Media appeal in Jackson case was delayed by court clerk

Attorneys for the media filed documents on Thursday, July 8th with the California Second District Court of Appeal. An appeal filed was not docketed by an appellate clerk inside Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville?s office.

The appeal by news media seeking access to court motions that have been strategically placed under seal by both parties at the behest of Judge Melville went unfilled for a week by an appellate clerk in the judge?s office. The clerk stated that ?the court is not recognizing you as a party.?

Attorney Dominic Lanza, who is part of the legal team headed by Theodore Boutrous, Jr., filed the first notice of appeal on July 8th. He checked to make sure the matter had been docketed five days later.

Mr. Lanza said that it took until Thursday for the Court of Appeals to instruct the clerk that the notice of appeal should be filed.

The attorneys for the media have argued that Judge Melville has imposed extraordinary measures of secrecy in the case against Michael Jackson. The media including the Associated Press and eleven other news media organizations are suing for access to court files on behalf of the public.

?It?s clear that we have standing to appeal. So we were surprised to find out that our notice of appeal was not on the docket?, Mr. Boutrous said on Thursday.

Mr. Boutrous noted that in the hearings, ?Judge Melville has allowed us to participate fully in arguing to unseal documents. We have briefed and argued more motions than anybody."

Mr. Boutrous filed the 27-page brief on Thursday asking the appeals court for an expedited schedule stating, ?The public?s First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings and documents is one that is exceedingly time-sensitive.?

He asked that the secrecy of issues be resolved before a major series of hearings begins on August 16th. The hearings will deal with the defense request to dismiss the indictment.

In the appeal filed, it notes that Judge Melville has ordered all documents in the case to be filed under seal for his consideration to be released later later. The judge has released only heavily edited portions of motions and search warrants and has kept secret key details of the indictment, the grand jury transcripts and the motion to change the trial date.

Mr. Boutrous does acknowledge that the judge justifies his stance on the unusual secrecy ?based on Mr. Jackson?s fame and celebrity status and the intense public and media interest in the case?, and fearful that the publicity generated might taint the jury pool and prejudice a right to a fair trial for the singer.

However, Mr. Boutrous quoted a recent appellate court decision in New York in conjunction to the Martha Stewart?s case, which said that media coverage was not a sufficient reason to close proceedings.

"In general, openness acts to protect rather than to threaten the right to a fair trial," said the decision he quoted from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal.

Sources: Associated Press/ 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 website: http://www.mjjforum.com/

Judge Seals Defense Requests That Trial Be Postponed

Michael Jackson's attorneys have requested that the trial start-up date for Mr. Jackson be postponed. Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville sealed the defense's motion on Wednesday. He gave no other reason to seal the motion other than a "good cause having been shown."

It is not publicly known what date the defense requested. All parties in the case are under a restricted gag order, therefore preventing them to comment when the trial may begin.

In May, Judge Melville set a target date of September 13th to start the trial. However, he did acknowledge that both sides might not be ready to present their case. The defense team claimed that the prosecution still had not given all of the evidence to them to examine on time.

The defense subpoenaed District Attorney Thomas Sneddon and six officers in connection to their role of the November 18th search of Private Investigator, Bradley Miller?s Beverly Hills office. The prosecution claims they did not know that Mr. Miller worked for Defense Attorney Mark Geragos, who was replaced in April by Defense Attorney Thomas Messereau. The prosecution claims they thought he worked for Mr. Jackson instead.

The defense filed a motion on June 8th that District Attorney Thomas Sneddon personally conducted a surveillance of Mr. Miller?s office. Then on November 18th invaded the office by using a sledgehammer to break down the door.

The defense said evidence obtained in the search should be returned to Mr. Jackson?s attorneys because police had no right to search Mr. Miller?s office due to attorney-client privilege. Prosecution has no right to learn the communication between the defendant and his attorneys under this privilege.

A defense motion on June 22nd asked that Judge Melville not allow the evidence, including videotapes and computer hard drives, to be admitted at trial.

The defense motion cited a memo drafted by the District Attorney that said he had visited the building where Mr. Miller?s office was located, photographed a list of offices there, and climbed the stairs to the second floor in an unsuccessful search for Miller?s office.

Mr. Sneddon proceeded to take several photographs of the building, then went to a phone booth where he looked up Mr. Miller?s telephone number. Afterwards he went to a meeting where he displayed driver license photos of Mr. Miller and others. The name of the person who saw the pictures was deleted from the court records released last Thursday.

Prosecutors responded that they had no evidence that Mr. Miller was working for Mark Geragos, who was Mr. Jackson?s attorney at the time of the search.

They also cited that the office of a lawyer or private investigator could be searched if prosecutors had reason to believe it held evidence not covered by attorney-client privilege.

In last Friday?s hearing, Judge Melville was ready for the defense to question the witnesses of the search, but Mr. Jackson's attorney, Robert Sanger, said he didn?t have sufficient time to look over documents that the prosecution handed over the night before. Therefore they needed more time before they could question the District Attorney and the officers.

Judge Melville reluctantly agreed, and ordered the District Attorney to testify in an upcoming hearing on July 27th.

"Every time we set a hearing it upsets the whole court structure here," Judge Melville said, alluding to adjustments made by Santa Maria court officials to accommodate the masses of media who cover the case against Mr. Jackson. "You're not being considerate of the demands of the court system."

Mr. Sneddon opposed the delay. He said "I'm prepared to testify in open court in front of everybody and get it done with. I have nothing to hide."

However, due to Mr. Sanger?s request for delay, Mr. Sneddon was miffed, shook his head, and threw his papers down on the counsel table and said ?I?ll be here.? Mr. Sneddon had planned on taking a vacation to celebrate his 37th wedding anniversary.

Judge Melville at first appeared unsympathetic to Mr. Sneddon's tantrum, noting that he himself had cut a July vacation short because of the case.

"If I can cancel my vacation, I guess you can cancel yours," he said.

Mr. Sneddon, visibly agitated about Melville's decision, sat in his seat with his face reddening and finally said, "All right, I'll be here."

Judge Melville later said that he didn?t want Mr. Sneddon to miss his vacation. "I'm sorry I'm upsetting you," Judge Melville said. "I don't want to upset anybody."

Judge Melville changed his mind and said Mr. Sneddon could give his testimony after his vacation or through a taped deposition.

Sources: Associated Press
www.jacksonaction.com

Major Love

Eve - The Music Lady

~~sending out a major love~~
"The Music Lady's"

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/positivevoices4mjj/join
http://www.mjjfan.2ya.com
http://www.mjredemption.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com



View other groups in this category.

Posted by MJ Friend Anna at 3:03 PM JST
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post

Letters of the Wrong Kind
by Obiechena

Days following the surrender of Michael Jackson to Santa Barbara authorities on charges of child molestation, the tantalizing tale of the infamous "love letters" he allegedly wrote to his now fourteen-year-old accuser began its circulation in the international press. Without as much as a blink of the eye, the American news media picked up the outlandish story and ran full speed ahead. There was no shortage of talking heads ready and willing to analyze this new "discovery" and crucify Jackson over a rumor that was still unsubstantiated...that was until a certain self-proclaimed reporter opened her big, fat, erroneous mouth to confirm the yarn.

On November 24, 2003, flibbertigibbet Diane Dimond was on "Larry King Live" (LKL) proclaiming her knowledge of these supposed love letters. When host King asked if anyone knew for a fact the existence of these letters, Dimond exclaimed, "I absolutely know of their existence!" According to what she had surreptitiously heard through the slandervine, Jackson realized at some point that allegations were going to be made and remembered letters he had written to his accuser.
_______________________________________________________________
"I hear that he realized allegations were on the way. He remembered love letters -- that's how they're described, love letters -- that he had written to this 12-year-old boy that were in the boy's home. At the time, the boy, the mother, the family was up at Neverland. Someone somehow was dispatched, I'm told, by the Michael Jackson camp down to their Los Angeles-area apartment, and suddenly, those letters disappeared. That's what Mr. Sneddon and the sheriff were looking for when they went into Neverland, that stack of love letters." -- LKL, 24 Nov 2003.
________________________________________________________________
She hears a lot of things, doesn't she? Quite a fascinating story. It always helps when you have a squawking demagogue like Nancy Grace present to assist with the facilitation of the notion that Jackson wrote said letters without any evidence to back up your claim.

The source of the media's information, The Daily Telegraph of Australia, stated that these letters were seized by authorities during the raid of Jackson's Ranch. A source cited by the Telegraph said that "the boy told investigators about letters and poems and their precise location inside Michael's home," and that these letters and videotapes that were seized are "very explicit and intimate and show a degree of familiarity. Basically, they appear to be love letters from Michael to the boy."

Would it be safe to say that what one man sees as money, another sees as green paper?

It is quite amazing how no one stopped to think of the implausibility of what Dimond and her counterparts overseas were presenting. Maybe it would help reiterating. Anticipating allegations of sexual misconduct, Jackson dispatched someone to reclaim the purported love letters from the accuser. This someone does just that, but does not destroy them. He instead decides to take the incriminating evidence back to Neverland.

Yeah, real smart.

Since these letters were considered potentially damaging, why would Jackson keep them? The man was smart enough to have the letters removed, but not smart enough to have them destroyed?

The reiteration doesn't make the tabloid version of the matter any less confusing.

Arguing over the existence of these letters would be moot, for the hysteria surrounding them imploded at a rate much faster than its explosion. Following a conversation with Santa Barbara District Attorney Thomas Sneddon, Kansas City prosecutor Nola Foulston appeared on "On the Record with Greta Van Sustren" with a bombshell of her own.
________________________________________________________________
"Well, I can tell you tonight that in my discussion with Mr. Sneddon within the last hour, there are no love letters that have been found ... the information that is being disseminated is not from law enforcement .... So I'm telling you this evening, there are no such animals. The New York Post has the wrong story and Diane Dimond has the wrong story because it is not correct." -- On The Record - 24 Nov 2003.
________________________________________________________________
It is necessary to point out that this statement was made an hour after Dimond had proclaimed on LKL that she knew so absolutely of these so-called love letters.

So much for spreading the eagle.

The issue of the letters has again resurfaced, this time in relation to the raid of the office of private investigator Bradley Miller. Miller had been hired by former Jackson counsel Mark Geragos, and it was he who reportedly took statements in February 2003 of the family denying that anything ontoward had happened between any of them and Jackson.

According to the prosecution's opposition to the Jackson defense "Motion to Suppress" evidence seized during the office raid, the accuser's mother alleged that "Jackson people" had stolen certain letters written by the entertainer to her son. She claims that the letters had gone missing when her stored property was returned to her. Prosecutors apparently believe that Miller acted on behalf of Jackson when he allegedly placed the accusing family's belongings into a storage unit and illegally snagged the letters. This allegation is one which would place Miller squarely in the position of being a co-conspirator to covering up a purported crime.

Before continuing down the line of conspiracy, there is still a problem with this current story. The first version has Jackson dispatching someone (supposedly Miller) to the home of the accuser to retrieve the letters. The Telegraph reported that the accuser told authorities "their precise location inside Michael's home." It has now been learned via the prosecution motion that the accuser's mother is alleging that Miller stole these letters when he had their possessions placed into storage.

Which one is it? Jackson had the letters removed from their home or he had them removed from their things in storage? Or are both one and the same? Even if you believe either scenario, the Telegraph and their unnamed source would like to have one believe that Jackson then turned around and told his accuser exactly where he kept these alleged letters in Neverland??

Please don't insult my intelligence.

The prosecution's belief that Miller was involved in the "unlawful taking" of these supposed letters is the kind of speculative reasoning that garnered the warrant used to break into Miller's office with a sledge hammer. Allegedly. If it is the theory of the prosecution that Miller did as he has been accused, why hasn't he been named as one of the infamous Jackson Five: the alleged co-conspirators? What about Mark Geragos? Surely the still unindicted quintet cannot be named while Geragos and Miller are not, particularly when they all reportedly acted under the direction of Geragos.

So, what gives? Do these "love letters" exist at all? Are the earlier reported letters and those mentioned in the search warrant affidavit one and the same?

Considering the 54 known executed warrants to date, one would expect that these letters (or evidence thereof) would have long since surfaced and been passed on to Diane Dimond by now. The denial of the documents six days following the megalithic raids allows for the speculative to wonder whether the accuser's mother mistook letters from a mental institution for letters of endearment from Jackson. It is also a possibility that said letters had all been a figment of a highly overactive imagination.

This is mere speculation, of course.

As the Jackson saga continues to unfold, more will undoubtedly be revealed about this case and its players. In the meantime, here are a few letters for you: E, S, X.

A special prosecutor and his rabblerousing pet would agree that those are the real love letters.

Reportedly.

? 2004 ANP


? 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 website: http://www.mjjforum.com/

UP -TO-DATE News
By LINDA DEUTSCH

AP Special Correspondent

SANTA MARIA, Calif. (AP) -- Michael Jackson's prosecutor was ordered Friday to testify at an upcoming hearing about how much he knew of the relationship between Jackson's former attorney and a private investigator before officials broke into the investigator's office and took evidence.

"I have nothing to hide," said Santa Barbara County District Attorney Tom Sneddon, who offered to testify immediately. But defense attorneys asked for a delay in order to study materials just turned over to them.

Law enforcement officials said they had a search warrant targeting the investigator's office.

The defense countered that officers exceeded the warrant's limitations, and evidence taken from Miller's office should be returned to Jackson's attorneys.

At Friday's hearing, Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville initially ordered Sneddon to cancel his vacation - a prepaid trip to Alaska for his 37th wedding anniversary - to attend the hearing scheduled for July 27.

Sneddon, obviously miffed, shook his head, threw his papers down on the counsel table and said, "I'll be here."

But the judge reconsidered and suggested the defense try to accommodate the prosecutor either with a videotaped deposition or an appearance at a later hearing.

The judge said he did not want to force Sneddon to cancel his trip.

The issue had been scheduled for a hearing Friday, but defense attorney Robert Sanger said at the start of the session that he had just received transcripts the night before.

"It's a transcript of a videotape, a law enforcement interview of the mother of the complaining witness," Sanger said.

The interview was done on July 6, 2003, four months before Jackson was charged or arrested, he said.

Sneddon objected to the delay, explaining that he had brought witnesses to testify from Los Angeles and wanted to go ahead. But the judge, after scolding the defense for not warning him of the request for a delay, agreed to wait.

"I have been very concerned about the factual issue, whether or not the district attorney ... knew Mr. Geragos was working for Mr. Jackson and knew that Mr. Miller had been retained by Geragos," the judge said, referring to Jackson's previous attorney, Mark Geragos, and his investigator, Bradley Miller.

"It is an issue that needs to be factually established," Melville said.

Sanger argued that Sneddon had approached him this week and told him that he was willing to concede that he knew about the relationship before a search warrant was executed on Miller's office. But Sneddon stood up and denied that.

He said he would explain the entire situation from the witness stand, asserting "I have nothing to hide."

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.

In other matters, the judge ruled that Jackson does not have to appear personally for an Aug. 16 hearing on suppression of evidence that is expected to last up to two weeks. The singer has waived his personal appearances at most hearings.

The attorney for a coalition of media organizations, including The Associated Press, urged the judge to unseal grand jury transcripts in the case and to release the balance of edited documents that he made public this week.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. said the motion disclosed on Thursday revealed accusations against Sneddon, claiming the prosecutor had personally surveilled Miller and that officials broke into Miller's office with a sledge hammer to seize evidence.

"These are serious accusations, " said Boutrous. "Case law has held that where there is an accusation misconduct, that is the zenith of the need for public access. One of the reasons for public access is so the public can serve as a check on government."

The judge, however, refused to release the full documents.

"I am not going to release at this point more than I've already released," Melville said.

The judge also ruled that Jackson recently violated a court gag order when he commented on a leak of information to the media about a case he was involved in 11 years ago.

But the judge said he was willing to overlook it because Jackson's new attorney, Thomas Mesereau Jr., probably was unfamiliar with the terms of the gag order.

He told Mesereau to make sure his client doesn't comment again.

"Is it appropriate for me to say you are no longer the new kid on the block?" the judge asked Mesereau.

"Yes," said the lawyer, who previously argued that Jackson should be allowed to answer when there are damaging leaks of information. The judge said he would have to approve such responses.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MICHAEL_JACKSON?SITE=NVLAS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Source: www.mjsunitednation.com

Major Love

Eve - The Music Lady




~~sending out a major love~~
"The Music Lady's"

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/positivevoices4mjj/join
http://www.mjjfan.2ya.com
http://www.mjredemption.com/


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!


View other groups in this category.

NEW TWIST IN JACKO CASE

MICHAEL JACKSON's lawyers have asked a judge to throw out the singer's grand jury indictment on the basis of what they see as insufficient evidence, lack of "strong suspicion" and improper conduct on the part of the government.

The star's lawyer Robert Sanger signed a motion which was filed on Tuesday (July 6) and released on Wednesday (7), appealing to Santa Barbara County Judge Rodney Melville.

Jackson has pleaded not guilty to a ten count indictment which includes charges of child molestation, extortion, false imprisonment, child abduction and giving a minor an intoxicating agent.

The motion cites what the defence deems to be unfair proceedings, highlighting the conveying of information to the jurors "without regard to the rules of evidence," and the behaviour of the prosecutors.

Also included is the allegation that the prosecutors "bullied and argued with witnesses" and "ran the proceedings as if they employed grand jurors".

According to BBC News, the motion said: "There is no case in the history of the state of California that has condoned anything like the abuse of power demonstrated in this grand jury proceeding."

Jackson is set to stand trail on the child molestation charges in California's Santa Barbara on September 13.


Published: 09-07-2004-07-14

?Get more from the NME with a subscription and save!

The indictment against pop-star Michael Jackson was unsealed, allowing the press and the public to view the charges against him
July 10,2004
By K.C. Arceneaux
RAW STORY COLUMNIST

Jackson has been charged with four counts of committing a lewd act upon a child, one count of attempting to commit a lewd act upon a child, and four counts of administering an intoxicating agent.
The additional charge of conspiracy, not included in the first set of charges against him, included twenty-eight separate criminal acts.

Those alleged acts include child abduction, child imprisonment, and extortion. Jackson pleaded not guilty to all counts. On the same day that the indictment was unsealed, there was another
and far less public event unfolding, one that may have a future impact on the Jackson case. Serious allegations of a pattern of abuses among Santa Barbara law enforcement and the DA's office, including District Attorney Tom Sneddon, were made by Santa Barbara County dentist, Thambiah Sundaram, in an interview on Online Legal Review Talk Radio.

Sneddon is the DA prosecuting the child-molestation case against Michael Jackson. In the interview, conducted by Ron Sweet, Sundaram stated that there was opposition to a non-profit medical clinic he
operated. Sundaram said that when city officials were unable to shut down his clinic, he was arrested on multiple counts, including impersonating a doctor, grand theft, and malicious mischief. Sundaram's wife was arrested, as well. An employee at the clinic was also charged, of committing a drive-by shooting. Neither Sundaram, his wife nor the
employee were convicted. Sundaram said that he eventually won a judgment against Sneddon and the DA's office for a substantial, six-figure amount, for causes including conspiracy, false imprisonment, and other violations of his civil rights.

Sundaram's allegations against Sneddon were serious, in that he also claimed to have heard, first-hand, statements by Sneddon and others in the DA's office that suggest that Santa Barbara police persecution of
innocent citizens is planned, common, and often racially motivated. Sundaram said that in 1994, he attended a fund-raising event with Tom Sneddon and other city officials, where ways to "get Michael Jackson out of the county" were discussed. Racist remarks were allegedly made on that occasion. According to Sundaram, other alleged vendettas were
discussed as well, to the extent where he said it resembled a Mafia planning session.Sundaram's allegations are not an isolated instance.

There have been many complaints and law-suits against the Santa Barbara DA's office.

The new counts against Jackson may be consistent with a pattern that Santa Barbara defense attorney Gary Dunlap has called "stacking charges."

In an interview on MJJF Talk Radio, on January 2, 2004,Dunlap gave his opinion that "stacking charges" was a common practice of the DA's office, and claimed that this was a tactic used against him.
Sneddon had charged and prosecuted Dunlap on twenty-two counts. After being acquitted on all counts, Dunlap is currently suing Sneddon and others in the DA's office for $10 million for malicious prosecution, and multiple other alleged offenses, including civil rights violations.

Dunlap said, ". . . I mean, it's one thing to be charged
with one crime and have a trial and be acquitted on it, but the
district attorney in Santa Barbara has a policy that if they throw
enough charges against you, the jury is bound to convict you on
something."

The above cases add to the pattern of what may be law enforcement abuses of power in Santa Barbara. There are multiple civil cases alleging false arrests, physical brutality by the police, tampering
with evidence and perjury, in cases settled out of court, at tax-payer's expense.

There is the example of George Beeghly, whose
case against Santa Barbara law-enforcement was also settled out of court. The defendants in the case were Santa Barbara Sheriff Jim Thomas, and Santa Barbara police officers. Beeghly sued for illegal
search and seizure, false arrest and false imprisonment, the use of excessive force, conspiracy to violate his civil rights, battery and failure to investigate, among other charges.

This information reveals a new side to the Michael Jackson child-molestation case.

The extent of the law suits for false arrests,
false imprisonments, condoning of excessive force by the police, tampering with evidence, and multiple civil rights violations suggests a culture of corruption among Santa Barbara law-enforcement.
The taxpayers of Santa Barbara have paid substantial settlements in these cases. DA Tom Sneddon's public relation's firm, Tellem Worldwide, was contacted and, citing a protective order as prohibiting their ability to respond, has declined to comment. It remains unclear how the allegations made by Dr. Sundaram and the cases involving Beeghly and
Dunlap are affected by the protective order issued in the Jackson case.

When Gary Dunlap was asked, in his interview, to comment on the Jackson case, he said that he had no opinion one way or another on the case.

However, he went on to say, ". . . the very fact that he's being
prosecuted by Sneddon's office does not cause me to have any reason to
believe that he's guilty in that, because of what I know about the
district attorney's office, I know that they do vindictive
prosecutions on a routine basis."

If Dunlap's allegations are true, then an investigation of the DA's office might shed new light on the Jackson case.
K. C. Arceneaux, Ph.D. karcx@yahoo.com

� SneddonExposed.com 2004. Article � RawStory.com


Eve - The Music Lady



~~sending out a major love~~
"The Music Lady's"

Jackson prosecutor to take stand
Defense questions raid on private investigator's office
Friday, July 9, 2004 Posted: 5:37 PM EDT (2137 GMT)


SANTA MARIA, California (AP) -- In a highly unusual move, the judge in the Michael Jackson child-molestation case ordered the district attorney Friday to take the stand and explain a raid on a private investigator's office.

Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville wants to know if the seizure of videotapes and computer hard drives from investigator Bradley Miller's office in November 2003 violated Jackson's attorney-client privilege.

The defense says Miller was working for the pop star's lawyer at the time, Mark Geragos.

District Attorney Tom Sneddon said Friday he did not know Miller was working for Geragos when authorities with a search warrant broke into Miller's office with sledgehammers.

"I have nothing to hide," Sneddon said.

The judge said he wants to find out what Sneddon knew at the time.

"I have been very concerned about the factual issue, whether or not the district attorney ... knew Mr. Geragos was working for Mr. Jackson and knew that Mr. Miller had been retained by Geragos," Melville said.

The judge at first ordered Sneddon to cancel his vacation -- a prepaid trip to Alaska for his 37th wedding anniversary -- to testify July 27. He then suggested the defense try to accommodate the prosecutor, either with a videotaped deposition or an appearance at a later hearing.

Jackson fired Geragos in April. His legal team is now led by Thomas Mesereau Jr.

Jackson, 45, is charged with molesting a boy and plying him with alcohol.



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

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/07/09/michael.jackson.ap/index.html

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.