WHY NO D.N.A. TEST TO CONFIRM DECEASED IS REALLY MICHAEL???????

loyalfan

???/ :?: :?: :?: :?: WHY????  does anyone legally HAVE TO PROOVE  that the body was actually that of MICHAEL ?????

ForstAMoon

on 1318016775:

<br /> ???/ :?: :?: :?: :?: WHY????  does anyone legally HAVE TO PROOVE  that the body was actually that of MICHAEL ?????<br />

<br /><br />I do not know how it is in US, but in my country as long as you do not have doubts of who the person is and the person is identified by other people (relatives) then DNA test is not required.

ForstAMoon

From LA Coroner's web page:<br /><br />In the majority of the cases, an in-person visual identification at the Department of Coroner is not required. In most cases, fingerprints will be used to establish the identification with the remainder of cases being identified by a valid driver's license, passport or other form of governmental identification. The method of identification used will establish the name that will be used on all Coroner documents as well as the death certificate. Should it become necessary for you to come in to establish identification or bring other records such as dental or body x-rays, you will be contacted by the Coroner's office. Decedent's that have used multiple names during their life will be identified by the official government record (photo or fingerprint)used. If the name used is not the birth name of the decedent, it is the legal next of kin's responsibility to file the amendment to add the other name.<br /><br />http://coroner.lacounty.gov/htm/faqdet.cfm?faq_id=1<br />

all4loveandbelieve

\why would they do any DNA testing, when Michael is alive. Most of the police, and fbi knew about it.. No need to do any DNA TESTING.

PureLove

on 1318028244:

<br />\why would they do any DNA testing, when Michael is alive. Most of the police, and fbi knew about it.. No need to do any DNA TESTING.<br />

<br /><br />Agreed and they wouldn't need to do it like Forst wrote IF he was passed for real.

Snoopy71

They used fingerprint analysis to establish prints on the medicine bottles found in the room. With the exception of an index finger print (Dr. Murray) on a propofol bottle and a thumb print (Elissa Fleak) on a syringe, the lawyers (prosecution & defense) stipulated that fingerprint evidence was inconclusive for anyone else. This could mean overlapping prints, partial prints, smudged/dragged prints, ghost prints etc....where LAPD could not identify an exact match. The report established that everyone present at the time of the incident had fingerprints within the house, but those prints could not be isolated.<br /><br />Now as far as Michael being fingerprinted for identification, unless his body was unrecognizable to the family (say a burn victim) then forensics they would resort to fingerprinting or dental records and as a last resort DNA sampling(swab from inside the cheek or hair sample).  <br /><br />...Because Michael already had fingerprints on file (his arrest in Santa Barbara County), his prints would have already been in the police database, therefore forensics could verify them if it was requested. Since a visual ID was given by family, they most likely did not cross check the prints.<br /><br />The million dollar question to ask however is, the blood drawn at UCLA from the deceased---was it Michaels?<br /><br />The toxicologist was NOT the individual who drew the blood--->he was given the vials to analyze from Elissa Fleak and he never cross referenced them with the hospital id's.  It has been established that Fleak has made a questionable number of mistakes in this investigation.  <br /><br />So you have to wonder....was it Michael's blood or not?

JesusLover05

In Eliza Presley's case, there is DNA involved. DNA testing was done to prove that Elvis Presley is still alive. So, I believe the same will happen in Michael's case. There would have to be DNA testing to find out who really died that day. Anyways, Michael was identified by his driver's license. I still say he was wrongly identified and that someone else died in his place.