Comments on: The Cross Examination Of June Chandler Schwartz

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:47:55 +0000

If you’d like to have a conversation about this article, please jump over to the forum section. You can go straight to the thread in the allegations section by clicking this link: http://forum.mjfiles.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=35

By: Polly

Polly — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:49:56 +0000

I can’t help thinking that regardless of everything, she was still a mother and hence, maybe genuinely torn between believing Michael or believing Evan. She had, after all, put all her trust in Michael, and would therefore not want to believe Evan’s claims. But i’m still bothered by the accounts that she pretty much pushed the friendship by telling Michael to call Jordan, kind of like pimping her son out. That part makes me wonder about her, what kind of mother would use her son that way?

By: Brian

Brian — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 21:54:40 +0000

This whole June and Jordan thing, is like actors talking about the part they played in some movie. Like this… “oh ya, your right, my part was to be angry, oh yes and then my line was” The goal was reached, and Michael was pushed into playing ball with “THEM”.

By: Polly

Polly — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:56:28 +0000

She sounds as if she wants us to think she’s completely innocent in the events of ’93. She may have been lying here because at the time she was still genuinely in two minds about whether to abandon Michael and support Evan?

By: Salvador Astucia

Salvador Astucia — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:56:38 +0000

June Chandler did quite a bit of lying under oath and should have been charged with perjury. Another area of perjured testimony was when Tom Mesereau pointed out that she and her ex-husband began settlement negotiations before they bothered reporting the so-called molestation incident to the police. Geraldine Hughes summarized it this way: “A real case of child molestation would have caused any normal parent to simply pick up the phone and call the police or child abuse hotline.” (Redemption, p 81)

Here are Ms. Chandler’s evasive and false responses to that line of questioning:

Q. Just very briefly, you and Evan hired attorneys and tried to negotiate a financial settlement before you ever talked to any police officer, right?
A. No.
Q. You were negotiating for money before you ever reported anything to any police officer in Los Angeles, correct?
A. Not correct.
Q. Do you know the dates you hired your attorneys?
A. After we spoke with the police.
Q. You’re saying that under oath?
A. That’s what I believe, yes.
Q. You don’t know that for sure, do you?
A. I’m sure.
Q. Your negotiations went on long before you ever went to any police officer in Los Angeles, true?
A. False.
Q. Do you know when you first went to any police officer?
A. After the police, after we spoke to the police.
Q. It was after you spoke to Larry Feldman on a number of visits, correct?
A. Not correct.
Q. It was actually Larry Feldman who contacted the police, wasn’t it?
A. No.
Q. You didn’t talk to any prosecutor in Los Angeles before you retained Gloria Allred, correct?
A. Yes. Correct.
Q. You didn’t talk to any police officer in Los Angeles before retaining Gloria Allred, correct?
A. Can you backtrack a bit? Can you –
==

She needed to take a break to get her lies back on track.

By: Polly

Polly — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 02:54:06 +0000

…and when Meserau asks her about the civil suit, she goes as far as to deny all responsibility for it, saying it was Evan’s civil suit. Funny, when if you look at the actual document, her signature is right there next to Evan’s, and it’s well known that she accepted her share of the cash.

By: Salvador Astucia

Salvador Astucia — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 22:58:35 +0000

I did not realize June Chandler testified in the molestation trial of 2005. Tom Mesereau did a great job discrediting her; she would not answer the most basic questions. She should have been charged with perjury. No wonder her son stopped speaking to her.