[Alberta's Child]

Proving intent in a case like that is damn near impossible. Imagine this scenario playing out if the defendant takes the stand and testifies in his own defense:

QUESTION: “Is it true that you exchanged lurid messages online with a minor?”

ANSWER: “No. I was exchanging those messages with an adult pretending to be a minor.”

The prosecution now has to prove what the defendant did and didn’t know at a certain point in time. How the hell do you do that?

The prosecution’s case falls apart right there. This is why you rarely hear about cases being prosecuted in those stories from TV shows like “To Catch a Predator.”

[7thson]

From what I understand, law enforcement use this method. As for the line of questioning, you ask how to prove the defendant knew or did not. Easy. The emails. If the one pretending to be a minor says they are a minor, and the defendant continues to exchange emails - and requests photos and/or sends photos of themselves, I would think that most juries would see that the individual believed he was chatting with minor.

You state How the hell do you do that? Seems simple to me. The prosecutor asks simple questions, such as "what led you to believe you were speaking to an adult?"