Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why didnt experts do dna testing for michaeal jackson victums, if people he's a pedophile?
Executive summary
Coverage in the provided reporting shows multiple attempts, claims and hoaxes around DNA tests linked to Michael Jackson: notable episodes include a widely‑publicized 2014 claim that a dental mold produced a 99.9% match between Jackson and singer Brandon (B) Howard that was later exposed as bogus [1] [2] [3]. Reporting also documents requests and rumors about paternity or DNA from friends/bodyguards (Matt Fiddes) and public figures (Mark Lester), but credible, verifiable forensic testing proving Jackson fathered other children or proving allegations of child sexual abuse via DNA is not shown in these sources [4] [5] [6].
1. Why the question combines two different uses of DNA — paternity vs. criminal proof
The user’s question mixes two distinct forensic uses: paternity testing (establishing biological parentage) and DNA evidence in criminal sex‑abuse investigations (linking a perpetrator to a victim). The sources you supplied focus almost entirely on paternity claims and alleged “love‑child” tests — notably the Brandon Howard episode — not on criminal DNA testing of alleged victims to prove sexual abuse [1] [7] [2] [3]. Available sources do not mention deliberate, authenticated DNA testing of alleged victims to prove or disprove abuse by Jackson in the materials provided.
2. The high‑profile 2014 “love child” claim and why reporters called it fake
In 2014 FilmOn.com owner Alki David and others publicized a DNA result claiming a 99.9% match between Michael Jackson and Brandon Howard based on a dental mold; TMZ and follow‑up reporting found the documents and lab details suspicious or fabricated, and outside checks found no legitimate lab or chain‑of‑custody to support the claim [1] [2] [3]. News outlets reported that logos and documents used in the press event were bogus and that the Beverly Hills dental source produced no verifiable DNA, leading outlets to call the test a hoax [1] [3].
3. Other paternity calls, requests and public speculation
Beyond the Brandon Howard episode, the record shows recurring requests or offers to test parentage: Matt Fiddes (a former bodyguard) sought DNA tests claiming possible paternity of Jackson’s child, and actor Mark Lester publicly volunteered to be tested regarding Jackson’s children; these reports reflect public speculation rather than court‑validated DNA proof [4] [5]. Some media pieces and tabloids pursued these angles, but the sources indicate none produced a verified, court‑accepted DNA result demonstrating alternative biological fathers [6].
4. Why we don’t see verified DNA results tied to criminal allegations in these sources
The material provided does not document any authenticated forensic DNA testing of alleged victims that would conclusively link Jackson to criminal acts. The documented episodes are primarily about paternity claims, sometimes driven by auctioned dental items or third‑party publicity stunts — situations prone to chain‑of‑custody problems and fraud [1] [7] [2]. Available sources do not mention prosecutorial DNA testing of victims or public, vetted forensic reports linking Jackson to sexual‑abuse allegations, so we cannot assert such testing occurred or didn’t occur beyond what these articles state.
5. How hoaxes, media pressure and legal limits shape what testing happens and is reported
The Brandon Howard incident shows how media spectacles and private actors can produce alleged DNA results that lack scientific rigor and legal admissibility; outlets exposed those flaws and called the claim bogus [1] [3]. Separately, paternity testing typically requires consent or legal processes (court orders, custody proceedings) and chain‑of‑custody controls; when claims are made after a celebrity’s death or without estate cooperation, obtaining admissible samples is legally and practically difficult — the sources report requests and rumors but not verified court‑ordered results [4] [6].
6. What the reporting implies for the original question’s premise
If the premise is “experts didn’t test victims to prove Jackson was a pedophile,” the supplied reporting does not document or confirm that kind of expert criminal testing; instead it documents contested paternity claims and at least one exposed hoax [1] [2] [3]. The sources do show there was public interest and several requests for DNA tests concerning Jackson’s children or alleged offspring, but they do not show authenticated forensic DNA evidence resolving criminal allegations [4] [5].
7. Bottom line for readers and further reporting to seek
Based on the supplied articles, the strongest, verifiable conclusion is that high‑profile DNA claims about Michael Jackson’s paternity have included fraudulent or unverifiable tests [1] [3]. For questions about criminal forensic testing of alleged victims, the current reporting set does not discuss such tests; to answer that properly, one would need legal records, police or prosecution files, or forensic lab reports — documents not present in these sources.