TX - DA Refuses To Prosecute Pedophile Caught On "To Catch A Predator"

[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

"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......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 *advertiser censored* 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.