4 ms·
> The cop went in believing that a pedophile were almost certainly present (because a child's parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matt
by baps 3y ago
> The cop went in believing that a pedophile were almost certainly present (because a child's parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what.
The articles I linked above state that it was a sting operation. The perpetrator thought he was paying $500 to the uncle of a 12-year-old girl (who was apparently still slightly too old for his liking) so that he could rape her, but really this was a scenario set up by the police to gather evidence, with the goal of preventing future harm to an actual child.
- withinboredom 3y agoThe guy who was actually there says they are false. Meh. I’d rather believe people than obviously corrupt/biased systems.
- baps 3y agohttps://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock https://casetext.com/case/people-v-bocock "When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant did not send e-mails, text messages, and have the phone conversations regarding having sex with a 12-year-old girl."
- withinboredom 3y agoSigh. After going on and on about how the state failed to actually prove the submitted evidence is actually true (merely circumstantial), but they aren’t allowed to do anything about it until a trial actually happens. Surprisingly, it looks like the trial never happened. Seems a little suspicious, does it not?
- baps 3y agoSeems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her. But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
- withinboredom 3y agoWhere the “procedural error” was literally proving the evidence is true. If the evidence isn’t true, then it’s pretty clear his only crime might simply be being profiled and arrested. We don’t know, and probably never will. Jumping to the assumption that he’s guilty from unverified evidence seems wrong to me. On a pretty fundamental level.
- baps 3y agoThe procedural error was that the prosecution neglected to have someone testify that the evidence submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made. That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement. I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
- withinboredom 3y agoWe don’t actually know if he did any of that. There was never a trial. For all we know, they were looking for their guy and he never showed. Then this posh British guy came in to get some coffee and they started chatting him up. Him, not knowing what is going on, decides “what the hell, I’ll play along with the prank” (note, he never said, in person, he was going to have sex with her). Turns out it wasn’t a prank at all, but they thought they found their guy and bam, he goes to jail. I’d be curious to hear the Duncan Donuts recording. I think that would be the deciding factor for me.
- baps 3y agoThat sounds quite the unlikely tale. How would you explain the child pornography they found at his home, was that a prank too?