home

Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay Culkin

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 01:46:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Trial Update
April 8, 2005

The parade of disgruntled Neverland employees continues. Yesterday was the former guard. Today it's the former cook, Phillip LeMarque, who claims to have been shocked, yes shocked, that one night, 14 years ago, he delivered french fries to Michael Jackson and saw Jackson with his hand inside Macaulay Culkin's pants. This was no surprise visit, Jackson had called down for the fries.

Under cross-examination from defense attorney Thomas Mesereau, LeMarque acknowledged that his employment with Jackson ended with him suing the star for overtime owed him and that the case was settled out of court.

During a break in testimony, Judge Rodney Melville barred the defense from raising the issue of LeMarque's later work as the operator of a p0rnographic Web site.

Operator of a p0rn0graphic web site. Shocked. Not enough to report it, just enough to remember it 14 years later.

Update: Mesereau was ready for the lot of them today. One reporter described the jury's reaction to former maid Adrian McManus as Mesereau took her apart. She has even more baggage than the cook. She admitted being both a liar and a thief. Read the whole thing.

At one point, jurors started looking around the room rather than pay attention to her. This happened after the umpteenth time Mesereau -- by now riffing on the “may I refresh your memory by showing you that page from your deposition routine?” -- sauntered over to the witness stand, book in hand.

< Police Stories | Speaking Out Against the Patriot Act >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay Culkin | 25 comments (25 topical)
    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:10:34 PM EST
    Is there anybody who worked for Jackson who didn't wind up suing him?

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#2)
    by John Mann on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    I don't know. If I saw Michael Jackson with his hand in Macaulay Culkin's drawers. I'd be shocked too, even if I owned more than one pornographic web site. Really, you have a freaky-looking guy like Michael Jackson, and a guy like Macaulay Culkin - the perpetual ten-year-old - heck, that's going to stick in your mind like what you were doing when JFK got shot. Mind you, I'm not saying it happened, but if it did, I bet I'd remember being "shocked" by seeing it. I shudder and get goosebumps just thinking about it.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:14:38 PM EST
    The litany of perversion from the witness stand continues!!!!

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    I'm so shocked I'm making the once-ubiquitous Macaulay Culkin face right now!

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:25:22 PM EST
    So, I guess what the defense hopes the jury will buy (and TL hopes this blog's readers will buy) is that: 1) It's inconceivable that a person might be shocked by gross criminal behavior by their employer but afraid for their job not to report it, and 2) It's inconceivable that a person might be shocked to personally find their employer in a sexual situation with a child that would later find it acceptable to deal in adult pornography. Is that pretty much it?

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    there is just waaaaaaaay to much smoke for there not to be some kind of fire. Even if you throw out 90 percent as unreliable, there has to be 10 percent of truth somewhere in all that mess. It may not be enough to convict him in court but in the public mind he is a chester the molester.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#7)
    by Aaron on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 03:11:24 PM EST
    cmdicely - perhaps what TL leaders are being asked to 'buy' is that, apparently quite unlike you, any person of conscience would quit such a job in an instant and make a contemporaneous report to the police.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 03:25:25 PM EST
    cmdicely - perhaps what TL leaders are being asked to 'buy' is that, apparently quite unlike you, any person of conscience would quit such a job in an instant and make a contemporaneous report to the police.
    I don't think being a "person of conscience" and being an "honest and accurate witness" are the same thing. Its rather routine in criminal trials to rely on witnesses that are not persons of conscience, since criminals often tend to associate with persons that are not persons of conscience.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    cmdicely, you're fighting a losing battle here. This is a site that supports the rights of those accused of crime. We think California's law that allows this type of evidence is wrong. You think it's right. That's fine, but don't beat the horse to death. At least not here. You've made your views known. If you feel the need to continually argue for guilt, please do it on another site.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    Thanks TL, I think I just figured out your position here. Despite TL's snide remarks about the cook's testimony ("shocked, yes shocked," etc.), TL is, in reality, not specifically unhappy with the cook, per se, but rather with the CA law that allows him to testify. If this is so, that position might have been more clearly stated at the beginning of this thread. But my question is this: if the charges are true, and the cook's testimony is true, isn't justice being served?

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#11)
    by Aaron on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    Ah. So, cmdicely, you're telling us that anybody who would work as a cook in the Jackson kitchen is automatically suspect, due to the person's habit of fraternizing with criminals. And you're telling us that we shouldn't infer that somebody who allows unspeakably vile crimes to occur because they're concerned about collecting their twenty pieces of silver might not be the most credible source in relation to those same incidents some fourteen years later, even when the purported victim has repeatedly denied the allegation. You do know how to scrape the bottom of the barrel - I'll grant you that. I do think that, if the prosecutor wants to advance this particular set of claims, it should do so by presenting the testimony of the purported victim, now an adult and competent to testify. But if you're satisfied that we should assume that the purported victim is lying, and thus take the word over somebody who preferred continued work as a short order chef over protecting children from harm, I guess that's your choice.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    cmdicely, you're fighting a losing battle here.
    I wasn't aware aware that I was fighting a battle. I thought I was just questioning the significance of your statements.
    This is a site that supports the rights of those accused of crime.
    I support the rights of those accused of crime, too. That is, in fact, one of the reasons I'm studying law. And I think its entirely understandable -- if logically weak and, if its the best they've got to discredit the testimony, a pretty bad sign -- that the defense should try to convince the jury with this. After all, they aren't just supporting the rights of those accused of crime in the general sense, but they are specifically obligated to provide every effort (within the applicable law and rules) to secure the best possible result for their client.
    We think California's law that allows this type of evidence is wrong.
    I'm not familiar with the details of California's particular law in this area; I generally don't think evidence showing a past pattern of behavior ideally ought to be allowed except to rebut defense evidence offered to raise a reasonable doubt based on the defendants past behavior and supposed character, unless, of course, pattern of behavior is an element of a charged offense, in which case it is an essential element that the prosecution must establish to present a prima facie case.
    You think it's right.
    I'm not sure why you would presume that. If you had made an argument about the law, I would have responded, if at all, with my position on the law. You made a naked reference to a bit of testimony with a disparaging comment about the witness. I questioned what you thought we were supposed to draw from that comment relevant to the trial, with a few apparent implications of your presentation.
    That's fine, but don't beat the horse to death. At least not here. You've made your views known.
    When? I've commented on the way you've presented witness testimony, including the way you treated the alleged victim. Since I've personally known several victims of childhood molestation, I found, for instance, your implication that the accuser was not credible because of behaviors that were generally normal for victims of molestation I've known, to be rather disturbing. I've often your presentation of other bits of testimony -- like the present one -- confusing as to why any import should be assigned to these things that you are highlighting. I don't, however, recall ever (previously) making a statement about the law allowing this kind of testimony that you feel that I have made my position known about.
    If you feel the need to continually argue for guilt, please do it on another site.
    While I don't deny that arguing that particular elements pointed out as being favorable to the defense aren't particularly convincing could also be an element of arguing for guilt, I haven't been arguing for that. I don't have any strong opinion on Jackson's guilt or innocence (I tend to feel that he is more likely than not guilty, but then I realize that's based on vague subjective impression, and not at all what he should be punished, or not, based on). I'm just asking "where's the beef?"

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    You know, on second thought, I withdraw my question. This circular discussion doesn't need to be rehashed for the umpteenth time. Your intro to the thread was somewhat confusing, though. Enjoy your weekend.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    Thanks, that's appreciated. By the way, I discussed and set out the California rules on admitting this kind of "other acts" evidence verbatim here.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:53:42 PM EST
    What bothers me about the prosecution bringing in all these witnesses is that there is no standard of proof. Anyone who is angry with Michael Jackson can make up any story, and will be put on the stand. McCauley Culkin (sp?) said several times he was not molested. Yet witnesses to his "moslestation" have come forth. And I'm still bothered by the incredible stupidity of Michael Jackson, who supposedly molests kids in unlocked rooms with open doors, and calls his staff to serve him food while he's busily engaging in an illegal act. Why didn't the staff report him then? Why wait until years and years later?

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    Sorry, it's "molestation". Mea culpa.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    I'd certainly say that S.1108 is a bad, bad, bad law motivated by the insane public hysteria that surrounds sex offenses and makes every politician know that there is no better way to advance a career than making it easier to prosecute -- persecute even -- alleged sex offenders.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:03:45 PM EST
    So, cmdicely, you're telling us that anybody who would work as a cook in the Jackson kitchen is automatically suspect, due to the person's habit of fraternizing with criminals.
    Well, only if one first grants that Jackson was a known criminal at the time of employment.
    And you're telling us that we shouldn't infer that somebody who allows unspeakably vile crimes to occur because they're concerned about collecting their twenty pieces of silver might not be the most credible source in relation to those same incidents some fourteen years later, even when the purported victim has repeatedly denied the allegation.
    Certainly more credible than a hypothetical source that didn't have a motive for not revealing it at the time but didn't.
    I do think that, if the prosecutor wants to advance this particular set of claims, it should do so by presenting the testimony of the purported victim, now an adult and competent to testify.
    I think it would be more convincing if he did so, but not that he should be required to do so (assuming, arguendo, this line of inquiry is appropriate at all, which is tangential to the credibility or character of the witnesses involved); admittedly, if the alleged victim continues to deny it, that alleged victim could be a powerful witness for the defense.
    But if you're satisfied that we should assume that the purported victim is lying, and thus take the word over somebody who preferred continued work as a short order chef over protecting children from harm, I guess that's your choice.
    I'm not at all satisfied of that, in fact, I'm rather baffled at why the prosecution would present a line of argument which doesn't, AFAICT, tend to establish any element of any charged offense or offer any hope of establishing any fact more than tangentially relevant to those charges beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not the law allows such evidence to be presented. [Ed. cm, favor please. Can you please find a way to respond to other comments without reprinting them. It uses a lot of bandwidth and interrupts the flow of the discussion. Usually, if you just begin with the name of the commenter you are responding to, and state your position, we can all follow along.]

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    Anyone who is angry with Michael Jackson can make up any story, and will be put on the stand. McCauley Culkin (sp?) said several times he was not molested. Yet witnesses to his "moslestation" have come forth.
    Yes, and the defense can call Culkin and rebut those witnesses if it wants. And it can -- as it has been -- work to impeach their credibility other ways. I'm -- personally -- more concerned about the fact that the whole issue that these witnesses address is not relevant to the charges being brought than that it is not credible. The defense has plenty of opportunity to rebut the credibility of the witnesses, it is much harder to effectively -- whatever the jury charge is -- get the jury to ignore their subjective feeling, derived in part from evidence irrelevant to the charges before them, that Michael Jackson is a "bad man" when evaluating the specific charges they will have to weigh. In one sense, where this kind of testimony of past, uncharged criminal behavior is presented, it is more worrying (from a pro-defense perspective) if it is credible. If it is not credible, it is less likely, I would think, to influence the juries perception of other evidence against the defendant.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 05:22:31 PM EST
    Cmdicely, favor please. Can you please find a way to respond to other comments without reprinting them. It uses a lot of bandwidth and interrupts the flow of the discussion. Usually, if you just begin with the name of the commenter you are responding to, and state your position, we can all follow along.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#21)
    by Aaron on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:03:20 PM EST
    Obviously the prosecution is prepared to argue that Culkin is lying. So what good does presenting Culkin do for the defense? Despite your confusion about why a prosecutor with a weak case would try to suggest guilt on the basis of "where there's smoke there's fire" (I think it obvious), why is it the job of the defense to produce witnesses to refute testimony that the prosecution already knows contradicts the public position of the alleged victim? Perhaps you believe in an assumption of guilt.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 08, 2005 at 08:49:35 PM EST
    Where there's smoke, there might be fire. There might also be a smoke bomb lobbed by the other side to obscure things.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 07:52:46 AM EST
    These 1108 witnesses were a comedy act, a sick one: Jason Francia, the one who claimes 3 acts of Jackson touching his peepee at age 7, 8 and a half and at age 10. Detailed recollections on direct exam; "Whose on First" obfuscation on cross exam. Blanca Francia, JF's mother: got in trouble for taking something and for going into another employee's purse. Ralph Chacon: couldn't remember why he was ordered to pay a $1.4 million judgement to Jackson; said he got in trouble for taking a candy bar. Adrian McManus: another one ordered to pay MJ $1.4 million, also sued by her own sister-in-law for stealing $30,000 from an account for her niece and nephew.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 01:17:55 PM EST
    Obviously the prosecution is prepared to argue that Culkin is lying. So what good does presenting Culkin do for the defense?
    That the prosecution obviously thinks they are prepared to argue that does not mean that the jury would be more convinced by the prosecutions arguments than the denials of the supposed victim. I mean, the fact that the prosecution has brought a case at all means they think they are prepared to argue that the defendant is guilty, that doesn't mean there is no point to presenting a defense.
    Despite your confusion about why a prosecutor with a weak case would try to suggest guilt on the basis of "where there's smoke there's fire" (I think it obvious), why is it the job of the defense to produce witnesses to refute testimony that the prosecution already knows contradicts the public position of the alleged victim?
    Because alleged victims are not privileged witnesses whose claims are especially presumed to be true, whether it comes to either innocence or guilt. The defense need not rebut the witnesses, of course, it can merely argue that their testimony is inadequate to meet the prosecutions burden of proof. Its merely smarter to rebut them if there is readily available evidence, whether in the form of more credible witnesses or otherwise, with which to do so.
    Perhaps you believe in an assumption of guilt.
    No, I just don't believe in some kind of "victim's privilege" where the denial of the alleged victim creates an absolute presumption that an event did not occur.

    Re: Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 29, 2005 at 08:58:04 AM EST
    I'm a bit late on the McCauley Culkin biz. But: how can a judge rule that the demonstrable fact that a witness runs a porn business cannot be discussed, but the possible fact that the witness might or might not have seen Culkin be molested over a decade ago can be? If sexual assault victims have a right to have their identity protected, why not someone who might or might not have been a victim? It's bad enough that Culkin might have been molested by Jackson. But now he's definitely being raped by the the judicial system.

    Michael Jackson Cook Testifies About Macaulay Culkin | 25 comments (25 topical)