Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
If you google the lyrics to many of his songs, they are certainly beautiful or questionable, depending on your point of view.
When watching it 2 song titles came to my Mind. Dangerous and Bad. My first thought were did those songs have different meanings to what we thought, I didn't get as far as looking at Bad, just Dangerous but didn't see anything in that one.
Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
That could be the key thing his brother was always there.
Cant remember which but either Wade or James had their sister with them the 1st night and nothing happened, however the family then left and he stayed another 4 days and thats when it started.
Things like there being bells so Michael new when people were approaching and he quickly had time to get them dressed shows that not only was he a dirty nonce, but it was calculated and planned.
All this rubbish about him being a kid himself if bollocks, having bells and making the parents believe he was nice and was only being a friend so he could get these kids alone, shows as I said how calculated and clever he was.
Also things like doing drills to see how quick they could get dressed incase someone came and telling them if they told anyone it would be the end of their life.
I have only watched the 1st part so far, but before this I always thought he was guilty and now I am certain
Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
One person claiming not to have been abused does not mean others weren't. It's like me saying "well Fred and Rose West never murdered me, so they can't be murderers".
I am sure that Macauley Culkin is telling the truth about his relationship with Michael Jackson. But he cant know everything about Jackson's other relationships.
In all honesty he was probably a complete wrong'un, but not sure where this whole "he paid up so must be guilty" thing has come from.
Rich, powerful people paying off stuff when they are innocent is hardly a new concept.
Just read my post back and worried about my use of the word "innocent".
He obviously abused kids. That is 100% in terms of mental abuse and I'm probably 90% sure in terms of sexual abuse.
Literally the only point of my post was to say that it seems strange to use the point of him paying a lawsuit as a statement of guilt when there is other evidence.
In all honesty he was probably a complete wrong'un, but not sure where this whole "he paid up so must be guilty" thing has come from.
Rich, powerful people paying off stuff when they are innocent is hardly a new concept.
Just read my post back and worried about my use of the word "innocent".
He obviously abused kids. That is 100% in terms of mental abuse and I'm probably 90% sure in terms of sexual abuse.
Literally the only point of my post was to say that it seems strange to use the point of him paying a lawsuit as a statement of guilt when there is other evidence.
I think people have only said that in reply to others saying the victims were just out for the dough
Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
One person claiming not to have been abused does not mean others weren't. It's like me saying "well Fred and Rose West never murdered me, so they can't be murderers".
I am sure that Macauley Culkin is telling the truth about his relationship with Michael Jackson. But he cant know everything about Jackson's other relationships.
Exactly. I don't fancy every single woman I see, why would anyone assume MJ fancied every young boy he saw?
He chose the ones he fancied and could see were vulnerable.
One of my oldest friends, who I've known since school, idolised Jackson and he won't accept these claims. I don't think that makes my friend a paedophile sympathiser, he finds it impossible to believe that his idol could be a wrong 'un.
I was a big fan of Gary Glitter. When I realised what a "nasty person but expressed in four letters" he was, I stopped being a fan. If he's that blinkered because of "worship", he seriously might need some psychiatric help?
Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
One person claiming not to have been abused does not mean others weren't. It's like me saying "well Fred and Rose West never murdered me, so they can't be murderers".
I am sure that Macauley Culkin is telling the truth about his relationship with Michael Jackson. But he cant know everything about Jackson's other relationships.
True but the point is, there were people that testified about Jackson behaving inappropriately against Culkin however Culkin denies everything and stood up for Jackson. So someone is lying.
Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
One person claiming not to have been abused does not mean others weren't. It's like me saying "well Fred and Rose West never murdered me, so they can't be murderers".
I am sure that Macauley Culkin is telling the truth about his relationship with Michael Jackson. But he cant know everything about Jackson's other relationships.
True but the point is, there were people that testified about Jackson behaving inappropriately against Culkin however Culkin denies everything and stood up for Jackson. So someone is lying.
Culkin has shown a lot of symptoms of someone suffering from repressed memories, so not necessarily lying.
Whenever i hear the talk of Jackson being a paedo i always think it odd that probably the worlds biggest child star at the time (Macauley Culkin) who was clearly quite close to him never came out and said anything bad towards him.
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
One person claiming not to have been abused does not mean others weren't. It's like me saying "well Fred and Rose West never murdered me, so they can't be murderers".
I am sure that Macauley Culkin is telling the truth about his relationship with Michael Jackson. But he cant know everything about Jackson's other relationships.
I agree with this. I mentioned this on another thread but as kids both my brother and I were coached by that bloke that recently killed himself (allegedly) on the day of his trial for abusing loads of boys while coaching them football. We separately went on numerous tours abroad, training weekends and always without our parents and just him. Neither of us witnessed or experienced anything and were shocked when the stories emerged. Looking back (over 30 years ago now) I do remember things that might have appeared slightly odd but my brother has a different view and finds it hard to believe and he probably knew him even more than me too. He even came to his wedding. Abusers target certain kids (and families) for whatever reason and they cast a wide net. There really isn’t much doubt Jackson did it but we’ll never really know. His own sisters interview is damning though. I don’t know about that coach he had over 10 accusers but again we’ll never know now.
If you were being very smart about it, I would say it would be essential to have access to a number of children that you did not assault. probably most of them. They become your alibi. If his man child persona was an act to get access to victims, it isn't a big leap. The latest documentary may be lies, money does complicate these things, but that doesn't mean he didn't molest kids.
The problem with MJ was that he didn’t have much of a child life as his father pushed him in the Jackson 5. Whether we think it was wrong or not but the parents were more than happy for children to sleep with him and they trusted him. MJ was like a child himself but I don’t think it resulted in pedophilia. I think he enjoyed Neverland as much as the kids for starters!
Also, he’s been accused of this for a long time but it wasn’t proved and he was found not guilty. Whether because he was a top class Artist or not views would stay the same.
It is that tiny bit of doubt that frustrates me, because whilst I am almost certain, I do not know for sure. Not that he was weird and acted inappropriately to children, that we all know, but what his motivations were and how far he went.
The problem with MJ was that he didn’t have much of a child life as his father pushed him in the Jackson 5. Whether we think it was wrong or not but the parents were more than happy for children to sleep with him and they trusted him. MJ was like a child himself but I don’t think it resulted in pedophilia. I think he enjoyed Neverland as much as the kids for starters!
Also, he’s been accused of this for a long time but it wasn’t proved and he was found not guilty. Whether because he was a top class Artist or not views would stay the same.
It is that tiny bit of doubt that frustrates me, because whilst I am almost certain, I do not know for sure. Not that he was weird and acted inappropriately to children, that we all know, but what his motivations were and how far he went.
Can't be 100% certain there's no god either but what evidence there is added with common sense is surely enough.
A good analogy. I don't think there is a god, but accept there is a remote possibility there might be something that can be called a god. But I must stress the word REMOTE.
The problem with MJ was that he didn’t have much of a child life as his father pushed him in the Jackson 5. Whether we think it was wrong or not but the parents were more than happy for children to sleep with him and they trusted him. MJ was like a child himself but I don’t think it resulted in pedophilia. I think he enjoyed Neverland as much as the kids for starters!
Also, he’s been accused of this for a long time but it wasn’t proved and he was found not guilty. Whether because he was a top class Artist or not views would stay the same.
Explain away the alarmed corridors for one.
I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
Manicmania said - I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
The problem with MJ was that he didn’t have much of a child life as his father pushed him in the Jackson 5. Whether we think it was wrong or not but the parents were more than happy for children to sleep with him and they trusted him. MJ was like a child himself but I don’t think it resulted in pedophilia. I think he enjoyed Neverland as much as the kids for starters!
Also, he’s been accused of this for a long time but it wasn’t proved and he was found not guilty. Whether because he was a top class Artist or not views would stay the same.
Explain away the alarmed corridors for one.
I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
Manicmania said - I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
If a burglar got in, he was hoping the burglar would spend a bit of time flicking through the porno collecting, while MJ made his escape with the Elvis and Beatles songs out the window.
This also explains why he liked climbing trees (The Bashir interview)
Manicmania said - I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
Simple explanation, he was a nonce.
Na it can’t be. Sony actually sent mini spies in the form of 7 year old boys to steal Elvis and Beatles rights.
Manicmania said - I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
Simple explanation, he was a nonce.
Na it can’t be. Sony actually sent mini spies in the form of 7 year old boys to steal Elvis and Beatles rights.
ffs.
Why do you always have to be ignorant when others don't share your view?
Manicmania has a point, MJ was paranoid and did believe people were trying to kill him.
Of all the reasons pointing to MJ's guilt, I don't think an alarmed corridor is one of too much importance.
Manicmania said - I'll have a go. He owned the rights to all of Elvis and the Beatles songs and he was paranoid that someone was trying to have him killed. He stated this to people close to him on multiple occasions. Was it a cover for other stuff? I don't know but it is a fact that soon after he died Sony bought those rights back fairly swiftly.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
Simple explanation, he was a nonce.
Na it can’t be. Sony actually sent mini spies in the form of 7 year old boys to steal Elvis and Beatles rights.
ffs.
Why do you always have to be ignorant when others don't share your view?
Manicmania has a point, MJ was paranoid and did believe people were trying to kill him.
Of all the reasons pointing to MJ's guilt, I don't think an alarmed corridor is one of too much importance.
The alarmed corridor isnt just something thrown into this argument. Members of MJ's staff (housekeeper and security) actual said that that was the reason it had them alarmed. The fact he did, by itself, isnt that worrying, but when you add this detail to the other facts, it paints a rather different picture imo
Of course, the whole situation rings massive alarm bells and should have to everyone from the very beginning. What he did to the children was absolutely disgusting, regardless of how far it went.
The biggest travesty for those in the documentary is that past testament from them has caused the lack of certainty. Many will believe them and I can understand it's not that easy to speak out against an abuser. But unfortunately for them they have lied one way or the other so naturally many will disbelieve them.
Comments
"Unlike James and Wade, Macaulay has always denied allegations against Michael. He recently appeared on Michael Rosenbaum's Inside Of You podcast, and said of his bond with Michael, “At the end of the day, it's almost easy to say it was weird or whatever, but it wasn't, because it made sense. We were friends. For me, it's so normal and mundane... I know it's a big deal to everyone else, but to me, it was a normal friendship.”
During the 2005 sexual abuse trial against Michael, Macaulay was called as a defence witness and said that charges brought against the singer were “absolutely ridiculous”.
A former chef at the Neverland ranch testified that he had witnessed Michael behaving inappropriately towards Macaulay; saying that he put his hand down the actor’s trousers. Michael’s former maid also attested to witnessing inappropriate behaviour.
But Macaulay, now 38, refuted these claims, saying: “I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or… let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.”
He said "Whenever I was at Neverland, my little brother was kind of always tagging along with me, so he was usually anywhere I was."
Macaulay states the pair bonded over their childhood stardom, stating "Nobody had any idea what I was going through, but he was like 'Yes, I've been through the exact same thing. He wanted to make sure that I wasn't alone in that."
So did Jackson just treat Culkin differently to the others or is Culkin blocking things out and just a very good liar?
Brett Barnes was another young boy to have a close friendship with Michael in the early ‘90s, and is mentioned in the documentary. Like Macaulay, he “categorically denies any sexual contact with Michael Jackson”. Therefore, Leaving Neverland’s director, Dan Reed, decided not to approach either of them to speak in the film.
So clearly the film is one sided in that it only features those who wish to speak against Jackson
My first thought were did those songs have different meanings to what we thought,
I didn't get as far as looking at Bad, just Dangerous but didn't see anything in that one.
Cant remember which but either Wade or James had their sister with them the 1st night and nothing happened, however the family then left and he stayed another 4 days and thats when it started.
Things like there being bells so Michael new when people were approaching and he quickly had time to get them dressed shows that not only was he a dirty nonce, but it was calculated and planned.
All this rubbish about him being a kid himself if bollocks, having bells and making the parents believe he was nice and was only being a friend so he could get these kids alone, shows as I said how calculated and clever he was.
Also things like doing drills to see how quick they could get dressed incase someone came and telling them if they told anyone it would be the end of their life.
I have only watched the 1st part so far, but before this I always thought he was guilty and now I am certain
I am sure that Macauley Culkin is telling the truth about his relationship with Michael Jackson. But he cant know everything about Jackson's other relationships.
But had they met you, they probably would've.
He obviously abused kids. That is 100% in terms of mental abuse and I'm probably 90% sure in terms of sexual abuse.
Literally the only point of my post was to say that it seems strange to use the point of him paying a lawsuit as a statement of guilt when there is other evidence.
He chose the ones he fancied and could see were vulnerable.
I said - Explain the alarmed corridors while having a young boy in his bedroom for days on end and a box of erotic / porn images with both his and the boy's fingerprints on
This also explains why he liked climbing trees (The Bashir interview)
ffs.
Manicmania has a point, MJ was paranoid and did believe people were trying to kill him.
Of all the reasons pointing to MJ's guilt, I don't think an alarmed corridor is one of too much importance.
The biggest travesty for those in the documentary is that past testament from them has caused the lack of certainty. Many will believe them and I can understand it's not that easy to speak out against an abuser. But unfortunately for them they have lied one way or the other so naturally many will disbelieve them.