baps

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by baps 3y ago

   [flagged]
2. 2.▲
   by baps 3y ago

   That sounds quite the unlikely tale. How would you explain the child pornography they found at his home, was that a prank too?
3. 3.▲
   by baps 3y ago

   The 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submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made.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&#x2
4. 4.▲
   by baps 3y ago

   Seems 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 an
5. 5.▲
   by baps 3y ago

   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
6. 6.▲
   by baps 3y ago

   Yes exactly this. If they were false charges as he claims, then he wouldn't be listed on the sex offender registry. His story just doesn't add up.
7. 7.▲
   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