Now, this topic is NOT to debate over irrelevant shyt such as his skin color, plastic surgery, or even his lifestyle...
...But PURELY the EVIDENCE!
I am gonna give you shyt from a defense standpoint - if you wanna play "prosecutor", cool! ...I'll have something for rebuttal!
...But let's just keep this on the "evidence" tip!
**************************
In favor of the defense (consider the 1993 and 2004 case):
The mother initially professing Michael as not being a "molester": [\b] Regarding the accuser, the mother of the boys CLEARLY supported Michael Jackson and made it known that she did not believe him to be any sort of child molester clear reference to fallout from the Bashir documentary, the boy's mother told investigators that "she believed the media had taken everything out of context," ...She now claims to now been co-hearsed by Michael's "crew" to say deny any that her child was being molested.
[b] The mother in the 1993 case rejecting the accusation of Michael molesting her child: [\b] From the beginning, the mother has declared not believing Michael to have molested her child, nor has she supported her ex-husband.
[b] Chandler, the father (1993) not being a neglectful dad: [\b] It is reported that Chandler owed over $50,000 in child support, and was never really even interested or involved in his son's life until his son met Michael Jackson.
[b] The relationship between Chandler (the dad) and Michael going sour: [\b] Michael became very much a part of the family's life, and was even seen as a "father figure" in the life of the boy and his mother - somewhat replacing Chandler ...Chandler also developed a "relationship" with Mike, trying to get Mike to build him a new home close to his (so they could be closer), and even attempting to work on projects with Mike (movie projects, since Chandler aspired to be as screenwriter rather than a dentist)), although Mike refused him. Chandler was audiotaped in a phone call (unknowingly) by the boy's stepfather (Schwartz) saying: "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."
[b]The 1993 father's "plot" against Michael, and what was caught on tape: Mr. Chandler (the boy's biological father) didn't realize he was being taped by the boy's stepfather, Mr. Schwartz:
Admitting to Schwartz that he had "been rehearsed" about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that "he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy's power and money." Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.
Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: "It's already set," Chandler told Schwartz. "There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."
Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: "And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]...and Michael's career will be over."
"Does that help [the boy]?" Schwartz asked.
"That's irrelevant to me," Chandler replied. "It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."
The 1993 boy refusing to testify: Chandler's son refused to testify (and that refusal lead to Sneddon making it now where children MUST testify in molestation cases in Santa Barbara)...
Both boys in the 2004 case inititially claimed to NOT have been molested in any way by Michael: when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.'s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he "denied any form of sexual abuse" by Jackson and said that he never "slept in the same bed as the entertainer." ...The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother--who also denied sexual abuse--expressed "a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies." The pair's sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on "sleepovers at the entertainers home," but had "never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer."
In the 1993 case, the boy answered "No" when questioned the first 2 times on whether or not Michael had done anything inappropriate to him ...It was only when the child was in the psychiatrist's chair (a psychiatrist that was "linked" with his father, Chandler), that the boy gave a story of being molested ...It was also said that the boy was administered a drug that was proclaimed illegal to use in dentistry, a drug known for causes folks to "lie", or "fabricate stories"...
DCFS Finding NO FINDINGS of molestation: The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the "investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department." For more detailed info on the memo, go to: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html
When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked "substantiated." A case is termed "not substantiated" when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded "unfounded" when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.
Sneddon and his "personal vendetta" against Michael : The defense lawyers have asserted that Mr. Sneddon is "blinded by his zeal to convict Michael Jackson" and that the personal bias and conflict he has in prosecuting this case is "so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial." Mr. Jackson's defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, accuses Mr. Sneddon having a vendetta because the prosecutor was unable to file child molestation charges against the entertainer a decade ago. That case crumbled when the young accuser's family accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement in a simultaneous civil suit and then refused to testify.
Mr. Jackson's lawyers "claim the District Attorney has had a nearly decade-long grudge against him because he received 'sharp criticism' for not filing charges against the defendant resulting from the 1993-1994 investigation," Mr. Matthews stated. "But (Mr. Jackson's lawyers) merely speculate that any of the District Attorney's ˜zeal' was in fact a long-delayed reaction to any 'sharp criticism' he may have received. In fact, such zeal is much more likely attributed to the deep and abiding conviction of the District Attorney in the strong evidence supporting defendant's guilt in this case."
He also pointed out: "A District Attorney's general feelings of personal antagonism toward a defendant do not necessarily establish a reasonable basis for recusal of a prosecutor. To warrant recusal, the personal feelings of the prosecutor must be so intense and personal that they present a real danger that he is unable to perform his duties effectively in an objective fashion."
The defense also accused Mr. Sneddon of misconduct during grand jury proceedings, saying he "bullied," "threatened" and intimidated witnesses - allegations the defense listed when asking Judge Melville to set aside the indictment against Mr. Jackson.
In the most recent case, Sneddon begged the family to not file a civil suit, as the first family did, but a criminal suit ...
Prosecution's evidence being perhaps "contaminated": Much had been made from prosecution sympathizers about the fingerprint of the accuser being found on a magazine along with Jackson's. First, you can't date fingerprints so just because a fingerprint of the accuser may have been found, it doesn't mean Jackson showed it to him.
But the second and probably most important thing is that the magazines reportedly weren't tested for fingerprints until after the accuser physically handled them while he was testifying in front of the grand jury. From the Feb 1 2005 CJ article:
"Based on what we've seen, this evidence may have been compromised," Levin observed. "We know when this accuser testified before the grand jury he handled these magazines. At one point, one of the grand jurors asked, 'Have these magazines been fingerprinted?' And the sheriff said, 'No.' That leaves the door wide open for the defense to argue, 'How do you know when the boy touched the magazine? At Neverland? Or before the grand jury?'"
(see Could Jackson Prosecution Evidence Be Compromised? - CJ)
So if this kid is touching these magazines while he is testifying in front of the grand jury, and the mags are later tested for fingerprints, of course a fingerprint of his would have been found. It doesn't mean Jackson showed him anything.
What this has done is take a somewhat weak argument and made it a possible catastrophe for prosecutors. It seems common knowledge to check for fingerprints to confirm the accuser's story.
The timing of the accusations in the 2004 case: The accuser claimed to have been molested AFTER the taping of the Bashir documentary, and it would be hard to believe that Michael would be so "desperate" to do such a thing at a time when he is trying hard to declare his "innocent" relationship with children...
The mother's credibility in this case, and her history of "lying", and how she uses her children in lies : The mother once accusing her ex-husband of sexually molesting the accuser and falsely imprisoning them ...And of course, there's the JC Penney scandal -Read it all here:
http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1070
How the mother was irresponsible with her children: It was reported that the mother in the 2004 case would repeatedly leave her children for days at the Neverland Ranch while she was with her boyfriend
Claims on how the mother was on "watch": After Michael's arrest in 2004, and it was known who the accuser was, there were many calls made to authorities from people who had also been at the ranch at the same time as the accuser's family, claiming that she (the mother) had to be on "watch" by Michael's security, being that her behavior was "suspicious" and she was not very much "trusted" (the knowlege of her past drug usage may have lead to these "suspicions") ...Those who telephoned authorities also said that nothing "wrong" ever was witnessed between Michael and her children.
Reports that the MOTHER allowed the children to drink alcohol - Not Michael Jackson - in 2004 case: Explosive new information in the Michael Jackson "case" involved the accuser, his family, and alcohol.ABC News is reporting that there are witnesses who saw the accuser's mother allowing her children to drink alcohol at Jackson's Neverland Ranch when Jackson was away from the premises.These witnesses are also willing to testify to as much.This speaks to the heart of the allegations leveled against Jackson since prosecutors will actually claim the accuser would be plied with alcohol in order to be molested. The ABC report states: In addition, these sources told ABC News that there are witnesses who can testify that the alleged victim and his siblings were often seen drinking at Neverland when Jackson was not on the premises. They told ABC News that the alleged victim's mother was often present when the children were drinking and did nothing to stop it.
Boy's reaction to being humiliated: After Bashir's documentary on Neverland aired (which showed the accuser holding hands firmly with Michael and with his head rested on Michael's shoulder affectionately, it was reported that the boy was made fun of and harrassed in school, and this very much affected the young boy - which is HIGHLY understandable, and this could've greatly affected his feelings towards Jackson, even leading to negative feelings.
How both parents first went to lawyers instead of authorities, and what she (the 2004 accusing mother) told Bashir: Both the parents in the '93 and '04 case first went to attorneys instead of authorities, and it is highly unlikely that a parent (who's child has been molested) would first go to an attorney over the authorities ...You go to attorneys when there is something more in "pursuit" - not when you just want justice! ...It was also reported that the mother in the 2004 case went to Bashir (the British guy that did the documentary with her and Michael) saying something to the effect of "You'd better take care of me, OR ELSE!", when her son was being made fun of in school after the documentary aired...
The small amount of molestation accusations made against Michael, compared with the pattern of molesters/pedophiles: As any psychologist would know, pedophiles/molesters are not "picky-choosy" ...As we see with the many molestation cases against priests, etc., when one child comes out, you are highly guaranteed to see many more following ...And in comparison, Michael has been in contact with THOUSANDS of children, and there have only been 2 cases that have firmly stood by their accusations of molestation (not including the case with the former maid, where the mother was actually the accuser - not the child) - even children he has kept in CLOSE contact with (MacCauley Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis) have absolutely no story of being harmed or molested in any way ...This is highly unlikely for child molesters/pedophiles...
The testimonies of former child friends and associates, claiming his innocence (Debbie Rowe, Emmanuel, McCauley, and EVEN Corey Feldman): Initially, all of these associates mentioned have professed to NEVER seeing or knowing of Michael doing ANYTHING inappropriate with children, and most STILL stand firm by what they initially declared.
Claims of "kidnapping" and being "held hostage" appearing to be bogus: What the hell kind of kidnappers would allow their hostages to contact the office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara about anything?? And why wouldn't the family have told the current DA that they were being threatened and held hostage? Remember, the prosecution won't be able to get out of this fact by claiming the alleged molestation hadn't began yet and somehow that's why they didn't say anything.
Accuser's DNA Not Found - The DNA is NEGATIVE : Results in the DNA testing which took place in the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Case have returned a result of negative.
In favor of the defense (consider the 1993 and 2004 case):
The mother initially professing Michael as not being a "molester": Regarding the accuser, the mother of the boys CLEARLY supported Michael Jackson and made it known that she did not believe him to be any sort of child molester clear reference to fallout from the Bashir documentary, the boy's mother told investigators that "she believed the media had taken everything out of context," ...She now claims to now been co-hearsed by Michael's "crew" to say deny any that her child was being molested.
The mother in the 1993 case rejecting the accusation of Michael molesting her child: From the beginning, the mother has declared not believing Michael to have molested her child, nor has she supported her ex-husband.
Chandler, the father (1993) not being a neglectful dad: It is reported that Chandler owed over $50,000 in child support, and was never really even interested or involved in his son's life until his son met Michael Jackson.
The relationship between Chandler (the dad) and Michael going sour: Michael became very much a part of the family's life, and was even seen as a "father figure" in the life of the boy and his mother - somewhat replacing Chandler ...Chandler also developed a "relationship" with Mike, trying to get Mike to build him a new home close to his (so they could be closer), and even attempting to work on projects with Mike (movie projects, since Chandler aspired to be as screenwriter rather than a dentist)), although Mike refused him. Chandler was audiotaped in a phone call (unknowingly) by the boy's stepfather (Schwartz) saying: "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."
The 1993 father's "plot" against Michael, and what was caught on tape: Mr. Chandler (the boy's biological father) didn't realize he was being taped by the boy's stepfather, Mr. Schwartz: "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."
[color:red]
[color:red] "I had a good communication with Michael," Chandler told Schwartz. "We were friends. I liked him and I respected him and everything else for what he is. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. I sat in the room one day and talked to Michael and told him exactly what I want out of this whole relationship. What I want."
Admitting to Schwartz that he had "been rehearsed" about what to say and what not to say, Chandler never mentioned money during their conversation. When Schwartz asked what Jackson had done that made Chandler so upset, Chandler alleged only that "he broke up the family. [The boy] has been seduced by this guy's power and money." Both men repeatedly berated themselves as poor fathers to the boy.
Elsewhere on the tape, Chandler indicated he was prepared to move against Jackson: "It's already set," Chandler told Schwartz. "There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are in certain positions. I've paid them to do it. Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy [his attorney, Barry K. Rothman, presumably] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that."
Chandler then predicted what would, in fact, transpire six weeks later: "And if I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]...and Michael's career will be over."
"Does that help [the boy]?" Schwartz asked.
"That's irrelevant to me," Chandler replied. "It's going to be bigger than all of us put together. The whole thing is going to crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in sight. It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want."
The 1993 boy refusing to testify: Chandler's son refused to testify (and that refusal lead to Sneddon making it now where children MUST testify in molestation cases in Santa Barbara)...
Both boys in the 2004 case inititially claimed to NOT have been molested in any way by Michael: when the child was questioned in February by a social worker assigned to the Sensitive Case Unit of L.A.'s Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS), he "denied any form of sexual abuse" by Jackson and said that he never "slept in the same bed as the entertainer." ...The memo notes that the boy, now 14, and his 12-year-old brother--who also denied sexual abuse--expressed "a fondness for the entertainer and stated they enjoyed visiting his home, where they would often ride in the park, play video games, and watch movies." The pair's sister, now 17, told a social worker that she accompanied the boys on "sleepovers at the entertainers home," but had "never seen anything sexually inappropriate between her brothers and the entertainer."
In the 1993 case, the boy answered "No" when questioned the first 2 times on whether or not Michael had done anything inappropriate to him ...It was only when the child was in the psychiatrist's chair (a psychiatrist that was "linked" with his father, Chandler), that the boy gave a story of being molested ...It was also said that the boy was administered a drug that was proclaimed illegal to use in dentistry, a drug known for causes folks to "lie", or "fabricate stories"...
DCFS Finding NO FINDINGS of molestation: The joint probe by DCFS and the Los Angeles Police Department ran from February 14-27 and, the memo states, the "investigation by the Sensitive Case Unit concluded the allegations of neglect and sexual abuse to be unfounded both by the LAPD-Wilshire Division and the Department." For more detailed info on the memo, go to: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dcfsmemo1.html
When an investigation is closed, child welfare officials can summarize their findings in one of three ways. If evidence is found to support abuse charges, the case is marked "substantiated." A case is termed "not substantiated" when evidence discovered is not sufficient to support allegations (though the charges may, in fact, be true). Finally, a matter is branded "unfounded" when officials determine there is no merit to the allegations.
Sneddon and his "personal vendetta" against Michael : The defense lawyers have asserted that Mr. Sneddon is "blinded by his zeal to convict Michael Jackson" and that the personal bias and conflict he has in prosecuting this case is "so grave it is unlikely that Mr. Jackson will receive a fair trial." Mr. Jackson's defense team, led by Thomas Mesereau, accuses Mr. Sneddon having a vendetta because the prosecutor was unable to file child molestation charges against the entertainer a decade ago. That case crumbled when the young accuser's family accepted a multimillion-dollar settlement in a simultaneous civil suit and then refused to testify.
Mr. Jackson's lawyers "claim the District Attorney has had a nearly decade-long grudge against him because he received 'sharp criticism' for not filing charges against the defendant resulting from the 1993-1994 investigation," Mr. Matthews stated. "But (Mr. Jackson's lawyers) merely speculate that any of the District Attorney's ˜zeal' was in fact a long-delayed reaction to any 'sharp criticism' he may have received. In fact, such zeal is much more likely attributed to the deep and abiding conviction of the District Attorney in the strong evidence supporting defendant's guilt in this case."
He also pointed out: "A District Attorney's general feelings of personal antagonism toward a defendant do not necessarily establish a reasonable basis for recusal of a prosecutor. To warrant recusal, the personal feelings of the prosecutor must be so intense and personal that they present a real danger that he is unable to perform his duties effectively in an objective fashion."
The defense also accused Mr. Sneddon of misconduct during grand jury proceedings, saying he "bullied," "threatened" and intimidated witnesses - allegations the defense listed when asking Judge Melville to set aside the indictment against Mr. Jackson.
In the most recent case, Sneddon begged the family to not file a civil suit, as the first family did, but a criminal suit ...
FINGERPRINTS ON NUDIE MAGS:
Prosecution's evidence being perhaps "contaminated": Much had been made from prosecution sympathizers about the fingerprint of the accuser being found on a magazine along with Jackson's. First, you can't date fingerprints so just because a fingerprint of the accuser may have been found, it doesn't mean Jackson showed it to him.
But the second and probably most important thing is that the magazines reportedly weren't tested for fingerprints until after the accuser physically handled them while he was testifying in front of the grand jury. From the Feb 1 2005 CJ article:
"Based on what we've seen, this evidence may have been compromised," Levin observed. "We know when this accuser testified before the grand jury he handled these magazines. At one point, one of the grand jurors asked, 'Have these magazines been fingerprinted?' And the sheriff said, 'No.' That leaves the door wide open for the defense to argue, 'How do you know when the boy touched the magazine? At Neverland? Or before the grand jury?'"
(see Could Jackson Prosecution Evidence Be Compromised? - CJ)
So if this kid is touching these magazines while he is testifying in front of the grand jury, and the mags are later tested for fingerprints, of course a fingerprint of his would have been found. It doesn't mean Jackson showed him anything.
What this has done is take a somewhat weak argument and made it a possible catastrophe for prosecutors. It seems common knowledge to check for fingerprints to confirm the accuser's story.
The timing of the accusations in the 2004 case: The accuser claimed to have been molested AFTER the taping of the Bashir documentary, and it would be hard to believe that Michael would be so "desperate" to do such a thing at a time when he is trying hard to declare his "innocent" relationship with children...
The mother's credibility in this case, and her history of "lying", and how she uses her children in lies : The mother once accusing her ex-husband of sexually molesting the accuser and falsely imprisoning them ...And of course, there's the JC Penney scandal -Read it all here:
http://site.mjeol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1070
How the mother was irresponsible with her children: It was reported that the mother in the 2004 case would repeatedly leave her children for days at the Neverland Ranch while she was with her boyfriend, visiting spas, etc...
Claims on how the mother was on "watch": After Michael's arrest in 2004, and it was known who the accuser was, there were many calls made to authorities from people who had also been at the ranch at the same time as the accuser's family, claiming that she (the mother) had to be on "watch" by Michael's security, being that her behavior was "suspicious" and she was not very much "trusted" (the knowlege of her past drug usage may have lead to these "suspicions") ...Those who telephoned authorities also said that nothing "wrong" ever was witnessed between Michael and her children.
Reports that the MOTHER allowed the children to drink alcohol - Not Michael Jackson - in 2004 case: Explosive new information in the Michael Jackson "case" involved the accuser, his family, and alcohol.ABC News is reporting that there are witnesses who saw the accuser's mother allowing her children to drink alcohol at Jackson's Neverland Ranch when Jackson was away from the premises.These witnesses are also willing to testify to as much.This speaks to the heart of the allegations leveled against Jackson since prosecutors will actually claim the accuser would be plied with alcohol in order to be molested. The ABC report states: In addition, these sources told ABC News that there are witnesses who can testify that the alleged victim and his siblings were often seen drinking at Neverland when Jackson was not on the premises. They told ABC News that the alleged victim's mother was often present when the children were drinking and did nothing to stop it.
Boy's reaction to being humiliated: After Bashir's documentary on Neverland aired (which showed the accuser holding hands firmly with Michael and with his head rested on Michael's shoulder affectionately, it was reported that the boy was made fun of and harrassed in school, and this very much affected the young boy - which is HIGHLY understandable, and this could've greatly affected his feelings towards Jackson, even leading to negative feelings.
How both parents first went to lawyers instead of authorities, and what she (the 2004 accusing mother) told Bashir: Both the parents in the '93 and '04 case first went to attorneys instead of authorities, and it is highly unlikely that a parent (who's child has been molested) would first go to an attorney over the authorities ...You go to attorneys when there is something more in "pursuit" - not when you just want justice! ...It was also reported that the mother in the 2004 case went to Bashir (the British guy that did the documentary with her and Michael) saying something to the effect of "You'd better take care of me, OR ELSE!", when her son was being made fun of in school after the documentary aired...
The small amount of molestation accusations made against Michael, compared with the pattern of molesters/pedophiles: As any psychologist would know, pedophiles/molesters are not "picky-choosy" ...As we see with the many molestation cases against priests, etc., when one child comes out, you are highly guaranteed to see many more following ...And in comparison, Michael has been in contact with THOUSANDS of children, and there have only been 2 cases that have firmly stood by their accusations of molestation (not including the case with the former maid, where the mother was actually the accuser - not the child) - even children he has kept in CLOSE contact with (MacCauley Culkin, Emmanuel Lewis) have absolutely no story of being harmed or molested in any way ...This is highly unlikely for child molesters/pedophiles...
The testimonies of former child friends and associates, claiming his innocence (Debbie Rowe, Emmanuel, McCauley, and EVEN Corey Feldman): Initially, all of these associates mentioned have professed to NEVER seeing or knowing of Michael doing ANYTHING inappropriate with children, and most STILL stand firm by what they initially declared.
Claims of "kidnapping" and being "held hostage" appearing to be bogus: What the hell kind of kidnappers would allow their hostages to contact the office of the District Attorney of Santa Barbara about anything?? And why wouldn't the family have told the current DA that they were being threatened and held hostage? Remember, the prosecution won't be able to get out of this fact by claiming the alleged molestation hadn't began yet and somehow that's why they didn't say anything.
****The ONLY witnesses brought to testify against Micheal are mainly people who were fired by Michael, stole or made extortion attempts for Michael, or sold stories to tabloids for money (where some even admitted to lying, such as the former maid who Jackson settled with)
**Accuser's DNA Not Found - The DNA is NEGATIVE Results in the DNA testing which took place in the Michael Jackson Child Molestation Case have returned a result of negative.
**********************************************
Original Post
