June Chandler’s testimony at the 2005 trial revisited. THE LOVE BRACELET
After two posts about the insider’s letter it has become clear that the goal of my writing about it has been totally misunderstood. Of course it is my fault and no one else’s, so let me try and explain it again.
THE INSIDER’S LETTER
I’m comparing every little detail of that letter with real events known to us now not because I want to savor the most intimate details of Michael’s personal life, but because I need to make sure that the letter is authentic. By authenticity I mean that it was written by someone who knew Michael’s most intimate secrets and is able to tell us the truth. And if the insider is found a credible source of information in all other matters, his statement about June Chandler may be regarded as perfectly credible too.
And what does the author of the letter say about June Chandler and her son? Well, nothing much.
The author simply includes June Chandler into the list of Michael’s love affairs or at least love interests, and calls Jordan a punk bitch who got jealous of mommy’s relationship with Michael (“punk bitch” means cowardly and mean).
Let us note that the matter-of-fact way he mentions them shows no desire on the author’s part to rub the information in, which is uncharacteristic of a fan but typical of a true witness – he talks of it like someone who really knows and just states the truth without any hysteria or sensationalism.
Quiet as this statement is, it is still impossible to overestimate it. It shifts the focus of the 1993 case from the “child molestation” absurdity to the reality of a man-woman relationship, putting the official Chandler story into a big lie category and once again stressing the thoroughly heterosexual side of Michael Jackson (which the author of the letter already explained to us through various other cases).
This revelation tells us the true essence of the 1993 case – among all the Chandlers Michael was interested in the woman, while they presented it as if he was interested in the boy instead.
What feeling Michael had for June Chandler and how far these relations went we will probably never know – but the new focus in that story fits in perfectly well with every little detail we know of the case.
It explains all the issues still outstanding about June Chandler – for example, why Michael introduced her to the royalty by taking her and her kids to a party thrown by Prince Albert of Monaco. After all he didn’t do it for anyone else – for example, the Cascio kids and their mother though they were practically his second family.
Michael’s possible marital interest in June Chandler will also explain why Michael stayed in June Chandler’s house and why he arrived there every day in time for the family dinner, and why he then helped Jordan to do his homework – if this was supposed to be his family, it was a natural thing for him to treat Jordan like his own son.
It explains why June Chandler was actually accompanying Michael wherever he went, though no other woman in his surrounding ever did it and so openly too, except for Lisa Marie and Debbie Rowe at a later time. If you come to think of it June was the first woman to stay with Michael in his hotel suites and accompany him to many places of the world, including the official ceremonies.
Well, if this was supposed to be a family, it explains why Michael always carried little Lily Chandler in his arms on all the pictures we have of them together and is tenderly kissing and hugging her each time.
In short Michael seemed to be adopting this family. He was in some relationship with this woman, treated her children as his own, took her to the top of the world and tried upon himself the role of her spouse and a family man.
This was exactly what the gossipy National Enquirer wrote about Michael and June Chandler and her kids after their joint visit to Monaco, and this sent both of June’s former husbands into a rage. Unfortunately the article is absolutely nowhere to be found now, so we will have to go by what Ray Chandler tells us about it:
On the morning of May 7, Evan drove to Junes to see her and the kids off on a trip to Europe. They’d be joining Michael in Monaco for the World Music Awards. “At that point,” Evan later told the police, “I didn’t believe anything inappropriate was going on. Jordie looked great and acted the same as always. I was happy for him.”
June was ecstatic about the trip. Over and over she told Evan about the “seven-thousand-dollar first-class tickets” Michael had given her, waving them in the air as Evan helped load their bags into the limo.
“I was happy for June, too,” Evan said. “Dave never treated her that well, but Michael was nice to her. I half-joked, ‘Hey, maybe you’ll marry Michael.’ It would have been great for both of them. He’d get a new image and she’d finally have a peaceful relationship.”
It was no secret that June and Dave, now estranged, were not a match made in heaven. Over the years she had threatened several times to divorce him. Dave was a hard-core workaholic who was rarely at home, even on Sundays, and he often lived away from his family for months at a time.
Simultaneous with their return from Europe, the National Enquirer released a story that disturbed Evan greatly. While he was aware that anyone hanging around with Michael would eventually appear in the tabloids this particular story was about Michael’s new family and described Jordie as if he was the singer’s adopted son.
The article was pure hype, but Evan feared that Jordie might now be a target for kidnappers or jealous fans. Michael had voiced his love for many children, all children, but never before had any one child been described as being that close to the superstar.
Knowing that Dave would share his concerns, Evan suggested he tell June to “stop yapping to her friends.” It was a sister of June’s closest friend who had sold the story to the Enquirer.
Two days later June called Evan to scold him for telling Dave she had a big mouth. No sooner had June finished with Evan when Dave called. If Evan was upset about the Enquirer article, Dave was livid. “That asshole is destroying my business and my family!” he screamed into the phone. Dave told Evan he was getting calls from friends and business acquaintances expressing their sympathy for the loss of his family. He felt humiliated.
Dave also felt double-crossed. Before June left for Europe he gave her five thousand dollars and told her not to accept any gifts from Michael. Dave didn’t seem to care at this point that Michael was constantly showering presents on his kids, but his wife was another story. June took the five thousand, but she was not about to pass up a Jackson-financed shopping spree just to pacify the ego of her estranged husband.
Dave was jealous, but of greater concern was the effect on his business. He was heavily leveraged in a down-turned real estate market, and things were not going well. With his family’s exploits plastered all over the tabloids, his creditors became even more nervous now that his personal life was unstable.
“Calm down,” Evan told Dave. “I’ll call June and see if I can work things out.”
But June had her own lament. “He wants me to get rid of Michael,” she told Evan. “Why should I? Michael’s been good to the kids and me. Dave ignores them. He hardly even bothers to call Kelly anymore. Uh-uh, no way.” It appears as if June was more willing to get rid of Dave than she was of Michael. Dave and June’s marriage had been strained for many years and they had unofficially separated several months before Michael came into their lives.
Though said very carefully in order not to disclose to readers too much truth, the above piece still throws some light on the relations between Michael and June Chandler. With a context like that the information from Michael’s insider does not look that surprising any more. The author of the letter has already proven to us that he knew the most intimate secrets of Michael Jackson’s relations with other two women – Lisa Marie and Debbie, including details only an insider could know, and now that he comes with a statement about June Chandler, there are many indications that it may indeed be true.
We are simply not yet able to grasp this phenomenal news as we are still under the spell of the twenty years of lies about the 1993 case. However now that we’ve marked the 20th anniversary of those events it is high time we reviewed them again and cleared them of all lies once and for all.
What I mean is that it is time for us to realize that the so-called 1993 case was revolving not around JORDAN Chandler and the rest of them – no, it was revolving around JUNE Chandler in the first place, as well as her children of course.
JEALOUSY AND THE WELL-WISHERS
For Jordan Chandler it could have indeed started with jealousy of her mother’s relationship with Michael and the attention Michael gave her on a steady basis. Jealousy was the feeling Michael seemed to arouse in everyone around him as almost all his friends and acquaintances, young or old alike, were competing for his attention, were tearing him apart and wanted him for themselves only.
But though the boy’s jealousy could probably be dealt with in this or that way, Evan’s scandalous suspicions about him could not. Judging by the question Evan Chandler asked Michael almost immediately after meeting him for the first time (“Are you f—-g my son in the ass?”), Evan defied all rules of decency and this could be done only if he was full to the brim with crazy ideas about Michael and could not hold himself any longer. And this in its turn could happen only if someone infinitely crafty in the art of poisoning and slander was pouring venum into Evan’s ears.
From all we know about the 1993 case the only person able to do it was a suspected pedophile and a proven attendee of the NAMBLA conference Victor Gutierrez who, according to his own words, made rounds of all parents in Michael Jackson’s vicinity telling them fake pedophilia stories about the man which “everyone” allegedly knew, and since he himself says that he made rounds of everyone around Jackson, there is no reason to exclude Evan Chandler from the list.
Considering that Gutierrez also had a bad habit of presenting himself as a ‘secret agent’ – so secret that he unabashedly bragged about it in the media – the subversive work he was doing against Jackson could affect even Jordan’s perception of Michael. At a certain point it must have become not only jealousy but suspicions too – though he knew Michael hadn’t done any harm to him, how could he be sure that Michael hadn’t done it to others, especially if some seriously-looking and bespectacled guy presenting himself as an undercover agent assured his father (and him too) that “he knew of cases of abuse”?
As a side note it would be interesting to mention that the list of the so-called “molested” boys Jordan allegedly knew (Culkin, Brett, etc.) miraculously coincided with the list of cases described by Gutierrez in his book of lies about MJ, which he presented in five separate files to a woman who would later become his big friend and co-conspirator in the art of slandering Michael Jackson – Diane Dimond. Gutierrez presented to her those five files even before the 1993 case started and the police began their investigation.
Dimond speaks about it to CNN on August 26, 1993:
DIMOND: Well, I’ll tell you, Mary, I was in a unique situation because Hard Copy is the only- I think I’m the only reporter, I think I can safely say that, to have seen the official documents, the official allegations against Michael Jackson. I got lucky, I’ll be honest with you. A source came to me, said, ‘I want you to see something.’ I met him at a location and looked at it, and it was a stack that thick of documents about the Michael Jackson case. We ran with it on Tuesday because I had it in front of me. I studied these documents for a long, long time, I corroborated as much as I possibly could, and I, too – like Leslie, I’ve covered a lot of child abuse stories back in New Jersey, the Kelly Michaels case, several of them – and I read the narrative of this child and it was familiar, the same terminology was used. This boy said that when he finally, in June, told the superstar that ‘I don’t want to see you anymore’ – they were in Monaco at the time – Jackson threatened him and said, ‘Well, you know, if you tell, you’re going to go to juvenile hall.’ That’s sort of a typical abuser thing to do.
Again, I want to stress, I don’t know if the documents I saw, if the narrative of this boy is true. But again, like Leslie says, I think we have a responsibility to report what we- what we know, especially about role models, and especially when it involves children. We told you on Tuesday night on Hard Copy that there were other cases involved, and last night I was able to go with- there are four other what they call corroborating- no, they call them companion cases. The L.A. Times went with it this morning. But we’re not talking about one 13-year-old boy, gee, are his parents having a custody fight. We’re talking about five separate case files.
Diane Dimond On CNN Breaking The Chandler Story [August 26, 1993]
Of course those stories were not true. Gutierrez invented the salacious plot from beginning to end. But what’s important here is that by the time Gutierrez met the Chandler he had collected at least four more “files” about Michael Jackson which he then turned in to Diane Dimond’s Hard Copy for the sake of publicity and since then this suspect pedophile became her “best source” as she called Gutierrez herself.
Jordan could be a victim of Gutierrez’s lies too. And if Jordan Chandler also had the misfortune to listen to some learned pundits who would cram his mind with ideas of Michael “grooming” him and explaining that a mere watching TV in Michael’s room was just the first step to something sinister, then we can be sure that at some point his jealousy for the mother could turn into anger towards Michael and result in a collaboration with his father Evan.
But how come boy stayed in Michael’s room at all?
I think it was simply due to Michael leading a nocturnal way of life.
Why he developed this style is a long story but his most activity did take place at night when he could not sleep and preferred to watch TV, hang out with whoever was by his side, ride the corridors of a hotel in carts and throw water balloons from the balcony as if he were a kid, walk in the streets and even go shopping. The very first conclusion we can make from the above is that thinking that Michael was “sleeping” in bed at night would be a big fallacy – it is others who sleep in bed at night, while he was awake and busy with things people are usually busy with in the daytime.
He even preferred working at night. Recently I found a story about it told by a man who was shooting “Scream” with Michael Jackson and he said that all the work on the Scream video was done at night. Actually it is a story about an unfortunate accident he had and how much compassion Michael showed for the man:
This was a crazy big job, no doubt about it. Three stages, over a dozen sets, twenty shoot days.
On the first day of shooting we had a 7am call, except Michael was detained until mid-afternoon. Then hair and make-up, get him to the set and it’s 4:30 pm before we roll. It became clear that we would be shooting nights for the next twenty or so days. It was also clear that Michael liked it this way…working at night, that is.
As predicted, crew call switched from 7am to 4pm, and we worked throughout each night until 4-6am.
When Mark called out for a piece of the ceiling to be trimmed, I grabbed a 12-step (ladder), scrambled to the top and began sawing. In an unfortunate moment the portable saw kicked back and amputated a third of my left ring finger. Without word, I reached in my back pocket for my rag, wrapped my finger with it and stepped down off the ladder and exited the set. I passed Tom on the way out and showed him what happened. Tom escorted me to the edge of the stage and I laid down on the concrete. It wasn’t long before an entire film crew of towering bodies was in a half circle looking down at me. Union guys chewing gum. 3am. Right?
Suddenly the crowd parts and Michael appears and stands there for a moment, leaning over me, looking down. He looks at my left hand held in the air then he looks at me. Then just like that he is on his knees by my right side and he picks up my right hand and holds it in his. He looks me straight in the eye and tells me how sorry he was, he kept repeating how sorry he was, and then he had tears in his eyes and he held my hand until the ambulance came and took me away.
That next week, recovering at home, the gifts began arriving from Michael and Janet, tasteful and cool things like great soaps, a bathrobe, incense, a card. Anyway, that’s my story. Michael Jackson held my hand, too. Michael, if you read this, thanks for caring.
Great story and I am sorry that it happened to the guy too, but we should go back to Michael’s nightly shifts.
So what was a customary routine for Michael looked extremely suspicious to the rest of the world – what is he doing there at night? Surely he cannot be just sitting on a bed, watching TV or playing video games? It must be something sinister… I do not rule out that at some point Jordan also began thinking that even it nothing wrong had happened to him yet it would eventually come to it as all those ‘well-wishers’ around him were saying.
Jordan could easily forget that Michael was never inviting anyone to his room – they wanted to stay by his side themselves and even he, Jordan, constantly nagged his mother June for a permission to stay in Michael’s room.
These night adventures of Jordan Chandler were discussed by Sneddon and June Chandler at great length at the 2005 trial. Please note that what the prosecutor bluntly calls “sleeping with Michael Jackson” June Chandler corrects into just “staying in his bedroom”:
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.
Since we haven’t talked about this matter for a long time I think we should refresh our memory about the sleeping arrangements Michael had with June Chandler and her kids – for example, in Las Vegas in April 1993.
ONE ROOM FOR ALL
In Las Vegas, same as in Monaco in May 1993, all the four of them occupied a three-bedroom suite where each had a room of their own. Michael had his, June and Lily had theirs and Jordan had a separate room too.
And though these are June Chandler’s own words at the 2005 trial the media people like Randall Sullivan (for example) still don’t know about this arrangement and tell us a melodrama version about June and Michael staying in different suites and June allowing Jordan to stay in “Michael’s suite” only on condition they keep to separate rooms there, so on and so forth.
Sullivan’s soap opera describes June being in an “emotional strain” though from what I’ve read of her she seems to be made of concrete and stone instead of human feelings:
Speaking through an emotional strain that was quite convincing, June delivered the most devastating moments of testimony against Michael Jackson that were heard during the entire trial. Shortly after telling her son that he would not be allowed to stay in the same suite with Michael unless they slept in separate bedrooms, June recalled, she heard a knock at the door of her own hotel room (R.Sullivan)
“Her own hotel room” is one of the false details you’ve surely overlooked. The reality was different – all were staying in one three-room suite and moreover, all of the four of them slept in one room the first night they stayed in Las Vegas. It was June Chandler’s room, which is a fact that surprised even Sneddon:
1 And who was in your room when you first got 2 there? Who was staying in your room? 3 A. Jordan, myself, Lily and Michael. 4 Q. All in the same room? 5 A. Correct.
To understand a couple of things about June Chandler and the real events behind her story we need to reconstruct those several notable days she and her kids spent with Michael Jackson in Las Vegas in April 1993. In order to do that we need to revisit June Chandler’s testimony once again.
JUNE CHANDLER’S VERSION
According to June Chandler the second night of their stay in Las Vegas “things changed” which in that context means that during the second night Jordan stayed in Michael’s room and this was his “first time” ever:
6 Q. Now, did those arrangements change at any 7 point in time? 8 A. Yes. 9 Q. And when did they change? 10 A. The second night things changed. 11 Q. With regard to “things changed,” could you 12 tell me what changed first? 13 A. Well, there were approximately three 14 bedrooms in that suite at the Mirage Hotel. Lily 15 and I were staying in one bedroom, Jordie had 16 another bedroom, and Michael had another bedroom. 17 The second night, they were going to see a 18 performance, Cirque du Soleil performance.
On the other hand we remember from some other sources that the “first time” started with the Exorcist movie and not the Cirque du Soleil performance. However from June Chandler’s account we find that she is not quite in the picture as she says that she was only “told about the movie”.
Well, she is not the first one to be only told about things. Previously we had another instance of it when everyone except Tom Sneddon was also “told” that Michael’s photos of intimate parts supposedly “matched” Jordan’s description. It was a match so “good” that even Jordan’s lawyer demanded that they should be barred from the trial (in order not to dismay the accuser of MJ and disrupt their lawsuit against him). Here is an article about it: http://articles.latimes.com/1994-01-05/local/me-8514_1_michael-jackson
I’ve just reminded you of it in case you forgot, so let’s not deviate from the Exorcist point further:
3 Q. Okay. At some point did you all see an 4 Exorcist movie? 5 A. No. 6 Q. Do you recall anyone watching an Exorcist 7 movie? 8 A. I was told Jordan and Michael watched an 9 Exorcist movie.
How can we explain that there are two contradictory reports about the first time Jordan stayed in Michael’s room though both of them are part of one and the same June Chandler’s testimony?
We can explain this discrepancy only by the fact that when Michael and Jordan were watching the movie (if they did of course) June Chandler simply didn’t know about it. It must have happened on the first night in Vegas when they were sleeping in her room. Evidently Michael could not fall asleep as usual and went to another room to watch TV or play a video and Jordan also sneaked into that room and after watching the movie was too afraid or unwilling to leave it.
This will explain the scene that took place the next morning between June and Jordan:
10 Q. All right. Did you ever object to Jordie 11 sleeping in Michael’s room on that trip? 12 A. Yes. 13 Q. And what did you say? 14 A. “Jordie, when you come home, go to your bed. 15 Go to your own bed. Come to our bed, not to 16 Michael’s bed.” 17 He said, “Mom, I want to stay there.” And I 18 was very upset about that.
She was very upset about that? In fact from what June Chandler further says it looks like it was she who actually suggested that Jordan should not be restricted from staying in Michael’s room at all. However this suggestion came later as the first time she did seem to reprimand Jordan, and since this matter is important, let’s make a note of it.
The second night Jordan and Michael were to attend a Cirque du Soleil show, however on the way there Jordan evidently told Michael that his mother had earlier scolded him for staying in the same room where Michael was watching the movie. This made Michael return to their hotel suite and ask June why she objected to it:
17 The second night, they were going to see a 18 performance, Cirque du Soleil performance. 1 I -- there’s a knock on the door and it’s Michael 2 and Jordan, and they came back into the suite. … 25 A. He said, “You don’t trust me? We’re a 26 family. Why are you doing this? Why are you not 27 allowing Jordie to be with me?” And I said, “He is 28 with you.” 5618 1 He said, “But my bedroom. Why not in my 2 bedroom? We fall asleep, the kids have fun.
Though the “bedroom” issue is somewhat overemphasized here (it might have easily been the common living room) it is clear that Michael questions were reasonable and that he was deeply offended by her suspicion of a mere possibility of some wrongdoing on his part. In Michael’s view the fact that the boy had trailed after him to another room to watch a film there and finally fell asleep on wherever Michael was lying at that moment is no big deal – his living in a crammed house in his childhood and many years of hotel tours with brothers had taught him long ago that this was the only way of living at all.
Even if it was no social standard Michael simply didn’t realize it as he had never experienced anything else, and staying alone for him was as unnatural as sleeping in the midst of a crowd for us. So what did she mean then by reprimanding the boy for this trifle? No one did anything wrong…
Sneddon of course interpreted it his way and described it bluntly as Mr. Jackson saying “he wanted Jordan to sleep with him in his bed”. In reality Michael was asking June why the boy could not watch TV together with him and sleep on his bed if he felt too afraid to leave.
When Sneddon asked her his question June Chandler suddenly blurted out something which took aback even Sneddon – she spoke of no restrictions and that Jordan should decide for himself where to sleep, and added that these were her words. Please also note that Michael says that Jordan was having fun (and not sleeping) which again shows to us that all of it was about “hanging out”again:
7 Q. BY MR. SNEDDON: All right. Tell us what - 8 Mr. Jackson said that he wanted your son to sleep 9 with him in his bed - what you said to Mr. Jackson. 10 A. What I said to Michael was, “This is not” -- 11 “This is not anything that I want. This is not 12 right. Jordie should be able to do what he wants to 13 do. He should be able to fall asleep where he wants 14 to sleep.” 15 Q. Is this you talking or Mr. Jackson speaking? 16 A. I was saying this. And Michael was 17 trembling and saying, “We’re a family. Jordie is 18 having fun. Why can’t he sleep in my bed? There’s 19 nothing wrong. There’s nothing going on. Don’t you 20 trust me?”
Thomas Meserau didn’t overlook the fact that it was actually June Chandler who suggested that Jordan should sleep wherever he liked and pressed this point to make sure that the jury heard it correctly:
21 Q. And he said words to you to the effect that, 22 “We’re family,” right? 23 A. Correct. 24 Q. You suggested that you let Jordie sleep 25 wherever he wants to sleep, right? 26 A. Yes.
Sneddon however pretended he hadn’t heard of her suggestion and portrayed the picture of the poor mother finally relenting to the pressure from Jackson. She followed the lead:
20 Q. Did you at some point in time relent and 21 allow your son to sleep with Michael Jackson in his 22 bedroom? 23 A. Yes, I did. 24 Q. And was it after that discussion on that 25 night? 26 A. Yes. 27 Q. Is that the first occasion? 28 A. Correct.
Then Sneddon goes on with his verbal manipulations and connects June Chandler’s answer to the fact that Michael bought her a bracelet, insinuating that it was some kind of payment for her “relenting” to MJ. Again and again he calls the matter “sleeping” with Jackson while sleep is actually the last word to use for this kind of activities.
We know of those activities from Frank Cascio who described how they usually spent nights when they were touring with Jackson – they talked, watched TV and discussed music, up to listening to the French Impressionism composer of the 19th century Claude Debussy to whose music Michael preferred to sleep (we should try it one day, it should be fantastic):
“…we sat rapt, listening for hours as Michael played DJ, saying, “You have to listen to this song. Now you have to hear this group.” We listened to Stevie Wonder and all of the Motown stars. He had us listen to the James Brown song “Papa Don’t Take No Mess” —all fourteen minutes of it. We listened to the Bee Gees song “How Deep Is Your Love?” (I still believe that it’s one of the greatest songs of all time.) Michael went on about Aaron Copland, whom he considered the greatest composer of the twentieth century.
He introduced me to all types of music—country, folk, classical, funk, rock. He even turned me on to Barbra Streisand. I fell in love with her song “People.” Michael liked to go to sleep to classical music, especially the works of Claude Debussy.”
(from “My friend Michael” by Frank Cascio)
However for Sneddon everything is plain, primitive and disgustingly black and white – first the mother agreed to sleepovers (actually suggested them, as we know) and then her consent was “paid” for with an expensive bracelet. Sneddon’s vocabulary is again revolving about “sleeping” in Michael’s bed:
6 Q. Now, at some point in time after you had 7 agreed to let your son Jordan sleep with Mr. 8 Jackson, were you the recipient of a gift from Mr. 9 Jackson? 10 A. Yes, I was. 11 Q. Would you describe that to the jury? 12 A. It was a gold bracelet, and it was given to 13 me by Michael. 14 Q. And you say “a gold bracelet.” Had you seen 15 that gold bracelet in a shop of some kind before? 16 A. I had seen it before, yes. 17 Q. And the brand name on that bracelet? 18 A. Cartier. 19 Q. Was it expensive, to your knowledge? 20 A. Oh, I -- yes, it was. 21 Q. When was it you received this gift in 22 relationship to having agreed to allow your son to 23 sleep in bed with Mr. Jackson? 24 A. I think it was the next evening when we were 25 attending a show, a magic show, by David 26 Copperfield.
Sneddon’s logic does not know hesitation – she “agreed” and therefore MJ bought her an expensive bracelet “in relationship to having agreed”. The reality is much more different of course. First of all, June Chandler says it herself that the gift came on a different occasion, the morning after they saw a David Copperfield show, which was the next day. The show was attended by Michael and the two children and was followed by a dinner for all the four of them. Evidently the dinner and everything that followed it was so insignificant to her that now she “doesn’t recall”. However I highly doubt that it was something unimportant as it was after that night that Michael bought June Chandler a love bracelet.
We’ve got these details from Thomas Mesereau. Let us note that the defense attorney is asking these questions because he was advised about it by Michael Jackson who evidently remembered that notable evening better.
19 Q. Okay. Now, you mentioned that during that 20 trip, you went to the David Copperfield show; is 21 that right? 22 A. Correct. 23 Q. And who went to that show? 24 A. Jordan, Lily and Michael. 25 Q. Did the four of you have dinner that night 26 together? 27 A. I don’t recall. 28 Q. Okay. Did Michael give you his credit card 5695 1 on that trip? 2 A. No.
Okay, so the shopping spree with Michael’s credit card would come later – during the visit to Monaco in May 1993. But what was the gift Michael gave June Chandler in April that year? We do know that it is called a love bracelet, but what is it like? Was there anything special about the bracelet which Michael selected in Jordan’s presence and gave June Chandler the next day after they had dinner together in Las Vegas?
22 Q. Okay. When did Michael go to Cartier and 23 buy you that jewelry? 24 A. When we went to Las Vegas. 25 Q. Was he with you when he did that? 26 A. No. 27 Q. Did he do it on his own? 28 A. He did it with Jordie. 5694 1 Q. Okay. And did he come back and give it to 2 you? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. Now, you described that to the Los 5 Angeles District Attorney as a love bracelet, did 6 you not? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. Is that what it was? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. What is a love bracelet? 11 A. It’s a bracelet that’s a gold bracelet and 12 that’s what it’s called. 13 Q. Okay. Had you ever told Michael Jackson you 14 liked that kind of jewelry? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Were you surprised when he bought it for 17 you? 18 A. Yes.
While Tom Sneddon mostly talked about the high price of the bracelet, Thomas Mesereau focused on its name and significance for June (and Michael), however all she said was that it’s name was “a love bracelet”.
Initially I didn’t even pay attention – so what of it? All of us know that jewelry is usually regarded as a token of love and tenderness for a person to whom it is presented, and Michael (together with Jordan) could have chosen any item and okay, Michael chose this one – so what difference does it make?
But this time I decided to really look and now see that it makes all the difference in the world.
A LOVE BRACELET
When I found the picture of this bracelet its appearance didn’t produce the impression I expected it would. However the price of it is still impressive. Cartier keeps you guessing about it and asks clients to contact them for the price, so I had to look elsewhere and got the following information from someone who knows:
Yellow gold, sans diamonds: $3,600 Yellow gold, half diamonds (5): $7,250 Yellow gold, full diamonds (10): (around $11,000) White gold, sans diamonds - $4,200 White gold, half diamonds - $7,550 White gold, full diamonds - I do not know http://forum.purseblog.com/the-jewelry-box/price-of-the-cartier-love-bracelet-66933.html
However apart from the price it is actually the story behind the bracelet which turned out to be really breathtaking.
A love bracelet is given to a woman on a very special occasion when a man wants to convey to her that he is locking himself up with her in a kind of a solemn ritual. In fact the bracelet even comes in a set with a key used by the man when he places this bracelet on her wrist and locks it up with it. Love bracelets are often supplied with a small screwdriver used by him to fix both of its parts together so that she never takes it off.
The story of the bracelet goes far back into the Middle ages when men used to go to war and lock their lovers’ intimate parts with a so-called chastity belt and kept the key for themselves (if it isn’t a fantasy of course). In modern days it was only Cartier who developed a similar bracelet to symbolize more or less the same thing.
Here is the history of the bracelet told by its purchaser who visited the Cartier boutique and was provided with this information. He calls this symbolic jewelry the “Cartier Prisoner of Love Bracelet”:
Over 24 years ago, in the summer of 1969, a young Cartier staff designer created a remarkable new item that was to become one of the most famous status symbols of our age. The designer was the late Aldo Cipullo…and the item was the Cartier “Love Bracelet”.
A student of history Cipullo’s early work centered around modern interpretations of ancient design terms and legends. One particular medieval practice (fact or fiction?) especially fascinated him: the story that warriors, prior to going off to battle, often “locked up” their wives around the waist with iron “chastity belts” to preserve the fidelity of the their marriage. Cipullo’s desire to create a modern-day symbol of a “locked up”, committed relationship led him to the design of a two-piece bracelet that had to be bolted together to encircle the wrist. And thus was born the “Love Bracelet” and its accompanying screwdriver.
Cartier management, quickly catching the spirit of the item, launched the product with a startling and unprecedented purchasing policy: customer were not allowed to buy a “Love Bracelet” for themselves! The Cartier regulation firmly said that no one was permitted to purchase one for their own wrist!
As part of the launch of the product, and to reinforce the “lovers only” message, Cartier presented “his-and-hers” bracelets to 25 famous couples chosen from the fields of entertainment, business, communications, society, and sports. In light-hearted “ceremonies” conducted in Cartier’s Fifth Avenue boutique, these notable “lovers” locked each other up and formally exchanged screw drivers. All loved it, the fun began, and the item was off and running.
Soon, stylish people all around New York and across the country rushed to get one. Photos of celebrities began to appear in newspapers and magazines with that distinctive band of gold gleaming at the wrist. Before long, a “waiting list” had to be created because the demand for the bracelet had vastly outpaced the ability of the Cartier workshop to make them.
By 1973, the roster of “Love Bracelet” owners included Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, Nancy and Frank Sinatra, Cary Grant and Dyan Cannon, Ali McGraw and Steve McQueen, Mai Britt and Sammy Davis, Jr. and many other famous couples for around the world. The bracelet had become so well [known] that it was often humorously cited as the definitive measurement of a lover’s commitment (e.g. “Do you love me enough for the Cartier ‘Love Bracelet'”?) As the years passed, the appetite for this extraordinary item continued to grow.
As this “love story” enters its 25th year, new customers every day continue to discover for themselves the special wit and style of the Love Bracelet. And, at the same time, another whole generation of celebrity wrists have appeared “locked up” in this famous Cartier shackle: Barbara Streisand, Diana Ross, Joan Collins, Jane Seymour, Princess Diana, Linda Evans, Lionel Ritchie, Kenny Rogers, Reggie Jackson, John McEnroe, Elton John....the list goes on and on.
Today, the Cartier “Love Bracelet” remains the world’s most celebrated and desirable wrist ornament.
When I visited a Cartier boutique and asked when the “Cartier Prisoner of Love Bracelet” was introduced, I was provided a sheet with the above information.
Wow….. So for a woman it is a status symbol and is the most desirable wrist ornament because it symbolizes his commitment to her? And even measures this commitment with “Do you love me enough for it”?
Well, now I understand why Thomas Mesereau paid so much attention to the name of that bracelet. And why he wondered if she ever asked for it (or whether Michael did it on his own) and if it was a surprise.
And a surprise it was. Michael took a decision himself. I wonder what circumstances brought him to give her a romantic symbol like that…
Imagine him locking the bracelet up on June Chandler’s wrist with a key or a screwdriver in his hands and I am sure as I don’t know what that it will boggle the mind of every woman visualizing the scene. In fact the sight of it must have been no less powerful than Michael’s kissing Lisa Marie on stage. All of us would have loved to see that great and intimate moment …
13 Q. Had you ever told Michael Jackson you 14 liked that kind of jewelry? 15 A. No. 16 Q. Were you surprised when he bought it for 17 you? 18 A. Yes.
Well, it does not surprise you any longer that it was after that trip to Las Vegas that June Chandler invited Michael to stay in her house, does it? As to me, I am not surprised.
It doesn’t surprise me either that from then on he came back home every day from work exactly by dinner time to sit down to the family dinner of the four of them.
And now I understand even better than before why Sneddon never asked the maid who lived in June Chandler’s house to make her appearance at the 2005 trial and testify about what she saw in June’s house. Just imagine, even the name of this woman is not known to us until today – this is how much they were afraid of her testimony!
I would also love to know a token of what that bracelet was…
(end of part 1)