Michael Jackson’s friendship with Macaulay Culkin continues to upset those who can’t handle the truth.

It was inevitable that a brand new interview with Macaulay Culkin in which he details so much about his life, would be reduced to the soundbites relating to his friendship with Michael Jackson. To be honest, I feel sorry for the guy. Imagine having to constantly defend a friendship, answering the same questions for decades, and yet still being asked them as if it were your first rodeo.

It’s a wonder that Culkin hasn’t insisted that Jackson-related questions be taken off the table, if for anything, to not have to continue repeating himself over and over and over. 

But he hasn’t.

We’re in a bizarre society where to accuse Jackson offers unconditional belief. “They’re telling the truth”, crow the social commentators who dedicated four hours of their life to a film and will not hear anything to the contrary. Yet when somebody comes forward who knew Jackson in the same capacity, experienced the same hospitality and family-orientated traits, comes forward and doesn’t accuse Jackson, they’re accused of lying. 

What’s evident is this isn’t about the ‘truth’ at all. This is about selective hearing. Then there’s a strange follow up whereby Jackson detractors become fully fledged fictional authors; writing a new story for Culkin, Barnes and the like, based on what happened, in their mind.

In his recent interview with Esquire magazine, Culkin stated 

“I’m gonna begin with the line—it’s not a line, it’s the truth: He never did anything to me. I never saw him do anything. And especially at this flash point in time, I’d have no reason to hold anything back. The guy has passed on.”

You’ll note that he didn’t challenge the accusations made by Robson and Safechuck, he spoke of his own experiences with Jackson. He also didn’t try to make sense of Robson and Safechuck’s outlandish claims – a courtesy the two didn’t afford Culkin in their tv movie, where they felt unabashed in making their own assessment of Jackson & Culkin’s friendship.

And Culkin’s statement is as clear as it was back in 2005 during Jackson’s trial when asked

Q: Did Mr. Jackson ever molest you? 
A: Never. 
Q: Did Mr. Jackson ever improperly touch you?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Has Mr. Jackson ever touched you in any sexual type of way?
A: No. 
Q: Has he ever touched you in any offensive way? 
A: No.
Q: What do you think of these allegations?
A: I think they’re absolutely ridiculous

In a culture that ushered in the Me Too era, we hear extensively about the importance of listening. For over two decades, Culkin has been consistent in his support of Jackson, yet the media just will not listen – because it doesn’t work for them. 

And what a strange disposition Culkin has found himself in. He has been continually told that he was abused, even when he has confirmed he hasn’t been. As his testimony in Jackson’s 2005 trial makes clear, Culkin understood what abuse was, what Jackson was being accused of and what it had been claimed had been done to him – and he reaffirmed that it hadn’t happened. 

Yet again, the Jackson detractors just will not listen. 

What’s become evident is that ‘belief’ is only afforded to those who suggest Jackson was guilty.

Reading through the extensive commentary on Culkin’s statement, it’s frankly mind-boggling how so many are suggesting that he is lying, especially in light of the fact that Culkin specifically addressed that he has no reason to lie and would feel perfectly comfortable speaking out in the current climate, if he had a story of abuse to tell. 

There is absolutely no logical reason as to why Culkin would feel the need to lie about his time with Jackson. Unlike Robson and Safechuck, he doesn’t need money. He isn’t looking for fame or “relevance” – he states in his interview

“It’s still fun to get back in the saddle once in a while and play around….But no, I’m not promoting anything. I’m not even promoting myself. It’s just another little adventure.”

Additionally, he isn’t working for, or seeking employment from the Jackson Estate.

Surely, if he was concealing a history of abuse, he would refuse to discuss Jackson altogether and prevent journalists from asking him any questions pertaining to their friendship – He wouldn’t willing volunteer support of Jackson.

On the reverse, there are those detractors who do believe Culkin – however, for them it’s still not an indication of Jackson’s innocence. Instead they present us with a newly devised narrative:

“Jackson wouldn’t risk abusing somebody famous.” 

This suggestion to maintain their belief in Jackson’s guilt only works then, if they are to completely disregard tales they cling to by Blanca Francia and Phillipe LeMarque that they witnessed Jackson abusing Culkin, or the proven fraud Adrian McManus who claimed to have seen Jackson kiss and touch Culkin inappropriately, something Culkin himself expressed outrage towards on the stand in the 2005 trial:

I learned that it was a former cook who had done something to me, and there was something about a maid or something like that. It was just one of those things where I just couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe that, first of all, these people were saying these things or — let alone that it was out there and people were thinking that kind of thing about me.

Making the point – If you accept that Jackson wouldn’t have abused Culkin, then McManus and Co’s claims should become redundant to you also as it demonstrates them to be lying – but we know that asking for logic within one’s own madness is often asking too much.

Not forgetting, Leaving Neverland’s gavage feeding of its narrative suggested Jackson to be an uncontrollable, serial sexual abuser with a rampant desire, emotionally manipulative and skilled in the art of grooming. 

If you really (honestly?) buy into that then would Culkin’s fame really exclude him from somebody so uncontrollable? If you believe it would, then surely that supposition also needs to be applied to James Safechuck – A child actor who met Jackson on the set of a commercial. Or do we need to add conditions to this new found, bizarre fantasy that has absolutely no foundation or merit?

It’s frankly ridiculous – A desperate attempt to reinforce unresearched beliefs, no matter the cost. 

As journalist Mike Smallcombe recently points out “if Jackson’s only motive for hanging out with young boys was to abuse them, then he wasted an awful lot of time on Macaulay Culkin.” and the same goes for the likes of Barnes, Spence, Cascio, Bhatti and countless others – all of whom spent time with Jackson, stayed at Neverland, and continue to state that nothing happened. 

At this point it’s really like watching somebody attempting to build a sand castle with dry sand. 

So why do so many have a hard time believing in Jackson’s innocence? Is it truly impossible to believe that being the most recognisable figure on the planet, with vast wealth wouldn’t leave you open to extortion?

Think about it – Five accusers, all went to an attorney before the police and all sought financial settlements from Jackson. 

And yet, we continue to hear “But, I believe them”.

If belief is to be afforded to those telling their account of their time with Jackson, why does that exclude those who have not accused Jackson. 

I’ve yet to witness anybody who believes Robson and Safechuck, expressing relief that Culkin isn’t spinning the same tales. Surely, anyone saying they weren’t horrifically abused as a child, is a reason for relief? 

But of course, this isn’t about that, this is about the dislike of Michael Jackson. The idea that Michael Jackson could be friends with many (many) children, and not have abused them just doesn’t sit well with those who have a weird obsession in grinding the axe. It’s almost as if some despise Jackson so badly, they want children to have been abused.

And for Culkin to once again speak in Jackson’s defense so publicly, dispels any concept of ‘patterns’ or abuse cycles that Leaving Neverland tells you is true. Culkin blows holes in the stories spun by Robson and Safechuck.

“We better not talk,” Jackson said, according to Culkin. “I don’t want to influence your testimony.”

which speaks against Robson’s ludicrous suggestions that Jackson was in the business of ‘coaching’ and ‘dictating’ when it came to testimony in his defense. It’s also perhaps the saddest point in the Esquire interview, that the last time Culkin saw his friend, he was so unbelievably fragile as a result of the false allegations, he felt unable to speak to him through fear of damaging a friend’s testimony, in his own defense.

And it’s Jackson’s defense that Culkin has continued to be a part of. So it’s of no surprise that he wasn’t offered a platform for camera-wielder Dan Reed’s agenda driven TV movie in 2019:

“Macaulay has gone on the record many, many times, including recently to say that his relationship with Jackson was innocent” Reed told Vanity Fair in January 2019. 

This statement demonstrates how Reed intentionally omitted any balance from his movie and purposely only featured those accusing Jackson of being a child molester. His entire narrative would have been destroyed had he featured Culkin, in another AirBnB, proclaiming Jackson’s innocence – How dare the viewer be presented both sides and left to come to their own conclusions, right?!

However, this didn’t stop Reed from including unfounded accusations about Culkin’s friendship with Jackson, as told by Robson and his mother – with Robson again using somebody else’s fame to attempt to make a name for himself.

As long as Culkin continues to voice the fact that nothing happened to him, Jackson detractors will forever look for ways to make a square peg fit into a round hole when it comes to Culkin. Because Culkin spent time at Neverland, stayed in Jackson’s bedroom and became an almost surrogate brother – and because nothing happened to him as they seemingly and distressingly want it to have – he’s a problem – just like Barnes, Spence, Cascio, Bhatti and others who receive endless trolling for standing by Jackson.

Partner that with the fact that none of the aforementioned were offered a platform during the media storm to speak about their time with Jackson. It was just easier for the media to saddle up Robson & Safechuck and ride these tired mules through the streets for all to see. They didn’t want balance, they wanted scandal.

Anyone claiming Jackson wasn’t an abuser wasn’t welcome in the parade. 

With the dust largely settled with relation to the media execution following Leaving Neverland almost a year ago, Culkin found a space in the silence to offer his thoughts, which were ultimately deemed unpopular because his story does not allow him to become the golden goose the Jackson detractors are so desperate for him to become. There was almost a sense of brow raising and scoffing as the articles were peddled out as a soundbite of Culkin’s interview – almost to suggest: how dare somebody in this climate speak out in defense of the accused.

When what they’re actually saying is, how dare Macaulay Culkin tell the truth.  

Pez Jax
Follow Pez on twitter @PezJax