There's a lot of sick bastards out there

[MadtownPacker]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story.

Exactly!

As I said before about this incident, innocent people dont usually blow their brains out but maybe Tyfool is right and the guy was just misunderstood.

[SkinBasket]

That was why I provided the link and brought up this case.
Was he guilty of nothing because he didn't show?
Did he have second thoughts because he perceived what he planned to do was wrong, or did his instincts as a prosecutor make him think he might get caught?
Does it even matter why he didn't show?
Was he guilty of something even without going through with the meeting?
What role did the network play that day, or in the months before?

It's still illegal to solicit a minor, or someone representing themselves as a minor, so yes he was guilty of something. The physical meeting however seems to sort out those who are just having an internet fantasy jerk-off who know they are most likely cranking their wank with another 40 year old dude and those who have intention to find and bone a minor.

So I think the meeting portion is vital in separating those who still don't know that what you do on the internet can affect you in real life and those out looking to earn their pedophile wings.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story.

Yeah, they always have arrest warrans for chatting.

Yeah, cops never get overzealous.

There were huge articles about a year ago in many national mags.

Why don't you read this one and then get back to me.

http://www.esquire.com/features/predator0907

Let's see:

1. Dateline has never gone to somebody's house before. Do you think this is the best way to apprehend someone? Do you think it is fair to do this...remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. OR was this just done for better RATINGS.

2. There is raw footage that shows Chris Hansen LIED about denials of the show's alleged collusion with law enforcement officials. Super, now TV is dictating police action.

3. The reason that the police and Dateline rushed to pursue a warrant was the PV said that Conradt's Myspace account was being altered/deleted...ie, covering his tracks. Subsequent research proved that it hadn't been touched in MONTHS. PV said he had other myspace accounts...yet, has never produced one. Hansen later admitted he never saw the myspace page...nor was the officer who wrote the warrants ever told about the myspace cover up.

4. Hansen lied about his camera crew. Footage clearly shows his cameraman and a member of PV on Conradt's property..which is againt the law.

5. The whole warrant thing was driven by private citizens and dateline..not the cops. BTW, Dateline was at his house for 5 hours prior to the warrant...and concerned citizens called about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

6. They brought in a SWAT FUCKING TEAM. A tactical entry for an alleged pedophile. Yep, that seems like the necessary force.

7. His friends believe he was innocent. Remember he was a DA..and worked on these type of cases. Could he have been doing work? Who knows.

8. Collins County DECIDED NOT PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER "pedos" from this sting operation. Why? Cause of cases riddled with errors. Also that the INVESTIGATIVE work was done by PV and Dateline..not the cops. Hmm, you think Dateline and PV might have an agenda? Think they might cut corners or do something wrong? You think they are better than the police at this type of work?

9. Fact, Conradt's sister is suing..and has won significant legal battles in her pursuit.

10. Fact. The lead detective resigned out of guilt.

11. Fact. Forensics showed that Conradts cell, computer, etc..had pornographic material..including some child. Guilty? Could be. Could it also be a result of his job as a DA? Could be.

P.S. I have posted about this before...and yes, i do know more about it than you...and as patler posted there are some very troubling issues. Perhaps you should save the sarcasm for when it really is necessary.

[Patler]

It's still illegal to solicit a minor, or someone representing themselves as a minor, so yes he was guilty of something. The physical meeting however seems to sort out those who are just having an internet fantasy jerk-off who know they are most likely cranking their wank with another 40 year old dude and those who have intention to find and bone a minor.

So I think the meeting portion is vital in separating those who still don't know that what you do on the internet can affect you in real life and those out looking to earn their pedophile wings.

But then the question is, do you actually have to go through with the meeting, or is setting it up enough? By all reports it was set for a specific day, a specific time and a specific place. Should he be considered "guilty" for having gone that far, or should he be "let off" for not having gone through with it? Does it mater what his reason was for not showing?

[Deputy Nutz]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story.

Yeah, they always have arrest warrans for chatting.

Yeah, cops never get overzealous.

There were huge articles about a year ago in many national mags.

Why don't you read this one and then get back to me.

http://www.esquire.com/features/predator0907

Let's see:

1. Dateline has never gone to somebody's house before. Do you think this is the best way to apprehend someone? Do you think it is fair to do this...remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. OR was this just done for better RATINGS.

2. There is raw footage that shows Chris Hansen LIED about denials of the show's alleged collusion with law enforcement officials. Super, now TV is dictating police action.

3. The reason that the police and Dateline rushed to pursue a warrant was the PV said that Conradt's Myspace account was being altered/deleted...ie, covering his tracks. Subsequent research proved that it hadn't been touched in MONTHS. PV said he had other myspace accounts...yet, has never produced one. Hansen later admitted he never saw the myspace page...nor was the officer who wrote the warrants ever told about the myspace cover up.

4. Hansen lied about his camera crew. Footage clearly shows his cameraman and a member of PV on Conradt's property..which is againt the law.

5. The whole warrant thing was driven by private citizens and dateline..not the cops. BTW, Dateline was at his house for 5 hours prior to the warrant...and concerned citizens called about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

6. They brought in a SWAT FUCKING TEAM. A tactical entry for an alleged pedophile. Yep, that seems like the necessary force.

7. His friends believe he was innocent. Remember he was a DA..and worked on these type of cases. Could he have been doing work? Who knows.

8. Collins County DECIDED NOT PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER "pedos" from this sting operation. Why? Cause of cases riddled with errors. Also that the INVESTIGATIVE work was done by PV and Dateline..not the cops. Hmm, you think Dateline and PV might have an agenda? Think they might cut corners or do something wrong? You think they are better than the police at this type of work?

9. Fact, Conradt's sister is suing..and has won significant legal battles in her pursuit.

10. Fact. The lead detective resigned out of guilt.

11. Fact. Forensics showed that Conradts cell, computer, etc..had pornographic material..including some child. Guilty? Could be. Could it also be a result of his job as a DA? Could be.

P.S. I have posted about this before...and yes, i do know more about it than you...and as patler posted there are some very troubling issues. Perhaps you should save the sarcasm for when it really is necessary.

I just knew when Patler posted about the guy killing himself, that you would be the first to jump on it. Funny how that is.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

It's still illegal to solicit a minor, or someone representing themselves as a minor, so yes he was guilty of something. The physical meeting however seems to sort out those who are just having an internet fantasy jerk-off who know they are most likely cranking their wank with another 40 year old dude and those who have intention to find and bone a minor.

So I think the meeting portion is vital in separating those who still don't know that what you do on the internet can affect you in real life and those out looking to earn their pedophile wings.

But then the question is, do you actually have to go through with the meeting, or is setting it up enough? By all reports it was set for a specific day, a specific time and a specific place. Should he be considered "guilty" for having gone that far, or should he be "let off" for not having gone through with it? Does it mater what his reason was for not showing?

Patler,

In this case, he didn't do either. The actor hired to play the kid was the one doing the arranging. Conradt declined to meet and refused to accept his subsequent calls.

It is illegal to chat with minors in a sexual way. No doubt about it. But, the crux of this is how it was handled. They could have very easily shown up at his work and taken him away. There was no need to have Dateline at his house, no need for a SWAT team, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Having explicit conversation with a decoy posing as a 13 y.o. boy was doing "nothing at all" ?? The cops didn't have an arrest warrant for him for shits and giggles.

Then again, you always know more than anyone else, so forgive me for not knowing the whole story.

Exactly!

As I said before about this incident, innocent people dont usually blow their brains out but maybe Tyfool is right and the guy was just misunderstood.

Mad,

Please read the article then get back with me.

Blow brains out: Most don't, but a respected DA in the community, one who is a closeted gay man..whose sexuality is for sure going to be exposed..whose life, regardless of the allegations, is going to change..they might.

Furthermore, people guilty of talking dirty with a minor don't blow their brains out either..not for something that is going to be pretty minor in the court system.

I highly doubt they are using swat teams all over the country because some pedo said to a kid..how is your cock?

I'm sorry that you are in a rush to convict. I always believed you were innocent until proven guilty. Guess we don't need that pesky court system when we all can make judgments based on the media..we all know how reliable, fair, accurate they are...they never make mistakes. Just like the police. They never make mistakes. Never get caught lying. Never convict innocent people.

[Patler]

1. Dateline has never gone to somebody's house before. Do you think this is the best way to apprehend someone? Do you think it is fair to do this...remember, innocent until PROVEN guilty. OR was this just done for better RATINGS.

2. There is raw footage that shows Chris Hansen LIED about denials of the show's alleged collusion with law enforcement officials. Super, now TV is dictating police action.

3. The reason that the police and Dateline rushed to pursue a warrant was the PV said that Conradt's Myspace account was being altered/deleted...ie, covering his tracks. Subsequent research proved that it hadn't been touched in MONTHS. PV said he had other myspace accounts...yet, has never produced one. Hansen later admitted he never saw the myspace page...nor was the officer who wrote the warrants ever told about the myspace cover up.

4. Hansen lied about his camera crew. Footage clearly shows his cameraman and a member of PV on Conradt's property..which is againt the law.

5. The whole warrant thing was driven by private citizens and dateline..not the cops. BTW, Dateline was at his house for 5 hours prior to the warrant...and concerned citizens called about suspicious people in the neighborhood.

6. They brought in a SWAT FUCKING TEAM. A tactical entry for an alleged pedophile. Yep, that seems like the necessary force.

7. His friends believe he was innocent. Remember he was a DA..and worked on these type of cases. Could he have been doing work? Who knows.

8. Collins County DECIDED NOT PURSUE CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER "pedos" from this sting operation. Why? Cause of cases riddled with errors. Also that the INVESTIGATIVE work was done by PV and Dateline..not the cops. Hmm, you think Dateline and PV might have an agenda? Think they might cut corners or do something wrong? You think they are better than the police at this type of work?

9. Fact, Conradt's sister is suing..and has won significant legal battles in her pursuit.

10. Fact. The lead detective resigned out of guilt.

11. Fact. Forensics showed that Conradts cell, computer, etc..had pornographic material..including some child. Guilty? Could be. Could it also be a result of his job as a DA? Could be.

P.S. I have posted about this before...and yes, i do know more about it than you...and as patler posted there are some very troubling issues. Perhaps you should save the sarcasm for when it really is necessary.

In reply to the above:

Your issues #1, #2 and #4 - Does it matter? What do any of these have to do with his guilt or innocence?

Your issues #3 and #5 - Reportedly, they had a warrant issued 3 months earlier which they did not execute for whatever reason. (Some say it was to wait for the network.) I don't think the later one was completely baseless, even if it was partially based on an incorrect belief.

Your issue #6 - So what? Again, no relevance to his guilt or innocence.

Your issue #7 - Friends being in disbelief about the criminal activity of an apparently upstanding citizen is fairly common. That's how the criminal gets away with what he has been doing. No one believes it of him. As for him perhaps doing work - in my opinion, not likely without some other member of the prosecutors office, the police or sheriff being aware of it.

Your issue #8 - again, we have to ask ourselves if this really has an effect at all on his guilt or innocence, as opposed to his "convictability". The others were let go, maybe because of uncertainty about their guilt on the part of prosecutors, but also maybe just because they know technicalities would make a conviction hard to obtain, even though the individuals were believed by prosecutors to be guilty.

Your issue #9 - way to early to make any conclusions based on the civil suit, and yet again we should carefully evaluate issues of guilt/innocence versus the issue of whether or not a conviction could be obtained.

Your issue #10 - because an innocent man was portrayed as guilty, or because a colleague of sorts was inappropriately backed into a position where he perceived suicide as his "escape"?

Your issue #11 - again, in my opinion it would be unlikely and even foolish (but perhaps not impossible) for him to be gathering this type of information for his job without someone else being aware of it.

If the guy was guilty, I have a difficult time working up any sympathy for him, regardless of how the police, the citizen group or the network did their jobs. I do feel sorry for his family, and to the extent that others "forced" him into suicide, perhaps some something is due to the family. On the other hand, if he was innocent of the alleged activity, this was a real tragedy.

[Patler]

Patler,

In this case, he didn't do either. The actor hired to play the kid was the one doing the arranging. Conradt declined to meet and refused to accept his subsequent calls.

It is illegal to chat with minors in a sexual way. No doubt about it. But, the crux of this is how it was handled. They could have very easily shown up at his work and taken him away. There was no need to have Dateline at his house, no need for a SWAT team, etc.

Some reports indicate he agreed to the meeting, but didn't show. Again, all issues that make this such a difficult case to have a firm opinion about.

That being said, television shows pandering to our desires to watch others be humiliated or destroyed personally should be abolished. They serve no reasonable purpose.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Patler,

How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.

My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.

They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.

I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

[Deputy Nutz]

Patler,

How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.

My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.

They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.

I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

I guess he shouldn't have shot himself in the face.

[Patler]

Patler,
How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.
My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.
They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.
I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

We will not ever know his guilt or innocence for certain. However, you seem to be changing emphasis. Originally you said, “If you know the whole story...he did nothing at all. Never met anyone, stopped communication, etc. Over eager tv and cops screwed that guy." This suggest that you believed he was innocent,"...he did nothing at all...". Now your emphasis seems to be changing to the suitability of the investigation. As I said before, whether investigated properly or improperly may impact whether a conviction could be obtained, but likely does not alter his actual guilt or innocence. I agree there were some questions regarding the whole operation.

Regarding the warrant, of course it is always difficult to ascertain facts from conjecture, but the following is from an article I read:

The recent sting which resulted in the suicide of Louis Conradt may of been saved from an earlier sting operation, in hopes of being shown on Dateline NBC.

Conradt had originally been involved in a sting conducted by the Murphy, Texas Police and Perverted-Justice.com, in July of 2006 without the Dateline NBC crew in tow. The search warrant used in what became a suicide was dated 30 July, 2006, the date consistent with the original sting operation.

Other articles infer the warrants may have been “misdated”. I certainly do not know what is correct.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Patler,
How we will ever know his guilt or innocence.
My points revolve around how he was treated/apprehended/case being built.
They dismissed all the other cases...do you not think that his could fall into that category as well.
I've not seen anything about the 3 month warrant.

We will not ever know his guilt or innocence for certain. However, you seem to be changing emphasis. Originally you said, “If you know the whole story...he did nothing at all. Never met anyone, stopped communication, etc. Over eager tv and cops screwed that guy." This suggest that you believed he was innocent,"...he did nothing at all...". Now your emphasis seems to be changing to the suitability of the investigation. As I said before, whether investigated properly or improperly may impact whether a conviction could be obtained, but likely does not alter his actual guilt or innocence. I agree there were some questions regarding the whole operation.

Regarding the warrant, of course it is always difficult to ascertain facts from conjecture, but the following is from an article I read:

The recent sting which resulted in the suicide of Louis Conradt may of been saved from an earlier sting operation, in hopes of being shown on Dateline NBC.

Conradt had originally been involved in a sting conducted by the Murphy, Texas Police and Perverted-Justice.com, in July of 2006 without the Dateline NBC crew in tow. The search warrant used in what became a suicide was dated 30 July, 2006, the date consistent with the original sting operation.

Other articles infer the warrants may have been “misdated”. I certainly do not know what is correct.

I see your point, and where I led you down that path.

The previous posts were about meeting young people. You then posted about the suicide and camera crew.

I meant nothing in regards to meeting with people, setting up a time and place, etc. In that regards he did nothing. He was innocent of that. I see where my post was unclear. Mea Culpa.

He did communicate earlier in IM. No doubt about that. But, he ceased communicating, wouldn't take calls, etc. The question is then the intent of the communication...again, innocent until proven guilty. But, i have no problem with them pursuing a case.

If they wanna prosecute for that..they should. What shouldn't be happening is TV and PV driving an investigation, falsifying evidence (myspace), etc. Basically all the points i covered.

There was no reason for a tv crew to be at his house prior to the police. Hansen and his crew changed the whole nature of their usual M.O.

A SWAT team? For a guy who had IMed? This is akin to a SWAT team busting a house to catch a guy who bought a nickel bag of dope.

they knew who he was, they knew where he worked, etc.

ANd, your point about the sting..it even makes it worse. They obviously had info and then waited until they could film it.

I suggest you read the story from the link provided. Gives a more rounded view of all the participants. It is long, but very enjoyable and quite educating and very moving. I found the part on the actor playing the kid interesting...5K for that. Tyrone make have a new avocation.

I would be interested in your thoughts after you read it...not saying you will change your mind about Conradt, but more on the whole operation.

[Freak Out]

Its one thing to have a camera cruising around in a squad car when they bust drunks and wife beaters but the way that law enforcement group basically whored themselves out is pretty disturbing. I'm 100 percent for busting sex offenders and freedom of the press but that show is just a bad mix of the two. NBC wants ratings and the people who watch it want to see freaks get humiliated. Use my taxes to setup a sting to bust a fucking pedophile....I'm all for it. But keep the freak show NBC aspect out of it. Our local police force has a very good cyber-crimes/pedophile unit that has done a fantastic job getting some real nasty fuckers off the street but you wont see them prancing around on TV with Howie Mandel anytime soon.

[Patler]

I suggest you read the story from the link provided. Gives a more rounded view of all the participants. It is long, but very enjoyable and quite educating and very moving. I found the part on the actor playing the kid interesting...5K for that. Tyrone make have a new avocation.

I would be interested in your thoughts after you read it...not saying you will change your mind about Conradt, but more on the whole operation.

Why do you assume I haven't read it? I read it long ago, probably about when it was published. I have also read dozens of other articles about the case since then, including the ruling of the District Court on the motion to dismiss in the civil trial. I have read also several blogs by law professors and various legal topic-specific groups about the initial matter and the civil case. I never rely on a single source for something as significant as this.

I have never disputed that some of what was done may have been improper, it probably was, but that does not necessarily make Conradt innocent, just not convictable on the evidence gathered in that way.

What possible difference does it make how much the actor was paid to play the part of the child?

The civil trial is based on the actions of the parties “forcing” him into suicide, which I think will be difficult to prove. The initial rulings simply were that it was “possible” for a jury to find for the plaintiff, thus the case can go to trial. A fairly low standard is applied for the case to go forward, and a high burden on the defendant to show that the case should not be allowed to go to trial.

I don’t know if the guy was guilty of anything or not, and the entire premise behind TV shows such as this bother me a lot. But even apart from the show, sting operations often bring in people who claim it was their first-ever foray into the activity. I suspect these are often lies. The Conradt case is different because he never went through with the meeting. At least two explanations are plausible:

1. He originally did what he did even though he never had before, but then he thought better about it, and backed out for all the right reasons. He knew it was just something he should not do.

2. His prosecutors’ instincts and experience alerted him that this could be a trap, and so he was trying desperately to extricate himself before being caught.

As I said before, the question becomes this: In the world of pedophilia, at what level of activity does culpability attach?