Actually, you are wrong again Frau. Sorry The state needed the boy's cooperation in order to press charges. It is my understanding that California has since changed their laws so that the case can be prosecuted now with our without the alleged victim's cooperation.if i can remember correctly, the boy's description of mj's peenie was incorrect. as i recall, the boy said mj's peenie was spotted because mj has vitiligo. i don't believe he has that disease, but uses it as an excuse for lightening his skin through an oral perscription. ends up the peenie was not spotted. i was under the assumption that had the description been correct mj would have been arrested. the boy or his family does not need to press charges, the state will, as it is a crime.When the boy gave his statement to the police he gave a very detailed description of Jacko's genitals. The PI said the boy included many details such as the color and even the moles. When the police investigated this and took pictures of Jacko's genitals, the boy's description checked out. So if Jacko is innocent, why is he showing his genitals to little boys?