kuri wrote:
> "necoandjeff" <spam@schrepfer.com> wrote in message
>
>
>> You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between a case where the
>> prosecution's only evidence of a crime is the victim's testimony,
>
> I'm not talking about the Arvizo case but the 2 (maybe more) ones
> that were *settle*, not investigated, and without follow up. I
> criticize the lack of police investigation and checkings on Jackson.
> I am not talking about trials, (that could have happened as a final
> result) but about routine checking. Just the video justifies 1000
> times an investigation of Jackson by social services and cops for the
> rest of his life.

A video statement is enough to open an investigation? I'm glad you'll never
be a judge at U.S. probable cause hearings...

> There are people that have never said anything
> weird and never had a weird gesture that get check only because it's
> routine.  500 times in the US, the cops have asked my ID to check I
> was old enough to drink a beer...and they cannot check the age of
> Jackson's lovers once in a while ?
>
>> I mean we should all be thankful that no murder in history has
>> ever had to depend on the victim's testimony, shouldn't be?
>
> "Omar m'a tuer"...that's a famous case in France. A guy was convicted
> because of the victim's testimony (normally that's not enough).

The victim testified regarding who murdered him? Neat trick.