NBC stung by criticism of sex-predator cases

Steve Thompson Dallas Morning News ^

[Dudoight]

The show was an instant success. It lured would-be child-sex predators to a public shaming, delivered by a handsome host. Ratings, awards and even praise from members of Congress followed. But now Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator" series is taking heat. And so is the police chief of the Collin County town that hosted it eight months ago. The troubles stem from the show's visit to Murphy, where more than 20 people were arrested but escaped prosecution because of evidence problems. Also a former district attorney ensnared in the sting shot himself.

[Dante3]

He made the choice. Nobody forced him. People have faced far worse situations and have not taken their life.

[Drango]

There are more than a few FReepers here willing to take the side of some of the must perverted people in our society, and give 'em every break in the world. I say we give NBC an Emmy and fire the Texas District Attorney who can see the evidence that the rest of us see. There is no entrapment in any sense of the word or by any legal standard.

This show should be seen by every parents with kids. It will scare the bejeberrs out of you. there are some very sick puppies out there hunting our kids.

[gridlock]

Your contention that the fact that he killed himself means that he was guilty is ultimately unprovable. You have your opinion, of course.

I just don’t see the harm in conducting this type of operation in such a way that people don’t wind up dead. But maybe that’s just me.

Folks around here seem like they would be willing to pull the trigger themselves on the guy, as long as Dateline NBC told them the guy was bad. This requires a level of confidence Dateline NBC that I just don’t have.

I think people are feeling like they have to choose between pedophiles and Dateline NBC. I don’t understand why this is so. To my mind, it is perfectly reasonable to condemn them both.

[gridlock]

Why don’t we just contract out the justice system to Dateline NBC? After all, they’re trustworthy, aren’t they?

Oh, by the way, the next time they are doing an expose on dangerous assault weapons, I don’t want to hear any bitching from anybody who is defending them here.

[AppyPappy]

He’s dead because he killed himself. It is what it is. Your supposition that he killed himself because of the investigation is just as unprovable

[Zechariah11]

It would be very hard to prove that a 12 year old could force a 40 year old to do something against his will, and even so NBC and Preverted Justice require the perp to make the contact and ask about sex first.

If I were you, I'd read the Esquire Article and get your facts straight. He was being hounded by call after call from the PJ actor.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Right. I’m with you!

[Liz]

Can you believe the drippy-looking skeeves that show up to molest children?

Some of these freakazoids are filthy-looking......with sores on their weirdo faces.

God knows the number of STD’s they are carrying that would be passed on to kids if they weren’t nabbed by L/E and NBC.

[Liz]

The only reason NBC got into actually apprehending the pervs in conjuction with L/E was the number of requests received from parents.

Parents of vulnerable youngsters were appalled that the perverts were beng ID’ed by NBC in its first few shows, but were allowed to go free.

[Liz]

He’s dead because he killed himself......the supposition that he killed himself because of the investigation is just as unprovable......

The lesson here is that when an individual engages in high-risk behavior, there are consequences.

The consequences are unforseen and unplanned, to be sure, but there are certain to be consequences.

The suicide victim's career in L/E made him more aware of laws that control adult sexual behavior with children, and the concomitant legal penalties.

Obviously, this individual was unable to deal with the consequences of high risk behavior he, himself, set in motion.

[new cruelty]

You asked about the existence of any evidence that Conradt spoke to the decoy. "Where is any of this stuff?"

Are you looking at the article that I noted in this post? That article (the Enquirer article) can be found here.

Read starting midway through page 11: Months later, Gator will learn that a forensic analysis of the laptop has verified that Bill Conradt was the person who chatted online with “Luke,” but that the computer hard drive was otherwise devoid of anything illegal or indicative of sexual predation.

As carefully as you read the Esquire article go back and re-read my post, which states, "Most of what you asked for is noted in the Esquire article".

Now before you accuse me of anything else, try to understand this- my intent was to inform you that what you were asking about was noted in the Esquire article. Noted. That doesn't mean the article is gospel. The article noted that a forensic analysis of the laptop was done. The article noted that the forensic analysis of the laptop verified that Bill Conradt was the person who chatted online with “Luke”. And the article noted that the computer hard drive was otherwise devoid of anything illegal or indicative of sexual predation. It's neither a lie nor a misunderstanding. It's a point of reference for anyone who is curious about the existence of a forensic analysis. That is not to say that the analysis alone is damning- simply that the article noted the existence of a forensic analysis. You asked. The answer is yes, one does exist.

You can scour the article to find whatever you need. It's a pretty lengthy article that touches on (meaning it makes note of or comments on- as if to suggest the existence of) many factors that surround the case. The article casts a hairy eyeball on all parties concerned. NBC looks bad. The police look equally bad if not worse. And Conradt is portrayed as a villain in conflict with himself.

Regardless if Conradt is guitly, as I've said earlier, NBC was foolish to go to the man's home; as were the police (unless the police had damning evidence requiring immediate action). You either think I'm still lying or have come to your senses and realize you made a mistake.

[gridlock]

So, the only thing that has been verified is that somebody chatted with the decoy from Conradt’s computer, but nothing of a incriminating nature was found. It would be interesting to see whether or not the chats themselves were incriminating, but the article does not say.

This one piece of information does not constitute “most”. In fact, it many constitute nothing at all, if the chats themselves were not illegal. It appears that the most damning stuff is in the telephone conversations, which have not been verified, except that Gator thinks they sounded kinda like Conradt.

My point is that before the joint NBC/Police entity proceeds directly to the punishment phase, which is what ruining a man’s life on national TV is, there are a lot of verification steps that were ignored.

[new cruelty]

I suspected it earlier but it is now obvious that you didn't read the Esquire article at the time I had pointed it out.

You allege that I am a liar for stating that the existence of evidence is noted in the article. I didn't say it was damnable evidence. I said the article noted on most the evidence.

And your response? But, but, but This one piece of information does not constitute “most”. Oh, look, I've given you an out. Now you can say that you never said "But, but, but".

I would think you're joking, but by this time it is clear that you're not. You can make generalizations but I cannot. It doesn't work that way. Still, you're right, I said "most" and one piece of evidence noted in the article does not amount to "most".

Here is an assignment just for you. Actually make an effort to read the article and find for yourself other examples of evidence that was collected. Now I understand and even (shudder) agree with you that the evidence is extremely flawed. For extra credit you can help yourself by looking at "some" of my other posts that also point out that the article also noted that there were errors in the search and arrest warrants. I have even stated that NBC and the police acted foolishly. But I'm disagree that they ruined his life. Conradt ruined his own life.

Back to the lesson. Once you have completed the assignment you make come to the conclusion that when you add it all up, it still may not come to "most". It may only reach the level of "some". Goody, you're still right.

Next step. Since your keen on parsing statements, take a deep breath and reflect back your very own words- "Where is any of this stuff?".

Most.

Some.

Any.

Sheesh.

Oh no, you said "any" and indeed there was "some". What ever will you do? Remain calm and keep breathing.

I expect that you'll choose to ignore that even "any" examples of evidence exist and rest easy in the fact that NBC and the police are still very, very bad people and Conradt is still the victim here. You may protest all you want that you also think Conradt is a guilt ridden pervert who killed himself. Doesn't matter. This one piece of information does not constitute “most”. I know where your coming from.

[gridlock]

Well, it seems we are in agreement, then.

Forgive me if I didn’t read the middle 4/5ths of your post.

[new cruelty]

BTW,

So, the only thing that has been verified is that somebody chatted with the decoy from Conradt’s computer, but nothing of a incriminating nature was found. It would be interesting to see whether or not the chats themselves were incriminating, but the article does not say.

As you are working your assignment, take a look at page 3.

Bill Conradt was a good prosecutor. All of the judges and lawyers who knew him best, even the ones who served on the opposite side of the aisle from him, the men and women who defended their clients against him, say he was very good at his job. He had a near photographic memory for the law, they say, and this made him either a formidable opponent or a valuable ally, depending on where you stood.

So Conradt no doubt knew that statute 33.021 in the Texas penal code description of the crime of “online solicitation of a minor” states that an adult offends when he “communicates in a sexually explicit manner with a minor,” and defines “minor” as anyone who represents himself or herself as being under the age of seventeen. And yet here are some of the things Bill Conradt wrote during the two-week-long online relationship he had with thirteen-year-old “Luke”:

I left out the naughty excerpts of the transcript.

Here's a link to the Texas Penal Code.

Before you go off on a tangent note- the purpose of this post is not to support or cast aside any notions that Conradt is guilty. We've established that NBC, the police, and Conradt all hold some level of culpability. Instead, the purpose of this post is to cite another example of where the article made observations of Conradt's interaction with the decoy. Happy reading.

[new cruelty]

I’m not surprised. Your own comments indicate that you didn’t read the article either.

[gridlock]

It seems that you want to pick a fight. Since we are substantially in agreement, I don’t feel the need.

[Nonstatist]

He made the choice. Nobody forced him

What happened to him was not justice, it was vigilantism. God Help us if that kind of "justice" became the norm.

[new cruelty]

Frankly it doesn't matter whether we agree. Now we are talking numbers. You asked about the existence of any information supporting the arrest of Conradt and I noted that such evidence (and we agree it is sloppy) was mentioned in the article. Actually, I used the word "most".

You stated I was either lying or mistaken. "There was not any of that stuff" in the article.

Wow. What would be the point of lying? And, unless you have blinders on, there is no mistaking the context of one of the key players learning that the findings of a forensic analysis verified that Bill Conradt was the person who chatted online with the decoy- which was the example that was provided you.

You then began quibbling about the quantity of the evidence, insisting that the one example I provided you is not "most". Sigh. Okay, shove aside the idea that the article was referenced as a way to help you find the information that you were looking for and instead, let's focus on the words "most" and "any". Yes, that is correct, one example does not equal "most" and since we are now parsing words, the information you were given is more than what you stated as not "any".

"Most". "Not any". "Some" okay?

Continuing. You also questioned whether the transcript between Conradt and the decoy could be considered illegal. Good question. You were provided with yet another excerpt to the article that reflected upon that matter and also cited a section within the Texas Penal Code that would be used by the police in determining Conradts guilt or innocence. Again, that is simply a reference to the article to help you find the information you had asked about.

But, since you are keeping track, I've now given you a couple of references to the article that makes note of certain steps (albeit, wobbly) that were taken in processing the search and arrest warrants.

Note, I don't consider the article to be the final source of information. Obviously it is not. Still, for those that are interested in seeking out any information about this subject (and since you asked about it, you must be curious), the article can be a stepping stone that might lead to further insight.

By now, if you've managed to stay with me (and I wouldn't blame you if you haven't, I'm pretty bored with the subject now) I would think you are well aware that my initial intent was to inform you that SOME of the information you were looking for was noted in the Esquire article. If you feel that you need to continue focusing on the the numbers, have at it. You'd probably thank me for not spoon feeding you any more references. Re-read (or read for the first time) the article and see if you can find more examples on your own. Whether you care to quantify any of your findings as "most", "some", or not "any" is left for you to determine.

Have fun.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Dateline is acting in concert with the police, as an agent of the police, and is imposing punishment prior to conviction. This is a problem.

What punishment is Dateline imposing?