Court TV Host: Courttv.com's Matt Bean is here to discuss the latest news in the Michael Jackson case...

Matt Bean: Hey, y'all.

Court TV Host: In case you havent heard, thesmokinggun.com has found a very interesting document related to the case.

Court TV Host: Matt, briefly, before we take questions, what's the latest?

Matt Bean: Well the document that The Smoking Gun uncovered is something that Jackson's defense could seize upon as evidence that an agency whose specialty is investigating these exact sort of cases has already looked into the allegations and decided that there was nothing there. The question now is why did the LA DCFS (dept. child and family services) determine that the allegations were unfounded but the Santa Barbara sheriff's department and proseuctor's office did not

Question from Eric: It seems that the "witness" evidence is crumbling, with DCYF memo. Does the prosecution have any other evidence? Did they find anything useful in the Neverland search and seizure?

Matt Bean: We don't know what they found -- the search warrant, which would detail what sort of evidence they were looking for -- is still sealed. I think it's likely that prosecutors have something that DCFS did not. What exactly it was that changed the case from being "unfounded" in the eyes of DCFS to worthy of prosecution in the eyes of Santa Barbara authorities remains to be seen.

Question from Skeptic: What weight do the findings of the Children's Bureau have in a court of law?

Matt Bean: Well, skeptic, I believe that Mark Geragos can now call in whichever investigator handled the case and ask him about his or her conclusions. Picture the impact it would have on a jury:
Geragos: So it's your job to investigate exactly these sort of cases?
DCFS employee: Yes, sir.
Geragos: You've investigated literallly hundreds of child abuse claims.
DCFS employee: Yes sir.
Geragos: And, after interviewing the child, his parents, and his siblings, you decided that not only was there no evidence of any abuse, you found that the claims were "unfounded."
DCFS employee: Yes sir.

Question from Eric: If the LAPD agreed that there was no case, who asked for the arrest warrant? The prosecutor alone? Why did the judge sign it? Did the judge know about the memo?

Question from Dar: If the charges were unfounded, how did they obtain a warrant?

Matt Bean: There's a key difference that may be glossed over here. The LAPD is different from the Santa Barbara authorities. The LAPD got involved because that's where the child lives, but that was back in February, when the DCFS investigation was undertaken. If you recall that was just after the Martin Bashir documentary aired on 20/20. Fast forward to the arrest last month: that is an entirely separate set of criminal allegations. While the LAPD (Wilshire) and the DCFS found the allegations to be unfounded back in February, Santa Barbara authorities thought the allegations had merit. I hope that clears things up.

Question from wingit: Was the DA aware of the DCYF memo and finding and did they take them into consideration prior to arresting MJ

Matt Bean: I'm not sure if the DA was aware of the memo

Question from eagle: What about the rumor that the molestations took place after the investigations and parent statement?

Matt Bean: That could certainly be the piece of evidence that changed the allegations from "unfounded" to worthy of a criminal case, though I am not sure about the timeline.

Question from scheria: If the prosecutor has a strong case against Mr. Jackson, why have formal charges not been filed yet??

Matt Bean: That's a great question Scheria In many cases of this magnitude prosecutors will wait on filing charges to see if they are able to bolster their cases with other charges after the initial burst of publicity. Or they simply to want to make sure everything is bulletproof. We expect charges to be filed next week, as a matter of fact. It would certainly be devastating for prosecutors if they were not able to file charges

Question from GU: Do you believe that the prosecutor is seeking a personal vendetta against Michael Jackson? He has publicly said that he wanted to get him.

Matt Bean: From what I've seen, Sneddon has been careful not to seem like he has a vendetta. But there's clearly the perception that Jackson "got away" in 1993 and to convict him now would certainly bring things full circle for Sneddon. I can't speak for Sneddon, of course. But if Sneddon does believe that Michael Jackson is guilty, then I can see why he would be eager to stop any further alleged child molestation

Question from Desertdog: Shouldn't the case be "bulletproof" prior to arrest, press conferences and sophomoric giggling in front of hundreds of reporters??

Matt Bean: Certainly. But a case can always be MORE bulletproof. For example, if any other witnesses come forward, or even more damning, any other potential victims.

Question from cashman: Will Michael be allowed to still run Neverland like he did with groups of underprivileged children coming over to use his theme park as the trial goes on?

Matt Bean: Innocent until proven guilty, though I doubt many parents will be lining up to put their children on a field trip to Neverland. And I doubt Michael would be interested in the sort of publicity that would generate. Let's not forget we're not at trial yet. There's a preliminary hearing at which prosecutors must convince a judge they have enough evidence to warrant a full scale trial.

Court TV Host: Any closing thoughts?

Matt Bean: Stay tuned to see what Geragos and Sneddon have to say about this newly emerged document. It's a bombshell to say the least.

Court TV Host: Thanks, Matt, for chatting with us today. Talk to you soon!

Matt Bean: Thanks, everyone.