Why do the media and the courts continue the Michael Jackson paternity charade?

Today, under oath, Debbie Rowe went further than ever before to explain how she came to be the daughter of Michael Jackson's two (alleged) children. Except, the (alleged) is only my emphasis. Why do the media and the courts continue to pussyfoot around the paternity of these two people, who are now teens?

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-michael-jackson-though-his-face-was-disfigured-debbie-rowe-says-20130815,0,2590032.story






The fact of the matter is, before he became addicted to body modification, Michael Jackson looked like this:



Enquiring minds want to know!

 

Damn, beat me to it. I was confused at first.

 

I'm not a DNA expert.
Who are the parents?

 

Seeing as Paris has some gorgeous features, I'm guessing neither Michael Jackson nor Debbie Rowe has anything to do with her DNA.

 

HEADLINE: "Michael Jackson thought his face was disfigured, Debbie Rowe says"

That's 'cause he disfigured his face.

 

Sorry, the guy was a freak, but how is he not their father?? There's no shortage of children born via surrogacy, sperm/egg donors, etc. So what if he wasn't the biological father?

 

1) I have seen some pictures of Paris Jackson where I think, 'hmmmm, it could be possible.' She has obviously picked up the family predilection for appearance modification (and she's being enabled in that pursuit). The boys: no way.

2) I seriously don't care one way or the other. I ain't getting any of MJ's money either way, so I don't care.