Court ordered Scott Ritter to attend counseling for sex offenders

WTEN.com (Albany, NY) ^ | January 20, 2002

[HAL9000]

Delmar Weapons Inspector in Hot Water

(updated: January 20th, 5:50pm) The spotlight is back on former UN Weapons Inspector and Delmar native, Scott Ritter. But it's not over Iraq instead its over charges he talked with an underage girl on the Internet.

The Daily Gazette broke the story over the weekend. The paper says Ritter was arrested in June of 2001 after having a sexual conversation on the Internet with someone he "thought" was an underage girl. The girl turned out to be an undercover investigator.

Sources tell NEWS10 that Ritter contacted what he thought was a teenage girl on the internet for the purpose of a sexual interlude not once, but twice within a three month period back in 2001. Ritter also underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist.

[WarSlut]

There was NO underage girl! It was an act. Ritter could in all legality divorce his wife and marry the woman cop who was at Burger King that night (or whatever time of day it was).

So, hypothetically speaking, if a man wanted his wife dead and attempted to hire a contract killer to do the deed, if said contract killer was really an undercover agent, there's no crime, right?

Basically, what you're saying is that intent counts for nothing in your book. Fortunately, your book counts for nothing in a court of law.

[auboy]

Thanks, Todd. You can have some milk and cookies:•)

Good night Freepers!

[Bonaparte]

"I'll wait for a few more facts.."

That's mighty white of you, but I don't think the court ordered him to have his head examined because he was innocent of the charge.

[mrustow]

I had Scott Ritter posting to me at another site yesterday defending himselve and Pitt. While trying to smear me. LOL

"Laura's Fat Hips"=Scott Ritter?

[TLBSHOW]

Nope! Al Gore maybe!

[TLBSHOW]

Karl Kammeron

[BushCountry]

Disappointed at Fox News for mentioning the fact that Ritter denied the charge? Let's face it, even if the denial is old (btw, this is his only response to the charge), which I assume it is, the clown was just as guilty at the time.

It is not alright for someone to LIE until they realize that they have been caught redhanded. A few of the Freeper's moral compasses seem to be off today. First it is not technically a criminal act, then this. The line between right is wrong is pretty solid guys.

[mrustow]

Oh. Thanks.

[piasa]

That's mighty white of you, but I don't think the court ordered him to have his head examined because he was innocent of the charge.

Is the shrink's office where he came upon Pitt?

[twntaipan]

I gotta wonder why he gets a sealed court records deal while others (most) child-sex offenders get their names published in the papers or much more.

Why the favoritism?

[TLBSHOW]

That's mighty white of you, but I don't think the court ordered him to have his head examined because he was innocent of the charge.

Is the shrink's office where he came upon Pitt?



LOLROF

[piasa]

I don't know for a fact that most child-sex perps get listed publicly if their particular crime is considered a misdemeanor. Whether it is a misdemeanor is determined by local and state laws. So what is typical in that part of the country in sting cases like this I don't know. It may be that this type of offense doesn't rise to the level of a crime where the perp has actually succeeded in harming a child- at least in the eyes of that state or locality.

Is it unusual to let someone who got netted like this go with a sealed record? Maybe, maybe not. And if it is unusual, it may still be typical for someone whose records were sealed owing to their national security position- or past position. I don't know. But what was unusual was that the assistant DA didn't pass the case on to her boss and let him decide what to do, which would have covered her arse, and that may indicate some deviance from the normal internet sting cases.

[Bonaparte]

Let's not forget the federal statute. This guy certainly won't.

[Bonaparte]

At this point, it sure looks like the DA would have declined to prosecute had it been brought to his attention first. I suspect the ADA knew this and was planning to leave anyway, so she went ahead and filed. It was most likely a foregone conclusion that the court would seal and "contemplate dismissal" once they saw who the defendant was.

Personally, I would love to see the DOJ go after Ritter the same way as Naughton. But we all know it's not going to happen, just as we know why it won't.

[YaYa123]

After I asked my question, I did find the MSNBC confirmation that Ritter lied, and can do it as well as Clinton.

http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M264375.asp?0dm=C18MN

"Ritter lawyer confirms arrest"

Interesting too, is that the DA who helped Ritter out, by sealing his case, was female, so is his lawyer.

[not-an-ostrich]

I wonder what was with the verbal warning on the first sweep. Do you think it was because he was a, oh I hate to say VIP or celebrity, person known by international media? I think the most telling clue to his "pattern of behavior" is that he was caught again three months later.

[Eva]

I'm not sure at all what is going on. Ritter seems to have some kind of persecution complex. It floors me to think that he would allow himself to be caught twice. Maybe he blames Bush for the change in moral tone of the country and thinks that if Clinton were still in office he could use the defense that it's all about sex, let's just move on.

[RippleFire]

All right!

[Mo1]

---

God Bless This Great Country!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[RippleFire]