nypost-032705

JACKO’S 7 ‘BAD’ PRIORS
The New York Post
628390 All Editions
News
Published: 03/27/2005
Page: 010
Caption: MICHAEL JACKSON Fights DA disclosure bid.
JACKO’S 7 ‘BAD’ PRIORS ; BEHIND OTHER KIDS’ CLAIMS
Byline: By DIANE DIMOND

SANTA MARIA, Calif. - Tomorrow is the most important day in Michael Jackson’s life.

It is the day Superior Court Judge Rodney Melville says he will rule on whether the child-molestation case against Jackson will be sharply focused on the current accuser’s claims or expanded to include other evidence of what the state calls Jackson’s “prior sexual offenses” with young boys.

Judge Melville has already announced from the bench that California law is clear. Some of this kind of evidence will be allowed to be presented to the jury. The question is how much he will agree is germane to the case.

The prosecution has seven instances it wants to reveal in court.

Melville’s decision will also include whether the prosecution can introduce Jackson’s multimillion-dollar civil settlements with the families of two youngsters he once called his “special friends.”

The first, the widely reported settlement to the boy whose allegations sparked the 1993 scandal, totaled more than $20 million and was paid out on an installment plan beginning in January 1994.

The second settlement was less widely reported. It was reached with a former Neverland maid and her young son in December 1994. It totaled more than $2 million.

But back to those so-called “past bad acts.”

In December, District Attorney Tom Sneddon and his team filed a 63-page motion to introduce “evidence of uncharged acts” committed by Michael Jackson. On Page 10, the prosecution begins a summary of the seven alleged offenses and it covers the next 27 pages. All the specifics are blacked out by judge’s order. Now some details can finally be reported.

* Allegation No. 1 focuses on Jackson’s behavior with the 1993 claimant. He, his mother and his father are on the state’s witness list. The accuser is now in his early 20s, and sources say he does not want to testify.

* Allegation No. 2 centers on the 1994 case of the former maid’s son. He and his mother are both expected to give testimony for the prosecution if Judge Melville agrees the case lives up to the definition of a prior offense.

* Allegation No. 3 stems from the story told to prosecutors by a former security guard at Neverland ranch. Sources say he claims he was an eyewitness to a sex act and has passed two lie-detector tests.

* Allegation No. 4 is based on the claims of a husband-and-wife team who once worked at Neverland. They are prepared to testify that Jackson screened pornographic movies for young boys in his custom-made theater and was once seen, in the wee hours of the morning, fondling a child actor in the arcade as the boy played a game.

* Allegation No. 5 revolves around the recollections of a one-time Neverland housekeeper. Several sources report she is set to testify about inappropriate behavior her former boss engaged in with three boys.

* Allegation No. 6 bears a striking resemblance to a claim made in the current case. A longtime top Jackson associate has written about an instance where he witnessed the entertainer “licking the head” of a 12-year-old boy while on a trans-Atlantic flight back to America. He has now been subpoenaed to repeat the story in court.

* Allegation No. 7 involves a young male Jackson friend secretly spotted getting up-close-and-personal instruction on how to perform the famous moonwalk. Another ex-guard is set to testify that she secretly watched the lesson and that it included intimate touching.

In court papers, Jackson’s defense team maintains the seven acts on the state’s wish list are completely false, put forth by witnesses who have a total lack of credibility. It’s clear the defense will argue that the charges of eyewitness knowledge come from disgruntled former employees who “stole from him as well” and became tabloid informants.

They claim the district attorney has spent the last 11 years trying to find a new alleged victim with “an open casting call for witnesses.” Now, it’s up to the judge to decide how much of this is brought up in court.