Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
Blog Tools
Edit your Blog
Build a Blog
RSS Feed
View Profile
Open Community
Post to this Blog
« July 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Entries by Topic
All topics  «
Announcements
Breaking News
Direct Testimonies
Main News
Mishandled
MJ's Side Segments
Open Letters
Prosecutor Press Release
Truth Or Fiction
Advertizements
Parr's Corner
You are not logged in. Log in
The Michael Jackson Followers News
Mon, Jul 5 2004
Jackson hearing centers on keeping many aspects of case under wraps
Friday, June 25, 2004 Posted: 12:07 AM EDT (0407 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- The judge in the Michael Jackson child molestation case has scheduled a pretrial hearing Friday -- a proceeding likely to focus on whether many aspects of the case will be kept from public view.

The majority of 13 items on Friday's calendar concern the secrecy surrounding the case and the sealing of almost all documents.

Prosecutors and Jackson's new defense lawyer have consistently sought to keep documents under seal. A coalition of news media has opposed those efforts, asking for portions of a grand jury transcript, a grand jury indictment and at least 47 sealed search warrants to be made public.

A court-maintained Web site also shows Judge Rodney Melville has been holding private telephone hearings with the parties. The judge is expected to field news media complaints about these secret hearings Friday.

Jackson will not attend. His lawyer has declined to comment on why he wants so many documents sealed, and on a motion to suppress evidence against the singer.

Legal experts suggest the Jackson case is emblematic of a new brand of American justice, especially when trials involve celebrities. In those cases, judges increasingly are trying to keep their proceedings and related documents from the public eye.

"Since the last hearing, the practice has continued to be to file virtually every document under seal. They're keeping the public in the dark," said attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., who represents a coalition of news organizations, including CNN and The Associated Press, fighting for greater access.

"The obsession with secrecy appears now to have gone off the deep end," First Amendment lawyer Douglas Mirrell said.

He said the Colorado rape case against basketball star Kobe Bryant is surrounded by secrecy unseen in normal cases, with pretrial hearings held behind closed doors.

In the recent Martha Stewart case, the entire jury selection was closed. Transcripts were released only after an appeals court ruled the closure had been a clear violation of the First Amendment.

"They are making unavailable to the public information and documentation historically available in other cases," Mirrell said of the high-profile cases.

Jackson, 45, has pleaded not guilty to committing a lewd act upon a child, administering alcohol and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Key sections of the indictment are blacked out. The names of five alleged coconspirators remain secret, as do 28 specific acts the prosecution alleges in support of the charges.

Both prosecution and defense attorneys are under a court-imposed gag order -- supported by both sides -- that prevents them from commenting on any aspect of the case.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/michael.jackson.ap/index.html


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 5:31 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Critical Jackson Defense Motion Is Sealed
Sat Jul 03, 6:31 PM ET

Key details surrounding Michael Jackson's child molestation case were again hidden from public view when a judge sealed a critical defense motion in the case without comment.

Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville on Friday sealed a motion that seeks dismissal of charges against the singer at the request of defense attorney Thomas Mesereau Jr., continuing a pattern of secrecy imposed throughout the proceedings.

Mesereau's motion said sealing was needed "based on the overriding interests of Mr. Jackson's rights to due process and a fair trial."

In response, the judge said merely that "good cause appearing," he would seal the motion to set aside the indictment and all accompanying documents.

The ruling means the public will not know on what grounds Jackson is challenging the indictment that charges him with committing a lewd act upon a child, administering alcohol, and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion. Details from the indictment, including exactly what acts Jackson is accused of committing and the names of his alleged co-conspirators, also are being kept secret.

An attorney representing media organizations promised to file an opposition to the sealing order before a hearing scheduled for July 9.

"To seal such a fundamental motion in the case without any explanation flatly violates the First Amendment," said Theodore Boutrous Jr., the attorney who is representing The Associated Press and other media organizations.

"In this motion Michael Jackson is attacking the prosecution's entire case and it's important for the public to understand the nature of those claims and the nature of the indictment," Boutrous said.

The latest ruling comes on the heels of a series of orders from Melville sealing some 40 search warrants executed in the case. Melville said he was concerned that anything he revealed would be analyzed and reported by the media and would make it difficult to find an unbiased jury pool.

"This is as close to a secret trial as I have ever seen in a high profile case," said Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson.

"The fact that the judge wants to keep a lid on the media is not an overriding interest," said Levenson. "He's made the media the enemy. The inherent problem is not recognizing the valid function the media serves and the public's right to know the facts."


Copyright ? Yahoo! and The Associated Press All rights reserved.


Copyright ? 2004 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions, comments, suggestions? Send us feedback.


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 5:27 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Fri, Jul 2 2004
Michael's Ex Won't Back Down
June 29, 2004


Things are heating up between MICHAEL JACKSON and his ex DEBBIE ROWE over custody of their children, 6-year-old PRINCE MICHAEL and 5-year-old PARIS. Jackson's chief assistant, EVVELYN TAVACCI, has reportedly been called to give a deposition on July 19 in connection with Rowe's ongoing child custody litigation, and more subpoenas may be issued. An inside source close to Debbie is said to believe that Tavacci contributed to the rift and eventual breakup of Debbie Rowe and Michael Jackson. The source says the children's nanny, GRACE RWARMBA, may be called too.

In February, Debbie filed court papers asking a retired judge to mediate an issue concerning her and Michael's divorce agreement. ET was told at that time that Debbie's approach in her fight will be to claim that Jackson violated many aspects of the divorce agreement, which allegedly includes the stipulation that Jackson gets sole custody of the children.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:37 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thu, Jul 1 2004
Jackson's Lawyers Want Indictment Thrown Out

Michael Jackson?s lawyers asked Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville to seal several motions in the case which includes their request that the indictment handed down by the grand jury against Mr. Jackson be thrown out. The defense is also challenging the search warrants and affidavits filed by authorities seeking the warrants.

Mr. Jackson's attorney, Robert Sanger, said in his motion that the documents would disclose ?the testimony of witnesses or potential witnesses and disclose possible evidence? that may not be admitted at trial.

The latest request to seal documents is a continuing pattern in the case. The attorney for numerous news organizations covering the case, Ted Boutrous, said the defense?s challenge of the searches and the indictment could be key motions in the case. He argued the public has a right to see the sealed documents to decide if the court was being fair.

"So much of the material is under seal that that creates a vicious circle where the parties think that every document that gets filed must also be under seal," Boutrous said. "Sealing breeds more sealing."

Judge Rodney S. Melville denied more information to be made available to the public. In the June 25th hearing, he rejected Boutrous' request that he unseal 47 search warrants and the entire grand jury indictment against Mr. Jackson.

Melville told Boutrous he was keeping the evidence sealed to make sure that Mr. Jackson receives a fair trial.

"Mr. Boutrous, you know that everything I'm doing is according to the law," the judge said. "I'm being very careful in following the law. Please do not mislead the press about this. I support the First Amendment."

Source: Associated Press/MJJForum


? MJJForum.com
This news can be reposted with a credit to MJJForum.com

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:00 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Wed, Jun 30 2004
Jackson settled first child molestation suit for approximately $25 million
By Rochelle Steinhaus
Court TV

Updated June 16, 2004, 5:59 p.m. ET

Michael Jackson paid out more than $25 million to settle a civil suit by a boy who accused him of molesting him in 1993, according to the confidential agreement which was exclusively obtained by Court TV's Diane Dimond.

The pop star, according to the agreement, maintained the settlement did not signify an admission of any wrongdoing against the boy or his parents.

Jackson "specifically disclaims any liability to, and denies any wrongful acts," according to the 31-page document he signed on Jan. 25, 1994.

The terms of the settlement have been kept tightly under wraps for a decade, but were exclusively uncovered by Court TV.

Jackson agreed to pay $15,331,250 to be held in a trust fund for the accuser, now 24, as well as $1.5 miillion to each of his parents. The accuser may have also received another seven-figure payment not specified in the agreement. Additionally, the plaintiff's lawyer was slated to receive $5 million.

In exchange, the accuser and his parents agreed to not pursue civil claims against Jackson.

The agreement could play a role in the current criminal charges Jackson faces stemming from allegations by another California boy who accused him of molestation.

In April, he was indicted on 10 criminal counts, alleging 28 acts involving child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Evidence of the 1993 accusations could be admitted as evidence of prior criminal behavior against Jackson in his current case ? but only if the now-adult accuser is willing to testify.

In December 1993, the boy outlined his accusations in a sworn declaration, recounting his year-long friendship with the King of Pop.

According to the account, he met Jackson in May 1992 at the rental car business where his stepfather worked and where Jackson was renting a car.

The introduction led to several trips to Jackson's Neverland ranch, where the boy claimed he played video games, rode golf carts ? and slept in the same bed with Jackson.

He and his family also took trips with Jackson to Florida, New York, Las Vegas and Europe, according to the statement.

"During our relationship Michael Jackson had sexual contact with me on many occasions," the statement alleges.

He accused Jackson of open-mouth kissing, fondling and oral sex.

His contact with Jackson ended, he said, when he went to live with his father in July 1993.

Two months later, they filed a civil suit in Los Angeles Superior Court, asking for unspecified damages for sexual battery, seduction, willful misconduct, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud and negligence.

The settlement agreement stipulated that the accuser and his parents were dropping all claims except that of negligence at the time of signing the document, with the caveat that once the money was received that claim would not be pursued.

Eight pages of the document addressing the payment arrangements were not disclosed. It is unknown whether Jackson paid the settlement from his own pocket or if it was funded by his insurance company.


Article URL:
http://www.courttv.com/news/jackson/061504_ctv.html
---------------------------------------------------
Poster Note:

Make your own judgement.

For us he's innocent.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:43 PM JST
Updated: Wed, Jun 30 2004 12:46 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Accuser?s Mother Allowed Kids to Drink, Jackson Not Present? Bullet #158

Explosive new information in the Michael Jackson ?case? involved the accuser, his family, and alcohol.ABC News is reporting that there are witnesses who saw the accuser?s mother allowing her children to drink alcohol at Jackson?s Neverland Ranch when Jackson was away from the premises.These witnesses are also willing to testify to as much.This speaks to the heart of the allegations leveled against Jackson since prosecutors will actually claim the accuser would be plied with alcohol in order to be molested.


Months old comments and information from sources seem to be ringing true now with these kinds of details coming to light. Months ago, various sources would tell different media outlets things like ?You don?t know what she?s like. She?s very manipulative?, ?There?s a lot of things about this family that?s gonna come out?, and other foreshadowing comments. Suspicious minds would say that this isn?t even the half of the kind of information yet to be revealed about the family?s whereabouts, actions and statements made during the time they claim they were being abducted, plied with wine, molested, threatened and conspired against.

The ABC report states:


In addition, these sources told ABC News that there are witnesses who can testify that the alleged victim and his siblings were often seen drinking at Neverland when Jackson was not on the premises. They told ABC News that the alleged victim?s mother was often present when the children were drinking and did nothing to stop it. (see article)


Defense attorney Dana Cole, who knows Mesereau but is not involved in the Jackson case, says:

?If the mother is present?that would certainly cause a jury to think (a) What?s the big deal? Or (b) How could we possibly blame Michael Jackson for something that is being done in front of the kid?s own mother??


This wreaks havoc on prosecutor?s foundation in which they are trying to claim Jackson got the accuser drunk, essentially, and molested him. It also incites questions about the ?wine in soda cans? allegation. How could the accuser have been given alcohol by the mother and/or in the mother?s presence, and there still be the theory that Jackson administered alcohol in soda cans to hide it? Hide it for what? They were already drinking alcohol in front of the mother according to a number of witnesses. Does this destroy the ?wine in soda cans? theory? And if that ?soda can? theory is revealed to be a lie, what else are they lying about?

The family?s allegation seems completely ridiculous if it was common knowledge and acceptable behavior for the mother to allow her children to drink alcohol out of Jackson?s presence. No doubt there would be a number of witnesses (and possibly security camera video) given the number of people who visit Neverland at any given time.

Of the alcohol allegations, Fox News legal analyst Bob Massi expressed how this just further taints the accuser?s family?s credibility. He told guest host Laurie Dhue on June 25 2004:

It?s not a good week for prosecutors in a lot of cases. But this just again goes to the whole credibility of the case?And if she was there, and in fact knowing there was drinking and saw it and observed it, I mean the whole credibility of the case goes out the window. I?m sure the prosecutor is not a happy person tonight. (see video)


Defense attorney Mercedes Colwin was also dubious about the allegations against Jackson after hearing this news. She said:

We?ve already gotten all these allegations about the mother. I mean certainly we have the issue that the mother, when she found out the child might be molested, first call she made was to a lawyer. Not law enforcement. She called not just a lawyer, [she called] the lawyer that had represented the first child that accused Michael Jackson. These children are pawns for money in her game.


How do prosecution mouthpieces try to explain-away such damaging information? Well, reporters like Celebrity Justice?s Jane Valez-Mitchell and tabloid reporter Diane Dimond now claim as soon as the mother ?found out? Jackson was allegedly giving the accuser alcohol, she ?got her children out of there? and ?distanced? herself from Jackson. But these reports destroy other allegations made by the family.

How in the world could you be held hostage/abducted by Jackson?s people AND be free to take your children out of Neverland, distancing yourself from Jackson?? You can?t be free to leave AND be held hostage at the same time. So, which story is the truth and which one is the lie? Or are they both lies? Needless to say, Jackson?s attorneys by way of cross-examination may have to be the ones to get to the real story.

So what of those kidnapping allegations? Another issue addressed in the ABC report was the allegation of a conspiracy and kidnapping leveled against some of Jackson?s employees. The backstory is that the accuser?s family claims they were harassed and intimidated by certain Jackson employees in a conspiracy to silence them. They were allegedly kidnapped/abducted/held hostage at Neverland. Now the story has morphed again to include the allegation that they were held hostage at a Calabasas hotel. Well, it turns out that not only does this ?story? need major work as well, but there may actually be proof that the family was anything but harassed by Jackson?s associates.

Sources told ABC News that the accuser?s mother asked Jackson to put her up at a Calabasas hotel while she was looking for a new house. Not only that, she went on a shopping spree at Jackson?s expense while there. She was also free to come and go as she pleased, sources say. Of course these things are easily checkable because there are bound to be receipts, security camera video, witnesses, and possibly other video or audio speaking to these facts.

Could this be a part of the documentation some of Jackson?s associates have from their dealings with the family, as reported by Fox months ago? Could this be why prosecutors are continually getting search warrants?the total is up to a ridiculous amount, 47, right now?hoping that maybe they?ll just?.happen upon?.. some defense evidence to get a heads-up of what they have?

Stay tuned.

-MJEOL

2004 Copyright mambodesign.co.uk | Ported to Xoops by MJEOL
Copyright ? 2004 by MJEOL.COM | Powered by XOOPS 2.0 ? 2001-2003 The XOOPS Project | Design by 7dana.com
DISCLAIMER: Neither MJEOL.COM nor the opinions expressed in any and all writings/posts/messages located anywhere on this site, are in any way affiliated either expressly or implicitly with Michael Jackson, his management, his attorneys, etc. We are not an official Jackson website, we do not speak for (or to) Michael Jackson, nor do we fall under any gag orders associated with the current case. Long story short, if you're looking to silence our support for Jackson, you'll have to throw out the U.S. Constitution, dude.




Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 12:17 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Fri, Jun 25 2004
Jackson hearing centers on keeping many aspects of case under wraps
Friday, June 25, 2004 Posted: 12:07 AM EDT (0407 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- The judge in the Michael Jackson child molestation case has scheduled a pretrial hearing Friday -- a proceeding likely to focus on whether many aspects of the case will be kept from public view.

The majority of 13 items on Friday's calendar concern the secrecy surrounding the case and the sealing of almost all documents.

Prosecutors and Jackson's new defense lawyer have consistently sought to keep documents under seal. A coalition of news media has opposed those efforts, asking for portions of a grand jury transcript, a grand jury indictment and at least 47 sealed search warrants to be made public.

A court-maintained Web site also shows Judge Rodney Melville has been holding private telephone hearings with the parties. The judge is expected to field news media complaints about these secret hearings Friday.

Jackson will not attend. His lawyer has declined to comment on why he wants so many documents sealed, and on a motion to suppress evidence against the singer.

Legal experts suggest the Jackson case is emblematic of a new brand of American justice, especially when trials involve celebrities. In those cases, judges increasingly are trying to keep their proceedings and related documents from the public eye.

"Since the last hearing, the practice has continued to be to file virtually every document under seal. They're keeping the public in the dark," said attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr., who represents a coalition of news organizations, including CNN and The Associated Press, fighting for greater access.

"The obsession with secrecy appears now to have gone off the deep end," First Amendment lawyer Douglas Mirrell said.

He said the Colorado rape case against basketball star Kobe Bryant is surrounded by secrecy unseen in normal cases, with pretrial hearings held behind closed doors.

In the recent Martha Stewart case, the entire jury selection was closed. Transcripts were released only after an appeals court ruled the closure had been a clear violation of the First Amendment.

"They are making unavailable to the public information and documentation historically available in other cases," Mirrell said of the high-profile cases.

Jackson, 45, has pleaded not guilty to committing a lewd act upon a child, administering alcohol and conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

Key sections of the indictment are blacked out. The names of five alleged coconspirators remain secret, as do 28 specific acts the prosecution alleges in support of the charges.

Both prosecution and defense attorneys are under a court-imposed gag order -- supported by both sides -- that prevents them from commenting on any aspect of the case.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/24/michael.jackson.ap/index.html


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 2:06 PM JST
Post Comment | View Comments (2) | Permalink | Share This Post
Sun, Jun 20 2004
Jackson's lawyers want charges dismissed
From Miguel Marquez

CNN

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Lawyers for pop singer Michael Jackson plan to file a motion challenging the charges against their client in an attempt to have some of the counts dismissed.

On April 30, Jackson pleaded not guilty to an indictment of 10 charges -- including four counts of child molestation, four counts of administering an intoxicating agent, one count of attempted child molestation and one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

A tentative trial date has been set for September 13.

Court minutes released Friday show that defense attorney Robert Sanger told Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville in a closed hearing June 10 that the defense team would file a 995 motion on or before June 25.

That date is when the next hearing in the case is scheduled.

However, arguments on the matter will not be heard at that proceeding.

"By filing a 995 motion, the defense will be asserting that the defendant was indicted, or information was filed, without reasonable or probable cause," Darrel Parker, Santa Barbara County assistant court administrator told CNN.

"Any effort to set aside an indictment or information essentially means the defense wants to try and dismiss the charges," Parker said.

The hearing's minutes further reveal that Sanger indicated a motion to suppress evidence would likely follow the filing of the 995 motion.

Additionally, the minutes indicate that Melville ordered the 995 motion sealed until a hearing can be scheduled, saying that "it is the court's intention that arguments will be held publicly to the greatest extent possible and recess for portions of the hearing if necessary."

CNN's Dree de Clamecy contributed to this report.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/18/jackson.case/index.html

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:13 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sat, Jun 19 2004
1993 Civil Settlement Agreement Released by Court TV

-------------
MJJF eNews #318
? MJJForum.com
June 15, 2004
--------------


1993 Civil Settlement Agreement Released by Court TV

The 1993 confidential settlement agreement that was signed by Michael
Jackson and his then-attorneys, Johnnie Cochran and Howard Weitzman,
was shown on Court TV today making it public for the first time.

What is not known is if the documents shown on TV were "the actual
agreement" in that 1993 case. Spokeswoman Raymone Bain said that the
release of the information appeared aimed at influencing potential
jurors against Mr. Jackson.

"That settlement had a very strict confidentiality agreement that was
negotiated by parties. We are going to abide by that and not
comment".

She added, "Whoever released this agreement, whether it is the actual
agreement or not, did it deliberately and willfully with the intent
to influence potential jurors in the current case, which is
outrageous and an act of desperation."

Mr. Jackson has pleaded innocent and his attorney, Thomas Mesereau,
has vowed to vindicate him at trial.

Source: Reuters/MJJForum






? MJJForum.com
This news can be reposted with a credit to MJJForum.com

MJJForum.com - Bridging the gap between Michael Jackson and his fans.
MJJForum eNews: http://www.mjjfmailinglist.com/
MJJForum website: http://www.mjjforum.com/
MJJForum messageboard: http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/
MJJForum chat: http://www.mjjforum.com/chat/

Please don't reply to this address, your reply will not be recieved,
comments can be sent to enews@mjjforum.com

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 4:33 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JACKSON, JUNE 17, 2004

-------------
MJJF eNews #320
? MJJForum.com
June 17, 2004
--------------


STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JACKSON, JUNE 17, 2004

"I respect the obligation of confidentiality imposed on all of the
parties to the 1993 proceedings. Yet, someone has chosen to violate
the confidentiality of those proceedings. Whoever is now leaking
this material is showing as much disrespect for the Santa Maria
Court's `gag order' as they are a determination to attack me.

"No action or investigation has been taken to determine who is
leaking this information or why they are permitted to violate the law
in such a manner. I respectfully request that people see these
efforts for what they are.

"These kinds of attacks and leaks seek to try the case in the press,
rather than to a jury who will hear all of the evidence that will
show that I did not, and would not, ever, harm a child. I have
always maintained my innocence and vehemently denied that these
events ever took place. I reluctantly chose to settle the false
claims only to end the terrible publicity and to continue with my
life and career.

"I ask all of my neighbors in Santa Maria, the people to whom I give
my loyal trust and admiration, to keep an open mind and give me a
chance to show that I am completely innocent of these charges. I
will not let you down."


Source: MJJsource/MJJForum





? MJJForum.com
This news can be reposted with a credit to MJJForum.com

MJJForum.com - Bridging the gap between Michael Jackson and his fans.
MJJForum eNews: http://www.mjjfmailinglist.com/
MJJForum website: http://www.mjjforum.com/
MJJForum messageboard: http://www.mjjforum.com/forums/
MJJForum chat: http://www.mjjforum.com/chat/

Please don't reply to this address, your reply will not be recieved,
comments can be sent to enews@mjjforum.com

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 4:30 PM JST
Updated: Sat, Jun 19 2004 4:38 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sat, Jun 5 2004
CNN LARRY KING LIVE- Interview With Macaulay Culkin

Aired May 27, 2004 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, a prime-time exclusive. Macaulay Culkin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MACAULAY CULKIN, ACTOR: (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It's a mess here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: From highest paid child star in movie history to a bitter break with the dad who drove his career, to teenage marriage and divorce, and years as a recluse.

Macaulay Culkin, a rare one-on-one, a prime-time exclusive is next on LARRY KING LIVE.

Great pleasure to finally welcome Macaulay Culkin to LARRY KING LIVE. His new film, by the way, is "Saved." It opens Friday. It's already earned some amazingly good reviews. You'll be seeing clips from it.

You don't do a lot of interviews.

CULKIN: No, overall I kind of try to avoid them.

KING: Because?

CULKIN: I don't know, sometimes I feel uncomfortable, and I just -- I try to keep my private life private, overall. You know, I have this kind of opinion that once you start giving people things and they start expecting them, and so I just try to, you know, keep a distance.

KING: Did you have that when you were a kid, too, I mean, when you were young, when you did that first movie?

CULKIN: Yeah, no, I mean, it was crazy. I don't even remember half the stuff. I remember sitting one time doing 100 interviews in a day, and they're all television interviews and they're kind of -- and you just sit there and they bring these people in and out, and in out. You're seeing all the...

KING: It's called a junket.

CULKIN: It's a junket, exactly. And it's like, you don't -- no fresh air, no windows, no nothing. And I remember one time I actually fell asleep in the middle of one. This guy walked in, he was number like 70-something, and he just talked so slow -- and the next thing I know, I'm out. And just like that was what it was like, I was kind of just constantly.

KING: Do you buy this recluse thing, is that an unfair rap?

CULKIN: I don't know. I mean, I try not to label myself anything really, but you know, I'm definitely an indoorsy person, and I definitely kind of just try to, you know, stay away from life in the public eye at least.

KING: But you choose a profession that puts you in it.

CULKIN: Yeah, I know. Well, that's the funny thing, you know, because I've been doing this since I was 4 years old. You know, and it's not that I just don't know any better, it just kind of like -- it oddly found me in this weird way.

KING: How does one get to be -- and I've interviewed many over the years, people who got famous young, get to be a child star, like did your parents take you around to auditions?

CULKIN: I did a bit of that.

KING: You're a cute kid, and they said you should be on.

CULKIN: Kind of. Gosh, I couldn't even talk right until I was about 6 years old or something like that. But it just kind of happened. It was just kind of one of these weird things, where a friend of ours, a family friend, lived around the corner, she was a stage manager at this small theater and they were looking for a 6- year-old boy. And she had this big family around the corner, because I'm third of seven. And so she figured she'd find someone the right age and the right gender, and then plucked me out. And I remember, at some course during that audition I ended up on the table, doing my lines, standing on the table doing my lines. And...

KING: Did it come naturally to you?

CULKIN: Yeah, I always enjoyed the attention that came with being on stage. I never really liked all the other kind of stuff. I didn't really like photographers hiding in the bushes. I didn't appreciate that kind of attention, but I...

KING: But you liked it when the lights were on and there was an audience.

CULKIN: I loved it. And you know, I still do. I love, you know, when the lights are on and everything like that, and I almost feel more comfortable doing that than anything else in the world.

KING: How did you get "Home Alone"?

CULKIN: How did I get it? It was funny, because I was coming off of "Uncle Buck," which was also written by John Hughes...

KING: Great movie. CULKIN: Oh, thank you.

KING: That was a funny movie.

CULKIN: It was a good one.

KING: You were how old in that one?

CULKIN: I was 8 during that one. And so I -- and then...

KING: The late John Candy.

CULKIN: Yes, John Candy. You know, he was great.

KING: What a man.

CULKIN: But -- yeah, so he couldn't promise me the part, but he kind of wrote it with me in mind a bit. And so the thing is with child actors overall, the most important thing is that you have to know your lines. They're always worried about the kid's going to forget his lines. So, what my father, you know, who was clever -- one of the things he did was, you know, they'd give me these scenes, like scene 12 and scene 20 or whatever, and they were very, very short scenes. So what he would do is he'd go through the script, find the longest like monologues and longest, hardest scenes for a 9-year-old to do, and had me memorize them. So when I'd go into the room, they'd go, oh, do scene 12, I'm like, you know, I'm a little 9-year-old, I go, but no, I practiced scene 4. Do what you know. You know? And the next thing you know I'm rattling off this whole thing.

KING: Is it for a kid really an unreal world? I mean, is it...

CULKIN: Kind of -- I mean, I was kind of, you know, I was a kid. So it was kind of weird for me. And it's kind of -- I had to look at everything kind of in hindsight. But you know, I almost didn't know anything else. That was the thing. I mean, I realized that I was leading a very unique life and I was doing things other kids my age weren't doing, but at the same time, it was, you know, it was just crazy. It didn't really dawn on me until....

KING: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) tutors for you?

CULKIN: Tutors. All that stuff. I mean, I did go to school when I wasn't working, but it was still kind of difficult overall.

KING: And now, the unusual thing that happened to you that maybe never happened to other child stars, maybe Shirley Temple had it, a fantastic hit. How did you react to that?

CULKIN: You know, I was fine with it. I didn't really -- I was never really one of those cocky kids. I mean, my parents were very good about not telling me how much I was getting paid, so I wouldn't run to the kids in the neighborhood and say, hey, guess what, you know.

KING: But "Home Alone," you were 9. CULKIN: I was 9 for that one, yes.

KING: But you knew it did well. You knew it was...

CULKIN: I knew that, but at the same -- I mean, but to me, my mentality, is that all movies do that well. You know? You're in the movies and you're a movie star and that's what happens. And you know, that's me. I'm 9 years old. I never really even thought about it.

KING: What was it like when you went to see yourself?

CULKIN: I kind of had a blast. I mean, it's one of these things also overall that like, you know, you don't really like watching yourself, like you hear your own voice on your message machine, and you're like, I don't sound like that. It's the same thing. It's I don't look like that, I don't sound like that.

But at the same time, it was -- it was fun. I mean, I kind of just -- it was just a part of who I was. Like I said, I almost didn't know any better.

KING: What happened after? Where did Macaulay Culkin...

CULKIN: Where did he go?

KING: Where did he go? What happened? Your father, the whole...

CULKIN: It was all crazy.

KING: What happened?

CULKIN: Well, it was just crazy. And I kind of -- after a while, I mean, I did 14 movies in six years, which is more than two a year, and just kind of pumping them out. And I was at this point where I really wanted to take a break, and it was just a break even, and I really wasn't given that opportunity. I really didn't feel like anyone was listening to me when I was saying those things, and so when I, you know, when I was put in a position where I could take control of my own life and my own destiny and make decisions that were solely for my benefit and not for anyone else to make money on, or anything like that, I did, and I jumped in there and I kind of just -- I said, I'm retired. You know...

KING: At what age?

CULKIN: 14. I know, it's kind of -- it's kind of funny. I always joke. Yeah, I retired at 14.

KING: You made this adult decision.

CULKIN: Essentially, I had to take control. I was going crazy by that point. I knew it was, you know, if I just kept on doing it, I'd go nuts.

KING: And this caused the separation from your parents? CULKIN: From my father. Yeah, but that was kind of a part of me being able to take a step backwards, the fact that he wasn't there anymore. And so...

KING: By your decision?

CULKIN: No, not necessarily. Actually, it was my mom's decision, really, and it was really kind of -- it was great to see her really kind of empower herself and say, you know, get the heck out of here, because you know what...

KING: Was he overbearing?

CULKIN: He was overbearing. The thing is, the funny thing about him is is that when, you know, people ask me about him and things like that is that, you know, he was always the way he was. I mean, before money, before fame, before anything like that, I mean, he just wasn't always a good person.

KING: Controller?

CULKIN: Yes, he was very controlling, very, you know, just -- he played games with you, just to make sure you were still in your place. I remember, you know, when I was -- this is near the end, and I was making God knows how much money, you know, and I didn't have a bed. I didn't even have a room. I was sleeping on the couch. Me and my brother were sleeping on the couch, you know, he had -- and I don't even want to talk about how big his bed was or how big his television was, or anything like that. It was more to prove a point, I think.

KING: Did you win the law case?

CULKIN: Well, no, it was actually, it was a custody trial.

KING: Of yourself?

CULKIN: It was over me and my younger siblings, everyone who was basically under 18 at the time.

KING: Who was fighting?

CULKIN: My parents were, for custody, basically. And -- see, yeah, I always joked that other people's stories get mixed up with mine all the time. Like...

KING: What's yours?

CULKIN: Well, I didn't amend to pick myself from them. What happened was is that, you know, my parents after a while -- and this is a long, drawn out process, yeah, and so after a while, my parents were spending all their money on lawyers bills, and things like that. And they couldn't -- you know, my mother couldn't pay the rent anymore. And it was just absurd that we were going to get evicted. You know, I don't even -- I didn't even know how much money I had in the bank at the time. So what happened was is that both my parents had legal guardianship of about 20 percent of my money, and the other 80 percent was in a trust that no one could touch, not even me, until I was 18 years old. And so what I did was is I took both their names off of it, and replaced it with an accountant friend of mine who was actually very familiar...

KING: At age 14?

CULKIN: I must have been 15 maybe at the time or 16...

KING: Now, are you totally estranged from your dad?

CULKIN: Yes, yes, I am.

KING: Don't see him, don't talk to him.

CULKIN: No, and don't really have any desire to. It's kind of the way it is. I mean, it's unfortunate, you know, but at the same time, you know, people are like, oh, isn't it sad that you don't see your father anymore? And it's like, you know, he's the only father I knew, and he wasn't like taking us to, you know, baseball games or anything like that.

KING: Do you know where he is?

CULKIN: Vaguely, yes, but at the same time, not, you know, I don't really want to know. As long as he's not, you know, standing outside my door, you know, I'm fine.

KING: We'll talk about "Saved." You'll be seeing clips of it. It opens Friday. Our guest is Macaulay Culkin. This is LARRY KING LIVE. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "SAVED")

CULKIN: So, how did you end up at American Eagle? I mean, you're Jewish, right?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, after I got expelled from my last school, it was either here or home schooling. Figured I could handle these freaks better than my parents.

CULKIN: Well, lucky me.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you playing footsies with me?

CULKIN: Wheelies.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, look is that...

CULKIN: Mary. What is she doing downtown?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: There's only one reason Christian girls come down to the Planned Parenthood.

CULKIN: She's planting a pipe bomb?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, two reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP "MY GIRL")

ANNA CHLUMSKY, ACTRESS: Close your eyes.

CULKIN: Then I won't be able to see anything.

CHLUMSKY: Just do it.

CULKIN: Okay, okay.

CHLUMSKY: On the count of three, one, two, two and a half, three.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That famous scene from "My Girl." We're going to look back at what Macaulay had to say about that kiss. By the way it won the movie award for best kiss. He was 11. Here's what he said at the time.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: Well, it was a (UNINTELLIGIBLE). It was like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) the whole thing. She went -- I went, like this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Was it fun?

CULKIN: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Did you get real embarrassed?

CULKIN: Not really. It was like this.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How many takes did you have to do on it?

CULKIN: About 15.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So it wasn't one of the best parts of the day.

CULKIN: Yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Was it weird?

CULKIN: It's kind of weird. It's funny. It's almost like home movies some of this stuff.

KING: Is it weird to look at yourself?

CULKIN: It is. It still is. I think it's weird for anyone to look at themselves.

KING: Grown-up looking at themselves.

CULKIN: Exactly. It's this funny odd form of home movies where, you know, my life has been chronicled through television.

KING: We have to cover it so let's ask about it.

What's the relationship you had with Michael Jackson?

CULKIN: Had or have?

KING: Both.

CULKIN: Whatever.

KING: Let's go with had to have.

CULKIN: He's a good friend of mine and still is. Everything that's going on is an unfortunate situation for everyone involved, and you know...

KING: When did you first get to meet him?

CULKIN: I first meet him -- kind of called me randomly out of the blue, hi, it's Michael. It's like hey. And the thing is...

KING: This after "Home Alone."

CULKIN: This is after "Home Alone." I had actually met him before I was doing "Nutcracker" at Lincoln Center. I was playing Fritz, and he came back stage one day. And I actually met him very briefly and he kind of recognized me because it was after I had done "Uncle Buck." And so, he kind of mentions something. Than he calls me up kind of out of the blue and it's just this weird, random kind of thing. Why don't you come over to my house?

Think is, I didn't react to him the way most people did. Most people are like Michael Jackson, and you know, he was a god to people. And to me, I knew he was a pop singer but beyond that, I wasn't one of the fans. I think that's one of the reasons why we connected was the fact that -- believe me, I call him a jerk all the time. I call him a fat head and this and that and he gets it.

KING: And brother (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to..

CULKIN: Yes. We all did. He was a family friend.

KING: What happened at the house? That's what all the things that people are concerned about.

CULKIN: That's what's so weird.

KING: What did happen?

CULKIN: Nothing happened. You know, nothing really. I mean, we played video games. We, you know, played at his amusement park.

KING: Did he sleep in the bed?

CULKIN: The thing is with that whole thing, oh, you slept in the same bedroom as him. It's like, I don't think you understand, Michael Jackson's bedroom is two stories and it has like three bathrooms and this and that. So, when I slept in his bedroom, yes, but you understand the whole scenario. And the thing is with Michael he's not good as explaining himself and he never really has been, because he's not a very social person. You're talking about someone who has been sheltered and sheltering himself also for the last like 30 years. And so, he's not very good at communicating to people and not good at conveying what he's actually trying to say to you. So, when he says something like that people -- he doesn't quite understand why people react the way that they do.

KING: Why do you think he likes young people so much?

CULKIN: Because the same reason why he liked me, was the fact that I didn't care who he was. That was the thing. I talked to him like he was a normal human being and kids do that to him because he's Michael Jackson the pop singer, but he's not the God, the "king of pop" or anything like that. He's just a guy who is actually very kid- like himself and wants to go out there and wants to play video games with you.

KING: Did your parents encourage it?

CULKIN: They weren't against it. It wasn't like they encouraged it or pushing me upon it. I wanted to hang out with him and they were fine.

KING: What do you make of what he's going through now?

CULKIN: Like I said, it's unfortunate, and you know, it's a circus.

KING: Do you think it's a bad rap?

CULKIN: You know, I think so. Yes. Listen, look what happened the first time this happened to him. If someone had done something like that to my kid, I wouldn't settle for some money. I'd make sure the guy was in jail. It just really goes to show as soon as they got the money and they ran. I mean, that's what really what happened the first time. And so I don't know. It's a little crazy and I kind of have taken a step back from the whole thing, because it is a bit of a circus. And you know, if the same thing was happening to me, I wouldn't want to drag him into it and vice versa. So I try my best to take a distance from it, but like I said he was still a friend of mine.

KING: If they asked you to be a character witness, would you appear? CULKIN: I guess so, but probably not. Like I said, it's crazy, and I don't really want to be a part of it.

KING: You like him.

CULKIN: I like him and he's a friend of mine. I'm not saying I wouldn't. It hasn't been brought up to me and I don't think he'd want me to either. Just because, like I said, if the same thing was happening to me...

KING: What reaction has happened to you from all of this?

CULKIN: What do you mean?

KING: Do people inquire of you a lot about it?

CULKIN: Sometimes. You know, people always have their opinions. It's funny. People always talk to me about him, because you know, I'm one of these people who will tell you anything about my life, really, to get me going. You know, so yes, I mean, I've openly and freely talked about him and stuff like that. But overall, you know, s' just a good friend of mine.

KING: You wish him well.

CULKIN: Of course I do.

KING: What got you into drugs?

CULKIN: What got you into -- wow!

KING: We slide into it easily.

CULKIN: Yes. There was a nice transition there, you know, very smooth. I don't know.

KING: I'm going to talk about the movie too, because I'm fascinated by the plot.

CULKIN: I don't know, you know, it's the same as any kid. That was the whole thing. I mean, you know, everything that I do for some reason becomes this big crazy thing, you know, even though any normal person does it. Like, yes I'm a kid, I had a beer, I smoked a joint. Big deal? You know, what I'm saying, it's not something I make a thing out of.

KING: Did you ever have a problem?

CULKIN: No, I never had a problem.

KING: Never go to Betty Ford.

CULKIN: Contrary to polar popular belief, never jail or rehab and may parents didn't steal all of my money and all those other child star cliches.

KING: How many lies have you read about you in the tabloids?

CULKIN: Millions. Yes. I mean, forget about it. It just comes with the territory. I remember I got a call from my lawyer one day. Calls me up and goes hay Mac, are you there? I go, of course, I'm here. I just checking because I just got a call from CNN that you died of a drug overdose?

And I go, no, I'm still here, but thanks a lot, thanks for calling, talk to you tomorrow. It was so just surreal, you know it was just one of these things. It's like a cliche.

KING: There are people 50-years-old that can't handle that.

CULKIN: At that time, especially because I was taking a step back and I wasn't working, everything, you know, like when I quit, I just basically said you can have it. You can have the Macaulay Culkin. You can have that image and you can control it and you can say whatever you want with it, my mom or my dad or the newspapers, whatever, because I didn't care. It wasn't mine and I was never going to do this again. I was never planning on acting or going into this ever again. So, that's why I really didn't care. So, I never hired a publicist to like protect me or anything.

KING: Why did you come back?

CULKIN: Because like I said, it's something that comes naturally to me and I kind of did miss it. It's something -- like I said, I didn't go out there and seek it. I didn't find it. It found me in this way, and I feel I like it.

KING: Did you protect your money?

CULKIN: Yes. No, I still got it. I actually live below my means. I lead a very, very simple life.

KING: So you have enough that you could -- don't have to work.

CULKIN: I'm not doing. Yes, I'm not working because I have to work or anything like that. Actually, I have all the money I need. So, it's all about just me wanting to go out there and do cool interesting things.

KING: I'll ask about that in a minute.

How are your siblings doing?

CULKIN: Fantastic.

KING: Are you close?

CULKIN: Yes. I'm still close with everyone. With my mom and all my brothers and sisters.

KING: Are they all out here?

CULKIN: No. They're all in New York, that's where we were born and raised. My brother just moved...

KING: So, you're still a New Yorker.

CULKIN: Yes, basicly. I've been splitting my time in the last year or two between New York and L.A. But yes.

KING: We'll go to break with Macaulay Culkin in "Uncle Buck." Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: Where do you live?

JOHN CANDY, ACTOR: In the city.

CULKIN: Do you have a house?

CANDY: Apartment.

CULKIN: Own or rent?

CANDY: Rent.

CULKIN: What do you do for a living?

CANDY: Lots of things.

CULKIN: Where is your office?

CANDY: I don't have one.

CULKIN: How come?

CANDY: I don't need one.

CULKIN: Where's your wife?

CANDY: I don't have one.

CULKIN: How come?

CANDY: It's a long story.

CULKIN: Do you have kids.

CANDY: No I don't.

CULKIN: How come?

CANDY: It's even a longer story.

CULKIN: Are your my dad's brother?

CANDY: What's your record for consecutive questions asked?

CULKIN: Thirty eight. CANDY: I'm your dad's brother all right.

CULKIN: You have much more hair in your nose than my dad.

CANDY: How nice of you to notice.

CULKIN: I'm a kid. That's my job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: I took a shower once and everybody thought it was actual soap including all the major crevices, including in between my toes, and in my belly button which I never did before but sort of enjoyed. I washed my hair with the dark form of the shampoo. (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I can't seem to find my toothbrush so I'll pick one up when I go out today. Other than that, I'm in good shape.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Did you ever have a chance to be a kid?

CULKIN: Overall, I guess, yes. I mean, my own kind of unique abnormal way.

KING: Went to a private school?

CULKIN: I went to Catholic school and then I went to private school and whenever I was home I tried my best to be social.

KING: You have friends?

CULKIN: I had friends. You know, I always joked I had a million acquaintances and only a couple of close friends.

KING: Yes, but did you have a couple of 8-year-olds who went to see "Home Alone" and went, hey, Mac, you're a star.

CULKIN: Exactly. It was a little weird sometimes, like certain kids would react oddly especially when you put them in a group and they're all trying to one-up each other and kind of, like, whatever.

KING: How did your brothers and sisters do?

CULKIN: In their own different ways, you know, my older brother, he got very kind of protective of and wanted to make sure no one would take advantage of me but at the same time he watched someone like Rory (ph), my youngest brother who is working now, he kind of more was able to watch and learn and now I think he's a lot more savvy than he should be when he's 14.

KING: For want of a better word it was a weird existence.

CULKIN: Yes.

KING: Certainly not the norm.

CULKIN: It's unique. How's that?

KING: That's a good word. Tell me about "Saved!." You're in a wheelchair.

CULKIN: I play Roland. He's in a wheelchair. It's kind of a dark comedy, set in a Christian town. We were definitely treading that fine line.

KING: What's the story about? Is that girl supposed to be Jewish?

CULKIN: Yes, she's the only Jewish girl in this small town. It's about a girl named Mary played by Jena Malone and she's a good Christian girl, living a good Christian life, in a good Christian town, good Christian friends, the whole works and she finds out her good Christian boyfriend is gay.

KING: That's you?

CULKIN: No, no, not me. It's this actor, Chad Faust, his name is. So what she does, she wants to degayify (ph) him basically and she tries several different things and eventually ends up giving him her virginity and in the process gets pregnant. He gets shipped away Mercy House which is a degayification (ph) center.

KING: And you are?

CULKIN: I'm one of the people, now that she's pregnant, that kind of helps hide it from the rest of the community, me and my Jewish girlfriend. So we're a bit of the outcasts. I'm in the wheelchair and she's the Jew.

KING: Are you Catholic or Christian?

CULKIN: I'm really neither. I was a practicing Catholic for a long time. I did get baptized, had my first holy communion, the whole kind of thing but I kind of -- I'm more spiritual than anything else. I guess I believe in God but God's also kind of a label.

KING: Why did you take this movie?

CULKIN: Because it was fantastic. When I first read it, I said I'll do the lights, I'll hold the microphone if you want me to, I'll do whatever you want. I just want to be a part of it. It was so smart and funny and so well-structured. I loved the cast and the people involved. I was friends with Sandy Stern and Michael Stipe, the producers. We were friends before this whole thing...

KING: Do you see a lot of scripts?

CULKIN: I see a good amount of scripts, yes, and it's kind of, you know, it's funny because when there is something good out there, everyone's going for it. That's the thing. So it's hard to make good stuff.

KING: Are you ever going to be allowed to be grownup? You're how old now?

CULKIN: I'm 23.

KING: In "Saved!" are you 23?

CULKIN: Actually, no, I'm, like, 17.

KING: When are you going to be cast as 25?

CULKIN: I have no control over people's perceptions of me at all and that's one of the things I decided very early on is that I can't control the way other people think of me. All I can do, especially when it comes to my career is go out there and do cool unique kinds of things. I don't want to do the same parts over and over again. I don't want to put myself in a box and say yes, I'm only going to do things that take place high school or I only do things where I get to carry a gun. Because then you're putting yourself in a box.

KING: But do you think you are a box?

CULKIN: I hope not. I try not to do. I try doing different kinds of things. I go to London and do a play, I do something like "Party Monster" and I do something like this. I try to do different kinds of things. It's just more for my personal satisfaction than it is for anything else. It's not about money.

KING: You get as much kick out of theater?

CULKIN: Yes, I love theater. I'll do it in a heartbeat. If there's some good material out there...

KING: You'd go to Broadway?

CULKIN: I'll do it in Leningrad, I don't care. I'll go anywhere you want me, if it's good material, it's my favorite form.

KING: What's it like at your age to be financially secure?

CULKIN: It's weird. Like I said, it's always been the way it is. It's comforting, sure.

KING: You must have had very good contracts then.

CULKIN: Yes, and not that I even knew. It wasn't like there was like, hey, you know...

KING: Did you have a piece of the film like "Home Alone?"

CULKIN: I think I did get some back end stuff and things like that. I wasn't really -- I really didn't know the details in my contracts. That was done on purpose. My parents made sure I didn't really know what was going on, at least, on the financial side.

KING: That would have been bad.

CULKIN: When I turned 18, I sat down in my accountant's office, it was basically the day where he put down a piece of paper in front of me and said this is how much you're worth. It was interesting, because it was one of these moments where it was like I felt like this little boy worked really hard and I inherited all of his money. I felt like I inherited this money in some odd way.

KING: We'll take a break, go to your phone calls for Macaulay Culkin, and as we go to break, another scene from "Saved!." Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Listen, I'm really sorry I ditched you yesterday.

CULKIN: Look, this year's been great. Before you, it was all about Hilary Faye dragging my (UNINTELLIGIBLE) around all the time and when you left yesterday, I stuck on my own. It was OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So...

CULKIN: So, I realized that I might just be relying on you. The same way I was relying on Hilary Faye.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.

CULKIN: I don't want to be the guy who is with the girl because he needs her. I want to be the guy who is with the girl because he wants her. And I want you.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want you, too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: Hey, Mr. Walker, sorry I'm late. I figured since I'm a lawyer now, I should probably have a suit. So I stopped off at the Men's Warehouse, but my credit card got declined, so I had to call my mom. But not to worry, I got the suit and I'm ready to get medieval on law's ass.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: That was on "Will and Grace." Why did you take that?

CULKIN: It was fun. I had never done television before. And it was one of these things where it was just a new forum, and they called me up -- they wouldn't let me see the script, because they don't do that. So they kind of described the part to me. And I had never seen the show before.

KING: No? CULKIN: No. So I had them send me some tapes, and I actually thought that was to my advantage kind of going in there fresh.

KING: You like comedy?

CULKIN: Yes, actually, I do. It was funny, before that, my friend Seth Green, who I did "Party Monster" with, we were doing promotions somewhere. He was saying, you're a funny guy, you should do comedies. And I go, you know, half of what I've done is comedies, you know. It was one of these things where it's, oh, I guess other people are forgetting. So I thought, let's go out there and do something, you know, funny.

KING: We go to calls for Macaulay Culkin. The new film is "Saved." It opens Friday. Norristown, Pennsylvania, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Macaulay.

CULKIN: Hello.

CALLER: How often do people ask you to slap your hands on your face and scream Howard Stern?

CULKIN: It actually happens all the time.

KING: It's a regular daily (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CULKIN: It's one of those things -- you know, it's one of these things where it's kind of sad, you know. I feel like I'd be disappointing people because I've gotten older. You know, and it's like they would be like, oh, he's old and it's pathetic now. And so, you know, I almost don't want to let people down, so I don't really do it.

KING: Toronto, hello.

CALLER: Hi. Just want to tell you, one of your best roles was "Uncle Buck." And what was it like working with John Candy? What memories do you have?

KING: Good question.

CULKIN: Well, he was -- yeah, he was funny. I mean, he was fantastic. I mean, it's weird, because I was 8 years old at the time, so I kind of only have very kind of these loose memories. I remember it was John Hughes' birthday and he got...

KING: The director.

CULKIN: Yeah, yeah, and so he got a clown on the set that day, and he was calling him little Johnny boy, and like put a little hat on him and everything like that. And then he got a stripper later on. But I wasn't there for that. And so he was just a fun, funny kind of joyful guy.

KING: Did you realize when you saw it back at 8 how funny that scene was with the questions?

CULKIN: It's so -- I haven't seen some of these things in so long. So yeah, I mean, it's funny stuff, but you know, who am I to say?

KING: John overate though, did he not?

CULKIN: What's that?

KING: John did not take care of himself.

CULKIN: No, and that was just the way it was.

KING: Hemmett (ph), California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, I was wondering how you liked working with Marilyn Manson there in "Party Monster?"

CULKIN: He was fantastic, actually. We always look forward to having him on the set, because -- you know, he only worked I think like the very first day and like the last week, basically, and he was just -- he was -- actually he's a very, very intelligent person, and you have to be to do what he's done, to pull this off, basically.

KING: He's a little nuts, isn't he? No?

CULKIN: But that's kind of -- that's a part of...

KING: That's his schtick.

CULKIN: That's his thing. I mean, he's a bit crazy. You know, but at the same time, he's kind of that's what he wants people to think. And he is a smart, funny guy. He had this very specific image of what he wanted the character, what kind of cigarettes he smoked. And he brought his own fake boobs to set and everything. All the wardrobe was his, basically.

KING: Cleveland, hello.

CALLER: Hi.

KING: Hi.

CALLER: How are you? My question is, Macaulay, do you think that you're the happiest that you've been in your life right now, at this point in your life?

CULKIN: I'd say so. Yeah, I mean, I have a pretty good life, you know. I'm doing some -- you know, I'm doing some cool movies, you know, and I got my dog and I got my apartment, and like all of those things. I mean, I have a pretty good, good thing going.

KING: And a cute girlfriend, too.

CULKIN: And I got a cute girlfriend, too.

KING: When was the unhappiest?

CULKIN: Gosh, that's the thing. I don't really remember a lot of my younger life being unhappy.

KING: Even the squabble with your father?

CULKIN: It was kind of the way it was. And actually, you know, once he was gone, it was actually a good thing. I mean, despite all like the craziness and the media and how people just treated the situation, because it was a very private, personal, family problem that was kind of, you know, on the cover of "The New York Post" every day. But at the same time, we were just glad that he was gone. And so that was -- you know, we were actually happy, you know, even throughout that whole stuff. Even though it was confusing.

KING: So you don't even view that as a great, troubling period?

CULKIN: No, not really, you know. I kind of just -- I try to keep my head on straight, and that's all.

KING: To St. Joseph, Missouri, hello.

CALLER: Hello.

KING: Yeah, go ahead.

CALLER: Hi. I was just wondering how you were able to get over your bout with agoraphobia, because I have something similar to that as well.

CULKIN: It's just one of these things. I didn't even realize I wasn't leaving the house a lot. I kind of just -- I just kind of, you know, there was always photographers in the bushes and things like that, and there was a lot of things out there that were trying to consume me.

KING: Do you ever go out of your house?

CULKIN: So I almost never left the house. And it was just one of these things, where, you know, one of the reason why I got the dog was to get me out of the house three times a day, at least to just walk around the block and things like that.

KING: If you're a true agoraphobic, you can't go out.

CULKIN: You can't really go out. I mean, it wasn't like -- I wasn't even -- like I was more of just -- it was more of a self- diagnosed agoraphobic. It wasn't like I went to a therapist and he said it. It's just I realized -- I started going outside, and it felt like the buildings were going to eat me. So I kind of just...

KING: That's what happens, right?

CULKIN: It is kind of what happens. And so it is one of those things...

KING: Is it true that you make plans to go out and then always change them?

CULKIN: Sometimes, things like that. Yeah, and you know, I kind of -- but I just kind of started dragging myself out of the house a little bit more and more. I guess the dog helps and things like that. But it's just kind of...

KING: Did you do it yourself, you did not have help?

CULKIN: It was just a matter of realizing where was this coming from, and kind of just figuring it all out for myself. And why was I, you know, why, you know, am I this way, why did I feel the need to, you know, do these things to myself.

KING: You almost wrote to J.D. Salinger...

CULKIN: We were joking about that.

KING: ... a famous writer who's a recluse.

CULKIN: Yeah, yeah, and so I was thinking, you know, when I was especially in that place where I wasn't leaving the house at all, I was like, yeah, wouldn't that be funny if I wrote him a letter. It's like you don't leave the house, I don't leave the house; let's talk.

KING: Do you understand recluses?

CULKIN: Do I understand -- yes, I do. Very much so.

KING: You know what drives them to want to be...

CULKIN: Overall, I'm by nature I think I'm the same way. I mean, overall...

KING: But you're a charming interviewee, you're responsive.

CULKIN: Well, thank you. But at the same time, I prefer being at home. You know, I prefer, you know...

KING: Rather be alone.

CULKIN: Alone at my home.

KING: Home alone.

Castle Rock, Nevada, hello. Hello, are you there? Is anyone there? Hello?

CULKIN: We lost them.

KING: We lost them. We'll take a break and be back with more of Macaulay Culkin right after this. The new film is "Saved," it opens Friday. Don't go away.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you know (UNINTELLIGIBLE). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CULKIN: I took a real good look when my kid brother Richard drowned in the bathtub.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your brother drowned?

CULKIN: He's completely blue. I looked at his eyes and lips, (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Shut up about my mom!

CULKIN: Don't get mad. I am just trying to be scientific.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just shut up or I'll hit you!

CULKIN: Try it. I'll throw you down there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: What's your name?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm Angel.

CULKIN: Where's your wings.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

CULKIN: Listen can you help us get this door closed. You get to do it from the outside.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if I do that, then I won't be able to come.

CULKIN: If you do this now, you'll be one of us and the next time I'll make you VIP, very, very important person.

Come on, now. Be an Angel.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Michael, you're out of your mind.

CULKIN: Oh, please, party in the truck.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We're back with Macaulay Culkin.

The film "Saved" by the way, opens in five select cities Friday and opens wide June 10th.

What happened -- you had a fire? CULKIN: There was a fire, yes, a couple of years ago, two or three days before Christmas in New York. I don't remember what year it was, it must have been like '99, something like that. And yes, it was a fire. I basically woke up, had two friends of mine pounding on my door saying there's a fire in your apartment, and I actually thought there was a fire in my apartment. But it was at my mom's place with the kids and everything. It started in their -- their apartment. Basically I wasn't there. But it was one of these things where I think sparks came out of the radiator. And some of the plastic blinds on fire.

Yes. Everyone from my family got out. Some people did die in the building.

KING: Really.

CULKIN: Yes. It was very unfortunate and very sad. And it was just one of the things you never want to happen to everyone.

KING: Santa Barbara, California, hello.

CALLER: Yes, Larry. My question for Macaulay Culkin is, with a generation of young people what advice do you have for young adults and parents to get motivated to make change?

And in your own life who did have as a role model to get motivated?

KING: What motivated you?

CULKIN: Motivated me? Gosh, I was just looking for stability, and happiness. I was just trying to -- I just have had a very unique existence overall and so it's almost like I almost have no place giving any normal human being any advice about what it's like to be happy. It just, you know, but at the same time, you know, just be a good person. Be good to the people around you.

KING: What led you with all the things that you happened in your life to get married?

CULKIN: It was just -- that's one of the things. Like I said, when I do normal things people think I'm crazy.

KING: You were how old when you got married?

CULKIN: I was 17 when I got married.

KING: That's normal?

CULKIN: Not necessarily normal. It's not the norm or the average age but, you'd be surprised how many letters I've gotten, we were married 50 years and we got married when we were 17.

KING: How old was your wife?

CULKIN: Seventeen as well, also. KING: Why didn't it work?

CULKIN: Why doesn't any marriage work. You know, it just happened sometimes. You never want something like that to happen. And of course when we got married we thought we'd be together forever. I mean...

KING: You didn't know how much you were worth then.

CULKIN: Around that point -- around that point I was starting to figure it, sort of put it all together.

KING: Are you friendly with her?

CULKIN: Yes, basicly, I'm friendly, I haven't really spoke on it her in a while but yes.

KING: St. Paul, Minnesota, hello.

CALLER: Hi, yes. How are you doing, Macaulay?

CULKIN: Good, thank you.

CALLER: I would like to know, in the future, if you have children, would you consider putting them in show business and if so, what would you do differently than your father did to guide their career?

KING: Good question.

CULKIN: I'm not sure I would -- I would put them into the business. If it's something that they really wanted, like they were crying and bawling and "I want to be in show business," like maybe. But essentially, I'd just say wait until you're 18. There's so much more you can learn. So much more can do. And do it when you're an adult. There's no reason to start now.

KING: Do you wish you had had a more normal child?

CULKIN: No. I like the way I am. And I like the way, you know, I've ended up. I'm very happy right now. So there's no reason. If I changed one little thing I wouldn't be the person I am today.

KING: Was it your father that encouraged to you get in?

CULKIN: No. I was one of those kids who had a lot of energy, enjoyed -- like I said the attention that came with being on stage. And it kind of just all happened. Yes.

KING: Frederickton, New Brunswick, hello.

CALLER: Hi. Hi, Macaulay.

CULKIN: Hello.

CALLER: My question is, in the near future do you happen to see yourself doing any directing or possibly teaching acting to young actors and what advice would you give to any aspiring young actor?

CULKIN: I'm of the opinion overall like of course, yes I want to direct and things like that. But I hate it when actors are out there saying I'm going to direct and produce. And you know, what I loved about Ron Howard, was -- he said I'm going to be a director and did it. And it wasn't like he was all talk. You know, he actually went out there and did it. So, if I'm ever going to do something like that I would go out and do it. I don't need to announce it to the world or anything like that. And I have a lot to learn before I go down that path, if that's what I decide for myself.

KING: What advice would you give young people?

CULKIN: Gosh, you know...

KING: The odds are against you to begin with. The lowest paying business in the Screen Actors Guild are the lowest paid people in America.

CULKIN: It can be. Yes. I mean, you know, it's crazy. You've just got to kind of keep your head on straight. There's a lot of people who put emphasis in the wrong places, like being at the right parties or things like that. And it's all about going out there and doing good work. Ultimately I'm of the belief that 90 percent of the time the cream rises to the top. And people who are talented are going to stay and withstand the test of time. As opposed to the people who are more in it for the celebrity aspects of it.

KING: To Santa Ana, California, hello.

CALLER: Hi, Macaulay.

CULKIN: Yes, hi.

CALLER: Hi, I'd like to know -- you seem like you are really leading your life really great.

CULKIN: Thank you.

CALLER: And you've got a good head on your shoulders and everything. And I feel like you're my kid in a way. I feel really proud of you.

CULKIN: Thank you.

CALLER: And I was wonder, where do you see yourself, in let's say, 20 years down the road?

CULKIN: I have no idea. I always joke around, that like oh, I'm going to get this acting thing out of my system by the time I'm 30, so I can go off and be a writer like I really want, and this and that. I mean, I try not to plain that far into the future.

KING: You want family? You want...

CULKIN: Yes, of course. I want a family and I want the house and the yard and, you know was is it, 2.2 kids now. I don't know what the average is now. I want to do all of those things, but I want to work. I want to see what's out there for me. I want to do it until it doesn't stimulate me anymore.

KING: Is there still a lot of Catholicism?

CULKIN: There's the -- there's the respect/fear of any, you know, that's been instilled in me from that very early age towards Catholicism. My father worked in the church, so he was the sacristan, which means, he kind of cleaned the place up. But one of his duties was setting up Mass. And so, he'd take the waivers and the wine, put it on this gold tray and he'd bring it out there. I remember all of these people out there, this big holy thing, it's the body of Christ, the blood of Christ. I'm like this is crackers and wine, just put out there. You know, it's like (UNINTELLIGIBLE) to me, you know. It just gave me this tainted view of religion, at least the ritual aspects of it.

KING: Were you an altar boy?

CULKIN: No, I wasn't actually, I think my brother was, though.

KING: To Lincoln, Nebraska, hello.

CALLER: You were so wonderful in the "Good Son" and at such a young age. And after doing the "Home Alone" movies, how in the world did you make that switch and be able to stretch to such a part at such a young age?

CULKIN: Gosh, you know, that was one of the movies that I really, really wanted to do. I knew it was different than anything else I was doing before. And you know, I wanted to kind of go to those places. I wanted to see. It was just kind of more almost acting more on instinct than anyone else. It wasn't like I had any formal training. It wasn't like I had ever played a part like that before. So, I was just trying my best to portray this character and tell the story.

KING: Do you find yourself interested, like the kid from, "I see dead people."

CULKIN: Haley Joel Osmond.

KING: Yes. What do you think of him?

CULKIN: I like him. I think, he's incredibly talented. And you know, other child actors keep an eye out for every else, and kind of make sure that everything is going OK and seeing...

KING: What do you hear about him?

CULKIN: You know, I hear he's a good kid. I don't know. I wouldn't presume to act like I know anything about him. Because one of the things I hated, especially growing up, was when other child actors grow up and say I know what you're going through, and I know, exactly what you're like. I'm like no you don't. You don't know me and don't know what it's like to be me. And you know, I wouldn't presume to pretend like I know you So, I would not even presume to comment on his life, and you know the way he acts, because I don't know.

KING: When you watch other actors work, do you ever say I'd have done it this way?

CULKIN: Well, in what capacity, any actor?

KING: In any capacity.

CULKIN: Sure, I guess. I think other actors do that also. It's not just me. It's one those things..

KING: It's your profession?

CULKIN: Yes, it's a part of what I do. So, yes. Sure, I can do that. It's so easy to say.

KING: Our guest is Macaulay Culkin. We'll be back with our remaining moments. The film "Saved" opens in five select city Friday. What are they?

CULKIN: You've got New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and D.C.

KING: And on June 10th it will open wide.

CULKIN: Wide.

KING: Wide. We'll be back right after this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP "HOME ALONE")

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There he is! Whoa!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yicks!

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ah, I got you! I got him, Harry! I got him. Harry, get up, give me a hand. I got him. Harry, help me! Get up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: Hello?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Richie, dear, are you sure you don't want to dine with us?

CULKIN: It's OK, mom. I really don't like that guy.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's all right, dear. Neither do I. But (UNINTELLIGIBLE) is very good for you. Liver is rich in protein. CULKIN: It's so tasty, too. Bye, mom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CULKIN: That's me.

KING: Are you writing a book?

CULKIN: Oh, kind of, yes.

KING: What do you mean kind of? You are or you aren't.

CULKIN: I write and it's something that's very kind of sacred and something that's very kind of personal to me. So it's just...

KING: By the way, when it comes out, I know it's kind of personal but usually you have to promote it. I hate to break it to you, but you sort to of have to go out...

CULKIN: I was thinking of publishing under a pen name.

KING: Or maybe writing for yourself and not even publishing. Just write it and read it in your room.

CULKIN: That's what I'm thinking about, too.

KING: Go to your room and read it. Yet you have a girlfriend who's also -- she was in television, right?

CULKIN: Yes, she is.

KING: She was in, what, that "70s" girl.

CULKIN: Sure, you're saying it. I'm not. It's not like I'm embarrassed about my relationship...

KING: "That 70s show." There she is.

CULKIN: Oh, there she is. It's something -- like I said, once you start giving people things and they start expecting things and so I try keep my private life private overall.

KING: OK, OK! Killeen, Texas, hello.

CALLER: I've been a huge fan for years and I wanted to know what is the movie that you're most proud of?

CULKIN: The movie that I'm most proud of? Gosh, it almost would be unfair to really say, oh, you know, this of my favorite, that was my favorite. To be totally honest and it's not just because I'm here promoting but I think "Saved!" might be my favorite. I had such a good time, great cast, there's actually people my own age on set and things like to that. I think it's the smartest thing I've ever done and just the coolest thing I've ever done.

KING: Chicago, hello. CALLER: I'm Sylvia. I saw "Home Alone" 50 times because of you. I just want to know, what did you think about working in that beautiful home and did you ever consider college or think about it or do you hate it? Anyway, I love you.

CULKIN: Thank you.

KING: Was that in Chicago?

CULKIN: Yes, Chicago. It was in -- I think it was Winnetka, something with a W. I think it was Winnetka. Beautiful house. Actually, we shot the whole first one -- like we did a lot there. The second one we only shot half a day there. They figured out how to build it and shoot around it. They actually printed up T-shirts and everything. They were so supportive of the film before we even came out or anything like that.

KING: Santa Barbara, California, hello.

CALLER: Macaulay, which actors and directors would you most like to work with?

CULKIN: It's so hard. I have actually been asked this before. I almost wouldn't exclude almost anyone. Of course, I'm not the only actor out there that wants to work with, like, Martin Scorsese or like Johnny Depp or...

KING: Or Ron Howard.

CULKIN: Sure, I'd love to. I wouldn't say no.

KING: Don't. Ottawa, Canada, last call, hello. Go ahead. hello.

CULKIN: We can't hear you.

KING: He's afraid to talk. Must have been a kid. Sort of like an early Mac.

CULKIN: Earlier version of me.

KING: Maybe a reclusive kid.

KING: He dialed the phone, he thought he'd say something but he just couldn't say it. So our advice to him would be, get a dog.

CULKIN: Yes, get a dog.

KING: What is next?

CULKIN: What is next? I actually don't have anything that I can sit here and promote right away. I'm looking at some projects and different kinds of things but I am in no hurry. I don't need to go out there and do ten projects a year to make myself feel better as a creative artistic person. I'll do one cool small project a year that I'm really, really proud of. KING: You have no economic pressure.

CULKIN: Exactly. I'm very, very fortunate.

KING: Mac, it's been a great pleasure finally having you with us.

CULKIN: There you go.

KING: Macaulay Culkin and the film is "Saved!" It opens in five cities Friday and wide on June 10. I'll be back in a couple of minutes to tell about tomorrow night. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KING: Hey, they have a winner and a runner-up in "American Idol." We got them both tomorrow night on LARRY KING LIVE. Plus a follow-up on the latest stewings of the royals.


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 4:30 PM JST
Updated: Sat, Jun 5 2004 5:11 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Tue, May 25 2004
Prosecutor suggests Jackson might flee if bail reduced

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Michael Jackson's prosecutor is opposing a move by the pop singer to reduce his $3 million bail, arguing the performer might choose to live the rest of his life as "a wealthy absconder" rather than face a life term in a California prison.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to child molestation, administering an intoxicating agent, and a conspiracy count involving allegations of child abduction, false imprisonment and extortion.

The prosecution motion, written by Deputy District Attorney Gerald McC. Franklin, conceded that the county bail schedule calls for a potential maximum bail of $435,000 for the child molestation and conspiracy charges against Jackson, but he argued the performer is no ordinary defendant and the bail schedule does not apply to him.

He cited Jackson's holdings of 2,000 acres in Santa Barbara County as well as other property.

"The defendant here is 'Michael Jackson, international celebrity,' a man whose life style to date would not have prepared him to adapt readily to a prison environment and routine, and whose physical stature will present its own problems for him in making the necessary adjustments.

"Mr. Jackson has doubtlessly given those realities considerable thought," the motion said.

The motion obtained by media lawyers Sunday said Jackson's immense wealth requires at least $3 million bail to insure that he will appear for trial and, if convicted, would be prepared to serve a lengthy prison sentence.

"The temptation to flee must surely be strong for an individual in defendant's circumstances," said the motion. "To suppose otherwise would be to blink reality."

Jackson's lawyer, Thomas Mesereau Jr., did not immediately return phone calls Sunday.

The motion included a footnote alluding to the case of Andrew Luster, an heir to the Max Factor cosmetics fortune who fled from Ventura County to Mexico during his rape prosecution "notwithstanding his $1 million bail bond." Luster ultimately was captured in Mexico.

Franklin posed the likelihood that a number of countries would welcome Jackson if he fled.

"Mr. Jackson is known and adored -- 'adored' is not too strong a word -- in many of the countries of Europe, the Near East and Africa," said the motion.

"Several of those countries do not have extradition treaties with the United States. ... he may well conclude that life as a wealthy absconder in one of these countries is preferable to what might amount to a life term in a California prison," the motion said.

The motion acknowledged the defense argument that Jackson has made all of his court appearances, but argues that one of the reasons he did so was the $3 million bail.

Many details of the Jackson indictment remain under seal, and media outlets, including The Associated Press and CNN, have sued to have the indictment and grand jury transcripts unsealed in their entirety. Their lawyers obtained the prosecution's motion opposing the reduction in bail.

The Jackson defense has opposed public access to the indictment.

In a separate motion, prosecutors said they agree with Jackson's attorneys that secrecy should continue.

The prosecutor said jurors "should learn about the evidence while seated in the jury box, not at the breakfast table or from late-night talk shows."

The motions were to be argued at Jackson's next hearing May 28.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/24/jackson.ap/index.html


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:08 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sat, May 22 2004
Jackson sings in the song, "Who gave you the right to shake my family tree?"

So I don't have an answer to this question, but I do have a rumor that's building up strength. Sneddon apparently is interested in indicting Michael Jackson's former attorney, Mark Geragos, on the conspiracy charges of kidnapping. Sneddon, in his zeal to convict Jackson, has totally bought the story from the mother of Jackson's 14-year-old accuser that she and her children were held hostage by Jackson associates in February and March 2003.

Sneddon's office, citing the case's gag order, declined to comment. Geragos did not return our call. But a Geragos insider told me: "I wouldn't be surprised if it's true. Sneddon is trying everything he can to get Michael. He wanted to make Mark a witness in the case if he could."

Where exactly does Geragos fit in this story? Early on, the mother retained a lawyer named William Dickerman, quoted here in this column on November 17, the day of the Neverland police search. Dickerman later told this column that he wrote several letters to Geragos, including one on March 26, 2003, asking for the return of possessions the mother said were taken from her apartment in East Los Angeles by Jackson associates and put into storage.

Those associates, Frank Tyson and Vincent Amen, working at the direction Marc Schaffel, Dieter Wiesner, and Ronald Konitzer, were all unindicted co-conspirators named in the latest Jackson indictment. But kidnapping? Held against their will? There will be reams of testimony indicating that the mother did not want to leave Neverland, and that the possessions she claimed were missing amounted to very little, if anything.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:34 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Sat, May 1 2004
Analysis Of Michael Jackson Indictment

CNN LARRY KING LIVE

Analysis of Michael Jackson Indictment

Aired April 30, 2004 - 21:00 ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


NANCY GRACE, GUEST HOST: The so-called King of Pop, Michael Jackson, back in court to face the music. Stunning new charges added to Jackson's child sex abuse indictment. Tonight, exclusive, first reaction from Michael's outspoken brother, Jermaine Jackson. Also with us, Jane Velez-Mitchell of "Celebrity Justice," Mark Steines of "Entertainment Tonight." Both Jane and Mark at that Santa Maria courthouse today. Plus high-profile defense attorney Chris Pixley, former prosecutor Wendy Murphy and psychotherapist Dr. Robi Ludwig. It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE.
Welcome to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV, in for Larry tonight, and I thank you for being with us.

Stunning new charges added to the Michael Jackson indictment in court today. Let's go out to Jane Velez-Mitchell. You were there in the courtroom today. What are the new charges? What did they mean, Jane?

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, "CELEBRITY JUSTICE": Well, this conspiracy charge that came up was a total bombshell. It was a shocker, and there was literally a gasp in the courtroom. But we at "Celebrity Justice" were not shocked because we have been reporting for months now that the prosecutors were looking into two men on the West Coast, Vinnie Amen (ph) and Frank Tyson (ph), on the East Coast. These are in their 20s. They are former Jackson associates. And prosecutors believe that they conspired to intimidate, harass and threaten the family that is accusing Michael Jackson.

Now, I have to tell you up front, they say they've done absolutely nothing wrong, but prosecutors believe they did conspire to keep tabs on this family, keep them allegedly hostage at Neverland. And there was even an investigation of moving this family all the way to Brazil, and another Jackson associate actually traveled to Brazil to check that out.

GRACE: Brazil, Jane, it would be kind of tough to deliver a subpoena to them in Brazil.

Let's go to you, Mark Steines. She's absolutely correct in this count one, which is the new and bigger charge added to the indictment today -- that's a secret grand jury proceeding unfolded and revealed today for the first time in open court. Clearly, Jackson had to conspire with someone under the theory of the prosecution. They say he conspired to abduct a child, to falsely imprison a child and to extort. Explain.

MARK STEINES, "ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT": Well, to say something that Jane -- Jane follow -- or to kind of follow up on what Jane said -- the overflow court today -- this is -- how shocking the charges were, sitting there when they were read -- they were read in the first -- within the first five or six minutes of the proceedings today, which started about 8:30 here on the West Coast. Literally, almost every single journalist within the overflow room got up immediately and ran out of the courtroom to start filing their report already with the latest news. I mean, this had such a huge impact, and I think it brought this case to a whole 'nother level, at least -- both in Michael's situation, in his eyes, because we've seen his demeanor and how it has changed, and of course, what it means to -- you know, for us covering this, in that this -- this has a lot more -- this is a lot more weighty subject than the previous nine charges.

GRACE: Wendy Murphy, weigh in on this. The reality here, in my mind, strategically speaking, is that before, on the original arrest charges, it was all about alleged conduct by Michael Jackson. Now we see a conspiracy charge, allegedly that Jackson tried to extort money or threaten the family, tried to falsely imprison this child or his family or even kidnap or move the child. That means, Wendy, somebody else, according to the prosecutors, is involved. Once you have more than one or two people involved, somebody cracks and testifies, Wendy.

WENDY MURPHY, FORMER PROSECUTOR: You're absolutely right, Nancy. And it might even be more than one person. We just don't know yet. And whether or not that person is indicted -- remember, there's such a thing as an unindicted co-conspirator. There's going to be an awful lot of pressure brought to bear on that person or persons. And Nancy, I think this makes the prosecution's case extremely strong now because it isn't just about the word of a child now.

Remember, 28 different overt acts are alleged in support of this conspiracy indictment. What that means is we're going to hear about 28 different things that were done to intimidate, or the abduction and so on. And how is that going to be explained away? You know, the reasonable jury is going to say, Hey, if this kid's making it up, the mother's out for money, it's all a big bunch of nonsense and Michael Jackson's so guilty, why did there have to be 28 separate acts of, in a sense, intimidation tactics taken against these people?

GRACE: Well, put. Chris Pixley, you want to take a crack at that, Chris. What can the defense say? Or will they portray it, Chris, like this -- say Jackson took the kid and his mom to Disneyland. What's wrong about that? That could be viewed as philanthropic. But then, when you look at these charges, suddenly, there is a nefarious stroke to even a trip to Disneyland.

CHRIS PIXLEY, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That's right. That's right. And I also think, Nancy, that there's an obvious angle here. One of the problems that the DA's had from the very beginning is they have an accuser who claims that he was molested by Michael Jackson during the same period of time that the LAPD and the Department of Chile and Family Services were investigating those allegations and were finding that there was no basis for them. So the DA has to do something to rehabilitate this witness, to build the accuser and his family's testimony. And what better way than to say, Well, actually, during that period of time, they were under threat of force. They were being intimidated. They were in danger, and that's the only reason they didn't tell the truth.

The problem with that, of course, is that any adult, even if the child doesn't know, understands that if you're being interviewed by the police and you are in danger for your life or fear danger, you simply tell the police...

GRACE: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute.

PIXLEY: ... and they protect you. So if...

GRACE: Wait a minute on that. Let me throw that at Wendy. That's a really good point, Chris. My understanding, Wendy, is that there are allegations that when this child and his mom talked to child protective services, that there was actually Jackson representative there. Could that be viewed as intimidating?

MURPHY: You know, was that a rhetorical question, Nancy?

GRACE: I'm just throwing it out there.

(LAUGHTER)

MURPHY: You know, look, there's so much about this case that still has yet to be proved, but what's important is, and what I think makes the prosecution's case extremely strong, is that the jury's going to hear all this. It's one thing to explain away one piece of evidence, but explaining away 28 separate overt acts...

GRACE: Yes.

MURPHY: And Chris thinks it's all easy to do by simply saying, Hey, you know, a reasonable child would simply tell the police the truth. Not when the person against whom you're making an allegation has made threats, has abducted you, has tried to, you know, use extortion tactics against you and is the most powerful man on the planet in terms of music!

PIXLEY: OK. But the difference is, the child...

(CROSSTALK)

PIXLEY: You're right, a child may not understand that they're able to make those statements to the police and they'll be protected, but the adult does. And the mother, you know, the family as a whole was interviewed here. And you can't simply say, Well, there was somebody sitting in the room and so they didn't feel safe...

GRACE: Hey, guys...

PIXLEY: ... with the police there.

GRACE: Guys, we've got a whole...

PIXLEY: It just doesn't make sense.

GRACE: We've got a whole 'nother can of worms to open up, and that is today's proceedings. Here in the studio with me, psychotherapist Dr. Robi Ludwig. Robi, there were throngs of people there. There were hundreds of people there. In a moment, Jane and Mark are going to describe how they got there, starting at about 1:00, 2:00, 3:00 o'clock in the morning. I was shocked to see kids were there. Parents had actually taken their kids out of school and then had them at Jackson's child molestation arraignment!

DR. ROBI LUDWIG, PSY.D., PSYCHOTHERAPIST: It really is mind- boggling, but that is the power of fame and celebrity. And there are fans that are willing to idealize and have a need to idealize the fan (ph) that they are attached to. So many people want to believe in Michael Jackson's innocence, that he couldn't do this, that he really does love children.

GRACE: I mean, taking your child to a child molestation arraignment proceeding?

LUDWIG: I know. A lot of people don't have good judgment, but that's...

VELEZ-MITCHELL: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

GRACE: Go ahead.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: Yes. A lot of these people have lived in Santa Maria their whole lives. Michael Jackson has lived up in Neverland. He has been a source of intrigue, mystery, curiosity. This is their one chance in their life to get a look at Michael Jackson, and they're going to come down here and they're going to take a look at him. You have to understand it from their perspective. They're living here in this rural community. There is this superstar so close, it's so tantalizing. I can understand why they come down here and want to take a look at it. And as to the other people...

(CROSSTALK)

LUDWIG: Yes, you bring up a really good point because sometimes people just want to be connected to the famous.

GRACE: Guys, guys --

(CROSSTALK)

GRACE: Celebrity, star-struck -- I get it! Everybody loves a celebrity. But taking your child to a child molestation arraignment? You know what? We need a team of therapists from Vienna to come in and figure that one out.

(LAUGHTER)

GRACE: But Jane, back to you very quickly. I understand people started lining up in the wee hours of the morning to get a lottery seat to go into the courtroom. Is that true?

VELEZ-MITCHELL: They do every time. And when they go in, they're holding hands. Some of them are near tears. You see tears welling up in their eyes. And the same thing happened this time. People have come from Japan. People come from all over the world. I got e-mails, I was flooded with e-mails on my Blackberry from people who said, I can't make it. I want to come from Scandinavia, but I want to see you this e-mail. So this is a global, global case. People are watching from all around the world, and they connect with Michael. That is his genius.

And Michael today was an absolutely transformed man, I have to tell you. I don't know whether it was a makeover or whether it was truly a life change. At every point in everyone's life, there's a moment where they have to grow up, and maybe this indictment was the moment that Michael Jackson had a moment of clarity and said, I've got to change how I'm doing this. He was a different person -- the body language, how he spoke. The tone of his voice when he spoke...

GRACE: Wait a minute.

VELEZ-MITCHELL: ... was a little bit lower, more mature.

GRACE: Jane, let me throw this to Mark Steines very quickly. Mark, are you buying into Jane's theory that Jackson has had a sudden epiphany at age 45 and he's totally changing his life? I think his lawyers convinced him not to wear the World War II medallion or the outfit or dance on top of the SUV. I'm not so sure that somehow he had a complete change of heart this morning.

STEINES: Well, I -- let me -- I agree with that very much, Nancy. And as far as the fans coming out -- yes, they did come out. However, there were three buses scheduled to come up this time. I understand only two made it, one from -- there were three scheduled from Los Angeles, Orange County and Nevada. I'm still uncertain which bus did not make it or fill up and come up here. Before, there were five, possibly six. The crowd was much smaller and more subdued than previously.

Now, was that because Jackson's camp didn't orchestrate as much of a fan base coming up here because they didn't want to have the spectacle that they had last time, so it wasn't -- so it appeared to be a much more changed and organized and focused Michael Jackson, more serious about what was going on? Or are the fans just kind of backing away from him at this point...

GRACE: Well, you know...

STEINES: ... and not showing as much support?

GRACE: But Mark...

STEINES: You know, that's the question.

GRACE: The reality is, if they had wanted to make this a somber event, then why did they have a post-arraignment pizza party? We'll discuss that and everything else regarding today's proceedings in court, including what happened to Mark Geragos and Ben Brafman? Why an erratic change of lawyers? What does it mean, if anything? Stay with us. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MICHAEL JACKSON: I would like to thank the fans around the world for your love and your support, from every corner of the earth. My family has been very supportive, my brother, Randy, who's been incredible. I want to thank the community of Santa Maria. I want to you know that I love the community of Santa Maria very much. It's my community. I love the people. I will always love the people. My children were born in this community. My home is in this community. I will always love this community from the bottom of my heart. That's why I moved here. Thank you very much.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV, in for Larry tonight, and I want to thank you for being with us. Today, after the so -- called King of Pop, Michael Jackson was arraigned formally on a 10-count felony indictment regarding his alleged misconduct with a little boy, Larry King caught up with his outspoken brother, Jermaine Jackson. Jermaine Jackson in Bahrain. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We welcome to LARRY KING LIVE, exclusive with us tonight from Bahrain, Jermaine Jackson, Michael Jackson's brother -- his brother, of course, indicted this morning on 10 charges, one more than was expected.

Were you surprised by some of the things said in these charges, Jermaine?

JERMAINE JACKSON, MICHAEL'S OLDER BROTHER: Well, I wasn't quite clear of all the charges, but I was surprised, yes. Very much.

KING: Well, for example, he was charged with 28 overt acts, with child abduction, false imprisonment, extortion, offering an intoxicating agent. All this involves one boy. What do you make of that?

JACKSON: That's all bull-crap. That's bull-crap and it's crazy because how can anyone be held against their will at Neverland? And why didn't all this stuff come out from the very beginning? This is someone's malicious acts who are trying to ramroad (ph) Michael and the family. And I'm very upset at the system because, like I said before, how can someone be indicted and you don't even have all the facts? And the fact that the feds didn't get a chance to present their side, and everything that the prosecution side has put forth has been just lies. And that's -- and now it's all over the world that Michael's indicted, and it's nothing but a circus, as you can see. And I will continue to say that it's a modern-day lynching and it's a circus.

KING: Well, the grand jury, of course, is offered lots of information, as grand juries are. The accounts are held in secret, as you know, and that's the system, the way it works. A grand jury can indict based on information it receives. The other side is not presented. But it does need information.

JACKSON: Right. It does need information. But would you say it's fair to make a decision based off of one side, whether it's factual or not, which it's not? It's not factual. It's very untrue.

KING: Well, what do you do, though, if you're the investigators, Jermaine, and this boy comes forward and brings charges to you and you investigate the charges and believe the charges? Are you supposed to not go through it? I mean, what are you asking the investigators to do that they haven't done?

JACKSON: I think the investigators need to be investigated. Why? Because from the very beginning, the mother had stated that there was nothing done. She went publicly and said this on national television. And there have been findings of her misconduct, as well, so -- and I'm not here to get into details of the case, but we're dealing with things that are just untrue. And the fact that it is Michael Jackson is going to create world news.

I'm here, surrounded by supporters. This is not any political side of anything to do with war or anything. These are students and people who care about Michael and the family from Bahrain. And it is just really sad because there are fans from all over the world here in Bahrain, as well as the Gulf and the Middle East. It's just not fair. It's not fair.

KING: Does -- what does Michael say to you about this boy? What has he said to you in the past about this boy?

JACKSON: He hasn't said anything to me about the kid. But at the same time, we all saw on the Brashir (ph) special that there was nothing done. The kid stated and his mother stated that Michael was kind to them. And you tell me, how can someone be held against their will at Neverland? Is it that people doesn't want to leave there because of the joy and the fun? And it's just -- Larry, I'm very disappointed. I'm very disappointed in the system. I'm very disappointed that this thing has gotten this far, very disappointed.

KING: Let's touch some other bases before we get back to that. What did you make of the dismissal of both attorneys?

JACKSON: I was surprised, being in this part of the world. And I wasn't part of the legal strategy, but I feel that they're doing what they feel they need to do at this point in time. So I have to support it.

Do you know -- we're a family, Larry, and this doesn't just hurt Michael. It hurts my kids, my mother, friends who love us and fans around the world. And haven't we been in enough with -- not just us as a Jackson family, but just the American people, period? And to have this circus continue to go on and on -- every new thing is like a big media blitz, and this is a circus for the networks. And I would just say it's all crap. It's propaganda. This is the system in which we live. Unfortunately -- you happen to be CNN, which we all love, but at the same time, you have to report what you see. And that's why I'm here, sitting before you asking questions that are just very crazy.

KING: You said earlier, though, that you had full confidence in both Mr. Geragos and Mr. Brafman, that you had nothing to do with the appointment of the new lawyer.

JACKSON: Yes.

KING: Do you know why they changed lawyers?

JACKSON: I really don't know why. I had heard that maybe Mark, who I feel is a very great guy, and Ben Brafman -- I had spent a little time with him at the Beverly Hills Hotel, both of them, and they seemed to be doing OK. As I said, I've been in the Middle East since -- and Bahrain since the 6th of this -- of April.

KING: Yes.

JACKSON: I think it had -- Mark may have been a bit busy, I had heard, but I'm not giving you facts, but this is things that I've heard.

KING: You haven't spoken to...

JACKSON: I haven't been part of the...

KING: ... Michael about the...

JACKSON: ... the strategy that Randy and Michael...

KING: You haven't spoke to Michael about the change?

JACKSON: No, I have not.

KING: Did Randy -- was Randy -- because he thanked -- he publicly thanked Randy this morning. Did Randy help make that decision to change the lawyers, to your knowledge?

JACKSON: Probably, but I'm not sure. I can't say yes or no. Randy's been doing a great job of working with Michael. Michael felt, when all this stuff happened, he couldn't trust anybody. So the person to trust is family. Randy was right there. And the fact that -- people were saying, Well, what about Leonard Muhammed (ph), and this and that. Well, what are they doing, and all? So again, like I've said from the very beginning, I put the Nation in there for security because during the time, Michael felt that his life was threatened, and I felt that they would do a great job. And they did do a great job during the time that their services were used.

KING: Now they have a new security team. Does that surprise you?

JACKSON: Well, it doesn't surprise me, but I guess if the Nation has been dismissed, then they would have to get a new team. Like I said, I'm not hearing the day-to-day as to what takes place, but I am watching the news here, just like everyone else is. I saw my mother and my father. I miss them, and I saw, I think, Jackie and -- you know, this is a tough time for us, Larry. It's been very, very tough because when you look at -- and I'll just say this? May I?

KING: Sure.

JACKSON: All the good that Michael has done, all the good over the years, and through the music and what he's represented from all over the world, not just in America, but the globe and bringing aid to those who are less fortunate, and what his music's about and what he's taken time to do, why is this going on? Someone doesn't want him to continue to be the person that he was put here to be.

KING: I'm going to pick right up on that in just a moment.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: Hold on one second. Hold it one second. I'll be right back.

(CROSSTALK)

KING: I'm going to pick right up on that, Jermaine. Hold it one second. I just want to pick right up on that. We'll be right back after these words.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: We're back with Jermaine Jackson. Are you saying that there's some sort of plot against Michael because he's so successful? I mean, can't you be successful and also have problems? Can't a person be successful and also have a thing in their life that they're embarrassed by or they're troubled with? Can't that be possible?

JACKSON: No, no, no, no. Not these kind of problems. Larry, not these kind of problems. It's, like, you do so much good, it becomes good at first, but then it becomes a weapon against you. I mean, we could go back in history from those who have done good, from Mahatma Gandhi to -- on up to modern day, and why these people become a threat, or even go back to Christ. Michael is not what they're saying he is. He's a wonderful person. And those who know him, the world who has -- who have had the moment to meet him, they know what he's all about, even -- the people in America, they know who he is. And they look at this as just -- they can't believe it's gone this far. And we're going to continue to fight and we're not going to let this happen.

KING: A few other things. I know you -- you spoke...

JACKSON: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) He will be exonerated. I really feel that.

KING: You spoke to Mark Geragos after the change. What did Mark say to you?

JACKSON: Mark said to me that he was very surprised and he felt that -- see, because what happened, Larry, I spoke up because I felt that everybody was blaming me that I got rid of the legal team. And I was here doing some lecturing at some of the universities, but at the same time, I didn't know anything about it. I found out when I was called to come talk to MSNBC about me firing the attorney. How can I do that from way out here? So when I spoke to Mark, Mark said he felt that I didn't take a hand in that. But I felt that they were doing a great job. But I'll say it again, I'm not part of the legal strategy in which -- the terms that they're going to make right now. And I think -- go ahead.

KING: Was Mark disappointed?

JACKSON: He was disappointed. Mark is a great guy. He was probably surprised. He wasn't disappointed. He didn't sound disappointed to me. But as we know, he's very busy with other cases, and we're talking about my brother's life here. And I think Michael's not upset. He just feels that at this point in time, you need to do what you need to do to show the world that you're completely innocent. Completely innocent.

KING: Michael today went out of his way to thank the community of Santa Maria. Do you feel completely that he will get a fair trial?

JACKSON: Well, I'll just say this. In the past, he -- a black man has never gotten away with anything. He's -- he -- either, whether they were guilty or not, something has always worked out where they say that he's the one, he did it, this and that. Michael is totally innocent. I feel that with all the media circus that has gone on, it could play an influence on just media speaking out and saying things. Michael will get a trial that is just only because he's innocent and he has God in his life. But at the same time, all the extra circuses that are going on and all the different things that are being said -- those are the things that sort of influence the viewers, and they say, Well, maybe he is guilty. No, Michael's not guilty.

Your question, would he get a fair trial?

KING: Yes.

JACKSON: I really don't know. I really don't know. I can't say.

KING: Why haven't you rushed...

JACKSON: I can't say.

KING: With the -- when the indictment came forth -- couple of other things -- why didn't you rush home?

JACKSON: Why didn't I rush home? Well, when the indictment was handed down, I can't say before the public, but I have some very serious matters to take care of here. But I am with my brother in spirit and heart and love, and he knows that. I spoke with him, as well as Randy, and they were a little saddened that I couldn't be there. But Larry, I'm with him right now, right this moment.

KING: Do you know why none of the other brothers or sisters were there today except Randy?

J. JACKSON: Jackie was there. I saw Jackie, I think. I really don't know. I've been -- there's time zone is very, very different here, but at the same time I was happy to see my mother and father there and Randy and Jackie and some other close friends.

KING: Are you and the Jacksons, are you going to come forward? When do you come back by the way and are you going to come forward, you and family members, before this trial to take your case to the public?

J. JACKSON: Well, to answer the first part of your question, I'll tell you off camera when I'm coming back, of course, and we'll meet in private. I'll also say that we have to follow the strategy in which the attorneys are going to take, if they want us to say certain things, we will say them, which is truth.

KING: Do you know the new lawyer?

J. JACKSON: I don't know the new lawyer, but I understand that he's very strong, and he's probably taking the time to get familiar with what has taken place so far. And Michael's happy, and that's what's most important, and I think we're going to move forward and fight this.

KING: Are you planning to meet with Mr. Mesereau, the lawyer, when you do get back?

J. JACKSON: I really don't know. I will let you know if I do.

KING: Okay, thank you so much, Jermaine. Continue to...

J. JACKSON: Only you, Larry.

KING: See you back home. Michael Jackson's brother, coming to us from Bahrain. More of LARRY KING LIVE after this.

THOMAS MESEREAU, MICHAEL JACKSON'S ATTORNEY: It is an honor and privilege to be in the wonderful community of Santa Maria, where wonderful people live, including people here with us. And I want to make clear what this case is about, this case is not about lawyers or anyone else becoming celebrities, this defense is going to be conducted with professionalism and dignity at all times. This case is about one thing only, it's about the dignity, the integrity, the decency, the honor, the charity, the innocence, and the complete vindication of a wonderful human being named Michael Jackson.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV in for Larry tonight. And would I thank you for being with us. Let me go to you, Jane Velez Mitchell. I noticed a lot of Jermaine Jackson's comments had to do with the ousting of the last defense team Mark Geragos, Ben Brafman. And I've got to say, I thought they made quite a team. Geragos: affable, likeable, knows his way around the courtroom, charming. Ben Brafman: no nonsense street fighter, gets the job done.

What does it mean, a sudden seat change. Is it a degree of erraticism to just fire your defense team, fire your security guards, then new security guards were hired, then they were fired, then a new team brought in. What does this suggest?

MITCHELL: Well, I heard, and there have been reports there was a riff between Randy and Jermaine. Obviously, they both love their brother very much, but had very different strategies. Jermaine more pro Geragos and pro Nation of Islam, Randy more pro Mesereau and pro a new security term. There was no Nation of Islam. They had another security team.

Obviously, the Nation of Islam is a controversial group and could backfire. There's only 12 people that count at the end of the day, and that's the jurors. In if that's going to cost him a lot with the jurors, maybe it's a smart move to bring in another less controversial team. It seems quite obvious.

As for Mesereau, he was reportedly Michael Jackson's first choice. I talked to someone who flew to Orlando, Florida, to meet with Jackson. Randy was there. Randy seemed to be brokering the deal. But Jackson was the one who said, I wanted Mesereau from the beginning. He was busy with the Blake case.

Now that he and Blake have parted ways, he's available and he's done a lot of work in the African-American community. He's really made his chops there. He's involved with an African-American church in South Central, he's done a lot of pro bono work with people in the deep south. He is a man who is very, very well-respected and it was Michael Jackson's decision. He was in charge of this one, I believe.

GRACE: Well, Mark Steines, it seemed like a clear swipe by the new lawyer, Mesereau, and Mesereau is no idiot. I've watched him in court many, many times. He's a great courtroom advocate. So, when he said this is not about lawyers turning into celebrities, I don't know, it seemed to me like a swipe at the last defense team. What do you think?

STEINES: Well, absolutely. He was trying to say something without saying something. I mean, look what happened last time. Michael comes up here, and does a lot of grandstanding, he's on top of his vehicle. He is late for court, he throws a party at Neverland Ranch afterwards. Who orchestrated all of that? And look what it did for him. And I think, at some point...

GRACE: Well, wait a minute, wait a minute, orchestration, what about the fake spectacles and the Brooks Brothers tie and the post arraignment pizza party. Are you buying into all of that? STEINES: Well, look, today, you know, you get people on a bus, you bring them up here, you got to feed them. As far as a pizza party, it wasn't so much a celebration, as probably a need that these people came up and they were feeding them.

What happened at Neverland Ranch last time that was a big party, on a day that you're brought in and read charges against you for molestation. I think people step back and say wait a minute who is running this thing and whose making the decisions? Because it didn't show well for Michael.

GRACE: Yes, Chris Pixley, I do have to say he had a much more subdued appearance today, apparently everything ran smoothly in the courtroom, not so last time. Why do you think the last team was thrown out?

PIXLEY: Well, I think it's difficult to know. As far as today's appearance, Tom Mesereau and Michael Jackson clearly benefited from a little bit of hindsight. I don't think anyone would dispute that the first arraignment was a disaster for Michael Jackson.

But I also think it was difficult to anticipate what he would do that day. Having received all the negative publicity that he has now...

GRACE: You're right about that, Chris. I don't think that Geragos and Brafman asked him to get on top of the SUV and dance under an umbrella with the videographer there. I agree with you on that.

PIXLEY: And Nancy, you know from talking with witnesses and dealing with clients, you will invariably tell your client or your witnesses repeatedly what not to do. And without coaching them, tell them look, this is a solemn proceeding. It doesn't mean that they listen to anything that have you to say. And I've seen very, very good people do it. And have horrible results.

LUDWIG: But Nancy, it would have been absolutely suicidal for Michael to behave like he did the last time. He was much more appropriate this time, and if people are inclined to want to believe Michael, , then how he presents himself from here on in is going to have a very powerful impact. Even the fact that he isn't wearing sunglasses. He's showing, hey, I'm not hiding anything, I can be appropriate. I'm not somebody who needs to be in the limelight and performing all the time. I can follow the rules, which is going to be a very important message the jurors are going to be looking for.

PIXLEY: And that's very true...

GRACE: And Wendy Murphy...

PIXLEY: ... but Nancy, if I could break in...

GRACE: Go ahead.

PIXLEY: ... there is one problem, still. Aside from how Michael Jackson appeared today, there is the question of whether it makes sense to play musical chairs with your counsel. And the answer there, with all due respect to Tom Mesereau, is no, it never is. And one of the interesting things is, I didn't hear Tom Mesereau say as he stepped to the podium today that he's dropping all of his other clients to serve Michael Jackson's interests.

Mark Geragos is involved in another high profile case at the moment. That goes with the territory. The truth is, any great attorney, even any good attorney, is going to have conflicts, and the question really is, what's lost in the process. Here, you've lost the benefit of a tremendous attorney who had great insight and who had knowledge of this case from the beginning. Two tremendous attorneys, but one of whom knew this case from the very beginning, and the truth is, you never know as much as the guy that was there from the get-go.

GRACE: Yeah, he will have to play catchup.

Very quickly to Wendy Murphy. Wendy, do you get a sense that the comparison to Mahatma Gandhi and Christ could come back conceivably to haunt the Jackson defense team?

MURPHY: You know, I have to believe that Jermaine didn't mean to compare Michael Jackson to those two, but, you know, he said it. He clearly loves his brother. You know, I loved Michael Jackson, too. When I was a young teenager, I picked his famous song "Ben" to be my wedding song, and I loved it until I learned it was about a rat.

But you know, Nancy, I really think that getting rid of the first team was really a good strategy. And it has nothing to do with how good or not good Geragos and Brafman were. Look, the acquittal by frenzy approach to the defense strategy in terms of the court of public opinion, which is just as important as the real courtroom, didn't work. It worked for O.J. They tried it. It didn't work for Michael Jackson. They had to cut the cord, start fresh, and in terms of what the public is perceiving, they needed a whole new tone. And when you take in that whole new approach, you get a new lawyer, who is toned down. You start wearing your glasses and your normal suits. I think the day was good for Michael Jackson.

GRACE: We are taking a quick break. We'll be right back with all of the latest regarding the indictment of the so-called King of Pop, Michael Jackson, in court today. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV in for Larry tonight, and I want to thank you for being with us.

Very quickly, back to Wendy Murphy. Wendy, still in this indictment, we still don't know specifically what are these so-called lewd and lascivious acts Jackson allegedly performed with this child. It's still very, very vague. But Wendy, I did notice that in most of these counts, the lewd and lascivious counts, it states, "substantial sexual conduct with a child under age 14."

MURPHY: You know, yeah, interesting series of charges there, Nancy. The substantial sexual conduct language, I think, and maybe Chris knows better, has to do with sort of special circumstances, that if he's convicted on all four counts would mean that he could not be sentenced to probation. We don't know what kind of touching is involved. I think it's interesting that we went from seven lewd and lascivious charges down to four, and one of them is an attempt, as well. I don't know where the other ones went to.

You know, it's interesting. And we're going to find out fairly soon exactly what the details are and how they broke them down.

GRACE: What about it, Chris? What do you make of the fact that we still don't know, even after we've seen the indictment, we don't know specifically what lewd and lascivious behavior means. I mean, is it fondling, is it masturbation, is it playing an X-rated video? We really can't tell from this formal charging tool.

PIXLEY: Yeah, and we do know that that substantial sexual conduct has to be fondling, masturbation or penetration. We also know, by the nature of the charges, the initial charges, that there's no penetration, because of the charge that was brought. So we're getting these inklings of what it is, but we just can't know, and there isn't going to be any way to know this early.

I think, you know, the truth is that the defense is facing the same problem right now. They've just today received the indictment, but they don't have the transcript of the proceedings and won't have that at least until some time after May 28, so everyone's involved in a guessing game right now.

GRACE: Yeah, definitely the grand jury testimony will be very, very revealing, and of course the defense will have to have that testimony by the time of the trial in order to cross-examine those witnesses at trial that testified at the secret grand jury proceeding.

We are taking a very quick break and we'll be right back. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

GRACE: Welcome back to LARRY KING LIVE. I'm Nancy Grace from Court TV. Very quickly, out to you, Jane Velez Mitchell. There have been allegations swirling against the actual district attorney in this case, Tom Sneddon. What do you make of them?

MITCHELL: Well, yes, he's been accused of being too involved, of having a vendetta, of actually going himself to do certain things that would normally be done by underlings, meeting the mother allegedly directly behind the federal building, according to reports, and having a one on one with her.

Well, why not? This is a woman who is, according to our sources, terrified, very, very intimidated by this whole thing. In fact, a "Celebrity Justice" reported she wanted to pull out. After testifying before the grand jury, she and her son were so traumatized, they didn't want anything to do with this. So, of course, he has got to show his face. He's got to say I'm committed, I'm there, I'm accountable, look at me. I don't think there's anything inappropriate with him meeting face to face with her, or even snapping a photo in the private investigator's office as he was reported to have done.

This case, obviously, has to be somewhat personal to him. He was the DA back in 1993 when another grand jury met that did not result in an indictment, but rather a settlement for many millions of dollars. That's got to be frustrating. And anybody that says he doesn't have some kind of personal connection is obviously, probably, not that psychologically aware. But that doesn't mean he can't be fair.

GRACE: Very quickly, Wendy Murphy, if I had a nickel for every time I went and met a witness and sat in a car or an office or a restaurant and talked to about the case, I would be a millionaire today, much less go and snap a Polaroid picture. Am I crazy, but what's wrong with that?

MURPHY: No, but of course, you know, look, the defense's job in this case is to take every tiny little thing that happens and blow it out of proportion. That's what you do when you really don't want to argue or talk about the facts.

And Sneddon is an easy guy to dislike. He has been attacked and accused of all sorts of wrongdoing for over ten years now. The bottom line is this is a fragile family. I have no doubt the mother of this child feels terribly victimized. The family has been threatened.

When you have such a fragile set of circumstances, a young and victim, a sick victim a mother who has been through hell, have you to get involved. You have to take responsibility, meet with her and say, I'm not assigning some underling to the case of the century. I'm with you to the end. And I have no doubt that gave her great comfort, as it should have.

GRACE: Dr. Ludwig, I'm seeing this case take on a personal tenor for all the lawyers. We've seen Geragos and Brafman kicked to the curve. We see a new lawyer brought in, and they took it on the chin many, many times during the defense of Michael Jackson, the two of them, and I now guess Mesereau will. Now we see the district attorney being attacked personally.

LUDWIG: Well, it's hard to remain objective when you're so involved in the case. I think people probably feel that the district attorney can't be objective. And that's why he's being attacked. That it seems he feels strongly about Michael Jackson's guilt and will do whatever it takes to make sure that he's convicted this time around.

GRACE: What about his behavior Robi, has made you think he can't be objective and he's taking these extraordinary steps in prosecuting Michael Jackson?

LUDWIG: Well, that's the way he's been presented, whether it's true or not. we only see snippets of how he's presented in the media and creates a caricature who have he is. We don't know what he's really thinking or feeling, but this is the way he's been presented so that's why people are taking potshots at him

GRACE: And Chris Pixley, I noticed today, that Sneddon nor anyone in the district attorney's office, gave a public statement, but yet once again, the defense was out there swinging. I'm not sure if it helps or hurts them.

PIXLEY: I would have to agree, Nancy. The statements today were so brief, and I think they may have gone a little bit overboard with the praise for the people of Santa Barbara. And again, you face so many difficulties when you have a client like Michael Jackson. He's praising the people of Santa Barbara, but of course, he's told the media recently, that he'll never move back to Santa Barbara. That's what you face when you have a client of this kind.

And I tend to agree with you, it may have been best to do as the DA did and make no statement after the case or after the...

GRACE: And very quickly, Mark Steines, after reading this indictment word for word, I still don't know the particulars, the specifics of these so-called lewd and lascivious behavior by Jackson on this boy. But I do know one thing, I realize now that other people are going to be implicated in a conspiracy, where the state is alleging child abduction, extortion and false imprisonment. What do you make of it and will the case begin to mushroom, including other defendants?

STEINES: Well, obviously, it's clear today that there will be more search warrants involved, that's there's much more to be told in this case. But my question is, and maybe Chris can answer this or anyone, is this case still on course to go on trial by year's end, or after today is this pushed and we're looking at possibly a year from now?

MURPHY: Can I make one quick comment about that?

GRACE: Sure.

MURPHY: I don't think the addition of these charges necessarily should be described as responsible in some way for delay. And let's be clear, even before these charges were added, Mark Geragos said months ago when he was first in court, I think I'll be ready for trial in December judge.

Well look, if he's an innocent guy, if this case is such a bunch of nonsense, if Michael Jackson is really facing entirely false charges by this vindictive mother who wants money, you don't ask for a trial date in December. You say I want my speedy trial right now.

Michael Jackson today could have asked for a trial within 60 days and said instead would you mind if I didn't come back for a hearing until September? I mean, that tells you what the defense thinks of the strength of this case, not how complicated it is, how strong it is. GRACE: That's a good point. And Jane, Jackson did enter into an agreement today, where he does not have to attend many of the court proceedings.

But, one thing I couldn't help but wonder, Jane, is when I saw the hundreds of people there, holding the banners, holding the signs, the little children there cheering Jackson on, I wondered if somewhere today the alleged victim's family was watching this and what effect it's going to have on this boy.

MITCHELL: It's a very good question, I mean, what happened here today was so surreal. I think the case did take a dramatic turn.

GRACE; Oh, oh, Jane, Jane, we're going hold that thought. Guys, we have run out of time. I want to thank all of you for being with us tonight. Sorry we've run out of time. I can't thank you individually, but my big thank you to you for being with us tonight. Good night.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com

>





Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 5:06 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thu, Apr 22 2004
Grand jury indicts Jackson

SANTA BARBARA, California (CNN) -- A grand jury investigating allegations that pop star Michael Jackson molested a 12-year-old boy indicted him Wednesday. The charges in the indictment were not immediately known.

His attorneys said he would plead not guilty at his arraignment April 30 in Santa Barbara Superior Court. No trial date has been set.

Jackson, 45, pleaded not guilty in January to seven felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of giving the child an "intoxicating agent." (Full story)

His lawyers issued a statement saying they were confident Jackson would be "fully exonerated."

"We also remind the public that Michael Jackson, like any other person accused of a crime, is presumed to be innocent," said the statement from Mark Geragos, Robert Sanger, Benjamin Brafman and Steve Cochran.

"Michael is looking forward to his day in court and wishes to thank the millions of fans throughout the world who continue to support him during this difficult period."

The 19-member grand jury convened March 29 and met for 13 days to decide whether there was enough evidence to indict the singer. (Full story)

In the criminal complaint, prosecutors say the incidents for which the singer has been charged took place in February and March 2003 when the boy was 12.

Thomas Sneddon Jr., Santa Barbara County district attorney, said the complaint includes special allegations that could make Jackson ineligible for probation if convicted in the case, which grew out of an investigation launched following a documentary on the pop singer broadcast by ABC.

The complaint contends that Jackson "had substantial sexual contact with John Doe."

The charges against Jackson were filed in December, nearly a month after authorities raided his house at Neverland, his 3,000-acre ranch in Santa Barbara County, northwest of Los Angeles. He has been free on $3 million bond since his formal arrest last November. (Background)

An array of witnesses
Grand jurors heard from more than a dozen witnesses, including the boy, his brother, mother and father and the mother's two attorneys, Larry Feldman and William Dickerman. (Full story)

Feldman represented another boy, 13 at the time, who leveled similar accusations against Jackson in 1993. The singer resolved that case out of court in a multimillion-dollar settlement, and no charges were filed. (Full story)

Psychologist Stan Katz, who reported the current child molestation allegations to law enforcement officials, also testified, sources said.

Katz said the allegations surfaced during a therapy session with Jackson's accuser, who had been referred to him by Feldman.

Feldman also referred the 1993 accuser to Katz, who reported those allegations to authorities.

Sources said other witnesses from the 1993 case appeared before the grand jury as well, indicating prosecutors might have been attempting to establish a pattern of behavior by Jackson.

Jamie Masada, owner of the Laugh Factory nightclub and the man who claims to have facilitated the introduction of Jackson to the latest alleged victim, likewise testified, said another source familiar with the case.

To encourage two former Jackson employees to testify before the jury, prosecutors considered bringing charges against them of intimidating the family of the alleged victim, the source said.

Further allegations being investigated
Earlier this month, Los Angeles police said they were investigating new allegations of child abuse against Jackson from the 1980s.

One of the singer's lawyers said he expected the story will eventually be proved false, and a source told CNN there were "doubts" about whether the accuser was ever with the entertainer.

The one-paragraph statement from police said they were contacted by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office in March. (Full story)

Geragos and Brafman called the new allegations a "smear campaign."

In a documentary made for Britain's Granada Television by journalist Martin Bashir, which was broadcast in the United States in February of last year on ABC, Jackson said he still allowed children to stay with him in his bedroom, despite the notoriety of the 1993 case.

"Why can't you share your bed? The most loving thing to do is to share your bed with someone," Jackson says in the documentary.

"You say, 'You can have my bed if you want it. Sleep in it. I'll sleep on the floor. It's yours.' I always give the beds to the company."

CNN's Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/21/jackson.case/index.html

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 2:56 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Fri, Apr 16 2004
Police may have doubts over latest Jackson charges


LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Authorities looking into new allegations of child abuse against pop icon Michael Jackson may have some doubts about the accusations, a source familiar with the investigation said Wednesday.

The source said investigators are trying to determine if the accuser was ever with Jackson.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles Police Department released a one-paragraph statement saying police were contacted by the Los Angeles County district attorney's office one month ago to look into the claims.

"The victim alleges the acts took place in the city of Los Angeles in the late 1980s," the police statement said. "The Department's Juvenile Division, Child Protection Section, is currently investigating the allegations."

Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles district attorney's office, confirmed on Tuesday the police statement.

"We did ask them to conduct an investigation about one month ago," she said in a phone interview. "It's still ongoing, but we have no further comment."

LAPD spokesman Jason Lee told CNN the department would release no further details about the investigation or the allegations.

Ben Brafman, one of Jackson's lawyers, predicted Tuesday in a phone interview with CNN that the new claims would be proven false.

"It is simply not possible, nor productive, to even try and respond to the dozens of baseless rumors and outrageous allegations that surface on almost a daily basis," Brafman said.

"In virtually all of these cases, once the facts have been objectively investigated, they have been found to be entirely without merit. My expectation is that this story, like so many others, will eventually prove to be false and in all likelihood [was] promoted by people who have their own selfish agendas or are otherwise seeking to compromise the right of Mr. Jackson to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending," Brafman added.

A grand jury is currently hearing a child molestation case against Jackson, 45, who pleaded not guilty in January to seven felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of giving the child an "intoxicating agent."

Prosecutors say the incidents for which Jackson has been indicted took place in February and March 2003.

Jackson was investigated in 1993 after allegations of sexual misconduct involving a 13-year-old boy.

The singer settled that case with the boy's family out of court, and no charges were ever filed.

-- CNN Producer Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report

Find this article at:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/14/jackson.newcharge

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 11:58 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Thu, Apr 15 2004
Michael Jackson's official spokesperson, Raymone Bain, speaks with Fox News
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2004

Michael Jackson's official spokesperson, Raymone K. Bain spoke with Fox News' Rita Cosby via a telephone interview on Sunday, March 28, 2004. Ms. Bain spoke with Rita Cosby regarding Michael's upcoming visit to the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., where he will receive a humanitarian award by the African Ambassador's Spouses Association.

Ms. Bain said, "Michael has throughout his lifetime given to so many charities and has supported so many wonderful issues and organizations. So as a result of that, he is being honored by the African Ambassador's Spouses Association. The organization is comprised of 51 African and Caribbean countries."

Michael Jackson has given millions to charities worldwide throughout his lifetime. He has given these donations anonymously and publicly through his kindness and loving spirit to others that are less fortunate than him. In 2000, the Guinness Book of World Records ranked him as the popstar that has given to the most charities in history.

"He's honored by receiving this award, and rightfully so. He's done so much in his lifetime to the tune of over $50 million worldwide to charities and he is very honored by this award. He does random acts of kindness and he has done that throughout his entire life. He gives a number of monies to charities anonymously. So there are documented and undocumented acts of kindness from Michael Jackson," said Bain.

While visiting in Washington, D.C., he will be "attending private meetings and events with some of his friends and associates whom he has known over the years." Ms. Bain also said that he has a few meetings that are private that will be up on Capitol Hill.

When asked if he could speak to the public right now, what would he say, Ms. Bain replied, "One of the concerns Michael has had has been so many people speaking on his behalf whom he has not known, people whom he has never met, people who he has not seen since he was six or seven years old. I think that is one of the main things he has been concerned about. And of course he has indicated that he does not want that to continue and of course we've had conversations, Rita, about that. I think that has been the most annoying thing to him, to be sitting there looking at various reports and having people speaking on his behalf whom he has never met before, who do not know anything about what's going on and just giving misinformation. I think for a long time that was one of the proble... people speaking who did not have authority to do so, nor did they have the right information."

When Ms. Cosby spoke about how grueling the case must be for him, Ms. Bain reemphasized that, "Michael is doing fine and is basically taking control."


source: WWW.MJJSourse.com

KATHY

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 5:21 PM JST
Updated: Thu, Apr 15 2004 5:29 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Wed, Apr 14 2004
4th. accuser story a hoax

Guest: Frm prosecutor Kimberly Guilfoyle-Newsome and Diane Dimond

-Newsome says that she heard 25 minutes of the tape that the prosecution will get
-she says, on the tape, the family are denying anything happened; they're talking about MJ as a father figure and how their father was jealous of Mike's relationship with them.
-Dimond is still insinuating that there could be "something" on the tape.
-Newsome made Dimond look stupid after Dimond asked if there was no abuse why did they make this tape.
-Newsome says that the tape was made as a result of the Bashir uproar and child services investigation, NOT really for a molestation case from the family
-Newsome says by judge allowing prosecution to see this tape, this kinda opens the "flood-gates"
-Newsome says she didn't hear any coaching or anything like that on the 25 minutes she got to hear.

-Dimond says this 4th accuser story was a "hoax".
-Dimond says this person was very specific and detailed with their allegation, but it didn't stand up. Says that 4th accuser talked about being given "jesus juice" and drugs, and being left at Neverland by his father, etc.
-Police ruled that to be a hoax
-Dimond says the 93 "victim" (her word) has not testified in front of the grand jury (which we all knew he wouldn't) and may testify at the trial (yeah right)

-Dimond claims the grand jury could also indict other people who held the family against their will (yeah right)

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 5:53 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
New Jackson abuse claims probed

LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Los Angeles police are investigating new allegations of child abuse against pop icon Michael Jackson from the 1980s, according to a police statement.

One of the singer's lawyers said Tuesday he expected the story would eventually be proved false.

The one-paragraph police statement said police were contacted by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office one month ago.

"The victim alleges the acts took place in the City of Los Angeles in the late 1980's," the police statement said.

"The Department's Juvenile Division, Child Protection Section, is currently investigating the allegations."

Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles district attorney's office, said the police statement was correct.

"We did ask them to conduct an investigation about one month ago," she said in a phone interview.

"It's still ongoing, but we have no further comment."

LAPD public information officer Jason Lee told CNN the department would release no further details about the investigation or the allegations.

Ben Brafman, one of Jackson's lawyers, predicted in a phone interview with CNN the new claims would be proven false.

"It is simply not possible, nor productive, to even try and respond to the dozens of baseless rumors and outrageous allegations that surface on almost a daily basis," Brafman said.

"In virtually all of these cases, once the facts have been objectively investigated, they have been found to be entirely without merit.

"My expectation is that this story, like so many others, will eventually prove to be false and in all likelihood [was] promoted by people who have their own selfish agendas or are otherwise seeking to compromise the right of Mr Jackson to a fair hearing on the charges presently pending," Brafman added.

A grand jury is currently hearing a child molestation case against Jackson, 45, who pleaded not guilty in January to seven felony counts of lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of giving the child an "intoxicating agent."

Prosecutors say the incidents for which Jackson has been indicted took place in February and March 2003.

Jackson was investigated in 1993 after allegations of sexual misconduct involving a 13-year-old boy.

The singer settled that case with the boy's family out of court, and no charges were ever filed.

-- CNN Producer Dree De Clamecy contributed to this report


Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/04/14/jackson.newcharge/index.html


Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 5:45 PM JST
Updated: Thu, Apr 15 2004 5:25 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post
Mon, Apr 12 2004
Judge orders audiotape handed over to Jackson prosecutors

SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- Reversing his previous position, the judge in the Michael Jackson molestation case ruled Friday an audiotape of an interview conducted for Jackson's legal team should be turned over to the prosecution.

In March, Superior Court Judge Rodney S. Melville barred the prosecution from using the audiotape, which was seized from the office of a private investigator working for Jackson's legal team.
Mark Geragos, Jackson's lawyer, had said the audiotape included an interview that could identify areas of defense strategy and should remain secret.

Melville had previously agreed, but he reversed course after the prosecution asked him to reconsider.
In his ruling, Melville said the tape largely focused on "the obvious need to ascertain basic facts" and does not include "any sort of record of any attorney's or agent's theories or impressions."
The tape was among several items taken from the office Nov. 18, the same day Jackson's Neverland Ranch was searched.

The tape's release to the prosecution will be delayed for 15 days to give the defense a chance to appeal.
Jackson is charged with seven counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts upon a child under age 14 and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent to the child. He has pleaded innocent.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 10:55 AM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Newer | Latest | Older