Yes, I actually did read the articles, and I'm not jumping to any conclusions...Remember I suggested waiting for all the facts to come to light before doing so?
I was speaking of this:
"On November 17, the New York Daily News reports, a detective posed as the 12-year-old girl and arranged, via text text message, to meet Fernandez and Barajas at an abandoned house for sex."
The article does not say that the three of them had sex with her when they initially picked her up...It just says that she agreed to have sex with them in exchange for whatever Baby Scumbag offered (meeting celebrities, appearing on a fake MTV show, etc...) at which time a detective posed as the 12 year old and agreed to meet with them for the sexual activity to take place (aka "sting operation").
And here is what Keelan's lawyer said:
"Mr. Dadd's attorney, Anthony Willoughby, contacted Detective Flores and articulated that based upon the dates provided by the Detective as to the alleged incident, he could provide authorities with objective evidence proving that Mr. Dadd could not have been present at the times alleged. This evidence was not taken into consideration by Detective Flores. Instead, in a miscarriage of justice and Mr. Dadd�s due process rights, Detective Flores stated to Mr. Willoughby that regardless of any objective evidence, he would proceed forth with presenting the case to the Los Angeles District Attorney."
This means that Keelan supposedly has an alibi for the dates that these events allegedly happened.
And no, I don't want to compare dick sizes, um excuse me, education degrees with you. You're a stranger on the internet who likes to argue with and try to make people feel stupid for sharing their opinion....