Texas DA Refuses To Prosecute Pedophile Caught On "To Catch A Predator"

[White Rain]

MURPHY, Texas — A sting in which police teamed up with "Dateline NBC (javascript:siteSearch('Dateline NBC');)" to catch online pedophiles (javascript:siteSearch('pedophiles');) was supposed to send a flinty-eyed, Texas-style warning about this Dallas suburb: Don't mess with Murphy.
Instead, it has turned into a fiasco.
One of the 25 men caught in the sting — a prosecutor from a neighboring county — committed suicide when police came to arrest him. The Murphy city manager who approved the operation lost his job in the ensuing furor.
And the district attorney is refusing to prosecute any of the men, saying many of the cases were tainted by the involvement of amateurs.
"Certainly these people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but the fact that this was all done for television cameras raises some questions," said Mayor Bret Baldwin.
It is the first time in nine "Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator" stings across the country in the past year and a half that prosecutors did not pursue charges.
"Dateline" has made prime-time entertainment out of contacting would-be child molesters over the Internet, luring them to a meeting place, and videotaping their humiliating confrontations with reporter Chris Hansen (javascript:siteSearch('Chris Hansen');).
more at link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287209,00.html

[Opie]

"...taping their humiliating confrontations with reporter..."

As if I could care any less about their being humiliated. What about the HARM they are doing to CHILDREN? Is that fine and dandy?

Perhaps this is not truly the best way to catch these perverts, but at least someone is trying to do something about them.

As for the guy who shot himself, again, whose fault is that?

[White Rain]

"...taping their humiliating confrontations with reporter..."

As if I could care any less about their being humiliated. What about the HARM they are doing to CHILDREN? Is that fine and dandy?

Perhaps this is not truly the best way to catch these perverts, but at least someone is trying to do something about them.

As for the guy who shot himself, again, whose fault is that?

And he was a prosecutor! Depending on how long he'd been a prosecutor he probably prosecuted a few pedos himself!
It's not the shows and/or polices fault he killed himself...it's his for being a sicko and putting himself into a position where he would be ousted.
I have no sympathy for him...one less pedo out there that could possibly harm a child.

[southcitymom]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Something about "To Catch a Predator" really rubs me the wrong way. There was a long thread about it on here once. It wreaks of entrapment to me.

I'm all about getting pedos off the streets, but I just don't know if this is the way. The DA seems to me to make some good points about why these cases can't be prosecuted. Certain things have to be done right to properly prosecute.

I might respect "To Catch A Predator" if it had LE's and the DA's support and approval. But I doubt LE and the DA would support a reality tv show of their operations - just too much conflict of interest inherent in that proposition.

[Silver~Bell]

As a Texan, it gets me angry that some of our cities and towns and counties are not very interested in pursuing criminals. I'm in a clean-living place but right next door one county over, the law enforcement is pathetic and the prosecutors are worse. I give as an example the lack of prosecution in the Pyote boys incarceration scandal.

I'm not buying what the DA says. It's excuses, excuses. Let me tell you, if it were something that was a high priority with him, he'd be on it right away.

Texas isn't alone in this -- a Navy officer was shot in cold blood by joyriders in Anacortes, WA, and the DA refused to seek the death penalty, despite the parents, friends, and community screaming for it. He's no longer DA.:p

[LionRun]

The scums internet pedo perps were trolling to meet young victims who were lost or needy enough to meet with them. I agree, no excuses. I don't believe it is entrapment at all. These pigs were looking to find girls or boys to sexually abuse-period. As for the amateur angle. I don't see how that is a factor. LE hears the words back and forth, so they know how it is going down. They can simply not press charges if an amateur makes a mistake in what he/she says to one of the creeps. The others should be prosecuted.

Lion

[2luvmy]

I might respect "To Catch A Predator" if it had LE's and the DA's support and approval. But I doubt LE and the DA would support a reality tv show of their operations - just too much conflict of interest inherent in that proposition.

They do have their support. After the person walks out of the house they are arrested and the conversations, tapes , etc. are handed over to the police.

[ronniejo]

luring them to a meeting place, and videotaping their humiliating confrontations

So many of these pervs video tape and humiliate thier victims. Now the cameras are turned and they arent liking it!

[Dark Knight]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Something about "To Catch a Predator" really rubs me the wrong way. There was a long thread about it on here once. It wreaks of entrapment to me.

I'm all about getting pedos off the streets, but I just don't know if this is the way. The DA seems to me to make some good points about why these cases can't be prosecuted. Certain things have to be done right to properly prosecute.

I might respect "To Catch A Predator" if it had LE's and the DA's support and approval. But I doubt LE and the DA would support a reality tv show of their operations - just too much conflict of interest inherent in that proposition.

The police are almost always a part of the operation and arrest them on the spot.

[Dark Knight]

They do have their support. After the person walks out of the house they are arrested and the conversations, tapes , etc. are handed over to the police.

Yeppers! Heaven forbid there is ever any justice in this country, right? Someone might get their little feelings hurt or something! :doh:

[Jesstexas]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Something about "To Catch a Predator" really rubs me the wrong way. There was a long thread about it on here once. It wreaks of entrapment to me.

I'm all about getting pedos off the streets, but I just don't know if this is the way. The DA seems to me to make some good points about why these cases can't be prosecuted. Certain things have to be done right to properly prosecute.

I might respect "To Catch A Predator" if it had LE's and the DA's support and approval. But I doubt LE and the DA would support a reality tv show of their operations - just too much conflict of interest inherent in that proposition.

It might reek of entrapment (heck, it is entrapment), but what's the alternative? LE can't catch these creeps in the actual act of molesting a kid, so that leaves catching the creep AFTER they've molested a kid. I vote for entrapment.

[ziggy]

Wow, I'm so disappointed. Texas of all places. I've always admired Texans and their guts.

DA's should take a look at Mike Nifong and realize that they MUST serve the public interest.

Hopefully someone will put the public pressure on the DA and make a spectacle of him. Public humiliation can be a good thing.

[southcitymom]

It might reek of entrapment (heck, it is entrapment), but what's the alternative? LE can't catch these creeps in the actual act of molesting a kid, so that leaves catching the creep AFTER they've molested a kid. I vote for entrapment.

Entrapment is against the law. If you agree that it is entrapment, you should be working hard to change the law so that these cases can stand up in Court and not go away - as the ones mentioned in this article seem to be doing.

LE do catch perps in stings like this on a regular basis. We read about it all the time - we just don't get to watch it. And those cases actually seem to get proscuted and put people behind bars.

[Hermione]

"...taping their humiliating confrontations with reporter..."

As if I could care any less about their being humiliated. What about the HARM they are doing to CHILDREN? Is that fine and dandy?

Perhaps this is not truly the best way to catch these perverts, but at least someone is trying to do something about them.

As for the guy who shot himself, again, whose fault is that?

I completely agree. It's sick that these people who went to a location thinking they were going to have sexual relations with a CHILD, seems to have more rights than the children we should all be protecting.

Entrapment? Well, I agree this may not be the most ideal method of catching these people BUT....if they were upstanding members of society, they would NOT be chatting up people they think are kids online and then going to meet them after having explicit chats with them and making it clear what they want to do to them, believing they are underage.

I don't think there's anything to speak of for the rights of these people who are being caught in stings. They wouldn't be STUNG if they weren't soliciting kids in the first place. It's not like you could innocently be caught up in the sting operation- they are asking for the age of the person in the chats...and believing they are 10 years old for example, they are soliciting them to meet them for sex acts. It's sick. I repeat...no innocent person can be busted at this. They are guilty.

[MeoW333]

It sounds like they wanted to pull the plug on 'to catch a predator' since they were afraid more prosecutors or public figures may be culprits. Sounds like a cover up to me. I say they should go on with the show. Make more of these perverts scared they will get caught. That prosecutor probably shot himself since aside from the public embarrassment, potential loss of job, he couldn't bare to be a victim in TX's prison system.

[Silver~Bell]

I don't buy the "entrapment" thing b/c other places are prosecuting such cases just fine, by using Craigslist (which has lots of perverts using it) to "meet" people placing ads (for sex w/minors, for using public places for sex, etc.) and then they arrest them...responding to an ad or a chatroom ISN'T entrapment, it is the PERVS making the suggestions and the first moves...

[ziggy]

You can't be entrapped if you don't have bad intentions. Keep your nose clean and you'll be fine.

[Peter Hamilton]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Something about "To Catch a Predator" really rubs me the wrong way. There was a long thread about it on here once. It wreaks of entrapment to me.

I'm all about getting pedos off the streets, but I just don't know if this is the way. The DA seems to me to make some good points about why these cases can't be prosecuted. Certain things have to be done right to properly prosecute.

I might respect "To Catch A Predator" if it had LE's and the DA's support and approval. But I doubt LE and the DA would support a reality tv show of their operations - just too much conflict of interest inherent in that proposition.--Entrapment? lol--These guys are pigs--They know these girls are 13 or 14 and fully intended to have sex with them--That is Statutory Rape--If you came home and found your 13 year old daughter having sex with one of these fat old ugly freaks, I'm sure you'd feel differently

[mysteriew]

The scums internet pedo perps were trolling to meet young victims who were lost or needy enough to meet with them. I agree, no excuses. I don't believe it is entrapment at all. These pigs were looking to find girls or boys to sexually abuse-period. As for the amateur angle. I don't see how that is a factor. LE hears the words back and forth, so they know how it is going down. They can simply not press charges if an amateur makes a mistake in what he/she says to one of the creeps. The others should be prosecuted.

Lion

So is the prosecutor saying that if a person witnesses a robbery, but the robbery was not seen by police that it can't be prosecuted?

The volunteers witness attempts to groom, attempts to make arrangements for sexual activity (said explicitly in the conversations), often receive graphic pictures of an explicit sexual nature and because they aren't "professionals" they can't act as a witness? The conversations and graphic materials they receive cannot be accepted as evidence in court because "non professionals" were involved?

The pros. office just opened themselves up to every criminal. All a criminal has to do in that area now is to say- hey, you can't prosecute me for a robbery- no professionals saw it and any evidence you obtained from the witness doesn't count because it comes from a non-professional.

My guess is that the prosecutor knew the prosecutor who committed suicide and isn't prosecuting because of that. Forgetting that while in office he is representing the people, not his personal interests. Or he is lazy and doesn't want to review the accumulated evidence for any errors.
Either that or he himself has a guilty conscience.

[Peter Hamilton]

It might reek of entrapment (heck, it is entrapment), but what's the alternative? LE can't catch these creeps in the actual act of molesting a kid, so that leaves catching the creep AFTER they've molested a kid. I vote for entrapment.--lol--totally agree--who cares what it's called? Dateline has sent hundreds of these lowlifes to prison--and the point is, just think how many potential perverts will now never molest any of these young girls anymore because of fear, fear from seeing all these Dateline shows

[Details]

It's not entrapment. A young girl (decoy) propositioning strangers on the internet for sex - that is entrapment. A young girl decoy just sitting on the internet, letting the strangers start the conversation, letting the strangers bring up sex, while making their age clear - that's not entrapment at all.

Perverted justice has firm rules - they never start the conversation. Once the conversation starts, they talk only about innocent subjects (where are you from, school, family, etc.) until and unless the stranger brings up sex and starts propositioning them. That's not entrapment.

Dateline's rules are even a little stricter - they use Perverted Justice's volunteers, but also coordinate with the local LE.


JMO, but there are two reasons for this. First, I think there's a little backlash where Murphy residents are upset that their community might look like they've got a bunch of pedos - ruins property values, etc. The DA might also be feeling like it shows he wasn't doing his job.

But I think the bigger issue is that they didn't notify all the higher ups about this sting, and that meant that the one former DA that was caught didn't get his warning. I think that's what the DA's office or other higher ups is uspet about - that they didn't get a warning - that the next sting might catch them! Maybe they aren't a pedophile - maybe it's drugs, maybe it's bribes, who knows. Maybe they're worried about a friend, maybe it's a form of protecting a boss in hopes of a promotion - but I think that's the big problem in this little town.

[LionRun]

So is the prosecutor saying that if a person witnesses a robbery, but the robbery was not seen by police that it can't be prosecuted?

The volunteers witness attempts to groom, attempts to make arrangements for sexual activity (said explicitly in the conversations), often receive graphic pictures of an explicit sexual nature and because they aren't "professionals" they can't act as a witness? The conversations and graphic materials they receive cannot be accepted as evidence in court because "non professionals" were involved?

The pros. office just opened themselves up to every criminal. All a criminal has to do in that area now is to say- hey, you can't prosecute me for a robbery- no professionals saw it and any evidence you obtained from the witness doesn't count because it comes from a non-professional.

My guess is that the prosecutor knew the prosecutor who committed suicide and isn't prosecuting because of that. Forgetting that while in office he is representing the people, not his personal interests. Or he is lazy and doesn't want to review the accumulated evidence for any errors.
Either that or he himself has a guilty conscience.

Great post, myteriew:).

Lion

[southcitymom]

....If you came home and found your 13 year old daughter having sex with one of these fat old ugly freaks, I'm sure you'd feel differently

That could never happen on To Catch A Predator because there are no 13-year-old daughters.

If - in real life and not Hollywoodland - I came home and found my 13-year-old daughter having sex with an older man, I'd have a real come-to-Jesus with myself about things I needed to do differently as a mother, but I doubt I'd feel differently about this issue.

[luthersmama]

If you read the whole article, his concerns are more detailed and complex. Apparently, a successful prosecution requires a detailed log of the chats and meticulous record-keeping about who said what when. He was concerned that the evidence was not going to stand up. He also had jurisdictional problems with a number of the cases because the chats took place somewhere else.

It wasn't "just" a question of entrapment or the "witnesses" not being pros.

Now that these guys' names are known, somebody will get them sooner or later and get a conviction that sticks.

[fran]

But I think the bigger issue is that they didn't notify all the higher ups about this sting, and that meant that the one former DA that was caught didn't get his warning. I think that's what the DA's office or other higher ups is uspet about - that they didn't get a warning - that the next sting might catch them! Maybe they aren't a pedophile - maybe it's drugs, maybe it's bribes, who knows. Maybe they're worried about a friend, maybe it's a form of protecting a boss in hopes of a promotion - but I think that's the big problem in this little town.

Does make you wonder what else they're covering up, doesn't it? :silenced:

JMHO
fran

[southcitymom]

If you read the whole article, his concerns are more detailed and complex. Apparently, a successful prosecution requires a detailed log of the chats and meticulous record-keeping about who said what when. He was concerned that the evidence was not going to stand up. He also had jurisdictional problems with a number of the cases because the chats took place somewhere else.

It wasn't "just" a question of entrapment or the "witnesses" not being pros.

Now that these guys' names are known, somebody will get them sooner or later and get a conviction that sticks.

That's why it would be better for the DA to be involved from the start.

I think some of the guys will definitely reoffend and get caught. But I'll bet some of them were so humiliated that they won't.

[Silver~Bell]

That could never happen on To Catch A Predator because there are no 13-year-old daughters.

If - in real life and not Hollywoodland - I came home and found my 13-year-old daughter having sex with an older man, I'd have a real come-to-Jesus with myself about things I needed to do differently as a mother, but I doubt I'd feel differently about this issue.


Some of these posts give me the willies.

[southcitymom]

Some of these posts give me the willies.

I think you're saying my post gave you the willies. Why?

I will try to take off my Freddy Kruger mask:

If I came home and found my 13-year-old daughter having sex with an older man, I would definitely turn him into LE, but I'd truly question why I as a parent weren't more in touch with my daughter's internet life, among other things.

It wouldn't however change my mind about the fact that To Catch A Predator feels like entrapment to me (and the post I was responding to opined that it would). I'm all about saving children from people who wish to harm them because I have lots of experience with child sexual assault and how much it hurts individuals and society.

I just don't know if To Catch A Predator is the right way to do that. I'd love to know more about the conviction rates of the cases they produce, capture and sensationalize. Is this DA the first one who has had issues with the evidence? I think these are important things to look at and consider.

LE all over the country performs internet sting operations to catch child sexual molesters. I'm not opposed to that in any way, shape or form. But it needs to be done correctly if convictions are to follow.

I hope you feel safer now!;)

[i.b.nora]

I just don't know if To Catch A Predator is the right way to do that. I'd love to know more about the conviction rates of the cases they produce, capture and sensationalize. Is this DA the first one who has had issues with the evidence? I think these are important things to look at and consider.

'Catch A Predator' Caught In Legal Mess (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=5365868)

"June 5 - By the twin measures of ratings success and journalism that gets results, NBC news producer Marsha Bartel should have been riding high.
Since joining "To Catch a Predator" in early 2006, the 49-year-old veteran journalist had helped set up four different sting operations that led to the arrests of 112 men who allegedly used Internet chat rooms to try to have sex with minors.

But Bartel wasn't happy. In fact, she grew increasingly troubled by the highly rated program's methods, which, she said, violated the network's ethical guidelines, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court last week. She claims that her repeated complaints were ignored and that she refused to continue working on the show just before a sting in Petaluma, Calif., that netted 29 men in three days in late August.

Four months later, Bartel was let go by the network in a massive round of layoffs. Now she's seeking at least $1 million in damages from the network."

"Ethics Questioned

In the lawsuit, Bartel claims that she was fired because of her complaints.

According to the complaint, Bartel said that the program violated ethical standards through its relationship with Perverted Justice, an online vigilante group whose volunteers pose as juveniles on the Internet in order to lure their targets. By paying the group, NBC has given Perverted Justice a "financial incentive to lie to trick targets of its sting," according to Bartel.

She also claims that the network failed to provide her with the names of the group's volunteers and that the group does not provide complete transcripts of their chats with minors, making it impossible to "independently verify the accuracy of those transcripts."

And Bartel contends that NBC's relationship with local law enforcement was unethical, claiming that the network provided the police with video equipment and video tapes and "unethically pays or indirectly reimburses law enforcement officials to participate in the 'Predator' stings in order to enhance and intensify the dramatic effect of the show."

She claims that the network covers up improper behavior by police officers such as "goofing off by waving rubber chickens in the faces of sting targets while forcing them to the ground and handcuffing them.""


There is more to the article, and the article is primarily about her lawsuit, but since she was a producer, I tend to believe what she says.
It certainly addresses some of the concerns that I have had about the program.

[southcitymom]

'Catch A Predator' Caught In Legal Mess (http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=5365868)......There is more to the article, and the article is primarily about her lawsuit, but since she was a producer, I tend to believe what she says.
It certainly addresses some of the concerns that I have had about the program.

Wow, i.b.nora, thank you so much for sharing that. It illuminates many of my concerns about this show as well.

Her lawsuit alone would help any one of these captured suspects have their cases dismissed. Sounds like the D.A. in the article that started this thread had some similar issues with the evidence.

I predict To Catch A Predator is not long for this world and I can't say I'm sad about that. As much as the public likes to watch this type of sensationalism because it makes us feel like we're really doing something, these sorts of sting operations belong with experts who do things the right way in order to get true predators off the streets.

[s_finch]

It might reek of entrapment (heck, it is entrapment), but what's the alternative? LE can't catch these creeps in the actual act of molesting a kid, so that leaves catching the creep AFTER they've molested a kid. I vote for entrapment.

I agree. These men weren't coming to the house for anything legal or innocent. They were coming there to do something they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for one second Dateline or cops were going to be there. The men's intentions are clear, even though it is entrapment---just so happens that THIS time they get caught and no child is molested.

[s_finch]

That could never happen on To Catch A Predator because there are no 13-year-old daughters.

If - in real life and not Hollywoodland - I came home and found my 13-year-old daughter having sex with an older man, I'd have a real come-to-Jesus with myself about things I needed to do differently as a mother, but I doubt I'd feel differently about this issue.

I'd have a prayer meeting with myself too, right after I had a major one with the perp!

[southcitymom]

LOL! I'd let him have a prayer meeting with LE!

I'd have a prayer meeting with myself too, right after I had a major one with the perp!

[Amraann]

That's why it would be better for the DA to be involved from the start.

I think some of the guys will definitely reoffend and get caught. But I'll bet some of them were so humiliated that they won't.


I totally disagree.
I do not think that humilation will stop a predator! As they justify their actions in their own minds.

[southcitymom]

I totally disagree.
I do not think that humilation will stop a predator! As they justify their actions in their own minds.

I agree with you about true child predators, Amraann.

However, I have trust issues with To Catch A Predator and think they may well have set up and caught people who weren't child predators. So I made that statement based on that opinion.

[Details]

If you read the whole article, his concerns are more detailed and complex. Apparently, a successful prosecution requires a detailed log of the chats and meticulous record-keeping about who said what when. He was concerned that the evidence was not going to stand up. He also had jurisdictional problems with a number of the cases because the chats took place somewhere else.

It wasn't "just" a question of entrapment or the "witnesses" not being pros.

Now that these guys' names are known, somebody will get them sooner or later and get a conviction that sticks.At least part of his concerns are completely unfounded - and the record of other successful DA prosecutions from other "To Catch A Predator" cases and other Perverted Justice cases shows the rest is wrong as well.

Perverted Justice is extremely concerned with getting the evidence right, avoiding any hint of entrapment. There are backup secured servers storing chat logs as they happen to ensure that the exact time when someone said something, and who said it is unquestionable. Secondary people handle the phone screen, and they all work under very detailed requirements for exceedingly meticulous record keeping, with backup verification at just about every level.

You should check out the Perverted Justice website. They've got a great FAQ, and you can read the full chat log of any case they've ever handled - Dateline or otherwise. You can see exactly who said what and when, and see that their guidelines (the decoy never starts the chat, has their age explicitly in their profile, and mentions it early, never starts the sex talk).

It wasn't for lack of evidence they decided not to prosecute.

[Details]

I agree. These men weren't coming to the house for anything legal or innocent. They were coming there to do something they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for one second Dateline or cops were going to be there. The men's intentions are clear, even though it is entrapment---just so happens that THIS time they get caught and no child is molested.It's not entrapment though. Entrapment is sending a supposed 13 year old girl into the chat rooms who approachs some guy, and starts saying how she wants to have sex with him. These decoys don't approach anyone. The perverts have their choice of everyone online to talk to, and they choose a child, and they choose to talk dirty to the child.

[ziggy]

I think the public humiliation may not stop an offender, but the public awareness of the perv may get his ass kicked and make people aware that he's a sicko and stay clear and/or keep an eye on him.

FEAR is a deterent. Not always but if it deters one perv that's a good thing.

Either way, outing these guys is alright by me. Indictment and conviction is even better.

[southcitymom]

......Perverted Justice is extremely concerned with getting the evidence right, avoiding any hint of entrapment....

That's not what a former producer of To Catch A Predator says in this article: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=5365868

Because NBC pays them, Perverted Justive has a financial incentive to lie. Whether they do lie or don't lie, the appearance of impropriety is there and this leads to an ethical dilemma.

Please understand that I'm not saying Perverted Justice is unethical. They may be totally on the up and up. But they are being paid a lot of money and - like it or not - when people get paid a lot of money by another entity, the appearance of impropriety automatically appears.

[Details]

That's not what a former producer of To Catch A Predator says in this article: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=nation_world&id=5365868

Because NBC pays them, Perverted Justive has a financial incentive to lie. Whether they do lie or don't lie, the appearance of impropriety is there and this leads to an ethical dilemma.

Please understand that I'm not saying Perverted Justice is unethical. They may be totally on the up and up. But they are being paid a lot of money and - like it or not - when people get paid a lot of money by another entity, the appearance of impropriety automatically appears.Money doesn't mean they are corrupt - there is no appearance of impropriety just because of money. It may make it worth asking the question, taking a look (and a few minutes on their web site will show you the exact transcript of every single case they've ever been involved in) - but it doesn't give the appearance of improprity alone. Police are paid to do their job. As are judges, jurors (barely), and so on and so forth.

Other issues from that link I think I've addressed previously - if I haven't, specify what other questions. Vague and suggestive hints from a fired (another indication that suggests looking for alternate motives should be considered) producer aside - I don't see any substance here. Rubber chickens and typical black humor from police is not anything unusual.

[southcitymom]

Money doesn't mean they are corrupt - there is no appearance of impropriety just because of money. It may make it worth asking the question, taking a look (and a few minutes on their web site will show you the exact transcript of every single case they've ever been involved in) - but it doesn't give the appearance of improprity alone. Police are paid to do their job. As are judges, jurors (barely), and so on and so forth.

Other issues from that link I think I've addressed previously - if I haven't, specify what other questions. Vague and suggestive hints from a fired (another indication that suggests looking for alternate motives should be considered) producer aside - I don't see any substance here. Rubber chickens and typical black humor from police is not anything unusual.

I didn't say PJ was corrupt. I said they can't get away from the appearance of impropriety if they are getting paid by a network who is trying to produce a dramatic and shocking show.

This former producer claims complete transcripts of their chats or the names of PJ volunteers who participated were not made available - because of this, the chats could not be independently verified.

The DA also complained about the chats not being able to be verified, so that's two separate people who have said that.

Also, local LE was paid, in part, to do their job by the network - again, the appearance of impropriety.

[Details]

I didn't say PJ was corrupt. I said they can't get away from the appearance of impropriety if they are getting paid by a network who is trying to produce a dramatic and shocking show.

This former producer claims complete transcripts of their chats or the names of PJ volunteers who participated were not made available - because of this, the chats could not be independently verified.

The DA also complained about the chats not being able to be verified, so that's two separate people who have said that.

Also, local LE was paid, in part, to do their job by the network - again, the appearance of impropriety.The chat logs are on the PJ website - there are two people saying they aren't - but go and read it for yourself. It's right at all of our fingertips. There's also every other DA, every other judge, every other jury on every other PJ or 'Dateline' case that has found no problem at all with getting these logs.

I just don't agree that being paid (and not to make a 'dramatic and shocking' show - it's a documentary style, very straightforward, showing what is really out there - and not even the worst of it, if you read the chats of the pervs on the show) creates any appearance of impropriety - not alone.

LE was paid by Dateline? That again is something I don't recall seeing.


This was all pretty normal stuff - PJ works with LE all the time on their own cases. And neither is paid to do it. PJ is a volunteer organization supported by donations that has existed long before Dateline came knocking on their door.

[crypto6]

I think you're saying my post gave you the willies. Why?

I will try to take off my Freddy Kruger mask:

If I came home and found my 13-year-old daughter having sex with an older man, I would definitely turn him into LE, but I'd truly question why I as a parent weren't more in touch with my daughter's internet life, among other things.

It wouldn't however change my mind about the fact that To Catch A Predator feels like entrapment to me (and the post I was responding to opined that it would). I'm all about saving children from people who wish to harm them because I have lots of experience with child sexual assault and how much it hurts individuals and society.

I just don't know if To Catch A Predator is the right way to do that. I'd love to know more about the conviction rates of the cases they produce, capture and sensationalize. Is this DA the first one who has had issues with the evidence? I think these are important things to look at and consider.

LE all over the country performs internet sting operations to catch child sexual molesters. I'm not opposed to that in any way, shape or form. But it needs to be done correctly if convictions are to follow.

I hope you feel safer now!;)

I became blue in the fingers talking about how there was something not right about the notion of perve-for-view shows or some police stings. I thought (and still do) that these methods are entrapment.
In one case, an attorney drove to the sting house, got cold feet and left without going in. He was nabbed, charged and convicted. This may have been the only time he considered actually performing a pedophilic act, didn't follow through, and will never consider another act. Having a decoy respond online is certainly enticement and what follows is certainly entrapment nless the decoy is very, very good at mimicing youg girls. The decoy is an adult who knows how to push pedophiles' buttons and each transcript must be carefully examined for that. Some of the amateur decoys had appalling, adult-like come-ons which I am not comfortable with as being free from entrapment.
Most of the response I got was that these people are so bad we should use any means to take them off the street, even entrapment and projecting on them acts they haven't committed. It looks like a very steep, very slippery slope to me.

Crypto6

[crypto6]

The chat logs are on the PJ website - there are two people saying they aren't - but go and read it for yourself. It's right at all of our fingertips. There's also every other DA, every other judge, every other jury on every other PJ or 'Dateline' case that has found no problem at all with getting these logs.

I just don't agree that being paid (and not to make a 'dramatic and shocking' show - it's a documentary style, very straightforward, showing what is really out there - and not even the worst of it, if you read the chats of the pervs on the show) creates any appearance of impropriety - not alone.

LE was paid by Dateline? That again is something I don't recall seeing.


This was all pretty normal stuff - PJ works with LE all the time on their own cases. And neither is paid to do it. PJ is a volunteer organization supported by donations that has existed long before Dateline came knocking on their door.

Re: the chats on PJ: What I've seen are non-verified transcripts of conversations. I doubt PJ's system has checks in place to maintain the chain of evidence needed. Did someone get on a guy's computer, do the pedo internet troll, then send the guy to the decoy house on some pretense?? Are the alleged pedo’s computers under surveillance while the alleged pedo is typing to make sure they have the right guy??
These cases just are not strong enough to allow a conviction which will destroy someone’s life.

Crypto6

[southcitymom]

I became blue in the fingers talking about how there was something not right about the notion of perve-for-view shows or some police stings. I thought (and still do) that these methods are entrapment.
In one case, an attorney drove to the sting house, got cold feet and left without going in. He was nabbed, charged and convicted. This may have been the only time he considered actually performing a pedophilic act, didn't follow through, and will never consider another act. Having a decoy respond online is certainly enticement and what follows is certainly entrapment nless the decoy is very, very good at mimicing youg girls. The decoy is an adult who knows how to push pedophiles' buttons and each transcript must be carefully examined for that. Some of the amateur decoys had appalling, adult-like come-ons which I am not comfortable with as being free from entrapment.
Most of the response I got was that these people are so bad we should use any means to take them off the street, even entrapment and projecting on them acts they haven't committed. It looks like a very steep, very slippery slope to me.

Crypto6

You and I are on the same side of the street on this one, crypto6.

The arguments that we should get pedos (or any criminals) off the street by any means necessary holds little water with me ever. But that argument is even more appalling when the means a "reality" show uses to do this are slipshod, unverifiable, unprosecutable and, in many cases, downright illegal.

Regardless of what anyone wishes to believe, To Catch A Predator's main focus is ratings and I believe they are willing to keep their ratings up by any means necessary (and so be it if that is on the graves of people).

I truly don't believe the show will make it much longer, but only time will tell.

[Details]

Re: the chats on PJ: What I've seen are non-verified transcripts of conversations. I doubt PJ's system has checks in place to maintain the chain of evidence needed. Did someone get on a guy's computer, do the pedo internet troll, then send the guy to the decoy house on some pretense?? Are the alleged pedo’s computers under surveillance while the alleged pedo is typing to make sure they have the right guy??
These cases just are not strong enough to allow a conviction which will destroy someone’s life.

Crypto6What you are describing is proof beyond any doubt - these guys have no problem admitting that this is what they said - if you watch the show, you'd see that. What transcripts you've seen are verified - there's a separate server - PJ has a nice FAQ all about it - costs them some expensive hardware to get their evidence all nice and solid. Then they talk to the guy on the phone - all nice and recorded.

[Details]

I became blue in the fingers talking about how there was something not right about the notion of perve-for-view shows or some police stings. I thought (and still do) that these methods are entrapment.
In one case, an attorney drove to the sting house, got cold feet and left without going in. He was nabbed, charged and convicted. This may have been the only time he considered actually performing a pedophilic act, didn't follow through, and will never consider another act. Having a decoy respond online is certainly enticement and what follows is certainly entrapment nless the decoy is very, very good at mimicing youg girls. The decoy is an adult who knows how to push pedophiles' buttons and each transcript must be carefully examined for that. Some of the amateur decoys had appalling, adult-like come-ons which I am not comfortable with as being free from entrapment.
Most of the response I got was that these people are so bad we should use any means to take them off the street, even entrapment and projecting on them acts they haven't committed. It looks like a very steep, very slippery slope to me.

Crypto6Some of the teen girls are also very good at come-ons. It's the willingness to go for a underage child that is the problem.

For the attorney - talking online is the crime - going to the house is just something they like to have for TV - and it's a nice bonus in the trial - but just the dirty pictures they send (often of their own genitalia - no way that was some evil computer-hopping pedophile framing innocent guys) are illegal. Tried and convicted - obviously the jury didn't think it was entrapment at all. Obviously as an attorney, he knew how to get a fair trial and all of his rights - and he was convicted. Not of sex with a minor - he didn't do that. Of what he did do - he talked dirty, probably sent porn to a child (or so he thought, so he would have done if it were a real child).

A normal man just isn't interested in having a sex chat with a child. They don't start it (and it's always the perv who starts it - PJ volunteers only talk neutral topics until the perv starts in on the sex talk).

I gotta say, I think you are horrendeously mischaracterizing the responses you recieved - most of them were NOT that pedophiles are so bad that any means are OK. It's not enticement to have a profile of a 14 year old girl - that's the real world - 14 year old girls exist. It's not entrapment to say "Hello" when someone says "Hello" to you first. But then - the guys have to go and start talking sex - they approach a child, and start talking sex. Adults everywhere, and they choose the underage. It's their choice, and there's no entrapment to watch and see it happen. Everyone who has tried it for themselves has been disgusted at how fast they get hit on by a batch of pervs.

There's no entrapment. We've got the equivalent here of someone going into a chat room, some other person opening a chat, exchanging basic info, then asking if the decoy would like to perform a murder for hire. There was no enticement, no encouragement, no nothing. We've read the transcripts - "how's the weather where you live?" is about as sensual and flirtacious as it gets - until the perv starts talking sex. Even then, the decoys are pretty shy - like a real child would be.

[mysteriew]

PJ gets money.... They do the chats (volunteer usually), then they go to the site participate in the sting, provide decoys and collaboration for the TV work (collaboration is commonly used for shows like CSI, Cold Case and Law and Order), time off work, travel expenses, incidentals, etc. They get money for what they are doing over and above the chat/submission to LE.

They don't give the names of the volunteers....Why would a producer want to know their names anyway? If I were strong enough to do it, I wouldn't want my name used either. Some of these guys are dangerous enough to try to hire hitmen for their own family members to keep them from testifying against them- what would they do to a PJ volunteer? Undercover police officers also don't give out their real names, often CI's don't either. Their names are often protected even in court. And basically what a PJ volunteer is, is a confidential informant.

They come on to the guys... the guys initiate the chat, they send the explicit pictures, they bring up sxx (the activity), and the volunteers respond in a way that teens and even preteens will often respond... and yes, sometimes it is flirtatous. They attempt in every way to respond like teens and preteens will often respond online.

Entrapment... basically they do what teens and preteens do online. If anything they are more restrained than many teens. If they are guilty of entrapment, then so is every teen/preteen online who meets up with the pervs. So are you saying that if a teen/preteen goes online and talks to someone and they end up in a hotel room somewhere- they shouldn't be prosecuted because they "trapped" the guy?

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.
However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Some say that the show has no effect on the predator problem. But I think it does make them think twice.... think of the number of predators who ask the volunteer if they are connected with "To Catch a Predator"! Yet even though the thought crossed their minds- they proceed. I think the ones who just thought about it and wouldn't do anything would quit at that point. The ones who are getting caught are truly the worst of the worst. It isn't like the show is a secret, and that someone who goes online and arranges to meet a child is not aware that the person they are talking with might be either a) a police officer or b) a PJ volunteer. So when they proceed, they have faced that and gone past it.

Police humor- if a rubber chicken is the worst an officer has done, I would say lucky perps. Officers have been known to make perps cry and wet themselves (due to interrogation tactics.) Of course perps have been known to make their victims cry and wet themselves too (forcible rape when the children change their minds.)

[mysteriew]

PJ busted another one

The guy drove more than 300 miles to get to the site. He changed his mind and turned around and left. But then drove back the next day and got busted.
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=45ccf7ec-3ff3-482a-befd-23a806a39b02 :clap: