No 7 Accusers in Jackson ‘Case’ – Majority of questioned boys deny abuse

Police Seek Additional Alleged Jackson Victims January 7, 2005 :camera VIDEO Exclusive: Just three weeks before the scheduled start of Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial, “Celebrity Justice” has learned Santa Barbara investigators are trying to nail down an old case against the pop star that first investigated more than a decade ago. According to “CJ” Executive Producer Harvey Levin, “It’s pretty stunning that, literally at the 12th hour, the police are out in full force in Southern California, trying to dig up other alleged victims. You would think, at this point, prosecutors are working on opening statements.” Back during Jackson’s “Bad Tour” in the late 1980s, published reports claimed that the superstar met up and shopped for toys in London with another Southern California boy, then said to be about 10 years old. A private eye told “CJ” he was recently contacted by Santa Barbara detectives seeking information on that boy’s family. The gumshoe told us he sent police several photos, which he says are of the boy’s mother and father and the family’s home. Cops are chasing down rumors that Jackson may have purchased the home for the family — rumors we’re told the family vehemently denies. Just last Tuesday, police paid a visit to one of the boy’s relatives. “Relatives of this boy are saying it is absolutely untrue that Michael Jackson gave this family hush money in any form,” Levin stated. “CJ” traveled to LA’s Simi Valley suburb to get the family’s reaction to the detectives’ new interest. We went to the office of the young man’s father and the family’s home and spoke with the mother by phone. “She was upset, to say the least,” Levin said. “She wanted this whole thing to go away, never to be heard from again, and that doesn’t seem to be the case.” Already on the prosecution’s witness list is a young man who settled with Jackson for about $20 million in 1994, along with a former Neverland housekeeper’s son, with whose family, we’re told, Jackson also settled, although criminal charges were never filed. So why won’t prosecutors simply rely on the current accuser’s story? “To me, this is further evidence that the prosecutor doesn’t have the physical evidence it needs to nail Michael Jackson,” Levin observed. “They may go into the past to try and prove some modus operandi.” We are also told that the boy who detectives have been looking at has denied being molested by Jackson. Meanwhile, the judge in the current case has yet to decide if evidence from past accusers will even be admitted. Source: http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/news/0501/07a.html :nav Your comments?