TX - DA Refuses To Prosecute Pedophile Caught On "To Catch A Predator"

[southcitymom]

Money doesn't mean they are corrupt - there is no appearance of impropriety just because of money. It may make it worth asking the question, taking a look (and a few minutes on their web site will show you the exact transcript of every single case they've ever been involved in) - but it doesn't give the appearance of improprity alone. Police are paid to do their job. As are judges, jurors (barely), and so on and so forth.

Other issues from that link I think I've addressed previously - if I haven't, specify what other questions. Vague and suggestive hints from a fired (another indication that suggests looking for alternate motives should be considered) producer aside - I don't see any substance here. Rubber chickens and typical black humor from police is not anything unusual.

I didn't say PJ was corrupt. I said they can't get away from the appearance of impropriety if they are getting paid by a network who is trying to produce a dramatic and shocking show.

This former producer claims complete transcripts of their chats or the names of PJ volunteers who participated were not made available - because of this, the chats could not be independently verified.

The DA also complained about the chats not being able to be verified, so that's two separate people who have said that.

Also, local LE was paid, in part, to do their job by the network - again, the appearance of impropriety.

 

[Details]

I didn't say PJ was corrupt. I said they can't get away from the appearance of impropriety if they are getting paid by a network who is trying to produce a dramatic and shocking show.

This former producer claims complete transcripts of their chats or the names of PJ volunteers who participated were not made available - because of this, the chats could not be independently verified.

The DA also complained about the chats not being able to be verified, so that's two separate people who have said that.

Also, local LE was paid, in part, to do their job by the network - again, the appearance of impropriety.

The chat logs are on the PJ website - there are two people saying they aren't - but go and read it for yourself. It's right at all of our fingertips. There's also every other DA, every other judge, every other jury on every other PJ or 'Dateline' case that has found no problem at all with getting these logs.

I just don't agree that being paid (and not to make a 'dramatic and shocking' show - it's a documentary style, very straightforward, showing what is really out there - and not even the worst of it, if you read the chats of the pervs on the show) creates any appearance of impropriety - not alone.

LE was paid by Dateline? That again is something I don't recall seeing.


This was all pretty normal stuff - PJ works with LE all the time on their own cases. And neither is paid to do it. PJ is a volunteer organization supported by donations that has existed long before Dateline came knocking on their door.

 

[crypto6]

I think you're saying my post gave you the willies. Why?

I will try to take off my Freddy Kruger mask:

If I came home and found my 13-year-old daughter having sex with an older man, I would definitely turn him into LE, but I'd truly question why I as a parent weren't more in touch with my daughter's internet life, among other things.

It wouldn't however change my mind about the fact that To Catch A Predator feels like entrapment to me (and the post I was responding to opined that it would). I'm all about saving children from people who wish to harm them because I have lots of experience with child sexual assault and how much it hurts individuals and society.

I just don't know if To Catch A Predator is the right way to do that. I'd love to know more about the conviction rates of the cases they produce, capture and sensationalize. Is this DA the first one who has had issues with the evidence? I think these are important things to look at and consider.

LE all over the country performs internet sting operations to catch child sexual molesters. I'm not opposed to that in any way, shape or form. But it needs to be done correctly if convictions are to follow.

I hope you feel safer now!

I became blue in the fingers talking about how there was something not right about the notion of perve-for-view shows or some police stings. I thought (and still do) that these methods are entrapment.
In one case, an attorney drove to the sting house, got cold feet and left without going in. He was nabbed, charged and convicted. This may have been the only time he considered actually performing a pedophilic act, didn't follow through, and will never consider another act. Having a decoy respond online is certainly enticement and what follows is certainly entrapment nless the decoy is very, very good at mimicing youg girls. The decoy is an adult who knows how to push pedophiles' buttons and each transcript must be carefully examined for that. Some of the amateur decoys had appalling, adult-like come-ons which I am not comfortable with as being free from entrapment.
Most of the response I got was that these people are so bad we should use any means to take them off the street, even entrapment and projecting on them acts they haven't committed. It looks like a very steep, very slippery slope to me.

Crypto6

 

[crypto6]

The chat logs are on the PJ website - there are two people saying they aren't - but go and read it for yourself. It's right at all of our fingertips. There's also every other DA, every other judge, every other jury on every other PJ or 'Dateline' case that has found no problem at all with getting these logs.

I just don't agree that being paid (and not to make a 'dramatic and shocking' show - it's a documentary style, very straightforward, showing what is really out there - and not even the worst of it, if you read the chats of the pervs on the show) creates any appearance of impropriety - not alone.

LE was paid by Dateline? That again is something I don't recall seeing.


This was all pretty normal stuff - PJ works with LE all the time on their own cases. And neither is paid to do it. PJ is a volunteer organization supported by donations that has existed long before Dateline came knocking on their door.

Re: the chats on PJ: What I've seen are non-verified transcripts of conversations. I doubt PJ's system has checks in place to maintain the chain of evidence needed. Did someone get on a guy's computer, do the pedo internet troll, then send the guy to the decoy house on some pretense?? Are the alleged pedo’s computers under surveillance while the alleged pedo is typing to make sure they have the right guy??
These cases just are not strong enough to allow a conviction which will destroy someone’s life.

Crypto6

 

[southcitymom]

I became blue in the fingers talking about how there was something not right about the notion of perve-for-view shows or some police stings. I thought (and still do) that these methods are entrapment.
In one case, an attorney drove to the sting house, got cold feet and left without going in. He was nabbed, charged and convicted. This may have been the only time he considered actually performing a pedophilic act, didn't follow through, and will never consider another act. Having a decoy respond online is certainly enticement and what follows is certainly entrapment nless the decoy is very, very good at mimicing youg girls. The decoy is an adult who knows how to push pedophiles' buttons and each transcript must be carefully examined for that. Some of the amateur decoys had appalling, adult-like come-ons which I am not comfortable with as being free from entrapment.
Most of the response I got was that these people are so bad we should use any means to take them off the street, even entrapment and projecting on them acts they haven't committed. It looks like a very steep, very slippery slope to me.

Crypto6

You and I are on the same side of the street on this one, crypto6.

The arguments that we should get pedos (or any criminals) off the street by any means necessary holds little water with me ever. But that argument is even more appalling when the means a "reality" show uses to do this are slipshod, unverifiable, unprosecutable and, in many cases, downright illegal.

Regardless of what anyone wishes to believe, To Catch A Predator's main focus is ratings and I believe they are willing to keep their ratings up by any means necessary (and so be it if that is on the graves of people).

I truly don't believe the show will make it much longer, but only time will tell.

 

[Details]

Re: the chats on PJ: What I've seen are non-verified transcripts of conversations. I doubt PJ's system has checks in place to maintain the chain of evidence needed. Did someone get on a guy's computer, do the pedo internet troll, then send the guy to the decoy house on some pretense?? Are the alleged pedo’s computers under surveillance while the alleged pedo is typing to make sure they have the right guy??
These cases just are not strong enough to allow a conviction which will destroy someone’s life.

Crypto6

What you are describing is proof beyond any doubt - these guys have no problem admitting that this is what they said - if you watch the show, you'd see that. What transcripts you've seen are verified - there's a separate server - PJ has a nice FAQ all about it - costs them some expensive hardware to get their evidence all nice and solid. Then they talk to the guy on the phone - all nice and recorded.

 

[Details]

I became blue in the fingers talking about how there was something not right about the notion of perve-for-view shows or some police stings. I thought (and still do) that these methods are entrapment.
In one case, an attorney drove to the sting house, got cold feet and left without going in. He was nabbed, charged and convicted. This may have been the only time he considered actually performing a pedophilic act, didn't follow through, and will never consider another act. Having a decoy respond online is certainly enticement and what follows is certainly entrapment nless the decoy is very, very good at mimicing youg girls. The decoy is an adult who knows how to push pedophiles' buttons and each transcript must be carefully examined for that. Some of the amateur decoys had appalling, adult-like come-ons which I am not comfortable with as being free from entrapment.
Most of the response I got was that these people are so bad we should use any means to take them off the street, even entrapment and projecting on them acts they haven't committed. It looks like a very steep, very slippery slope to me.

Crypto6

Some of the teen girls are also very good at come-ons. It's the willingness to go for a underage child that is the problem.

For the attorney - talking online is the crime - going to the house is just something they like to have for TV - and it's a nice bonus in the trial - but just the dirty pictures they send (often of their own genitalia - no way that was some evil computer-hopping pedophile framing innocent guys) are illegal. Tried and convicted - obviously the jury didn't think it was entrapment at all. Obviously as an attorney, he knew how to get a fair trial and all of his rights - and he was convicted. Not of sex with a minor - he didn't do that. Of what he did do - he talked dirty, probably sent porn to a child (or so he thought, so he would have done if it were a real child).

A normal man just isn't interested in having a sex chat with a child. They don't start it (and it's always the perv who starts it - PJ volunteers only talk neutral topics until the perv starts in on the sex talk).

I gotta say, I think you are horrendeously mischaracterizing the responses you recieved - most of them were NOT that pedophiles are so bad that any means are OK. It's not enticement to have a profile of a 14 year old girl - that's the real world - 14 year old girls exist. It's not entrapment to say "Hello" when someone says "Hello" to you first. But then - the guys have to go and start talking sex - they approach a child, and start talking sex. Adults everywhere, and they choose the underage. It's their choice, and there's no entrapment to watch and see it happen. Everyone who has tried it for themselves has been disgusted at how fast they get hit on by a batch of pervs.

There's no entrapment. We've got the equivalent here of someone going into a chat room, some other person opening a chat, exchanging basic info, then asking if the decoy would like to perform a murder for hire. There was no enticement, no encouragement, no nothing. We've read the transcripts - "how's the weather where you live?" is about as sensual and flirtacious as it gets - until the perv starts talking sex. Even then, the decoys are pretty shy - like a real child would be.

 

[mysteriew]

PJ gets money.... They do the chats (volunteer usually), then they go to the site participate in the sting, provide decoys and collaboration for the TV work (collaboration is commonly used for shows like CSI, Cold Case and Law and Order), time off work, travel expenses, incidentals, etc. They get money for what they are doing over and above the chat/submission to LE.

They don't give the names of the volunteers....Why would a producer want to know their names anyway? If I were strong enough to do it, I wouldn't want my name used either. Some of these guys are dangerous enough to try to hire hitmen for their own family members to keep them from testifying against them- what would they do to a PJ volunteer? Undercover police officers also don't give out their real names, often CI's don't either. Their names are often protected even in court. And basically what a PJ volunteer is, is a confidential informant.

They come on to the guys... the guys initiate the chat, they send the explicit pictures, they bring up sxx (the activity), and the volunteers respond in a way that teens and even preteens will often respond... and yes, sometimes it is flirtatous. They attempt in every way to respond like teens and preteens will often respond online.

Entrapment... basically they do what teens and preteens do online. If anything they are more restrained than many teens. If they are guilty of entrapment, then so is every teen/preteen online who meets up with the pervs. So are you saying that if a teen/preteen goes online and talks to someone and they end up in a hotel room somewhere- they shouldn't be prosecuted because they "trapped" the guy?

ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e024.htm

Some say that the show has no effect on the predator problem. But I think it does make them think twice.... think of the number of predators who ask the volunteer if they are connected with "To Catch a Predator"! Yet even though the thought crossed their minds- they proceed. I think the ones who just thought about it and wouldn't do anything would quit at that point. The ones who are getting caught are truly the worst of the worst. It isn't like the show is a secret, and that someone who goes online and arranges to meet a child is not aware that the person they are talking with might be either a) a police officer or b) a PJ volunteer. So when they proceed, they have faced that and gone past it.

Police humor- if a rubber chicken is the worst an officer has done, I would say lucky perps. Officers have been known to make perps cry and wet themselves (due to interrogation tactics.) Of course perps have been known to make their victims cry and wet themselves too (forcible rape when the children change their minds.)

 

[mysteriew]

PJ busted another one

The guy drove more than 300 miles to get to the site. He changed his mind and turned around and left. But then drove back the next day and got busted.
http://www.local12.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=45ccf7ec-3ff3-482a-befd-23a806a39b02 :clap:

 

[Rayemonde]

Sept 2008:

Now, one of the men, 54-year-old Randall Howard Wolford, has been arrested again and charged with the online solicitation of a 13-year-old girl, who police said was actually an undercover officer...

The difference between Wolford's original arrest and his most current one, which was made by the Sansom Park Police Department near Fort Worth, is that the last one was made totally under police control. Collin County District Attorney John Roach had to throw out the Murphy arrests because of the involvement of television crews.

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/2014/08/06/13420828/

 

[Rayemonde]

April 2009:

Randall Howard Wolford, of Midlothian, Texas, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge John McBryde to 292 months in prison, announced acting U.S. Attorney James T. Jacks of the Northern District of Texas. In December 2008, a federal jury convicted Wolford, 55, on one count of enticement of a child. Wolford has been in custody since September 2008 when he was charged in a federal complaint. He was indicted by a grand jury in Fort Worth the following month...

The undercover officer repeatedly denied being law enforcement or working for Perverted Justice, as Wolford accused...

http://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/txn/PressRel09/wolford_PSC_sen_pr.html

 

[Rayemonde]

July 2010 - Randall Wolford appeals. The judges affirm.
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/09-10454/09-10454.0.wpd-2011-03-16.html

 

[Rayemonde]

October 2014:

Two Northern Indiana school districts unknowingly hired a substitute teacher who appeared on Dateline NBC’s “To Catch a Predator.”

Stanley Kendall, 62, subbed for classes in both Penn-Harris-Madison and Plymouth schools this fall, according to school officials. Though both school corporations ran a background check on Kendall before was hired, the 2006 incident in which he was charged with “online solicitation of minor under 14 years of age” didn’t appear because the case was dropped on a technicality.

Instead, an Argos resident saw Kendall on the show, which initially aired in February 2007, and told Plymouth Community Schools about it, according to a news release from P-H-M Schools.

http://m.elkharttruth.com/news/crim...plymouth-and-penn-harris-madison-schools.html

 

[Rayemonde]

June 2008:

NBC Universal has “amicably resolved” a $105-million lawsuit filed by a woman whose brother committed suicide during a taping of its controversial “Dateline NBC” series “To Catch a Predator,” both parties said today.

Bruce Baron, an attorney for Patricia Conradt, told The Times in an interview today that “the matter has been amicably resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.”...

In her lawsuit, Patricia Conradt accused NBC of being “concerned more with its own profits than with pedophilia.”

She claimed a police officer at the scene of the shooting told a “Dateline” producer: “That’ll make good TV.”...

[Judge Denny] Chin dismissed some causes of action but said in his ruling that the network “placed itself squarely in the middle of a police operation, pushing the police to engage in tactics that were unnecessary and unwise, solely to generate more dramatic footage for a television show.”

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/06/nbc-resolves-la.html

 

[wendybtn]

You can't be entrapped if you don't have bad intentions. Keep your nose clean and you'll be fine.

And the distance some of these guys would drive to get to these very young kids! That is no accident that they came straight to the given address. These are men ( at least on this show) who are unable to date and feel comfortable with women their own age. Or they are only turned on by thinking they are looked up to and teaching this young person about the world. This has to be a diagnosable mental illness or a personality disorder of some type. JMO

 

[wendybtn]

June 2008:



http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2008/06/nbc-resolves-la.html

Wow, a mind-reading judge. That we could all make decisions affecting other people's lives by assuming what they are thinking.

 

[wendybtn]

October 2014:



http://m.elkharttruth.com/news/crim...plymouth-and-penn-harris-madison-schools.html

Shows how effective background checks are. The stuff the gov't tells us to make us feel safe! Unbelievable!

 

[wendybtn]

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Something about "To Catch a Predator" really rubs me the wrong way. There was a long thread about it on here once. It wreaks of entrapment to me.

I'm all about getting pedos off the streets, but I just don't know if this is the way. The DA seems to me to make some good points about why these cases can't be prosecuted. Certain things have to be done right to properly prosecute.

I might respect "To Catch A Predator" if it had LE's and the DA's support and approval. But I doubt LE and the DA would support a reality tv show of their operations - just too much conflict of interest inherent in that proposition.

I could see where a person could see an entrapment. But some of the ones I watched, men drove hundreds of miles to sleep with a 13 year old boy or 14 year old girl, etc. It is not like they decoys approached them on the street and offered to take them in a back room or alley. These men went a long, long way to entrap themselves. Some even said "I worried it was a sting." But they went anyway! Their needs killed all their thinking. See the case of Justin Bluxom in Louisiana.