Ragebait much?
There was mass media reporting that Dr. Strick, on behalf of the sheriff’s department, was the one who confirmed a match. However later he not only confirmed that Michael Jackson was uncircumcised, but that he was only TOLD that descriptions were a match. So who actually "confirmed" the description match? None other than Sneddon himself himself. Yes, the same guy who barred this evidence from emerging at the 2005 trial, and the same guy who also later vaguely described the match as being "roughly same relative location". Interestingly, two SEPARATE grand juries reviewed Sneddon's "evidence" and found no grounds to charge Michael; in other words, Sneddon did not provide evidence to change Michael with anything. Reminder - these are the non-biased people who got to view all evidence and got to decide whether there was incriminating evidence that called for a criminal trial, NOT biased people on the prosecutions' nor defences' team. The settlement had NO INFLUENCE as to whether a criminal trial would go ahead or not.
During the 2005 trial, Sneddon refused to hand over evidence of the 1993 "description match" to the Defence.It is also not true that other media reports didn't report on the midmatch. In January 1994, USA Today and Reuters cited law enforcement sources confirming that ““photos of Michael Jackson’s genitalia do not match description given by the boy who accused the singer of sexual misconduct.
