There is nothing in the legal documents about circumcision. There was, however, discussion of a certain marking on Michael's thang because the child's drawing and description matched the photos of Michael's genitals. The D.A. said the child could only have seen the mark by being intimate. Judge Melville agreed. Don't grasp at straws.And yes, he describes perfectly the beauty of grain on the sex of Michael Jackson, is that it makes MJ a pedophile so far? Is that it could be possible that unintentionally have noticed the kid said grain beauty turned out if they could get all 2 in a public restroom at a show by example? It turned out that he also speaks of circumcision as Michael did was not!
It seems to me that before drawing hasty conclusions that can have dramatic consequences, it would be good to consider all parameters!
Even if they were in a public restroom together, it was very inappropriate for Michael to pull out his pecker in front of the child.