses the “chandler” last name and even gave it to her daughter when she had her with another man?

  3. February 11, 2013 9:17 pm

    So let me see if I’m getting this part right…Is this also a case of “a woman scorned” ? Just wondering. Holy smoke!!

  4. jan permalink
    January 6, 2013 3:00 pm

    this rubbish by stacy brown especially comments underneath could do with a comment:

    • nannorris permalink
      January 6, 2013 6:53 pm

      I saw Stacey Brown thing and almost replied , but he seems desperate for hits using the term J@ck@ countless times ,to get a rise out of fans, so I dont want to give it to him , because it might impress his editors , like it does for DD..He is just a could respond on twitter, he doesnt make money off that ..I think that is the way I will go with that

  5. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 6, 2013 12:19 am

    “As for Michael wanting to be with Jordan? I think it was the other way around and Michael could never say no to him or any other child.”

    Lynande, Can this be true–that Michael took Jordan to NL, LV, NYC, FL, Monaco, Paris, disneyland,etc, etc. and spent so many nights at his house in Santa Monica and 2 weekends at Evan’s and wanted to take him on tour just b/c JC wanted it and he couldn’t say no? I think Michael must have wanted to be with JC and enjoyed his company, and this is what I do not get, esp.given what a creep he turned out to be.

    The other thing that seems strange to me, and of course I do not think anything sexual happened between them, but why when he started hanging out with them only on Feb. 12, 93 did he start insisting (according to June) end of March in LV–‘we’re a family.’ Huh? In 6 weeks people he did not spend time with before became a family? Doesn’t it take time to get to know people and develop friendships? He was way too trusting and vulnerable to these sharks from hell.

    When I see Jordan sitting on Michael’s lap in Monaco it makes me so sad. He was on top of the world and he didn’t know that the one to bring it all down was the boy sitting on his lap at the award ceremony. He had no idea. Why was Jordan even there in the first place? I don’t get it.

    I agree re the similarities that nannorris points out to the Arvizos, but at least Gavin was sick when MJ met him–what about Jordan? I just don’t get the reason Michael wanted to be with Jordan to the extent he did. And if he did not want to be with him, I think he could have limited the contact. Maybe you are right Jordan wanted it more than Michael, but Michael was too compliant and went along to extraordinary lengths and I think he must have wanted to be with Jordan too.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 6, 2013 12:49 am

      I think perhaps Mj felt he knew them longer because they were on the phone for months before..
      Besides , we are only hearing Junes side of it , and she certainly seemed to want to make him a part of her family.
      Seems to me she didnt like to leave MJ side either.’
      If you read her testimony , she lined up Mr Schwartz and married him the same year she divorced Evan.She must have thought he had money because I guess he was on a segment of “Lifestyles of the rich and famous” from what I read.
      Has a child with Schwartz but doesnt even give Lily her fathers last name ..Keeps Chandler for herself and her daughter.
      My own opinion is that it doesnt have anything to do with being a modern woman, it is just she is a vain person and Chandler has a nicer ring to it..
      She divorced him in 94 , I think and I believe MJ was to be her next victim, so perhaps she was the one to mention she felt HE was part of her family..
      Maybe that is why he was so upset , because SHE told him he was family
      If you didnt think he was family, why would you invite your brothers and their wives to Neverland and tell him to show up in NY when you are visiting family?.
      When you read Franks book, he doesnt seem to be giving JC any more attn then anyone else there.Some of these trips , like Disney had other people there too.
      I think he gave this family more attn, in the long run because they were in a distressful situation with the mom saying she was financially and emotionally in need and he just ate that stuff right up.
      He always seem to jump in with both feet if someone was sad or in need.
      Complete strangers .
      Remember the story of him being on a plane and someone in coach fainted. he brought up to first class , ended up giving this old couple a ride home and carried their bags in for them according to their grandson.?
      He like to help people ..

      He and Gavin are the only two that Kiki mentioned were rude and demanding, at times at Neverland
      There always seemed to be lots of people around at Neverland.
      I think he went to the Chandlers like he would go to the Cascio and just camp there, leave during the day , take a shower , do some work and come back for dinner.
      This was a predator family to me.
      Both those parents had ulterior motives so …I really dont see Jordan having any integrity either.

    • lynande51 permalink*
      January 6, 2013 6:16 am

      First let me correct one thing. Jordan was not sitting on Michael’s lap in Monaco. He was sitting on the chair. If you watch the video of it you can see that Michael is moving to the music and Jordan is not.
      Next thing for Nan Evan’s real name was Charmatz he changed it because he thought it sounded to Jewish and people could say Chandler better. As for why Lily got Chandler I will never understand Dave not insisting that she have his name.
      Michael met Jordan in May of 1992. He was gone for several months on the Dangerous Tour. When he would call Jordan (ten phone calls in nine months is that alot) he also would put one of the other kids on the phone with him, Brett mostly.Then he had a brief hiatus from October until December where he did not have them come to Neverland but was home. But guess what coincides with that time that he was off. It was in November of 1992 that he went to dinner at Brett Livingstone- Strong’s and met Lisa Marie for the first time as an adult.Lisa has admitted that they met in Las Vegas several times before she ever divorced. Then Lisa was at the conference in Atlanta in early May 1994 when Michael was there. That was not a coincidence.
      We know that Evan was aware of Lisa and Michael’s feelings from the beginning of the Schwartz/ Chandler tape. As a matter of fact the way that Evan is talking it is like there is a threat that he was going to go to Lisa with his suspicions too. IN the beginning Evan even talks about June and Michael being a couple sometime in the future but then they find out about Lisa and they know that June doesn’t have a chance anymore up against her.
      Then when Michael was first talking to Jordan on the phone Dave and June were still together. When he gets back and starts to invite them down to Neverland Dave suddenly leaves the house so June is alone. They sure seem to have told Michael a lot of their problems from the sounds of it and Michael would of course had sympathy for the family and everyone knows that Michael felt sympathy for everyone with a sad story.

    • aldebaranredstar permalink
      January 6, 2013 1:21 pm

      Thanks, Nan and Lynande, for your replies and info. I didn’t realie Jordan was not sitting on MJ’s lap. However, why couldn’t he had had his own seat? The fact that they were sharing one chair like that, in the front row, right next to Prince Albert (!) was flaunting the relationship in a way that was practically asking for trouble. I mean Jordan could have sat in his own chair somewhere else, not in the front row. It would seem there would have been a place for him, Lily, and June to sit togther? On the other hand, someone I respect enormously, said essentially this (and this person did not say this with Michael in mind): There are times in your life that you do things you wish you had never done. Why? My response to this question is that you’re searching for love. You’re seeking love. You want to experience that love. So if I look at Michael’s actions this way, it helps me understand them.

  6. lynande51 permalink*
    January 5, 2013 4:08 pm

    Here is a link to the Lawsuit that Evan filed on August 17th, 2009. It was a personal injury lawsuit against the drug company Novaris for the Drug Zometa. It is used in chemo therapy for leukemia. He got the side effect osteonecorsis of the jaw. This one had to be refiled because it was added to the Fosamax lawsuit.
    If you just type in Zometa or Novaris Evan Chandler it will get the page where is was dismissed with prejudice in 2011. as well. Even in death this family and this man were all about getting their share of whatever pie was being served.

  7. lynande51 permalink*
    January 5, 2013 1:46 pm

    No June was not wearing a blonde wig at the WMA’s in Monaco. She sat a row back from Michael and the kids sat with Michael up front. Next to Michael was Prince Albert of Monaco on one side and the American Actress Linda Evan’s that was holding Lily and shared her seat with Jordan at times.
    As for Michael wanting to be with Jordan? I think it was the other way around and Michael could never say no to him or any other child. We are after all only hearing the Chandler’s side. Even Ray Chandler and Evan admitted that they were “negotiating” with Michael for money before they made any public accusation so how is that not extortion?
    As for Jordan I believe that he felt almost exactly like Gavin Arvizo did when he realized that Michael wasn’t going to be in his world he wanted to hurt him. That would be a no brainer when you think of who it was that he had to listen to everyday of his life. Evan and probably even Nathalie were very bitter about not getting the sum of money that they wanted when they did just exactly what he threatened to do when he was on the phone with Dave Schwartz. Feldman was just the kind of lawyer hell bent on winning that they needed to get the money they demanded from Michael.
    As for Jordan… we will never hear that man say anything about this because I firmly believe he will turn out just like his father and at somepoint in his life he will use his children the same way his father used him. Unlike Michael he doesn’t have the personality to decide not to hurt other people. His personality was set once Evan got custody of him and used him to make money. When people say that he confessed to friends in college that it never happened there is no way of knowing if he was remorseful or just bragging about it.
    The thing is there is a balance in the world and a reason that sayings like ” you reap what you sow” exist. At some point Jordan will have to pay in some way for embracing the money that he got more than the friendship he was given from Michael. God help him when he does and the people in his life that will be affected by him. I alos believe that in the end he will be just as alone as his father was when he took his own life.
    Also Evan did not take his life out of any kind of remorse. He took his life because he had just been diagnosed with a rare but disfiguring side effect of the Chemo drug he was on for his Gaucher’s disease called osteonecrosis of the jaw. I have the document where his estate joined in a class action suit against the drug company. So much for the theory that he had remorse because to me that says that it was vanity that made Evan Chandler kill himself.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 5, 2013 8:03 pm

      I dont think Evan had remorse either.He was sick and the FBI files were coming out , This is it is playing to huge audiences , people are crying all over the world .And lots of people are beginning to look into this garbage..Probably figured it was as good a time as any , to put himself out of his missery…
      I agree with you that JC was probably just as bitter as Gavin , for the same reasons.I think both those families had a lot in common , just a different zip code.
      They both wanted to be in the entertainment business and famous and make lots of money..
      I am sure JC figured this problem with Evan and MJ canceled out any connections he may have had in the music or entertainment business and thought he deserved t be compensated.
      A sense of entitlement, so bad , that the Chandlers actually got pissed off at MJ that he wouldnt just hand them screenplays or money, when they threatened him ..
      He had the audacity to say no ..

      I was thinking earlier today about JC, since I saw something on about different locations associated with his name.addresses for..Westhampton, NJ and Souix City, SD where the skiing is so great and marina del ray…, NYC
      June had some L.A.,Santa Monica and Honolulu, although she could have lived there before she got her cash out of MJ….
      These people have no conscience , they believe they should have had such status all along …………….
      JC friend is dead and he really doesnt care, same as Gavin and his family..
      But once you get to a certain point of wealth, it is all the same. most.people become bored if they have no direction.
      Even JFK JR, with all his money formed the Robin Hood charity and started a magazine.
      This guy appears to do nothing., besides stocks and an occasional song he writes ..
      I dont believe he is married , who would want him?
      First off ,you know he would insist on a pre nup, because he isnt parting with any of that cash..
      And how could anyone really trust someone who would do such a thing to another person
      I am sure he doesnt trust many people either …
      Jason Francia has a child from what I understand.’When his child gets older and googles his fathers name and this site comes up, how will he explain being a supposed youth minister , but bearing false witness against his neighbor in court.ALL FOR MONEY.
      Even if someone did marry JC, what kind of person would want to be involved with him..Take this crap on..Have him as the father of your child.
      I really dont think there is a line at the door to be involved with him., no matter how rich he is..
      Life flies by so fast, money or no money…And no one can be sure , if there is a judgement day…him included…
      Sooner or later, everyone starts thinking about their own mortality and that money isnt going with him..

  8. aldebaranredstar permalink
    January 5, 2013 12:33 am

    I can’t believe these scumbag Chandlers did what they did to Michael. How could Jordan at age 18 when he must have reconsidered the whole mess of lies he told and how it affected Michael, how could this dirtbag then sue him for what he said to Diane Sawyer–that the allegations were lies? That there were no markings? And for 60 million dollars?? These people had and have NO SHAME. Some people try and portray Jordan as an innocent kid who was strongarmed by an unscrupulous and manipulative and violent father–and maybe that did happen at age 13–but at age 18 wheh he already had his millions? No excuse that time around IMO.

    I just hate that Michael let these people into his life. Why did he want to be with this kid Jordan? With Gavin at least you could see that he had cancer and that Michael wanted to help him out of compassion, but Jordan had nothing wrong and what did he have that was worth spending so much time with him?? Why did he even want to take him on tour? Can’t figure that one out at all. Michael hardly knew this kid, as the first time he visited NL was in Feb 93. What was so appealing about this creepy group of people?

    BTW, was June wearing a blonde wig at the Monaco Awards?

  9. lynande51 permalink*
    January 4, 2013 6:58 pm

    Oh by the way that is the lawsuit that Diane Dimond likes to tell people that she got the settlelment from. She says that it was from Lisa Marie’s lawyer that probably leaked it. But considering not every lawyer in California approved of her I would say it was far more likely that her Court TV budget bought it from Henry Vaccarro. He probably didn’t do it right away but when he was ordered to bring it back from it’s “European Buyer” at his expense I think that was right up his alley to let her copy it at which time she editted out that financial parts. Why because if Lisa Marie’s lawyer had a copy of it it would not have had to be redacted for that lawsuit because they were being sued for a breach of the lawsuit. She sure does count on the ignorance of the masses and laziness not to figure things out for themselves.

  10. lynande51 permalink*
    January 4, 2013 6:44 pm

    This is in with the other documents that Gutierrez had in his book. Originally when it was just in the book you couldn’t make out what it said but thanks to scanning it in and turning the book into a PDF file you can read them all. The lawyer was just advising Jordan that it would become part of his emancipation file and open to the public if he did not file it under seal. Even though he was filing for emancipation he was still a minor just responsible for his own money which could have meant a lot of things at that point in time.
    By the time he filed for this Evan and Nathalie were divorced and he obviously did not want to go with Evan. That is on another document where he says where he is living and files with the court how much money he had in his trust to support himself.

    Then there was that second lawsuit that Evan filed. He did not file until May of 1996. I’m thinking that it was because he would have been advised against it by any attorney but we see how much he listened to them. Then at one point he joined the second lawsuit which was ordered into arbitration because he was suing them for breach of the confidentiality agreement. That was not to be heard in court because it was never heard in court. The judge ordered it to arbitration the first time around. That is where Michael’s attorneys lost control of the negotiations in the first place, because a team of retired judges make up JAMS.
    Then if you read the settlement agreement you can see that if there is a MATERIAL breach of the agreement it must go to arbitration before it goes to a judge or jury. That would be a material breach meaning that if the settlement money was not in the trust when it was supposed to be. Not for anything else. They were not to make money from their story. Neither was Michael and that is where Evan thought he had them becuase Michael’s team knew that Evan was writing a book and that is why they were given money in the settlement. Not for any other reason because they were then bound by the confidentiality agreement not to sell their story in any way shape or form. That is why everyone refused to publish it.
    Jordan joined Evan in 1998 when he turned 18 and they lost the lawsuit. They were ordered to pay both Lisa’s and Michael’s attorney so I would imagine that took a nice chunk out of the settlement too. I think Jordan was asked to get the money so Evan could use it to file for his second lawsuit against Michael.
    I am going to show the case summary of that lawsuit so everyone can see for themselves what happened there. Evan’s case was ordered to arbitration and Michael was awarded compensation for his legal fees and so was Lisa. Michael’s lawyers asked for the two to be put together for arbitration when Jordan filed his own lawsuit against Michael in May of 1998. My guess is that it took quite a chink out of his money to pay for their legal fees and his and his fathers. Not much left when you see the picture below of what he had in the bank in August of 1995 and was in his trust when he was emancipated in November of 1995.
    Case Summary

    Case Number: SC052717
    Filing Date: 05/26/1998
    Case Type: Commrcial Compl-Not tort or Complx (General Jurisdiction)
    Status: Judgment by Court-Petition granted 07/01/1999
    Future Hearings
    Documents Filed | Proceeding Information
    CHADLER JORDAN – Plaintiff
    GOLDENRING & PROSSER – Attorney for Plaintiff
    KATTEN MUCHIN ZAVIS & ROSENMAN – Attorney for Defendant
    KIRKER & FOX – Witness
    MIJAC MUSIC – Deft’s DBA
    MJJ PRODUCTIONS INC. – Defendant
    Case Information | Party Information | Proceeding Information
    Documents Filed (Filing dates listed in descending order)
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Second Appellate District
    08/26/1999 Memorandum of Costs
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/16/1999 Notice (NTC TO ATTY IN RE NTC OF APPEAL )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    08/12/1999 Notice of Entry of Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    08/03/1999 Judgment
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    06/16/1999 Notice of Motion (MOTION TO CONFIRM ARBITRATION AWARD; )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    06/04/1999 Notice of Motion (MOTION TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    06/04/1999 Declaration
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    05/12/1999 Order
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    05/12/1999 Ex-Parte Application
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/15/1999 Notice (NTC OF ENTRY OF ORDER )
    Filed by Witness
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/03/1999 Declaration (- of Jane H. Farr re notice of ex parte application of defendant Michael Jackson for an order shortening time for a hearing on his motion to compel the appearance of third-party witness)
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/03/1999 Order (- shortening time )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    03/02/1999 Ex-Parte Application (- for an order shortening time for a hearing on his motion to compel the appearance of third- party witness )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Defendant
    02/24/1999 Notice of Ruling (MOTN TO CONSOLIDATE ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    02/19/1999 Miscellaneous-Other (supplemental opposition to defendant’s motion to consolidate )
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    02/09/1999 Proof of Service
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 02/05/1999
    02/05/1999 Motion to Consolidate
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    10/05/1998 Order (COMPELLING ARBITRATION )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff
    07/14/1998 Order (PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    07/14/1998 Ex-Parte Application (APP FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER SEALED )
    Filed by Attorney for Defendant
    05/26/1998 Complaint Filed
    Click on any of the below link(s) to see documents filed on or before the date indicated:
    TOP 02/05/1999
    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed
    Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order)
    07/01/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Patricia L. Collins, Presiding
    Motion to Vacate – Motion is granted in Part
    06/16/1999 at 10:00 am in Department WEA, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Status Conference (TO MONITOR ARBITRATION.) – Status conference is held & cont.
    05/12/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEG, Paul G. Flynn, Presiding
    Exparte proceeding – Granted-Uncontested
    03/08/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Compel – Motion Denied
    03/03/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEQ, Master Calendar, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (Ex parte application denied onMarch 2, 1999 is readdressed andgranted.) – Granted-Uncontested
    03/02/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEQ, Master Calendar, Presiding
    Ex-Parte Application (- for an order shortening timefor a hearing on his motion tocompel the appearance of third-party witness) – Denied
    02/26/1999 at 08:30 am in Department WEJ, Lorna Parnell, Presiding
    02/22/1999 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Consolidate – Motion Granted
    01/25/1999 at 09:30 am in Department A203, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Status Conference (TO MONITOR ARBITRATION.) – Status Conference continued
    09/10/1998 in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Ruling on Submitted Matter – Motion Granted
    08/26/1998 at 01:30 pm in Department WEB, Stanley Weisberg, Presiding
    Motion to Compel – Submitted
    07/14/1998 at 08:30 am in Department WED, Alan B. Haber, Presiding
    Case Information | Party Information | Documents Filed | Proceeding Information

  11. lynande51 permalink*
    January 4, 2013 3:36 pm

    Well here is is the letter from his attorney advising Jordan about emancipation. It is dated June 13th, 1995. The interview with Michael and Lisa Marie aired on June 14th, 1995. Of course ABC would have contacted the Chandlers to see if they wanted to talk to them too. I don’t know when they shot the tape if it was the same night or not it might have been.
    So Jordan was already on the way out of Evan’s control when the taping happened and the money was going to be placed in an irrevocable trust. What did happen between Evan and Jordan that made him not want to ive with the father that they pretend “saved” him from Michael. Seems to me that Jordan used the money to save himself from his father.

  12. lynande51 permalink*
    January 4, 2013 3:03 pm

    I’m not sure about this but my guess on the reason that she refers to him as Jordan Chandler and Jordan Chandler’s family is because at some point he told her he did not consider her his mother. Otherwise it just does not make any sense.
    In 1995 when Jordan filed for, and was granted his emmancipation, he stayed with Nathalie Chandler Evan’s second ex-wife. Now why would you chose a step mother over your own parents unless you were incredibly angry with them for what they did to you? What did he do? He chose the one person that stayed completely out of the whole mess and wanted nothing to do with it from the beginning. That says everything you need to know.
    It should also be noted that the second lawsuit that Evan filed against MJ was right around the time he petitioned for emanicipation. I wonder if Evan was pushing for him to go on TV or give an interview and that is why he asked for emancipation. I think that is in one of the letters so I will go read it and see for sure if that was the timing or not.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 4, 2013 9:39 pm

      I agree with that ..Why chose to live with the one parental figure who refused to profit off this thing..even though , I think she ended up taking some of Evans loot , in her divorce., she refused to take part in it and once again , someone withon the household , that sneddon didnt drag into court.Probably another reason Evan wanted a book deal ..she might have taken half

  13. nannorris permalink
    January 4, 2013 10:24 am

    I found this part interesting
    13 Q. At some point in time did you have a

    14 conversation with Michael Jackson about signing

    15 those papers?

    16 A. I don’t recall talking to Michael about the

    17 papers.
    then after prompting from Sneddon and showing her papers..
    it goes to this-
    Q. And do you recall whether the defendant was

    12 present?

    13 A. He was present.

    14 Q. And does it refresh — did the defendant,

    15 Michael Jackson, make statements to you with regard

    16 to the particular documents that you were being

    17 asked to sign?

    18 A. Yes, he did.

    19 Q. And do you recall what he told you?

    20 A. He was frantic. He was begging me to, “Come

    21 over and sign this so there won’t be any lawsuits or

    22 anything. Just sign it, sign it.”

    23 Q. And, in effect, what you signed did what to

    24 you personally?

    25 MR. MESEREAU: Objection. Hearsay;

    26 foundation.

    27 MR. SNEDDON: Let me go back, Judge. I

    28 think I can correct this. 5651

    1 Q. I am assuming you read the document before

    2 you signed it?

    3 A. Briefly.

    4 Q. And you understood what it meant when you

    5 were signing it?

    6 A. Not really.

    7 Q. Okay. You understood — well, let me ask

    8 you this: Did you understand — if you didn’t

    9 understand all of it, you understood some of it,

    10 correct?

    11 A. Yes, I did.

    12 Q. Did you understand a part of it that had to

    13 do with who was going to have custody for the

    14 children temporarily?

    15 A. Exactly, yes.
    Who in their right mind would forget what led to you losing custody of your son, nevermind , you are blaming MJ but you couldnt recall he was frantic etc.
    these people are either liars or the worst parents in the world,
    I also notice it is some supposed big deal that JC doesnt want to call his father on Fathers day..
    Maybe that is the actual time of the wedding because , if Fathers day is such a big deal, I would think he would have been spending it with his Dad , instead of just phoning him, from the opposite coast !
    Otherwise why would you agree to spend time in NY on Fathers day , so that doesnt seem very important to me.
    And if you are in NY , you are engaged in activities..
    It was these parents jockeying for position in MJ life ..This kid was a pawn for each of them.
    The part about Sneddon objecting to Mesereau referring to MJ by first name ….
    I guess , he didnt want the jury to start feeling close to MJ , wanted to objectify him., like with the Makeup remarks and stuff.”Michael Jackson”, not a real person….
    Although, I bet if we look back , some of the prosecutors might have referred to him as just Michael too..I will have to check..
    After all, this thing was personal for all those prosecutors too..
    I think it is interesting that someone who supposedly destroyed your life , would be referred to over and over again by June Chandler as “Michael” and yet her own son , she refers to as “Jordan Chandler ” an in Jordan Chandler and family..
    I havent seen any references from Sneddon ,as to if June had been told MJ and JC were showering near the arcade or if JC ever told his mother there were instances of inappropriate behavior on MJ part.
    If she was allowed to tell the jury that JC told her he wanted to stay in MJ room , I would think she would be allowed to say her son told her other things , like he was accosted by MJ ..but nothing is brought up,, by Sneddon, to tie into the Ralph Chacon stuff.

    • nannorris permalink
      January 4, 2013 11:09 am

      I meant to say also that it had probably been just about the same amount of time that she had been distanced from JC and Michael, yet she still refers to MJ on a first name basis.Somebody does something to your child , you dont hug them like Evan and you dont refer to them in a familiar way as June does.,, and not your own son, as you try to distance yourself from that lawsuit..


  1. Chandler-Schwartz Conversations- Part 3 – An Integrated Analysis Part A | mjjjusticeproject
  2. April 11th, 2005 Trial Analysis: Bob Jones, Stacy Brown, June Chandler, and Dwayne Swingler, Part 1 of 4 « Michael Jackson Vindication 2.0

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: