[duckln]

IMO, its' all 'ifs', if it's sealed and then later expunged. Legally you are not intitled to the details. If this is the law, it should also apply to Ritter.

What you are doing is presiding over a 'kangaroo' court on the net. Sorry, but I also don't buy all the accusations as presented on this tread.

[Catspaw]

Do you think Ritter was set up? So do you think it was Ritter who was arrested? If you think Ritter was arrested, do you think his arrest was politically motivated, and if so, who is behind it?

[SarahW]

It's sealed, but not expunged.

Since there is proof of the arrest and the nature of the offence, and its disposition in the courts, and he is a public figure whose credibility has an impact on world events, I can't in good conscience ignore it.

It matters.

I'm not sure what "accusations" you are referring to. But the fact remains that kind of activity is inseperable from character, mental status, and does make him a target for blackmail.

It's possible but unlikely he was "new" to that kind of activity...but it shows remarkably poor judgement. Especially persisting in the activity after having been met by cops when he went to meet the fourteen year old.
He was so obsessed with his internet predation that he lost sight of the risks to himself!

[gridlock]

What you are doing is presiding over a 'kangaroo' court on the net. Sorry, but I also don't buy all the accusations as presented on this tread.

So the next time you see Scott Ritter on the TV doing his "Iraq was a wall-to-wall arsenal of WMD's until 1998, but since then they have all spontaneously evaporated" routine, will you grant him just as much credibility as before this story came out?