When Michael was proscecuted children who claimed to have been abused refused to testify, similarly with Jimmy Savile police could not take cases forward because complainents refused to provide further evidence.
Where have you seen that Jimmy Savile victims were refusing to provide evidence? From what I've seen the victims who spoke out at the time of the crimes were simply not believed for various reasons, some situational that they couldn't avoid.. such as having a troubled past. Others because of who he was and no one would believe he was that type of man. And as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to prove accusations. Things are buried with time. But to suggest victims withheld evidence is wrong imho. Maybe i've missed something.
The MJ case is in no way similar. For a start, there were plenty of people who suspected MJ was up to no good with kids. There was a much more fertile ground in which to plant seeds of accusations there. Nothing was stopping people coming forward out of fear no one would believe them. The California legal people were practically begging them to come forward promising rich rewards for doing so.
And let's not forget that while there were a couple of cases against MJ, there were also young witnesses who testified that he did nothing to them. My personal long standing view on MJ is that he was innocent of the accusations. Did he perhaps do things with kids which were out of the ordinary? Yes. Christ, the guy had a theme park in his back garden. He was anything other than ordinary. But it doesn't make him a child abuser.
I don't agree with trying to mix what is happening now with what happened to MJ in the past and trying to suggest one proves the other.