Former U.S. Marine Intelligence Officer and U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter

[User]

20 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Again, making unsubstantiated assertions is easy. Providing evidence for assertions is the hard part.

Not unsubstantiated. He was found guilty on the evidence presented in a court of law. 

21 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

No, the facts actually validate his professed beliefs. None of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors.

Again, we already went round and round on this stupid argument of yours. 

21 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Too many negatives in that sentence, but I think I get your drift. Let's just say that I hardly think he's the only one who has skipped really verifying someone is the age they sometimes say they are online. I'm thinking of all those "Are you 18?" clicks minors have made to get into whatever they'd like to see.

Again, we already had this argument. 

Just because you have to be 21 to get into a bar and drink doesn't mean you get to ignore that a girl looks like she is 14 and is telling you she is 14 and you still take her home and have sex with her. 

It is not a defense to say... well, you had to be 21 to get in the bar and I thought she was role playing. 
 

23 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Mr. Ritter went to an -adult- chat room, not a teen chat room, or even an all ages chat room. That alone suggests that he wasn't looking to meet any minors.

Yet again... another bogus argument you have already made here... the issue is not if he went looking for one or not, but that he certainly did not care when he found one and continued anyway. 

These perverts like him know they can find minors online who lie to get into these chat rooms, they seek them out there. Acting like he is the victim in all this is BS. 

We know minors are victims of perverts like him, that is the entire reason why we have sting operations designed like this to catch perverts like him BEFORE they do make a minor a victim or another one a victim. 

 

[Scott75]

21 hours ago, User said:

22 hours ago, Scott75 said:

23 hours ago, User said:

23 hours ago, Scott75 said:

It's also important to remember that he testified that he never believed any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. There's a thing called role playing you may have heard of.

Again, you have already made this argument and it has already been refuted.

Again, making unsubstantiated assertions is easy. Providing evidence for assertions is the hard part.

Not unsubstantiated. He was found guilty on the evidence presented in a court of law.

Yes, but that doesn't mean the jurors made the right decisions, or the judge for that matter. Let's take a look at what some of the charges were, courtesy of Wikipedia:

**

Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".^[2] Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.^[7][53]

**

Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter

The thing is, there's absolutely no evidence that he ever contacted a minor online. As to "criminal user of a communications facility" and "criminal solicitation", those just relate to whatever the law considers to be a crime- in this case, being a victim of entrapment apparently qualifies. 

The judge, for her part, decided that Scott Ritter should be classified as a sex offender for the rest of the life. Matt Bai, writing for the New York Times had this to say about that:

**

After hearing testimony from dueling psychologists, Judge Sibum decided that Ritter met the state standard for being classified as a violent predator — despite having never displayed a sexually violent tendency. This meant that he would have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life. 

**

I have a subscription to the New York Times and so have the option to share some articles. I've decided to share this one so you can read his words for youself if you like:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html?unlocked_article_code=1.tU4.DdrL.hITMQffgSUYE&smid=url-share

What I'd like to know is, why would this judge make such an illogical decision? Perhaps we'll never know. What we -do- know is that Mr. Ritter has some powerful enemies. 

Edited January 31 by Scott75

[User]

19 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

The thing is, there's absolutely no evidence that he ever contacted a minor online.

We have already gone in circles with this bad argument of yours... remember, how stings work, they are not actually going to put a minor in the chat room to be victimized. Its a sting. You don't have to show a minor was actually involved...

 

[Scott75]

On 1/30/2025 at 10:32 AM, User said:

On 1/30/2025 at 10:07 AM, Scott75 said:

On 1/30/2025 at 9:24 AM, User said:

On 1/30/2025 at 9:05 AM, Scott75 said:

It's also important to remember that he testified that he never believed any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. There's a thing called role playing you may have heard of.

It doesn't matter what he believes, the facts show otherwise.

No, the facts actually validate his professed beliefs. None of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors.

Again, we already went round and round on this stupid argument of yours.

We've gone round and round here because you refuse to acknowledge what's patently obvious to anyone who's looked at the case in detail. No evidence was presented in Mr. Ritter's trial that any minors were even involved.

Edited February 3 by Scott75

[Scott75]

On 1/30/2025 at 10:32 AM, User said:

On 1/30/2025 at 10:07 AM, Scott75 said:

On 1/30/2025 at 9:24 AM, User said:

The onus is on him to not presume someone is not a minor, but to verify.

Too many negatives in that sentence, but I think I get your drift. Let's just say that I hardly think he's the only one who has skipped really verifying someone is the age they sometimes say they are online. I'm thinking of all those "Are you 18?" clicks minors have made to get into whatever they'd like to see.

Again, we already had this argument. 

Just because you have to be 21 to get into a bar and drink doesn't mean you get to ignore that a girl looks like she is 14 and is telling you she is 14 and you still take her home and have sex with her.

Agreed. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ritter even met a minor at a bar?

 

[Scott75]

On 1/30/2025 at 10:32 AM, User said:

On 1/30/2025 at 10:07 AM, Scott75 said:

Mr. Ritter went to an -adult- chat room, not a teen chat room, or even an all ages chat room. That alone suggests that he wasn't looking to meet any minors.

Yet again... another bogus argument you have already made here... the issue is not if he went looking for one or not, but that he certainly did not care when he found one and continued anyway.

Some people I've argued with have said that Mr. Ritter was in fact looking for minors, despite bringing absolutely no evidence to the table. If you're not doing this, then that's at least one point in your favour.

As to your second point, there's no evidence that he didn't care that he "found" one. For starters, I've seen absolutely no evidence that he ever found one. But more importantly, he testified that he never believed he found one either. In his testimony, he made it clear that he never believed that any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. He was right, too. While I don't know about the first 2 stings, the fact that the last undercover officer even stated in their profile that they were 24 probably helped him reach this conclusion.

Edited February 3 by Scott75

[User]

20 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

We've gone round and round here because you refuse to acknowledge what's patently obvious to anyone who's looked at the case in detail. No evidence was presented in Mr. Ritter's trial that any minors were even involved.

Yet again... we don't use real minors to try to trap and lure these perverts. 

 

13 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Agreed. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ritter even met a minor at a bar?

 

I have plenty of evidence of how you don't understand an analogy. 

9 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Some people I've argued with have said that Mr. Ritter was in fact looking for minors, despite bringing absolutely no evidence to the table. If you're not doing this, then that's at least one point in your favour.

As to your second point, there's no evidence that he didn't care that he "found" one. For starters, I've seen absolutely no evidence that he ever found one. But more importantly, he testified that he never believed he found one either. In his testimony, he made it clear that he never believed that any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. He was right, too. While I don't know about the first 2 stings, the fact that the last undercover officer even stated in their profile that they were 24 probably helped him reach this conclusion.

As I said... feel free to relitigate this to your heart's desire... it's done, he was found guilty, and you continue to ignore how stings like this work. 

 

[Scott75]

On 1/31/2025 at 8:52 AM, User said:

On 1/31/2025 at 8:31 AM, Scott75 said:

The thing is, there's absolutely no evidence that he ever contacted a minor online.

We have already gone in circles with this bad argument of yours... 

The statement of mine that you quoted above isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. I now see that I should have said that I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever contacted a minor online. Have you seen any evidence of this nature?

On 1/31/2025 at 8:52 AM, User said:

remember, how stings work, they are not actually going to put a minor in the chat room to be victimized. Its a sting. You don't have to show a minor was actually involved...

Oh, I know how stings generally work, although I've read that cops aren't always above board like this. I heard of one case where an actual female minor was not only been put at risk, but was actually been raped during a sting. I can't find the story right now, but if true, I'm sure we can agree that this is a terrible thing for law enforcement to do.

So yeah, I'm not arguing to use actual minors. I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

[User]

6 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

The statement of mine that you quoted above isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. I now see that I should have said that I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever contacted a minor online. Have you seen any evidence of this nature?

That is irrelevant to the crime he committed. 

If he stumbles across a minor in an alley and then has sex with here... it is not a defense or relevant fact that he was not looking for one. 

7 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

So yeah, I'm not arguing to use actual minors. I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

Irrelevant. If he had, he would have been charged and found guilty of actually engaging in sexual relations with a minor/rape. 

 

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

We've gone round and round here because you refuse to acknowledge what's patently obvious to anyone who's looked at the case in detail. No evidence was presented in Mr. Ritter's trial that any minors were even involved.

Yet again... we don't use real minors to try to trap and lure these perverts.

As I've mentioned before, I heard a case where American law enforcement did in fact use a real minor to try to arrest one or more classmates who I believe had assaulted her before. I still haven't been able to find the article, though I did find one for the United Kingdom:

https://metro.co.uk/2024/07/09/sexually-abused-a-child-police-used-bait-21185547/

I also found the following case of an American prosecutor using his own daughter as bait:

https://www.nydailynews.com/2019/11/20/california-prosecutor-who-allegedly-used-13-year-old-daughter-as-bait-for-accused-child-molester-has-been-put-on-leave/

And then there are all the police officers themselves that sexually exploited kids:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2024/police-officers-child-sexual-abuse-in-america/

But all of this is besides the point. I'm not saying that law enforcement use minors as bait, and I'm certainly not suggesting they should. I -am- saying I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever did anything innapropriate with a minor.

As to the 3 stings that Mr. Ritter was involved in, I don't know enough about the first 2, but in the third one, the one where Mr. Ritter was charged and convicted, law enforcement did a classic "switch-a-roo". It's a tactic that has at least one case where a defendant won against the prosecution in a case that was very similar to Mr. Ritter's case. Quoting below:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Full article:

https://floridaactioncommittee.org/defendant-wins-in-federal-internet-sting-prosecution/

 

[Scott75]

15 hours ago, User said:

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

On 1/30/2025 at 10:32 AM, User said:

Again, we already had this argument. 

Just because you have to be 21 to get into a bar and drink doesn't mean you get to ignore that a girl looks like she is 14 and is telling you she is 14 and you still take her home and have sex with her.

Agreed. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Mr. Ritter even met a minor at a bar?

I have plenty of evidence of how you don't understand an analogy.

Your analogy is terribly misleading. I suspect this was your intent, at least unconsciously. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter was ever shown any compelling evidence that any of the undercover officers he chatted with online were actually minors. If you have any such evidence, by all means, present it. In 3rd sting operation, there's even strong evidence that the undercover officer was -not- a minor, as their profile said that they were 24 years of age.

[Scott75]

16 hours ago, User said:

16 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Some people I've argued with have said that Mr. Ritter was in fact looking for minors, despite bringing absolutely no evidence to the table. If you're not doing this, then that's at least one point in your favour.

As to your second point, there's no evidence that he didn't care that he "found" one. For starters, I've seen absolutely no evidence that he ever found one. But more importantly, he testified that he never believed he found one either. In his testimony, he made it clear that he never believed that any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. He was right, too. While I don't know about the first 2 stings, the fact that the last undercover officer even stated in their profile that they were 24 probably helped him reach this conclusion.

As I said... feel free to relitigate this to your heart's desire...

As I made clear in post #50, I am not relitigating the case. Since you never responded to that post, I suspect you didn't even read it. Just in case that's what happened, I've decided to quote the relevant portion of that post below:

**

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that:

**

• verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate

 

As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions.

**

Perhaps you can respond to the contents of this post this time around.

16 hours ago, User said:

it's done, he was found guilty

Surely you have at least heard of the term miscarriage of justice? If not,I found a Wikipedia article that you may find to be helpful in understanding the concept:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

16 hours ago, User said:

and you continue to ignore how stings like this work. 

No, I've simply been pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever did anything sexually inappropriate with a minor.

Edited February 4 by Scott75

[Scott75]

16 hours ago, User said:

16 hours ago, Scott75 said:

The statement of mine that you quoted above isn't an argument, it's a statement of fact. I now see that I should have said that I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever contacted a minor online. Have you seen any evidence of this nature?

That is irrelevant to the crime he committed.

I believe there's a very compelling case that he didn't commit a crime at all. As I've already pointed out, people are wrongfully convicted of crimes they didn't commit all the time. Here's a website that can help educate you on this phenomenom:

https://eji.org/issues/wrongful-convictions/

Had he had another judge and another jury, he might have won his case, as another defendant I've mentioned previously did. An article on said case can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

16 hours ago, User said:

If he stumbles across a minor in an alley and then has sex with here... it is not a defense or relevant fact that he was not looking for one.

Agreed. The thing is, Mr. Ritter did nothing of the sort. Making bad analogies doesn't make your arguments persuasive.

Edited February 4 by Scott75

[Scott75]

16 hours ago, User said:

16 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I -am- pointing out that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever had a sexual interaction with a minor as an adult. If you have found evidence of this nature, by all means, present it.

Irrelevant.

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

[User]

20 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I -am- saying I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever did anything innapropriate with a minor.

Once again, it's irrelevant. 

You are just repeating yourself over and over again and refusing to acknowledge this. 

 

19 hours ago, Scott75 said:

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that. 

19 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Agreed. The thing is, Mr. Ritter did nothing of the sort. Making bad analogies doesn't make your arguments persuasive.

You are the one who keeps trying to defend him by saying he did not intend to do anything... this points out the stupidity of that argument. 

Intent is not relevant to the crime he was charged with. 

[User]

19 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I am not relitigating the case.

Yes, you are. You are hell-bent on trying to convince the world he is innocent. It is very strange how particularly fixated on this you are. 

 

[Scott75]

4 hours ago, User said:

On 2/4/2025 at 1:15 AM, Scott75 said:

I -am- saying I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever did anything innapropriate with a minor.

Once again, it's irrelevant.

Absolute balderdash. One particular charge that Mr. Ritter was convicted of strongly suggests that evidence -was- found that he acted innapropriate with a minor, particularly the charge of "unlawful contact with a minor". As I've said before, I've seen no such evidence. Have you? This alone strongly suggests that what happened in Mr. Ritter's case was a travesty of justice.

Edited February 5 by Scott75

[Scott75]

5 hours ago, User said:

On 2/4/2025 at 2:08 AM, Scott75 said:

No, it's quite relevant. So relevant, in fact, that a similar case to Mr. Ritter's resulted in the defendant being found not guilty. As I mentioned before, the case I'm referring to can be seen here:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

If you wish to make an argument as to how it is relevant, do so. Just posting a link doesn't do that.

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

 

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

[Scott75]

5 hours ago, User said:

On 2/4/2025 at 2:04 AM, Scott75 said:

On 2/3/2025 at 9:59 AM, User said:

If he stumbles across a minor in an alley and then has sex with here... it is not a defense or relevant fact that he was not looking for one. 

Agreed. The thing is, Mr. Ritter did nothing of the sort. Making bad analogies doesn't make your arguments persuasive.

You are the one who keeps trying to defend him by saying he did not intend to do anything...

I said nothing of the sort. I -have- said that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor. To date, I have yet to see you present a shred of evidence to the contrary. Which is why your analogy was so terrible.

[Scott75]

5 hours ago, User said:

On 2/4/2025 at 1:50 AM, Scott75 said:

I am not relitigating the case.

Yes, you are.

Your attempts to avoid responding to most of what I actually say are sometimes so transparent, it makes me wonder if even you realize what you're doing. For the audience, this is the full block of text from which User snipped out 6 words:

**

As I made clear in post #50, I am not relitigating the case. Since you never responded to that post, I suspect you didn't even read it. Just in case that's what happened, I've decided to quote the relevant portion of that post below:

**

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that:

**

• verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate

 

As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions.

**

Perhaps you can respond to the contents of this post this time around.

**

[User]

On 2/5/2025 at 3:12 AM, Scott75 said:

Your attempts to avoid responding to most of what I actually say are sometimes so transparent

I am not trying to hide not responding to your spamming the thread with irrelevant information as you continually repeat the same bad arguments you have already made before as well. 

On 2/5/2025 at 3:12 AM, Scott75 said:

As I made clear in post #50, I am not relitigating the case.

You keep claiming this... but yet here you are, trying to relitigate the case with us. You are literally spamming the thread with excerpts about other cases to do so. 

LOL

On 2/5/2025 at 3:07 AM, Scott75 said:

I -have- said that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor.

Again... this is completely irrelevant point. You just keep bringing it up to defend him. 

 

[Scott75]

8 minutes ago, User said:

On 2/5/2025 at 3:12 AM, Scott75 said:

Your attempts to avoid responding to most of what I actually say are sometimes so transparent

I am not trying to hide not responding

Well, that's a relief. Oh wait, there's more. Alright, let's see the -whole- sentence, something I think you yourself should engage in more often. 

10 minutes ago, User said:

I am not trying to hide not responding to your spamming the thread with irrelevant information as you continually repeat the same bad arguments you have already made before as well.

What you call "bad arguments", I call solid evidence that strongly suggests that Mr. Ritter was wrongfully convicted.

12 minutes ago, User said:

On 2/5/2025 at 3:12 AM, Scott75 said:

As I made clear in post #50, I am not relitigating the case.

You keep claiming this...

Indeed. Thanks for quoting my -entire- sentence this time. Now to see if you can respond to the block of text -after- that first sentence. Here it is once more:

Since you never responded to that post, I suspect you didn't even read it. Just in case that's what happened, I've decided to quote the relevant portion of that post below:

**

Apparently, you don't understand the meaning of relitigating. I can help with that:

**

• verb transitive, intransitive To litigate again; to sue or pursue legal remedy a second or further time.

**

Source:

https://www.wordnik.com/words/relitigate

 

As I've already stated, I'm not a lawyer and I'm certainly not pursuing "legal remedy a second or further time". I'm just pointing out the facts in regards to some of Mr. Ritter's actions.

**

15 minutes ago, User said:

On 2/5/2025 at 3:07 AM, Scott75 said:

I -have- said that I've seen no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor.

Again... this is completely irrelevant point.

No, it's not. According to Wikipedia, Mr. Ritter was charged with the following counts:

**

Charges included "unlawful contact with a minor, criminal use of a communications facility, corruption of minors, indecent exposure, possessing instruments of crime, criminal attempt and criminal solicitation".^[51]

**

Again, according to Wikipedia, "Ritter rejected a plea bargain and was found guilty of all but the criminal attempt count in county court in Rochester, New York on April 14, 2011.^[4][52]"

Now, since I've never seen any evidence that Mr. Ritter ever acted inappropriately with a minor, how is it that he was convicted of all of these crimes -anyway-? This is why I believe that what happened to Mr. Ritter was a travesty of justice. This is why I pointed out a more recent case wherein another, less famous individual, was charged with more or less the same thing but was ultimately found to be not guilty. I see that you never responded to the quote from the case I'm referring to. I wonder why that is? In any case, here it is again:  

On 2/5/2025 at 3:01 AM, Scott75 said:

I already quoted extensively from a copy of the above article, back in post #85, but I suspect you never even read said quote. Very well then, once again:

**

Ji Won initially asked the agent to send him a selfie so he could be sure that the picture in the ad was real as many ads on Backpage contain fake pictures, Brody said. The agent said she was 14 and he was shocked since he had never run into a minor on Backpage before.

“She then sent the selfie of herself and it was clear that she was at least in her 20s,” Brody said. “Then he called back and said, ‘You’re not really 14, right?’ she stuttered and he then realized she was lying. Although she kept saying she was 14, he decided to go out to the house anyway. She was very attractive and he just was sure that she was not 14. He then got arrested and told the agents that he in no way believed she was 14, pointing to the ad, the selfie, her voice, etc.”

A search of Kim’s phone showed no evidence of child pornography or any communications with minors, according to evidence presented at trial.

**

Source:

https://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/local/crime/article202687419.html#storylink=cpy

 

As with Mr. Ritter, Kim testified that he never believed that the state law enforcement agent was a minor. Perhaps it's a reflection of the changing times. Law enforcement has been using the types of shady practices as was used with Mr. Ritter a lot more since his conviction and I suspect that the general population (of which juries are composed of) are getting tired of it:

https://www.nemannlawoffices.com/video/officers-accused-of-bending-rules-on-sex-sting-arrests.cfm

 

Let me know if you atleast read the quoted material this time around?

[User]

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

What you call "bad arguments", I call solid evidence that strongly suggests that Mr. Ritter was wrongfully convicted.

Godd luck with that. You should go stand on a street corner and yell this to the world. 

3 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

No, it's not.

Yes, it is. Nothing you posted or said was an actual argument for how it is relevant. 

3 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Let me know if you atleast read the quoted material this time around?

Nope. 

[Scott75]

14 minutes ago, User said:

18 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

44 minutes ago, User said:

I am not trying to hide not responding to your spamming the thread with irrelevant information as you continually repeat the same bad arguments you have already made before as well.

What you call "bad arguments", I call solid evidence that strongly suggests that Mr. Ritter was wrongfully convicted.

Godd luck with that. You should go stand on a street corner and yell this to the world.

Why on earth would I do that? The only reason I even made this thread is because people like you continue to malign Mr. Ritter's good name. If people would simply recognize the travesty of justice that happened in his case, there'd have been no need to bring up this chapter of his life at all.

 

[User]

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Why on earth would I do that? The only reason I even made this thread is because people like you continue to malign Mr. Ritter's good name. If people would simply recognize the travesty of justice that happened in his case, there'd have been no need to bring up this chapter of his life at all.

 

Yes, exactly. Why on Earth are you on this forum so focused on arguing that Ritter is innocent? LOL

The only person responsible for Ritters bad name is Ritter. He was found guilty. No one made him go into a chat room and not care that he was engaged with minors to perform sex acts with them.