Former sheriff: Second child accused Jackson in '93
 |
Former sheriff Jim Thomas
Story Tools
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
|
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.
Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
|
|
(CNN) -- As Michael Jackson faces criminal child molestation charges, CNN learned Thursday that a second victim accused the singer of sexual misconduct 10 years ago. The "primary victim," as law enforcement officials call him, settled a civil suit for millions of dollars in 1993, and the second victim chose not to testify.
Jim Thomas, who was sheriff of Santa Barbara County in 1993, spoke to CNN anchor Paula Zahn by telephone Thursday.
ZAHN: First of all, why are we just learning about this alleged second victim?
THOMAS: Well, it was something that wasn't publicized so much, because the civil suit in 1993 I think had most of the publicity. And that included what I would consider the primary victim.
ZAHN: And why is it, do you think, sir, the second case didn't go any further?
THOMAS: Well, the child did not want to testify. And we can't force a child to testify. So that never went forward.
ZAHN: Can you characterize to us what is on this videotape that might ultimately be used in the new Jackson case?
THOMAS: Well, I didn't say it was a videotape. I think it was a recording tape of the interview with the child, where he basically was telling our investigators of his experiences with Michael Jackson.
ZAHN: Can you share any of the details with us tonight, sir?
THOMAS: I don't know that I want to go into the real details. I would say that it was improper conduct, but not to the degree that the primary victim claimed.
ZAHN: Can you help us understand the delineation there? We have heard some of the harsher charges by this other child against Michael Jackson. That case, of course, settled out of court.
THOMAS: Yes. And these, the allegations by the second child, would not go to the degree that the harsher charges that you have heard or have read would be, but it was enough to show that it was improper.
ZAHN: When that case didn't progress, did that bother you? Did that trouble you?
THOMAS: Well, I think, like any other case -- I know there's a lot of attention because this is Michael Jackson.
But, frankly, it's not any different than Michael Smith or Michael Jones. If you have a case and you're unable to take it to a conclusion to where at least a jury would make a decision of guilt or innocence, it does bother you, because you're concerned that there may be additional victims. And perhaps that is what has happened in this case.
