What are the discrepancies in the dates that you are claiming --? Are you claiming that because the boy claimed the suspicious MJ molested him after he had praised him on TV it must be suspicious --?<quoted text> Disagree, the discrepancies in dates and times were a red flag from the very beginning. If he were anyone else, the case might have even been dismissed.
You have no physical evidence or undisputed proof which supports you view that he was guilty.
Do you think that a child molester would not molest a child who had publicly praised them ---? If anything it was the perfect time for the suspicious MJ to do illegal things to this child -- correct?
Because he knew the chances that this child would be believed would be much slimmer because he had praised him -- yes?
The way pedophiles work is they gain the trust of both the parents and the child and they wait and wait and wait until that child and parents have accepted them and think they are a wonderful person -- yes?
Also -- what is this weird obsession you have with physical evidence --? Is it something to do with that 'gawky' teenager you had in your bathroom and you keep telling people who are suspicious about you that there is no physical evidence that 'gawky' teenager was in your bathroom -- yes?
Also -- considering that you believe you are Judge Judy and treat this friendly forum as a courtroom why do you not present evidence as to what exactly is found in the average child molestation case -- yes? Can you prove that there is always physical evidence in the average child molestation case --?