"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. 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).

Kuri