I agree that i think he does look like Jordan but is this article saying that the case was dropped because she verbally said the ex-hubby was the father in 2003?? I mean was or was there not a paternity test done in 2003? With no paternity test the kid still might be MJ's but it seems like since she clearly believed(and still believes?) the kid is the ex-husbands so she had to back down because the risk is if she's wrong about MJ being the pops that counter-sue on her ass would not be pretty.
Is that about accurate?