lol
> The cop went in believing that drugs were almost certainly present (because a child's own parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what.
Perhaps could be reworded:
The cop went in believing that a pedophile were almost certainly present (because a child's parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what.
For all we know, the parents were abusing the child and the child wanted to tell someone they trusted. The parent(s) found out and made some shit up.
I don't know man. People do some weird shit. I once climbed up the side of an apartment building to beat my friends taking the stairs, just to surprise them. I'm sure an onlooker might think I was going to rob someone.
It's like that old bias thing:
A man takes an old lady's purse, is he a criminal?
I left out a crucial detail, the old lady handed her son the purse.
The articles I linked above state that it was a sting operation. The perpetrator thought he was paying $500 to the uncle of a 12-year-old girl (who was apparently still slightly too old for his liking) so that he could rape her, but really this was a scenario set up by the police to gather evidence, with the goal of preventing future harm to an actual child.
"When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant did not send e-mails, text messages, and have the phone conversations regarding having sex with a 12-year-old girl."
But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement.
I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
Maybe he had an ex that wanted to make life hell for him. Create a new e-mail account using the guys name, use that to create a Craigslist account, do the whole bit. Come back "to pick something up", plant some child porn on his computer; or maybe the "child porn" on the computer wasn't really that childish (either just normal porn, or maybe porn alleging to be 17-year-olds or something). Arrange with the "uncle" (whom you know are the cops) to meet at a place you know he frequents regularly: maybe he just carries $500 with him as a habit; maybe he always stops at the Dunkin Donuts after visiting the payday check casher -- an ex would know that kind of thing. Or maybe come up with some other excuse to get him there with the requisite cash. Or, play then Craigslist game the other way, and arrange for him to be there with the cash -- maybe he thought he was buying a used car, or maybe he actually thought he was buying a used instrument from Craigslist, being sold by a 12-year-old girl!
There absolutely are vindictive people like that in the world; and my guess is there are a lot more vindictive people like that than complete idiots who would ask a complete stranger on Craigslist, out of the blue, to arrange sex with someone under 11. (And then come on Hacker News decades years later to protest his innocence?) "I was framed" certainly seems implausible, but slightly less implausible than the accusation.
EDIT: From the link above:
> Wistocki observed a vehicle approach the parking lot, and an individual exited the vehicle. The individual walked over to Detective Anthony Cimilluca (who was portraying Kelsey's uncle Greco). The individual introduced himself as Joshua Smith, and Cimilluca introduced himself as Greco. Inside the Dunkin' Donuts, Smith gave Cimilluca $500 and asked to meet Kelsey. Cimilluca told Smith that she was waiting outside in a van. The pair exited Dunkin' Donuts and Smith was arrested. Upon his arrest, Smith was identified as the defendant.
Somewhat harder to explain why you introduced yourself as "Smith", and gave $500 to a guy you thought was named "Greco".
I’d be curious to hear the Duncan Donuts recording. I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
For all we know it was anime and the cop said it was child porn because he had never seen anime in his life.
Appellate court: decisions look legit based on evidence; at trial, please prove evidence
Plaintive: how about we just don’t have a trial…
Defendant: ffs
Something smells fishy. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ve been on the wrong side of cops’ biases too many times to think they are automatically in the right; making virtually any other possibility just as likely. For example, for all we know, the defendant is actually an alien and they simply wanted to run experiments on him for a few years. Oh, wait, he actually is an alien. lol.
Anyway, I got nothing and doxing them on here without any actual evidence of wrongdoing, but insisting that circumstantial evidence is proof without even a trial is super fucked up.
I’m not a lawyer but I’ve worked with plenty of them to prove some technical shit or another for a case, even the FBI. So I’ve seen some crazy and unlikely cases in my life. This sounds suspiciously like they couldn’t pass the bar of “without a doubt” and simply gave up.
Oh, and why is a trial important? So we get to hear his side of the story. You’ve only heard one side, and he would be wise (and well within his rights) to never share his side.
Would you want this guy living in your house, in close proximity to your children, after finding out these charges and the circumstances of his arrest?
I can see why. The justice system failed to let him have a chance to defend himself, and left him to deal with random people who think one side of a story is the whole story.
> asking him what he has to say about that.
Frankly, it's none of your business. Call your congressman and complain about the justice system and ensuring people get a chance in court when it is obvious the state is going to lose.
> Would you want this guy living in your house, in close proximity to your children, after finding out these charges and the circumstances of his arrest?
These days, I live in a country that respects people's privacy. So, I probably wouldn't even know. But also, in this country, pedophilia is usually dealt with by lynching before the cops even show up.
EDIT: I assume this'll be the same person. The name is not exactly common. And one of the lists was 99% British people.
(Never met him and I know nothing about him other than his name. (It ends in "cock", so it stuck in my mind. I was 23 back then.) I have nothing to contribute one way or the other regarding the accusations.)
Looks like we both need to look at who we're replying to more closely -- this is my first post in the thread. ;-)
> In my own personal life, my parents had a cop search my car because they thought I was dealing drugs. The cop found a small ripped piece of paper (from who knows what), and claimed it was from rolling papers.
Right, so in this case, the question of "How would you account for the fact that police claimed a bit of paper was rolling paper for marijuana" is answered in part by the first sentence: The cop went in believing that drugs were almost certainly present (because a child's own parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what.
"How would you account for the fact that it this police detective claims to have had a conversation in which John Doe agreed to meet at place X to pay for sex with a 12-year-old" is less easy to construct.