It's called "seeing for yourself." I found it difficult to believe that the allegations could be true. That the girl was actually "visibly" underaged. That the guy on the tape was him. That the tape looked "altered."
Not only am I convinced the guy on the tape is him, I'm convinced the girl is underage, and I'm convinced the tape wasn't altered.
I've seen my share of altered video - usually there are telltale signs (changes in lighting, placement of shadows, obvious changes in head or facial positioning, et.al.). None of those were evident here - it will be difficult at best for a good defese attorney to argue that sort of digital "enhancing."
I'm convinced that the man is guilty of what he did. Watching that video turned my stomach; made me physically ill. My wife (who watched with me) was equally repulsed by what we saw.
Throw that man up under the jail in the deepest dungeon that man can concieve.
"It's called seeing for yourself."Good for you for taking the time and trouble to do the right thing, and for your patience in explaining it to the nit pickers.
--Boot Hill