Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Convicted in Underage Sex Sting

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Thu Apr 14, 2011 at 10:48:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A Pennsylvania jury has convicted former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter of engaging in an internet chat with a minor. The minor was a police officer pretending to be a 15 year old. Part of the evidence was a video chat in which Ritter performed a sex act on himself.

Ritter testified in his defense. He said he thought the officer was just pretending to be 15. His wife also testified at the trial.

The jury also heard evidence from a sealed, 2001 case against Ritter in which the charges were dismissed: [More...]

On cross-examination, Rakaczewski confronted Ritter with his 2001 arrest in New York on similar charges. In that case, Ritter twice arranged to meet people who claimed online to be underage girls but who turned out to be undercover police in Colonie, N.Y. The charges were eventually dismissed and the case was sealed, but prosecutors are using it to try to show Ritter has a predilection for underage girls.

Transcripts of both the 2001 and 2009 chat were admitted:

"You can never tell anyone you did this," Ritter said, according to a transcript of one of the 2001 chats. At the beginning of the 2009 chat, an undercover officer typed to Ritter, "If you like younger, I'm fine."

Ritter's explanation:

"I was severely depressed. My life was unraveling around me," he said.

Ritter was convicted of six of the seven charges against him. All but one were felonies. The maximum penalty for each felony is 7 years.

Ritter's bond was continued pending sentencing.

< Thursday Afternoon Open Thread | Hearing on Prescription Drug Abuse: Obama's Got a New Plan >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter Convicted in Underage Sex Sting | 24 comments (24 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You would think... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:23:37 AM EST

there would have to be a, ya know, actual minor invloved for anyone to be convicted for engaging in internet chat with a minor. I see no internet chat involving a minor...only with a con artist.

Ritter was chatting with a fellow creep of legal age...where's the crime? Unsavory, yes. Criminal? Not on any reasonable planet.

Intent (none / 0) (#6)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:54:11 AM EST

All that matters is that the defendant think he's chatting with a minor.

It's along the same lines as the fact that you can be convicted of armed robbery if you stick your hand in your pocket and make it look like a gun.


What of the officer's.... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:00:02 AM EST

intent to commit fraud? Oh thats legal...never mind:)


No fraud (none / 0) (#9)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:16:32 AM EST

If you're dumb enough to commit a crime when it may be to a police officer, well, no sympathy!


What if Ritter... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:26:11 AM EST

is telling the truth and his intent was creepy, yet legal, consensual adult roleplay?

It's a very fine line John Law is teetering on...I think its no brainer entrapment myself, granted I take a very liberal view of entrapment... but it should at least raise a red flag for those with less liberal interpretations of the illegal law enforcement tactic.


12 people said he did it. (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:39:43 AM EST

Hardly comforting... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:44:55 AM EST

12 people say Barry Bonds obstructed justice...I rest my case! :)


How 'bout (none / 0) (#14)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:46:41 AM EST

He said he did it.


: he denied he knew (none / 0) (#18)
by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 11:46:04 AM EST

he was chatting with a minor. He said he thought the person was pretending to be a minor.
As to entrapment, he may have been pre-disposed to engage in a chat, he claimed he was not pre-disposed to chat with a minor. That's where entrapment could come in.
Remember Jbinc, you have been limited to four comments a day in these threads.

You are right on (none / 0) (#16)
by eric on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:55:26 AM EST

kdog, its the impossibility defense. There was no underage person involved, so it was impossible to commit the crime.

The problem is that they still get you on the attempt to commit the crime.


I wish I could get on a jury (none / 0) (#20)
by Chuck0 on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 12:08:24 PM EST

in of these bogus cases. No I'd convict if there was no actual minor involved.


well that's just depressing (none / 0) (#1)
by The Addams Family on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:04:58 AM EST

any way you look at it

why isn't this entrapment?

& what's with giving the jury evidence from a sealed case in which the charges were dismissed?

: A simple explanation (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:56:12 AM EST

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment:

In criminal law, entrapment is constituted by a law enforcement agent inducing a person to commit an offense that the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit. In many jurisdictions, entrapment is a possible defense against criminal liability. 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 informant or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person (see sting operation). 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.

Interesting defense (none / 0) (#2)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 06:10:49 AM EST

I wonder if that would ever work - if anyone could ever convinced a jury they did not really believe the person was underage. Or if it matters to the jury - seems like in the case of a sting like this where the 'victim' indeed older, it should matter a great deal.

I find it very believable. (none / 0) (#3)
by observed on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 07:15:35 AM EST

A lot of chat is make-believe.


: Definitely becomes thought police at some point (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by ruffian on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 08:15:12 AM EST

Creepy ain't a crime... (none / 0) (#15)
by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 09:53:08 AM EST

Hypothetical...creepy dude has a thing for very young girls, but never acts on it, just gets his rocks off in creepy internet chat rooms roleplaying with like-minded creeps of legal age.

That can't be a crime in a free country...we can and should frown upon it as a society, but it can't be a crime...not if we wanna call it a free society.

So now if you THINK about committing a crime... (none / 0) (#17)
by Dadler on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 11:10:18 AM EST

...you have? Intent here is just thought. It's creepy and odd, but so is human sexuality.

: Not to get on too creepy a tangent... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 11:54:22 AM EST

but dirty old men pretending to be underage girls on the internet is probably the best thing to happen for the safety of real underage girls since child labor laws were passed.
Before the internet, such creeps might have found the temptations that plague them too great, and start hanging around the junior high school in a trench coat. In the internet age they can play their sick games with fellow creeps in the cyber world, and the young girls in the brick and mortar world are safer for it.

Jeez. Time to reread Lolita (none / 0) (#21)
by oldpro on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 01:10:37 PM EST

and the movie wasn't bad either.

A couple of years ago I saw a reality television series which enticed those internet guys to actually meetup with 'young girls' whereon they were arrested for much clearer intent. Clearer to this observer, at least. Beyond humiliating to the men who took action beyond writing to an invisible stranger and found themselves so publicly confronted. Some of them even said they'd seen the program before they were caught up in the sting! Made me think of Bob and
Ray's slow learners of America.

When I read of these types of stories (none / 0) (#22)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:19:09 PM EST

I always wonder where these guys find all this free time. Don't they have work to do?

Anyway, a 9 y/o girl on my kid's track team was propositioned by some creep at the track before practice last week.

There my be a gulf a mile wide between an internet creep and and a real-life creep, but there also may not be.

: My initial reaction to this was (none / 0) (#23)
by CST on Fri Apr 15, 2011 at 02:23:46 PM EST

UN weapons inspector probably travelled a lot to countries that have less strict rules about such things.
And then I stopped thinking about it because it was horrifying.

"Whom the gods would destroy, (none / 0) (#24)
by Harry Saxon on Sat Apr 16, 2011 at 09:03:15 PM EST

they first make mad."

Click or Euripides Me

Scott Ritter (none / 0) (#25)
by citizenjeff on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:50:32 PM EST

Donald from Hawaii: "It's pretty clear and conclusive that the guy likes young girls..."

What makes it clear and conclusive?