Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: new cruelty

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.


352 posted on 08/15/2007 12:15:34 AM PDT by gridlock (I have taken a sacred vow to always maintain a smaller carbon footprint than Al Gore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]


To: gridlock
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.

353 posted on 08/15/2007 5:55:20 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies ]

To: gridlock
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.

355 posted on 08/15/2007 6:44:26 AM PDT by new cruelty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 352 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson