> Enough for what?

Enough for concern that he is still capable of harming the type of person he has chosen to harm before. What else do you think I could have meant? You were talking about him being less capable than before, and I said he is still capable enough.

>The determinations should be based on the facts.

You mean like the fact that the only victim we have information about was 13 years old? I was refuting your bizarre suggestion that we could assume the others were of a different profile since we have no information about them, which makes no sense.

Do you get it now, or do you still want to argue over nothing?