>>76600
>nothing here that's been posted is conclusive
Because anything conclusive is basically a doxx, which isn't allowed, and is what led to the previous thread(s) being deleted completely. And I didn't appeal to her appearance, since I think she could pass for 22 if I'm being honest, especially outside of filtered/anglemaxxed pics. I don't have any "proof" saved because I'm not a pedro trying to keep a casefile on this girl, and now the actual pedros are avoiding posting her deets in order to save their own asses and maintain the "right" to keep posting about her. I just don't understand why you would doubt she's underage given the vast amount of (both confirmed and alleged itt) information circulating on her, both here and on r9k. Last thread had screencaps of her sexting numerous pedros over and over again just to go and report them to feds when caught by her parents (not saying this wasn't pedrophilic/wrong/grooming but she obviously has a very unhealthy kink for it due to mental issues). But I also understand the autistic demand for proof of anything at any moment.

I'm sure there's court docs and if someone remembers her groomer's name then they can post a news article about it but I don't keep up with this girl so I can't remember the name and it’s not like I’d have it bookmarked or something.

>>76650
Literally the only reason you're not getting proof from me and this other anon is because we're not pedros so we don't have folders on this girl. And now the pedros are enjoying your devil's advocate position and will let you keep at it because, to them, it justifies their view that she can be presumed to be mature enough to legally consent to anything.