Are you for real? Do you seriously expect someone on a.net to have the answer? Let's see, unless MJ, Caulkin, or an eye witness of some sort happens to be a member here, you'll at best get baseless speculation. You can use the media for that, baseless speculation is their job after all.
StarCruiser From United States of America, joined May 2004, 301 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 7070 times:
Quoting RootsAir (Thread starter): It was revealed during his trial that he molested Macaulay Culkin however, macaulay doesn't want to testify in the trial.
So are those statements real or not ?
More accurately testimony was given alleging that he did. That is a significant difference. When all the testimony is heard it will be up to the jury to determine if Mr. Jackson is guilty. He is presumed innocent until then according to the law in the USA. Just because the media indulge in flights of fancy and idle speculation does not make it fact. In like manner, discussions among the public as to his innocence or guilt are idle speculation at best and possible slander at worst.
If Mr. Culkin maintains he was not abused, I would take him at his word. Why question his motives? Are we so starved for entertainment?
NYCFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 1388 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6953 times:
I wouldn't trust Culkin's denials. He doesn't strike me as a trustworthy guy, plus he has a lot to lose, plus he's just sticking up for his (sick) "friend." I would believe the housekeeper, who saw Jackson's hand down Culkin's pants, any day.
Jake056 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6943 times:
I find it incredible that in California the jury can hear about "alleged other acts involving other people" when those cases were never prosecuted and there was no civil trial!!!!! This is supposed to be a case about THIS kid, not others!!
In rape cases the victims sexual past is never allowed in for the defense. But in this case the jury can hear about Culkin et al???
Having said that, I still think the shear volume of "claims" all involving similar aged individuals over years will be compelling.
WhiteHatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 6938 times:
Quoting Cactus739 (Reply 8): it would be a great explanation for that horrid movie "Party Monster". The worst piece of crap I've ever seen...
I enjoyed that film, even more so as it's a true story. Culkin played the role brilliantly but wouldn't do any of the boy-kissing or show his willy. He was pretty good too in "Saved!"
Quoting FDXMECH (Reply 5):
This is Hollywood you're talking about. And besides isn't he a victim?
Means nothing to the people who piss iced water and run multibillion dollar companies. Guilt by association, plus he would be forever tagged negatively (if Jackson was convicted) as dubious in what he has said publicly. This is something nobody who is famous in their own right wants to be attached to where actual sex is allegedly involved.
There is also the Sony side issue. That's another ball game. Look how much of Hollywood is now owned by Sony and other japanese interests, all of whom are going to become even more embroiled in the Jackson meltdown.
September11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6885 times:
geez! now I realize that Michael Jackson loves SEX PARTY! (drama, money, sex, drugs, alcohol) Of course, clearly, sex party are fun but still can hurt people in general... I guess sex parties are for people who don't care at all!