> You really think a guy with no balls and can’t get an erection could possibly be a super molester?
Of course, what kind of dumb ass logic is No Erection = Can't Molest?
Yah, keep changing the narrative of the crime as new facts come out so you can keep an innocent person in jail. It is worse than that, since that innocent person did tremendous work with kids from troubled pasts. So while your virtue signaling may make you feel good, ruining the lives of good people is pretty shitty. So fuck you.
Dude, I literally know nothing about the case, nor I give a shit about signalling shit in a anonymous account. I'm just saying that your argument is fucking incoherent.
If you supposedly you want to clear someone name get something fucking better than "if there's no balls, you must acquit".
repulsive. who are these people
If you want more information, check this out. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/with-the-benefit-of-hindsight/id1562078872
[removed]
Yes.