Why are Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin referenced in Leaving Neverland?

Oct 23, 2025

When Leaving Neverland was released in March 2019, it drew widespread condemnation from Jackson’s defenders, with almost every aspect of the documentary coming under fire. Unsurprisingly, the brief inclusion of Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin drew attention even before the official release. Many fans—and the Jackson Estate—were seemingly outraged that director Dan Reed had chosen to feature them, particularly given that both had consistently denied any misconduct by Jackson, both during childhood and as adults. According to the Estate and others, their appearance via archive footage implied that, alongside Robson and Safechuck, they too were being portrayed as victims.

For example, in its “Petition to Compel Arbitration” against HBO’s parent company, WarnerMedia, the Jackson Estate stated:

Indeed, HBO and Reed failed to contact two named persons who are identified in the film as supposed victims of Jackson’s abuse. Yet since the Film was announced, both of these other men have publicly and prominently stated that the Film’s allegations that they were abused are utterly false. In fact, one person mentioned repeatedly by name in the Film as a supposed “victim” of Jackson’s who “replaced” Robson has called the film “a work of fiction.” That person was never contacted by HBO or Reed to respond to what the Film says about him.

In the Estate’s so‑called rebuttal—attributed to an anonymous Mark Hostetler and given the petulant title “Lies of Leaving Neverland”, which appeared on YouTube on 14 August 2019—the video, at around 24:40, also claims that the documentary strongly implies both Barnes and Culkin were sexually abused, while criticising Dan Reed for not giving them the opportunity to respond to his “smears”.

A legal letter, purportedly written by Brett Barnes’ lawyer, was also sent to Richard Plepler, then CEO of HBO, on 26 February 2019.

It stated:

Dear Mr. Plepler:

This firm is counsel for Brett Barnes. We have been informed that the film Leaving Neverland, which is set to be broadcast soon by HBO, Channel 4, and others leaves the false impression that Mr. Barnes was sexually abused as a child by the singer Michael Jackson. Mr. Barnes was not consulted about, and did not consent to, his inclusion in the film, does not want anything to do with the film, and will suffer significant torment and pain if the film is broadcast and portrays him in this false light. Accordingly, I am writing to demand that Mr. Barnes' name and likeness be removed from the film immediately.

Through descriptions of early screenings of Leaving Neverland at the Sundance Film Festival, we have learned that Leaving Neverland will contend that Mr. Jackson engaged in sordid sexual conduct with children. We have also learned that the film mentions Mr. Barnes several times as having been friends with Mr. Jackson as a child and also includes footage of Mr. Jackson and Mr. Barnes together. The film for seconds displays a chyron stating that Mr. Barnes denies that Mr. Jackson did anything inappropriate. We are also informed that one of the men who claims to have been molested by Mr. Jackson, Wade Robson, states in the film that Mr. Barnes "replaced him" and the film then shows Mr. Barnes and Mr. Jackson on tour. No chyron is going to cure such a despicable allegation. By depicting Mr. Barnes as a child next to Mr. Jackson in a film devoted to allegations of sexual molestation against Mr. Jackson, the film leaves viewers with the false impression that Mr. Barnes was in fact molested by Mr. Jackson and that Mr. Barnes is simply in denial.

Read the full document here: leavingneverlandfacts.com

However, serious questions remain about the origin of this legal letter—specifically, whether it was issued by Brett’s personal lawyer or by one with longstanding ties to the Jackson Estate. The letter is signed by Allen B. Grodsky, a lawyer based not in Melbourne or anywhere else in Australia, where Brett resides, but in Los Angeles. Records indicate that Grodsky has represented the Jackson Estate since August 2009.

The only time Brett Barnes publicly addressed his inclusion in Leaving Neverland—along with the legal letter issued on his behalf—was during an audio-only MJCast podcast interview with Charles Thomson in 2022.

As expected, long-time Jackson apologist Charles Thomson resorted to familiar tactics, using Brett’s “unauthorised” appearance in Leaving Neverland as a foundation to attack the documentary’s credibility.

In the introduction, he said:

My guest today is Brett Barnes, a long‑time friend of Michael Jackson who was thrust into the spotlight in 2019, when a number of assertions were made about him in the TV show Leaving Neverland. He has chosen the MJCast as the outlet for his first interview since 1993.

So, Brett, I don’t think there’s much question that one of the factors in your decision to speak to us now is the impact that Leaving Neverland had three years ago, when it was aired, produced by Channel 4 and HBO, and there were some very strong insinuations in that TV show about you and about your relationship with Michael. So I just want to check — we just want to get on record with you, really. Did anybody involved in that production contact you to offer you the opportunity to reply to any of the insinuations in that show…

Weirdly, Charles Thomson does not criticise himself for being the lead narrator of Square One, a film that not only perpetuates degrading conspiracy theories about Jordan Chandler but also thrusts him into the spotlight as the supposed “instigator” of all the “false allegations” that followed.

During the podcast, Thomson mentions Allen Grodsky several times, referring to him as Brett’s lawyer. However, Brett provides no background context and never clarifies whether he personally chose or paid for the Los Angeles-based lawyer, nor does he explain whether it was coincidental—or not—that this lawyer also had ties to the Jackson Estate.

So, the big question is: was this legal letter predominantly orchestrated by the Jackson Estate, yet crafted to appear as though Brett Barnes alone was charging in headfirst, all guns blazing, against the makers of Leaving Neverland? It certainly seems that way.

Taking the above context into account, it is clear that the Jackson Estate—and many apologists who echo its stance—have weaponised the inclusion of both Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin in the documentary, using it as a basis to accuse Dan Reed of breaching basic standards of documentary filmmaking.

But that simply isn’t true.

Their inclusion was not intended to suggest they were victims, or even victims in denial. On the contrary, the documentary explicitly states that both men have denied any sexual abuse by Jackson, underscored by an on-screen statement at the end of Part One.

Leaving Neverland is a complex documentary, and its purpose was never to tiptoe around uncomfortable facts. Their presence was not solely due to Wade and James’s accounts, but was driven largely by Jackson’s questionable behaviour and selfish actions.

These are the five main reasons:

• To show how Jackson appeared disinterested in Wade and his family during their first year in the United States—only for Wade to discover that Macaulay Culkin had become Jackson’s new “best friend”, even receiving the starring role in the Black or White music video, a part Jackson had originally promised Wade.
• To show how James was gradually phased out, feeling emotionally rejected after witnessing Jackson and Brett grow close—culminating in a painful episode at Jackson’s Century City apartment, where James was made to sleep downstairs while Brett and Jackson shared the bedroom.
• To highlight how Stephanie Safechuck observed a tight‑lipped Barnes family at Neverland, believing they had received the same warning her own family once had: not to speak to strangers who might be seeking details about Jackson.
• To show how Wade asked to join Jackson on the Dangerous tour, only to be told children were not permitted—before later seeing on television that Brett Barnes had accompanied him instead.
• To demonstrate the recurring pattern of young boys in Jackson’s life, with new companions appearing almost yearly, whom Jackson largely kept apart from one another.

All of these statements appear in the final 15 minutes of Part One.

Furthermore, all the footage of Brett Barnes shown in the documentary was already in the public domain. It exists only because Jackson either had him at his side while being filmed or photographed by the world’s media, or because it formed part of a carefully staged video designed to present him as the innocent “man‑child”. In McCauley’s case, the footage consisted primarily of his appearance in the Black or White music video. Both later defended Jackson as adults during his high‑profile 2005 child‑molestation trial. Culkin also gave televised interviews both before and after the proceedings, while Barnes has maintained a Twitter account devoted exclusively to Jackson since 2010.

For these reasons, any suggestion that Dan Reed directed undue media attention towards them is unfounded. The reality is that any child who spent significant one-to-one time with Jackson and has since reached adulthood will inevitably have been affected—both by the allegations and, more profoundly, by Jackson’s own actions, whether criminal or not.

In conclusion, despite protests from the Jackson Estate and Michael Jackson’s apologists, the documentary Leaving Neverland neither claimed nor implied that Brett Barnes or Macaulay Culkin were also victims of Jackson. Like any serious documentary—not some fan-made fluff—its aim was to present the facts in full.

Wade and James’s story is complex, and as with any complex narrative, other individuals inevitably appear. The brief inclusion of Brett and Macaulay serves to illustrate how their paths intersected with Wade and James, and how Wade and James themselves often experienced jealousy, neglect, and despair when they were sidelined and replaced. These emotions are not documented arbitrarily, but as a direct consequence of Jackson’s own selfish behaviour.

The criticism that Dan Reed failed to contact Brett and Macaulay to offer them the opportunity to respond to supposed “insinuations” or “smears” is laughable. Not only did Reed provide sufficient context in the documentary—through their denials and archive footage documenting the events in question—but those making such accusations are guilty of the very behaviour they condemn.

Moreover, had Dan Reed chosen to present only Wade and James’s story, omitting mention of other boys who were around at the time, he would still have faced criticism. Apologists would have immediately claimed, “But this boy or that boy was there, and they flatly deny Jackson did anything sexual to them—which Dan conveniently chose not to mention.” In other words, Dan can’t win either way.