Hello malagaaunike,
Thank you and yes I do have those documents. This information is more about the 1993 allegations. This is the first time there has been information from any official that Michael was extensively interviewed without his attorney present, was absolutely cooperative and the officials found no evidence to support any charge of child molestation.
While the 2003 allegations and 2005 trial was more destructive to Michael it was still considered by many a farce. The 93 allegation is different it is the one due to Feldmen's legal manipulations to have the case settled within 120 days, the judge's compliance, a lack of any concrete evidence other than a statement written to ensure any who read it and believed a child would not lie would forever find Michael abhorrent, and a Media while not as vicious as 03 failed to report emphatically the drawing and photo did not match has always been the crux of the matter.
I agree with you about research, but research is not always necessary. Sometimes it is about common sense. For example
When we state Michael was not circumcised and this was proven by the police photos and his autopsy, but people keep referring to the drawing and a "cow spot", but never asked how many splotches were there and assume only one because the DA only spoke of one?? No one ever asked why didn't the court appointed dermatologist make the medical determination instead of an untrained/licensed lawyer? No one ever asked why take photos at all when the
court appointed specialist could have made a visual comparison with the drawing.
Do not ask why didn't Jordan know Michael wasn't circumcised? Why didn't the mother who Jordan claimed almost caught them once in his room notice the signs which register on 3 of the 5 senses? We as adults understand this and nothing more needs saying. Many conversations by many people without using common sense, reasoning and a knowledge of life.
