"Internet Child Predator"

Internet Sting Operations

“When you’re on the Internet talking, you haven’t got a clue who that is on the other end…you don’t have a clue.”

These are the words of Lt. Ron Kenyon of the Sheriff of Erie County in New York as quoted in The Dallas Morning News (“Internet love triangle turns deadly when truth emerges” – Tuesday, January 23, 2007, p.6A). The story is about a middle aged man pretending to be a young Marine going to war, chatting on the internet with who he thinks is an 18 year old girl – in reality, a “40-something West Virginia mother using her daughter’s identity to attract Internet suitors…”

Neither of them knows the truth about the other. Then the woman starts sending the man lingerie along with fake pictures of herself – in reality, pictures of her daughter. Then the story takes an ugly turn when a third person gets involved and ends up getting killed.

I am sure many people read this story and shook their heads in disappointment, and perhaps cautioned themselves and their loved ones never to believe anything someone tells them about himself/herself on the Internet because “you don’t have a clue” who it is on the other end.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone because it is considered to be conventional wisdom to assume that people lie on the Internet chats. Such wisdom has also been the subject of many comedy routines and cartoons. I remember seeing a cartoon in a newspaper where two people were shown meeting after an internet chat. They were holding flowers for each other, but when they met they realized that the self-description the other person gave them on the chats was false.

So far so good, and all is taken in almost light humor. However, there is only one exception to this conventional wisdom: If one of the two people happens to be an undercover police officer running a sting operation and pretending to be an underage person. Then no matter what the conventional wisdom says, and no matter how many times you have experienced similar lies on the Internet chats, and no matter whether you consider it to be a fantasy or not, you must absolutely have believed that you were chatting with an underage person as he/she claimed. The generally accepted wisdom of “when you’re on the Internet talking, you haven’t got a clue who that is on the other end… you don’t have a clue,” does not apply in this case. In a bizarre twist of logic and reality, suddenly the conventional wisdom is not applicable anymore and you must absolutely have a clue. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Today, many Attorney Generals in many US states are running Internet sting operations to catch the so called “child predators”. Most people thus arrested are charged and convicted of the crime of “soliciting a minor.” These operations – which are solely based on political motivations – are not only anti-constitutional, but are diametrically opposite to the very basics of logic and reality. Here we will see some of these logical flaws in such internet sting operations.

The logical fallacy of these Internet sting operations becomes obvious as soon as one puts his prejudices aside and views these operations by replacing the alleged “crime against a minor” by any other potential crime. For example, one can’t be accused of “plotting and planning murder” when the alleged victim is a fictional character; or the alleged victim does not exist outside of the Internet chat rooms; and cannot be ever called to the witness stand in a trial. The defendant would logically and constitutionally have the right to ask the following questions:

“Who is the murder conspiracy victim?”
“In accordance with the 6th amendment of the US Constitution can I call the alleged victim to the witness stand?”

The logical and the factual response to these questions would be:

“There is no real victim and therefore, it is impossible to have the victim take the witness stand.”

Case dismissed! Because it is based on fiction and not on fact.

Now it is the same scenario where people are being trapped on the Internet almost daily by police and vigilante groups and accused of “soliciting a minor” when the alleged minor does not exist outside of the Internet chat rooms and is a fictional character. Obviously one has the right to ask the same logical questions here:


“Who is the minor victim?”
“In accordance with the 6th amendment of the US Constitution – which states, ‘In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…’[http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charter s/bill_of_rights_transcript.html] - can I call the alleged victim to the witness stand?”

The logical and the factual response would be exactly the same as before:

“There is no real victim and therefore, it is impossible to have the victim take the witness stand.”

But in this case, what follows is more bizarre than the actual accusation. The case is not closed. Instead the person is often convicted of the crime, sent to prison and condemned to register as a sex-offender for the rest of his life. In essence, he is grouped together with real child-molesters and rapists. This, in reality is the modern-day equivalent of the Salem Witch-hunts of the 17th century New England.

Word Analysis

The fallacy becomes more obvious when we analyze these sting operations against the very basic definitions of the words Justice and Just as defined in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary [http://www.merriam-webster.com]:

Justice: The maintenance or administration of what is just; conformity to truth, fact or reason.
Just: Having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason.

People instinctively know the meanings of the words truth and fact. However, we will analyze their definitions in detail to fully understand not only what justice is, but also what justice is not. As the above definitions explicitly state, justice must conform to truth and fact. Therefore, anything not administered in conformity with truth and fact is not justice – i.e. it is injustice. Let us see what truth and fact mean:

Truth: Fact; the body of real things, events and facts; actuality; the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
Fact: The quality of being actual; something that has actual existence; an actual occurrence; a piece of information presented as having objective reality.

Thus, justice is the administration of things in conformity with what actually happened in objective reality.

Therefore, injustice is something that is not in conformity with what actually happened in objective reality. We are now getting closer to fully understanding the meanings of justice and injustice. Let us see what the words Actual, Real, Reality and Objective mean:

Actual: Existing in act and not merely potentially; existing in fact or reality; not false or apparent.
Real: Not artificial, fraudulent, illusory, or apparent; having objective independent existence.
Reality: The quality or state of being real; a real event, entity, or state of affairs; in actual fact.
Objective: Having reality independent of the mind; expressing or dealing with facts conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretation.

So, justice is the administration of real things in conformity with what actually happened, rather than merely potentially. It must be in conformity with facts that have an existence independent of one’s interpretations, feelings or prejudices. Anything that needs to be interpreted using one’s feelings and prejudices is not justice. Since justice has to do with reality, it cannot be based on artificial, fraudulent, illusory or apparent things by definition. Thus, anything based on artificial, fraudulent, illusory or apparent things without an objective and independent reality is by definition opposite of justice – i.e. it is injustice.

But what do the words Artificial, Fraudulent, Fraud, Illusory and Apparent really mean?

Artificial: Humanly contrived often on a natural model.
Fraudulent: Characterized by, based on, or done by fraud; deceitful.
Fraud: Intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right; an act of deceiving or misrepresenting; a person who is not what he or she pretends to be.
Illusory: Based on producing illusion.
Apparent: Manifest to the senses or mind as real or true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid; not actually being what appearance indicates; a false impression based on deceptive resemblance or faulty observation, or influenced by emotions that prevent a clear view.

In other words, justice – which is based on facts and objective real existence of actual things – cannot be based on artificial things created deceitfully to misrepresent something or someone in a manner to deceive anyone from surrendering his legal rights – constitutionally given – merely on the basis of evidence that may or may not be factually valid.

Hopefully the reader now has a clear understanding of the meaning of the word Justice. It is important to understand what justice should be based on, and to clearly distinguish it from injustice. It is a sad fact that sometimes legislators, judges and lawyers ignore the very basic definition of justice and implement laws and rules that are diametrically opposite of this basic and clear definition.

Now, let us analyze these Internet sting operations in the light of these definitions we have just studied. In such operations, typically an adult police officer deceitfully creates a false profile depicting an underage person. He then chats with other people on the Internet giving their senses an illusion that he is actually an underage person. The officer then fully participates in exchange of sexual messages with this person and encourages him to meet the officer at some location. When the person arrives at the pre-arranged location, he is arrested and charged with “solicitation of a minor”. The judges, the juries and the prosecutors then proceed to interpret the accused person’s actions in the light of their feelings, prejudices and personal biases. There is absolutely no way to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what a person believed while chatting with the artificial underage character on the Internet. However, judges and juries regularly find such allegedly “child predators” guilty of “soliciting a minor”.
The whole case from start to finish is based on artificial, fraudulent, illusory and apparent things. No real minor is ever involved in such cases. Therefore, objectively it is impossible for the accused to actually solicit a minor in reality. That is the fact – a fact that can never be logically disputed by any legislator, judge, prosecutor or logician. The “minor” whom the accused allegedly solicited or attempted to solicit does not exist in actuality.

Thus, all the things inherent in the definition of justice – fact, objective reality, truth, actual and objective existence – are violated with these sting operations. To the contrary, all the things that are opposite of justice – fraudulent, deception, illusory, apparent, subjective interpretations based on feelings, prejudices and biases of “could haves” – are part and parcel of these Internet sting operations.

There is injustice going on at a grand scale throughout the United States, but people are silent about it and accepting these convictions of “internet child predators”.

It is quite interesting that the name of one of the most prominent vigilante groups that often helps police in conducting these sting operations and helps run the media circus “To Catch a Predator” run by MSNBC is “Perverted Justice”. Let us examine the meanings of the words Pervert and Perverted. These terms have popularly been used to describe anyone who, in the eyes of the general public, has any sexually deviant characteristics. However, that is just one limited use of the terms. In reality, the basic meanings given in the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary are more broad and general:

Pervert: To overturn, corrupt; to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted; misdirect; to divert to a wrong end or purpose; misuse; to twist the meaning or sense of.
Perverted: Corrupt; to alter from the original or correct form or version; to cause disintegration or ruin.

With these definitions, the term “perverted justice” literally means “corrupted justice,” – i.e. injustice – “to overturn, misuse and misdirect justice,” – i.e. injustice – “to cause disintegration or ruin of justice,” – i.e. injustice – “to turn aside or away from the generally accepted meaning of justice,” – i.e. injustice – or “to alter justice from its original or correct form or version” – i.e. injustice. I am not surprised. This is precisely, as we have seen, what is happening with these Internet sting operations. They are based on fictional and illusory stuff rather than fact, objective reality or actual existence. Thus, they have caused justice to disintegrate and ruin, and have altered its application from the original and correct form.

Logically speaking, this is the only conclusion one can draw. But I know many people – including many US legislators, judges, prosecutors and politicians – will shout and cry and call me all sorts of names because they have absolutely no logical answer to my arguments. Their responses are merely based on the illogic of interpreting fantasies and fiction as fact – irrespective of the truth – based on personal feelings and prejudices. It is all irrelevant and childish. None of them can refute these logical facts in a logical way, and so they must jump up and down and bring up emotional and prejudicial arguments to support these utterly ridiculous, illogical and unjust sting operations. They deserve no respect whatsoever by anyone who has any sense or understanding of basic logic and reality.

The Nature of Witch Hunts

So, the question is why this obviously flawed law not being challenged by the people? It is to be understood that all witch hunts are based on issues that the general public is emotional about. If the public were not emotional about the issue of witchcraft – which was said to threaten their children and their future – the politicians behind the Salem Witch-hunts would not have been able to frighten people and stir them up emotionally to support them in their witch hunts. Similarly, if the people were not scared about the terrorists and the future safety of their children, the Bush Administration would not have been able to rile them up to support its invasion of Iraq.

Since everyone is emotional about their children and since there have been cases where children have been kidnapped, sexually molested or mistreated, it is easy to frighten people about all these “wolves” out there preying on their children via the Internet. Once this fear is established, the basic logical questions are not asked, except by a few “child-predator sympathizers” or “stupid” people who “don’t care about the future of the United States”.

It was Hitler’s chief propaganda specialist who once said that once people are scared enough you can make them call a square a circle and a circle a square. There is no easier way to frighten people than by proposing a threat to their children. Once that fear is established, it is easy to make them accept that a fictional person is a real victim, and a person can be convicted of “soliciting a minor” when no real minor is ever involved. It is then also easy to make people make the only exception to the conventional wisdom that no one tells the truth on the internet: In case a police officer is lying about himself and pretending to be a minor, then those chatting with him on the Internet must assume that his lies are actually truths; if someone ever applies the conventional wisdom in this case – which happens to be true since the police officer is obviously lying about himself – then he can be convicted of soliciting a non-existing minor. This is a classical case of circular and logically flawed reasoning at its best. But who really cares when he/she is frightened by all those “wolves,” “witches” and “child-predators” lurking behind the shadows to prey on his/her future – their children.

We all know that about 2500 years ago one of the major charges against Socrates, the great Greek philosopher, was that he was “corrupting the youth” (Socrates’ Way – Seven Master Keys to Using Your Mind to the Utmost By Ronald Gross – New York 2002, p.170). If a great and honest man like Socrates could not survive such propaganda and had to pay with his life, what chance do ordinary people have today, especially in the face of the technology and resources available to the propaganda strategists of today?

Every politician needs to show the public that he did something special for the people so that his political power is strengthened, and, in a democratic society, he can use it to gather votes in his next election campaign. In the US many judges, Attorney Generals and district attorneys are elected officials. They need to project an image to the public that they are tough on crime and are protecting the interests of the general public. In this respect the person who can project an image of being more “pro-active” in going after criminals, will win public confidence.

Let us view some statistics regarding crimes against children in the US. Statistically about 95% of child-molestation cases occur at the hands of family members or other acquaintances of the child’s family. Of the remaining 5%, many occur at the hands of child predators who lurk by schools and parks, and kidnap children from there or from the streets. [http://preilly.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/the-facts-about-inte rnet-sexual-abuse-and-schools/] and [http://www.jimhopper.com/abstats/]. There are only a handful of cases where child-molestation happened due to an internet contact.

Let us consider the example of Texas. In Texas the Attorney General’s - Greg Abbott – office launched the Internet sting operations in May of 2003. In two and a half years prior to that the number of people arrested for crimes against children was approximately 4800. During the two and a half years since the launch of these sting operations, the number of people arrested for crimes against children was approximately 5050. [http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/pa ges/crimestatistics.htm]

These statistics are quite interesting. First, the number of people arrested in the sting operations by the end of 2005 was about 200. This means that the general crime rate against children did not fall at all as a result of these sting operations. 5050-4800=4850, which is about the same number that were arrested in the two and a half years prior to the start of these sting operations. Thus, if the purpose of these sting operations was to prevent crimes against children, then the program failed. Someone might try and argue that the sting operations were successful as they prevented an additional 200 children from being targeted. But that would be true only if the potential 200 victims were real. The fact is that while the actual number of crimes against real children remained virtually the same, the Attorney General’s office spent millions of dollars in pursuing, trapping and arresting people who never really chatted with or molested any real children. The Attorney General’s office received a huge budget for these sting operations – a vastly disproportionate amount considering the fact that the sting operations arrested only about 200 people - who potentially posed a threat against fictional minors – compared with 4850 who committed crimes against real children. That is a mere 4% of the total arrests for crimes against children.

Further, one would expect that those who were “preying on children” over the Internet must also be the type of people who were preying on children outside of the Internet. Therefore, at least a big proportion of those arrested in the Internet sting operations should have been arrested for crimes against children even without the Internet sting operations. However, the statistics don’t show that. The 4% surge in the number of people arrested, when comparing data for two and a half years prior to the beginning of the sting operations with data for two and a half years since the launch of these operations, is precisely the number of people arrested in the sting operations. Thus, the sting operations had absolutely no affect on the general rate of crimes against children.

Let us look at the details of sexual crimes against children in Texas before the start of the sting operations and compare them with the sexual crimes against children after the start of these Internet sting operations:

2002 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2002 – 12/31/2002)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
994
Indecency with Child by Exposure
2
Indecency with Child by Contact
815
Sexual Assault of Child
508
Total
2319
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2002.pdf]

2003 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2003 – 12/31/2003)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1139
Indecency with Child by Exposure
3
Indecency with Child by Contact
1072
Sexual Assault of Child
509
Total
2723
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2003.pdf]

2004 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2004 – 12/31/2004)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1314
Indecency with Child by Exposure
10
Indecency with Child by Contact
954
Sexual Assault of Child
624
Total
2902
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2004.pdf]

2005 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2005 – 12/31/2005)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1210
Indecency with Child by Exposure
39
Indecency with Child by Contact
1049
Sexual Assault of Child
680
Total
2978
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2005.pdf]

2006 Criminal Conviction Rates in Texas (1/1/2006 – 12/31/2006)
Aggravated Sexual Assault of Child
1229
Indecency with Child by Exposure
93
Indecency with Child by Contact
1011
Sexual Assault of Child
708
Total
3041
[http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/ch l/ConvictionRatesReport2006.pdf]

These trends show an interesting picture. The Texas Attorney General started his Internet sting operation in May of 2003. The total number of convictions of actual sexual crimes against children – not including Internet solicitations – has steadily increased after the launch of these sting operations. In 2002 – before the launch of these sting operations - the total convicted sexual crimes against children was 2319. This number rose to 2723 – a raise of 404 - in 2003 after the launch of the sting operations. Then, in 2004, there was another increase of 179 (583 compared to 2002). This rate continued to rise in the next two years – 76 (659 compared to 2002) in 2005 and 63 (722 compared to 2002) in 2006. So, after the launch of the sting operations, there was sharp rise in actual crimes against children – 17% in 2003, 25% in 2004, 28% in 2005 and 31% in 2006. While the Attorney General was busy arresting and convicting “Internet Child Predators” – the witches – for soliciting fictitious non-existing children, real children in Texas continued to get sexually targeted at an ever increasing rate.

So, are these sting operations a failure? From the Attorney General’s perspective they are a huge success, not because they are protecting children – there are actually no real children involved there and the cases are based on fictional “what-if” hypothetical scenarios and the philosophy of pre-emptive strike – but because they bring huge political and financial gains for the people involved.

First, the Attorney General, the district attorneys, the judges and the sheriffs – all elected officials in Texas – have in these operations a visible element of pro-active action to “protect our children”. When a real child predator is caught – not in a sting operation but in a real incident – the case shows the public that the accused did something bad to some real child and when the child told, the person was arrested. There is no visible element of pro-active involvement by the Attorney General’s office in such a case. On the other hand, with these Internet sting operations he is able to make big news as someone who is “pro-actively going after” these “monsters” and is using pre-emptive strikes against them before they use their “weapons of mass destruction”.

If the police arrests 4800 actual child-molesters after they have committed the crime, it does very little for the Attorney General’s popularity; but if 200 “Internet child predators” are arrested, that brings the Attorney General in the limelight as a “savior”. So the “Internet child predators” – the witches of today – serve perfectly for the purpose for all those who need big news for their political careers.

Politically, these Internet sting operations serve a double purpose: One, the Attorney General can boast his success through publicizing these cases; and two, he doesn’t have to worry about answering the public about the consistently increasing rate of sexual crimes against real children. The publicity and the media give the impression to the public that the Attorney General is a hero who is pro-actively going after these “monsters” to “save our children”, so no one asks about those other 4800 cases against real children or those extra 31% real children who have become targets of sexual crimes in Texas since the launch of these Internet sting operations.

It is no wonder that in 2006 both the Attorney General, Greg Abbott, and the lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, of Texas ran their re-election campaign on the platform of “protecting our children” from these predators. They were both re-elected very easily. Just before the elections they also went to the Texas legislature and proposed the death penalty for repeat sex-offenders. Just before the elections, the Attorney General’s office also coordinated an internet sting operation with the vigilante group “Perverted Justice” – a very appropriate name for a group that does actually pervert the entire justice system - which runs a show “To Catch A Predator” on MSNBC, catching witches on entertainment television. In this operation 22 “predators” were arrested – one of them committed suicide. The news was all over the TV and newspapers for a few days. What better way to win support for a re-election then to run such an operation, giving the impression to the scared public that the Attorney General is “saving their children” from all these “wolves” roaming on the Internet highway. The arrests of a thousand actual rapists and child-molesters could not have given such publicity to the Attorney General’s campaign as these 22 arrests of “predators” of fictional minors did.

So, the number of actual children attacked never goes down – and in fact, the number of actual children who are targets of sexual crimes goes up - but the Attorney General and the lieutenant governor can still win the people’s admiration for “protecting our children”. What a great concept.

Flawed Justifications

Most states that run these Internet sting operations justify them by citing a study that was done by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children in 1999. One statistics often pointed out by law authorities to justify the sting operations is that, according to the study, one in five (or 20%) of the minors who logged onto the Internet chats, were solicited for sex by other chatters. “ABC News” reported it in more sensationalist terms in a report in May 3, 2006 as follows:

“One in five children is now approached by online predators.”

What the news story and State officials purposely hide from the study is the fact that at least half of these solicitations were attempted by other juveniles instead of other adults. Further, it states that

"most youth are not bothered much by what they encounter on the Internet…Most young people seem to know what to do to deflect these sexual ‘come ons.'"

This is evident from the fact that none of the solicitations reported resulted in an actual sexual encounter or sexual assault.

This is a classic case of distorting reality with statistics. The States and propagandists shout the alarm to scare people into thinking that it is a huge epidemic that needs to be controlled by funding and re-electing the State officials who are “pro-actively” working against such predators to “protect our children”.

Another justification is given by drawing analogies between these Internet sting operations and prostitution or drug related sting operations. The argument is that after all police has been running prostitution and drug sting operations for a while and not too many objections have been raised against them; these Internet sting operations are similar to other sting operations and, therefore, valid. The fact is that there are some very important differences between the Internet sting operations and the prostitution or drug sting operations.

In a typical prostitution related sting operation a female police officer, dressed up like a prostitute, stands on city corners where people often solicit prostitutes. Some person then sees this “prostitute” and approaches her and has a face-to-face conversation with her and then proposes sex in exchange for money. There I absolutely no chance of this person mistaking the “prostitute” for some lady engaging in a role-playing fantasy. Similarly, in a drug related sting operation, an officer posing as a drug-addict starts hanging out in areas where drug dealers often sell drugs. A person then approaches the undercover officer and in a face-to-face conversation offers to sell him drugs – actual drugs. There is again no chance of him mistaking the “drug-addict” as someone engaged in a role-playing fantasy.

In both these cases, there is actual face-to-face contact and verbal conversation between the alleged criminal and the undercover police officer. Further, the charges are realistic. The person is charged with “soliciting prostitution” – instead of “soliciting a prostitute” – or with drug trafficking. Also there is no alleged victim in the charges or in the indictment against the alleged criminal. In addition, soliciting prostitution or selling actual drugs are not acts protected under the US Constitution. The 6th Amendment of the US Constitution is also not violated because the police officer posing as a prostitute or as a drug addict can be called to the witness stand without any logical problems. Since the charges are “solicitation of prostitution” or “drug-trafficking”, the person who is solicited for prostitution doesn’t have to be a prostitute, and the person approached for selling the drug doesn’t have to be a drug addict.

If you are talking to any woman (or man for that matter) and you propose that she (or he) have sex with you in exchange for money, then that is solicitation of prostitution regardless of whether the other person was an actual prostitute or not. Similarly, if you are talking to any person and offer to sell him drugs, then that is solicitation for drug-trafficking regardless of whether the other person an actual drug addict or not.

When we consider these Internet sting operations, the first stark difference is that there is absolutely no face-to-face contact between the alleged criminal and the undercover police officer. There is not even any verbal communication – only written communication. Secondly, the written interaction takes place on the Internet chats where lines between reality and fantasy, truth and lies are not very clear and where conventional wisdom teaches tat people often lie about themselves on the Internet. Further, Internet is often the medium where many people engage in their fantasies as is evident from people’s personal experiences and many cases such as the one cited at the beginning of this article.

Furthermore, the charge is “solicitation of minor”. A person has to be a minor for you to solicit him as a minor. Whereas a person doesn’t have to be a prostitute for you to solicit prostitution from her, a person must logically be a minor for you to solicit a minor. You cannot go and ask a 40 year old colleague at work for sex and be charged with soliciting a minor – that is a factual impossibility. But you can be charged with soliciting prostitution if you solicit sex from her in exchange of money regardless of whether she is a prostitute or not.

Another implication of the charge is that there is an alleged minor – and therefore, a victim – involved in the case. The “minor” cannot be called to the victim stand because the “minor” doesn’t exist. In the other sting operations the nature of the charge allows the undercover police officer to appear on the witness stand without posing any logical contradictions. Because the charges are not “soliciting a prostitute” or “soliciting a drug addict”, the undercover police officer does not have to be a prostitute or drug addict. But in the Internet sting operations since the charge is “soliciting a minor” or “attempting to solicit a minor”, the police officer cannot appear as a minor victim on the witness stand because of the obvious logical contradiction – i.e. that he/she is actually not a minor. Who did the alleged criminal solicit then if he didn’t solicit a minor? How can he call the victim to the witness stand if there was no actual victim? Therefore, the problem is not only due to the violation of the rights granted to the accused by the 6th amendment of the US Constitution, but also of a logical nature.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution gives people the freedom of speech, which is one reason people in the US are able to talk freely on the Internet and engage in fantasies. In the case cited at the beginning of this article, the 40-something year old mother lied and gave her age as 18 and engaged in a sexual and romantic fantasy – without her or the man involved in it ever explicitly calling it a fantasy. But neither she nor the man involved could be charged with anything because they were exercising their rights of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In fact, people often engage in what some might call bizarre sexual fantasies on the Internet – these fantasies range from adulterous sex between two people to fantasies of raping and being raped. Though rape is a crime, no one is ever charged with “soliciting rape” or “attempting rape” when he/she is only talking about it as allowed by the First Amendment. Here are examples of screenshots randomly taken from Yahoo User Chat Groups:




(click on images to view them)

The range of fantasies also includes women/men pretending to be minors having sex with older people, etc. Anyone who has engaged in cybersex has probably at some point encountered such people. All such speech is protected under the First Amendment. Suppose two consenting adults are chatting on the Internet. One of them pretends to be a minor and the other to be an adult. What these two people talk about is protected speech under the First Amendment; much like the speech between two other people – one wanting to be “raped” while the other talking about doing the “rape” on the Internet. Many people might consider such speech offensive and even sick, but it is not criminal. It is protected by the First Amendment. If not, then the police should be arresting all those people who appear on such chat rooms (or in private chats) and engage in this conduct on a daily basis.

But all of a sudden if one of the two adults happens to be a police officer pretending to be a minor, the same speech magically becomes illegal. The rights granted by the First Amendment to all people engaging in sexual fantasies on the Internet are suddenly not applicable if one of the people happens to be a police officer pretending to be a minor. Not only is the “Internet child predator” – as the accused is labeled – required to believe everything he is told by another chatter on the Internet, he is also singled out to be the only person who suddenly loses his First Amendment rights if the other chatter is an undercover police officer pretending to be a minor. He is prohibited from entertaining the fantasy of another chatter only if the other chatter is a police officer.
\
Now all of a sudden, without ever seeing the other person or even hearing his/her voice, the “Internet Child Predator” – who has a bunch of text in front of him that he has to interpret in the light of the nature of the Internet and his past experiences where others lied to him during chats – must believe, without any reasonable doubt, that he must be chatting with an actual minor – a minor that he will never be able to see or call to the witness stand during his trial.

We have seen that the fallacious analogy often drawn by legal authorities between these Internet sting operations and drug or prostitution sting operations does not stand the test of factual, logical or constitutional analysis. Yet there is no outcry about this; it is accepted as a valid way to put these “dangerous monsters” – these witches of today – behind bars.

I have drawn the analogy of these sting operations with witch-hunts of the 17th century New England. Someone might dismiss this by stating that what happened in the 17th century was different than what is happening now. It has been human tendency to recognize illogical laws and witch-hunts after the events have taken place. People who were living in the times of the 17th century witch-hunts did not view them as illogical; people living in the pre-civil-rights movement in the US did not view the racist laws as illogical; the Germans living in Nazi Germany during the time when the Jews were required to wear distinct clothes did not view that as an illogical law. There are many more examples of that. There are always justifications that people find to implement and accept illogical laws – laws that violate the very definition of the word “justice”. The key is to recognize these unjust laws and witch-hunts right up front while they are taking place. As I have shown in this article, it is very easy to recognize a witch-hunt: It will always have logical inconsistencies; it will violate the very basic definitions of justice; it will not be based on factual events; and, it will violate the US Constitution.

Nature of Axioms

Another argument that is made is that this is the law, and so it is the fault of those who violate it - no ifs or buts. People assert that every rule and law is based on certain assumptions and premises, and the law that allows these Internet sting operations also has certain premises and we should accept those assumptions and not question the law. It is therefore, important to address this argument before going any further.

It is important that the readers understand the very basics of the nature of logical premises and assumptions that form the foundation of any logical argument. These assumptions must be based on observable facts that are undeniable. An example can illustrate the point better:

We know that 1+1 = 2 is a mathematical fact – a reality. Suppose you are a criminal investigator investigating a murder. The doctor’s report says that the murder was committed before 2 o’clock on a particular day. You originally had one suspect. The suspect claims that he was at a bar around the time of the murder. You go to the bar for further investigation. The first thing you notice is that the fastest a person could travel from the bar to the scene of the crime would still take him a little over an hour. You ask a few people. There is no one who saw the suspect at the bar around 2 o’clock, but there are several eye witnesses who saw the suspect playing pool at the bar at 1 o’clock. Now based on the assumption of 1+1 = 2, you conclude that if the suspect was at the bar at 1o’clock and it takes a little over an hour to reach the crime scene from there, the suspect could not possibly have been at the crime scene at 2 o’clock, and therefore, he could not have committed the murder.

I hope this example clarifies to the readers the role of premises and assumptions in reaching a logically valid conclusion.

Now suppose in the above example, the investigator had used another assumption – instead of 1+1=2, you used 1+1=1.5. Based on this assumption you would have concluded that if the person left the bar at 1 o’clock, he could have still reached the crime scene between 1:30 and 2:00, and therefore, could have committed the murder. You could draw this conclusion because if 1+1 =1.5 and the distance takes just a little over an hour then 1 o’clock + 1 hour = 1:30, and he could then be there a little after 1:30. So the guy is arrested and taken to trial. Should the guy have to even go through the trial just because the assumption used by the detective is faulty? We know it I faulty because it is an assumption that is not a fact or reality. Since the assumption is not factual, the conclusion is false.

This example should make it clear that assumptions and axioms must be based on facts and reality and not just on someone’s whims.

Throughout human history, states have been guilty of making faulty laws because the underlying axioms or assumptions are not based on facts, but have been invented based on personal biases and whims. States have legislated segregated restaurants, schools, buses, etc. for blacks based on the faulty assumptions that blacks are inferior to whites (for example, in the apartheid South Africa and the pre-civil-rights movement in the United States); In the Nazi Germany, it was legislated that Jews wear clothing that distinguishes then from other people because it was assumed that Jews were inherently evil; In the 17th century New England, it was legislated that Quakerism be illegal because they were assumed to practice witchcraft. And there are many more examples. In each case the reason for the existence of these laws is that the underlying assumptions they are based on are fictional and not factual. The ideas that blacks are inferior or that the Jews are evil, or that the Quakers are witches, are all fictional – they have nothing factual in them. Therefore, any legislation based on these assumptions is bound to be faulty and unjust.

There are many more examples of faulty laws that have existed (and many still do exist) in many countries. In each case the reason is that the underlying axioms or assumptions are illogical and not based on facts.

This is an important fact that legislatures, and even members of the judiciary often overlook. They debate the validity of any law based on the constitution of the country alone. But logic comes before any constitution. The authors of a constitution assume certain logical facts and do not have to spell them out in the text of the constitution.

For example, nowhere in the United States Constitution one sees the statement that “1+1 =2 and not 1.5.” Such logical facts are assumed by the authors of the constitution. Therefore, today if someone proposes a law that 1 o’clock + 1 hour = 1:30 and not 2:00, the refutation against this will not be explicitly found in the U.S. Constitution, but the law should still not pass because it is based on an illogical and non-factual axiom.

If legislators and judges of any state would first check the logical and factual validity of the axiom at the base of any proposed law and discard any law that is based on false axioms, we would never have any unjust laws. The constitutional debate should only come after a proposed law has passed the test of logic and facts.

Some Basic Facts

A simple logical and factual analysis would show that a person that doesn’t exist – or exists only as a fictional character in an Internet chat room – cannot be murdered. Period. Regardless of what an accused person is thinking, believing or planning, he cannot factually or logically murder someone who is fictional. End of discussion. This is a logical fact. No one can dispute this. Similarly, a minor that doesn’t exist except in an Internet chat room cannot be solicited. Period. Regardless of what an accused person is thinking, believing or planning, he cannot factually or logically solicit a minor who is fictional. End of discussion. This too is a logical fact that no one can dispute.

It is for these reasons that a few judges in the US have thrown such cases out of their courts. For example, in 2005,

“U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple acquitted Jan Helder… of using the Internet to try to entice a child into sex. Helder’s attorney, J.R. Hobbs, had argued that his client didn’t break federal law because the person his client was accused of enticing wasn’t a minor. The ruling came just minutes after a jury returned a guilty verdict. Helder, 42, of Mission Hills, Kan., had faced a sentence of five to 30 years.”
[Judge tosses Cops’ internet sex-sting tactics – The Columbia [MO] Daily Tribune – August 3, 2005] and http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Aug/20050803News019.asp ]

What was interesting that when this news item was reported on the Internet on www.unknownnews.org, the first comment about the report was:

“Nobody but pedophiles want to see pedophiles get away with pedophilia”

This is a classical response by people who have been brainwashed into thinking a certain way: During the Salem witch hunts many people who sympathized with the witches or who argued that the witch hunts were illogical, were themselves accused of being witches; and from the more recent times, during the heat of the cold-war with the Soviets many people in the US who had a socialist outlook on politics were accused of being “commie-sympathizers” or “commies” themselves; many racists in the US classified those whites who were fighting for equal rights for blacks as “nigger-lovers”. This is a common response of one who is brainwashed so that he cannot see the obvious logical facts, but is programmed to react emotionally to all such things that refute his factually false assumptions.

In the above report, it further states that

“Hoping to make a dent in what appears to be a widespread problem, the Platte County Sheriff’s Department has made online child exploitation a priority.” [http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Aug/20050803News019.asp]

The Sheriff’s Department identified these “Internet predators” as a widespread problem that Missouri State was not going to put up with. Once again, if we assume that the rate of Internet-related kidnappings and sexual assaults in Missouri is similar to Texas, only about 4% of the arrests in cases involving crimes against children are from these sting operations. The vast majority of cases of child-molestation, child-kidnapping, and other such crimes do not occur through the medium of the Internet. How is it a “major problem” then? The fact is – as the statistics prove – that it is not. Just a police chief or a district attorney claiming it is a major problem doesn’t make it a major problem. The statistics have to back such a claim.

The reality is that this is a manufactured problem. Even the small percentage – compared to the total arrests made for all crimes against children - of arrests made from these sting operations are made from operations where the cops literally entrap the “predator” by behaving in ways that a child would never behave in. The reasons for manufacturing this “big problem” have already been discussed – i.e., to give the appearance of a concerned, pro-active individual who has dedicated his life to “protecting our children”, so that despite what the statistics say, he is perceived as a good police officer, judge, prosecutor, Attorney General, lieutenant governor, or governor. Now he can use this manufactured persona to get re-elected and to further advance his political career.

In fact, the overall rate of crimes against children in the U.S. has been going down steadily since 1990. However, if you listen to the media it seems that the American streets are crawling with child predators and other such monsters. The idea is to keep people scared so that when needed, new legislations can be passed to manufacture other “problems” so that the politicians can seem like pro-active heroes to the public. The following graph is taken from [http://preilly.wordpress.com/2006/12/27/the-facts-about-inte rnet-sexual-abuse-and-schools/]



(click on the image to view it)

As the statistics prove, the problem of the “Internet child predators” is not a big problem. For sure, there are a few people who are actively targeting children and other minors on the Internet. But it is nothing that can’t be handled with a little better education of our children and better security on the Internet. MSNBC’s “To Catch A Predator” claims – without any statistical evidence – that at any given time there are 50,000 Internet predators on the web in the U.S. If so many predators are daily targeting children on the Internet, then a little statistical calculation would show that they are highly unsuccessful and are basically wasting their time.

Let us assume that on a given day each of these 50,000 “predators” are targeting at least two kids each – a very modest estimate given that often chatters chat with many more people than just two on a given day. That means that at least 100,000 children are targeted each day. Over a period of 30 days (approximately, a month), at least around 3 million kids are targeted. Over a period of 12 months, at least 36 million kids are targeted. Let us see the countrywide records of how many kids per year have been targets of child-molestation as a result of Internet chats. The records would show that only a handful of cases of sexual assaults or kidnappings countrywide can be directly related to Internet solicitations. Since the cases are very few, they are not even reported separately. Judging from the news reports, we can assume that at most 10 cases of child molestation per year are directly related to Internet solicitations. That would be about 0.00003% success rate for these “50,000 predators”. Even if we assume that half of the estimated 36 million kids per year were repeat “targets”, even then 10 out of 18 million is about 0.00005%. Big problem? These potential “child predators” would have a much better chance at succeeding if they spent their time around schools and parks instead of the Internet.

Of course, MSNBC gets huge ratings for this show, and that means huge money. Therefore, it is important for them to make it a huge problem. How else can they justify this modern-day witch-hunt? In 2007, former Miss America, Lauren Nelson, also participated in hunting down these modern-day witches. Such is the case with witch hunts – every Tom, Dick and Harry (and Miss America) can act as law enforcement personals because rules and requirements of evidence for such cases have been changed so that fictitious stories are considered “evidence”; hence the media circus surrounding the issue.

A Challenge

In the end I would like to issue a challenge to all U.S. legislators, lawyers, judges, Attorney Generals and governors to have a public debate with me regarding this issue in a logical manner. Emotionally, anyone can jump up and down and dance around and scream “child predator” or “witch”- but can any of you refute the argument that one cannot solicit a non-existing minor, just like one cannot plan to kill a non-existing person?

Category: General

I came to the United States from Pakistan in 1989 to go to college. I studied at an Ivy League University and specialized in mathematics. In 1996, while I was still working on my Ph.D. thesis, I got married. I started working as a computer software consultant in the field of “Business Intelligence”. I had my first daughter in 1999 and my second daughter in 2001.

There were problems in my marriage. After the birth of our first child in 1999, my wife and I had some adjustment problems. We were living in New Jersey and there was no family support for either of us over there. I had just started a new job as a consultant. My company was unable to find me a project to work on and I had been on the bench for almost 6 months – getting paid to do nothing. Around the time my daughter was born, my boss told me that if the company is unable to find a project for me very soon, they might lay me off. Being the only breadwinner in the house – and now having a baby to provide for – this was a very depressing news for me. My wife was also going through hormonal changes due to the pregnancy. All this compounded to a lot of misunderstandings and disputes. It was nobody’s fault in particular. We were both still young and with no one to support and guide us through this change – and with financial and hormonal problems – things only got worst between me and my wife.

A few years later I actually read an article in a medical journal that after the birth of a child many couples go through a rough period because of the sudden change in eth dynamics of the relationship. However, at the time neither of us knew that. Her family started pressuring her to divorce me, but my mother who visited us briefly tried to mend things between us and for the time being divorce was avoided. But we never really recovered from the bitterness of that time. The problems we had never got resolved and it left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.

In 2000, we moved to Austin, Texas, where we were closer to my wife’s family. Since the differences between her family and me were never really resolved, we started having problems again. By the time my wife was pregnant with our second child, she and I had almost lost all the love that we once shared for each other.
I have given this background not to find any excuses or justifications for my mistakes that followed, but to give the context in which things took place. No human being is pure evil or pure good. We all have good as well as bad aspects of our characters. Therefore, it is important to understand the context before the readers jump to conclusions.

Now I was in a dilemma. I loved my daughters very much, but my marriage was a failure. My wife and I were living in the same house like strangers. I did not know how to resolve the situation. I didn’t want a divorce because I didn’t want my daughters to go through the pain of a broken home; yet marital relations between me and my wife were almost non-existent. It was around that time that I got involved in Internet chats.

It started very innocently. I would be at work, and did not feel like going home to my wife after work. So I would start chatting about sports on Yahoo Chats with various people. Since there was almost no communication between me and my wife, I felt happy to chat with people on the Internet.

Soon I discovered that people on the Internet were not just chatting about sports, but also about politics, religion, sex and every other activity known to humankind. I started chatting with various women – or, at least I thought they were women since you can’t really tell for sure who you are chatting with on the Internet. It was then that subconsciously I realized that perhaps I could hold on to my marriage for the sake of my kids and still enjoy female company. I am the first to say now that it was an extremely stupid reasoning. It was my biggest mistake. It was dishonest and unfair to my wife. I should have been open with her and should have either tried to resolve our problems or should have gotten a divorce. But hindsight is 20/20, and at that time I decided upon a course that not only hurt me, but also ended up hurting my family.

My chats with women on the Internet were about all sorts of things: religion, poetry, philosophy, politics and sex. Slowly, I started getting more involved in cybersex and the whole world of the Internet fantasies. During the two years that I was involved in this type of lifestyle, I chatted with thousands of women, and also met with several of them in person. Some of these personal meetings were merely to have lunch with and enjoy a conversation. But there were other women that I had affairs with.

From my experiences during my chats - and also from some of the personal meetings I had with some of the women – I realized that people often lie about themselves – their age, appearance, and sometimes even their gender – on the Internet. The deeper I got involved in that world, the more normal all the lying started to seem. I too started lying about my age and my appearance. The world of the Internet is a world where people feel free to assume any role, and to virtually live out their fantasies without ever having to specify that they are role-playing – that was assumed. In fact, in the beginning, when I would be chatting with a woman and she would start saying things that I didn’t realize were part of an undeclared fantasy, I would ask her about it. For example, one time this woman on the Internet told me that she wanted to be “raped”. From what I know about rape, it is a horrible thing that can happen to any person. So I asked her, “is this just a fantasy of yours or do you really want to get raped?” She got upset with me for “ruining the whole thing” for her. There were several such incidents where I “ruined” other people’s fantasies by actually identifying them as fantasies on the Internet. Soon, I learned to just play along and not ask too many questions.

Before I go about describing the details of my particular case, it is important for people to understand the concept of a Yahoo Profile. Yahoo, like other chat services, provides users with an identification webpage. On Yahoo, this page contains information like “Yahoo ID,” “Real Name,” “Nick name,” “Location,” “Age” and some other information. All this information, except for “Yahoo ID” is optional. That means that a person doesn’t have to fill any of those other fields out unless he/she wants to let other chatters know information about himself/herself. For example, if a chatter lives in Austin, and wishes other people to know that he is from Austin, he would put “Austin, Texas” in the “Location” field of his Yahoo profile. Now other chatters can look at his profile and know that he is from Austin, Texas.

There are two ways to view a person’s profile on Yahoo chats: One is to open the detailed profile webpage, and the other is to simply point the cursor at a person’s “Nickname” in the chat room and his gender, location and age from his profile will be detailed. Here is an example:




(click on the pictures to see them)

Here, just by pointing the cursor on the person whose nickname is “Ash” we get the following information:

1. The person’s Yahoo ID is ashley032283.
2. The person’s Gender is Female.
3. The person’s Age is 20.
4. The person’s Location is Austin, Texas.
5. The person has been idle for 2 minutes and 19 seconds.

Besides these five pieces of information, no other information from this person’s profile is displayed in this second shortcut method of viewing the profile. Of these, items 2 through 4 are optional.

I mostly used this second shortcut method to view the person’s profile. I would only open the detailed profile page just to quickly check if the person had any pictures. If there were no pictures, I would just shut the webpage close.

During my two years on the chat, a few times I chatted with people who claimed to be underage girls. It was not that I was looking for underage girls, but if a chatter in a chat room had a female sounding Nickname, I would say “Hi” and chat. If I then discovered through her profile that in the “Age” field she had entered an age less than 18, I would immediately stop chatting with her. Since the “Age” field is optional, many chatters leave it blank also, in which case there is really no way to tell how old the person you are chatting with is. However, I had developed my own checks to verify if the person was telling me the truth about her age or not.

One of the tests was to ask the person for a picture. Most people who have downloaded their pictures on their computers have more than one personal picture on the computer. Often people who are not telling the truth about themselves have either no pictures or just one picture – usually a fake picture of someone else that they downloaded from the Internet. Since I was married and wanted to conceal my identity, I myself had one fake picture – that I downloaded from the Internet – that I would give to people I chatted with. If people asked me for more, I would give some excuse. Similarly, if I asked a person for a picture and she sent me one picture, I would always ask for a second picture. If the person gave me some excuse, I assumed that the first picture was fake and not of the person I was chatting with. Though not 100% foolproof – nothing on the Internet is 100% foolproof – this test was based on several of my personal experiences. There had been several occasions where a person I was chatting with sent me just one picture and could not provide another picture, and then when I met her in person, I realized that she was not the same person on the picture.

Besides these checks that I had personally developed, there is absolutely no other way to determine who you are actually chatting with on the Internet. One time during the beginning of my chatting experience, I was chatting with a person who claimed to be a 15 years old girl and wanted to be “spanked by a teacher.” I was uneasy about her age and didn’t want to do anything illegal; I checked her profile, which stated her age in the “Age” field as 30. I then realized that it was probably some adult woman who wanted to do some role-playing. But to be sure, I asked, “You are actually 30, aren’t you?” She got angry with me for “ruining” her fantasy. This, along with some other experiences taught me that people just want me to play along with their fantasies rather than identify them as fantasies – they wanted it to sound as real as possible.

In October of 2002, I started chatting with a person (I will call her “Lisa” to protect her real identity) who told me during the chats that she was 19 years old – the “Age” field on her yahoo profile was blank. We chatted a few times and then decided to meet. She lived in a town about 45 minutes from Austin. I went there and met her at a pre-arranged location. When I saw her I was greatly alarmed by her youthful appearance – she looked like she was 15 or 16 years old. I and immediately asked her to show me a picture ID confirming her age as 19. At first she thought I was joking and she started laughing. I demanded to see an ID again, explaining to her that I didn’t want to do anything illegal and therefore, before I get involved with her, I needed to make sure that she was not underage. She became a little offended, but finally did show me her Texas State issued photo-ID that confirmed her age as 19. This was the only time that I met with someone who seemed like an underage girl. In reality, I never met any underage girls during those two years.

Category: General

On June of 2003, I was on a yahoo chat group called “Romance Sucks” under the user group of “Texas”. There I chatted with several people. One of eth people on that chat group was named “Amy”. I started chatting with “her”. I had quickly checked her Yahoo profile through the shortcut method and, as explained above, it showed me only the following information:

The person’s Yahoo ID was amy512817.
The person’s Gender was Female.
The person’s Age was 18.
The person’s Location was Austin, Texas.
And the idle time, which I don’t remember now.

So I started chatting with this person. Soon the chat turned sexual. At this point “Amy” told me that “she” was actually 13. Based on my past experience and the fact that “she” had deliberately showed her age in the optional “Age” field of her profile as 18, I assumed that this was yet another case of some woman wanting to role-play. At some point I think I also opened “her” full yahoo profile page to see if “she” had any picture on it. Here is what I saw on my screen:


(double click on the picture to view it)

There was no photo on “her” profile and again it showed “Her” age as 18. Not seeing any photo, I quickly closed “her” page and continued to chat with “her” and play along with “her” fantasy. The way “she” chatted also gave me the indication that I was chatting with an adult instead of a 13 year old. Towards the end of that chat “Amy” gave me “her” e-mail address and asked me to contact “her” via e-mail later. I didn’t have any intentions of contacting this person again because for me it was, like many others of my chats, a one-time online chat thing. So, I never contacted “her” after that.

Two and a half weeks passed by and I had even forgotten about this person. One day, while I was on Yahoo chats, suddenly I received a message from “Amy”. So we started chatting again. I was still thinking that I was chatting with an adult woman. In fact, at the beginning of this chat, the following took place:

maninaustin2003 (that was me): How old are u?
amy512817: Don’t you remember?
maninaustin2003: 18 I think.

At this point “Amy” told me again that “she” was 13. I still didn’t believe “her”. To check further, I asked “her” for a picture. “She” sent me a picture of a girl who seemed like a teenager – it was hard to determine the age from the picture. So, to confirm if it were “her” real picture or a fake picture, I asked “her” to send me another picture. “She” gave me some excuse for not having another picture. At that point I was sure that “she” was lying to me about “her” picture, and that “she” was not 13 but 18 or older. I any case, we continued to chat. We also talked about meeting in person. This was on a Monday, and I had a meeting for work later, plus I was still thinking of this only as cybersex where people often talk about “meeting in person” and doing things to each other – all part of a fantasy and role-playing. At one point “she” told me that “she” had an older sister who was 18. I asked “her” what “her” sister looked like and “she” replied:

amy512827: she is 18 and about 5’8”…don’t know how much she weighs…dark blonde hair, brn eyes…big boobies…she is in real good shape.

At that point I was thinking that “Amy” was describing herself.

In any case, we decided to log back on Yahoo chat in two days (on Wednesday) and then plan an actual meeting on Wednesday. I never logged on Yahoo that Wednesday and never contacted “her”. Two weeks passed by and I had again forgotten about “her”. Then on July 10th, I was on Yahoo chats when “Amy” yet again initiated contact with me. This time “she” seemed very angry and upset at me for not contacting her on that Wednesday. She started off by accusing me, “…u lied to me…” I was taken by surprise by this sudden aggressive message. I replied:

maninaustin2003: what?
maninaustin2003: how?

But then I realized who this person was and so I lied and this is what followed next:

maninaustin2003: u never came on yahoo the day we were supposed to meet.
amy512817: bs…
maninaustin2003: I am serious
maninaustin2003: I waited for u
maninaustin2003: all day
amy512817: I got on everyday to look for u…u lied

At that point I realized that this person was actually expecting a real meeting and was looking for more than just cybersex. So, to calm her anger, I suggested a meeting that day for real. At this suggestion “she” said:

amy512817: ya right…I was planning to be there and u didn’t even leave me a message or anything…that was rude…why would u do that?

Being so aggressive, this person kept putting me on the defensive. Now I was thinking that perhaps I should meet her for real to calm her down. So, I replied:

maninaustin2003: I am sorry
maninaustin2003: u have a new pic of urself?
amy512817: no…I gave I 1 already
maninaustin2003: u have more?
amy512817: nope.

Now having carried out my own check once again I was sure that “she” was lying to me about “her” age and “her” picture. On the other hand “Amy” wanted to make sure that this time I keep my promise and meet her; so “she” continued with her aggressiveness to put me in a corner:

amy512817: I was nice to u and honest with u and u treated me like crap…u lied and led me on…
maninaustin2003: I am sorry
maninaustin2003: I didn’t lie

So, now totally defensive and in a corner, I asked “her” to meet me. “She” replied:

amy512827: r u gonna b honest with me this time.
maninaustin2003: yes I am honest
amy512817: where

At this point I would like to ask the readers that if this conversation was taking place between two people, which of the two people would look like the one soliciting and pressuring for the meeting? Who is soliciting who? As is obvious from these examples – which can be verified by anyone through court records if one is interested – “Amy” was the one who was constantly and aggressively putting me on the defensive, accusing me of lying to her and being dishonest for not meeting her on previous occasions. “She” was the one who was soliciting a meeting.
For sure I did say many sexual things during the 3 chats, but the whole context as well as my background on the Internet chats should explain what was going through my mind. “Her” aggressive style and accusations at the beginning of the third chat - which, like the second chat was initiated by “her” - were confirmations in my mind that “she” was an adult.

A person who simply reads about my case may say that no matter what, it was my mistake that despite “her” telling me that “she” was underage, I continued to talk with her and also agreed to meet her. I admit that my behavior was irresponsible and stupid, but if one analyzes the behavior in the context of the following one would be able to see what mindset I was working under:

- I had been having such role-playing chats on the Internet for two years, and I was operating in that context.
- “Amy” had specially gone to “her” profile page and edited the optional “Age” field to tell the other chatters that “she” was 18.
- I performed my own checks and according to them, “she” was not underage and was an adult.
- After the first chat it was “Amy” who always initiated contact with me.
- In the 3rd chat, “she” was very aggressive and angry and pressured me to make sure that I meet her in person.

Also, I want to make it clear that just because I made a mistake that doesn’t mean that I now have to accept every illogical thing piled on me. Just because I made a mistake, doesn’t mean that I have to accept that 2+2 = 5. Just because I made a mistake, doesn’t mean that I solicited a non-existent minor. Logical fallacy is never acceptable regardless of what mistake one party has made.

In any case, on July 10th, 2003, after this third chat where “Amy” insisted upon meeting for real, I went to meet “her” at a pre-arranged location. When I arrived at the place, there was no “Amy”; instead, I was met by a bunch of police cars that surrounded my car. I was arrested and charged with “Criminal Solicitation of Minor”. “Amy” turned out to be a male, 40-plus years old police officer, Captain David Torsiello, who had been pretending to be “Amy” on the chats. In fact I was right. I had correctly assessed that “Amy” was not an underage person but an adult, which was exactly what the case was.

Category: General

The next day I was released on bail, and I hired a defense attorney. Finally, my wife also found out that I had been unfaithful to her. I lost my job. For two months I was jobless. I did have several successful job interviews, but eventually my potential employers would find out about my arrest and charge. This resulted in a couple of job-offers being withdrawn. I explained to these potential employers that I was not guilty, but they assumed from the nature of the charge that I must guilty. My family fell under heavy financial hardships, and needless to say that my marriage was almost over. Though my wife believed me that I was expecting an adult when I went to meet “Amy”, she was naturally heartbroken about my infidelity.

A couple of months later I found a contract job in Michigan and left my wife and daughters in Austin to work in Michigan. My wife and I had talked about counseling and potential mending of relations, but my financially-forced move away from her proved to be the deciding factor in our separation, and ultimately our divorce.

In the meantime, the DA’s office in Austin had assumed my guilt and started the plea-bargain process. I had already informed my defense attorney that since I am not guilty of the charge, I will not plead guilty to anything. Instead, at the suggestion of my attorney, I wrote a detailed letter to the DA’s office explaining my background on the Internet chats and the context in which my chats with “Amy” took place. Since at that point I did not have the chat logs, I tried to explain the various things about the chats from memory. I explained how I have experienced people lying and role-playing on the Internet and how I arrived at the conclusion that “Amy” must have been adult. I explained that the “Age” field on the Yahoo profile is an optional field and the only time I have seen people fill that out is when they want other chatters to know their actual age; and since “Amy” had put down “her” age as 18 there, I assumed that “she” was an adult. Further, I explained to him about my personal checks by asking for additional pictures. I told him that though at one point the thought that “Amy” might actually be a minor did cross my mind, but I never actually believed it; I tossed the thought away after seeing “her” age as 18 on her profile, and after “she” did not send me a second picture. This, coupled with the way “she” chatted, and especially her aggressive push to meet during the third chat, convinced me that “she” was an adult.

After I moved to Michigan, my defense attorney suggested that I find a reliable polygraph (lie-detector) examiner and take the test so that if I am speaking the truth, it can be seen in the test. I searched the yellow pages and found and experienced polygraph examiner – R.E.M. Polygraph – who, according to her resume, had been conducting polygraphs since 1980 and had conducted over 8000 exams till then. The results of the polygraph tests came out in my favor. Here are some parts of the results of the polygraph exam:

“EXAMINATION QUESTIONS: The following relevant questions were asked during the instrumental phase of the examination:

This past July 10th, did you make that date with “Amy” knowing she was a minor?
On July 10th, did you personally intend to meet with “Amy” believing she was a minor?
On July 10th, did you think you would be meeting a minor at that ball park in question?
Did you as an adult have any sexual encounter with a minor?

(All relevant questions were answered with a “NO”)

EXAMINATION RESULTS: From Naveed’s polygraph responses of “NO” to the above relevant questions and from the polygrams conducted, it is the opinion of this examiner that he did not exhibit the consistent significant physiological reactions which indicate deception. He appears truthful to the relevant questions in this exam.”

My defense attorney also suggested that I get tested by a psychiatrist to find out for our own knowledge whether I have any character disorders that characterize child-molesters. I contacted a very experienced psychiatrist in Michigan. He interviewed me for a couple of hours and then had me take some written and multiple choice tests. After conducting his tests he suggested that I also consult a psychologist because sometimes there are hidden abnormalities in a person’s character that he himself is unaware of. At his recommendation I met a psychologist the same day. The psychologist also interviewed me and then gave me some “projective tests” which look for hidden character flaws. Since the test questions were indirect – showing pictures and geometric figures and asking the subject to interpret them – it was impossible to fake the answers. The pictures and geometrical figures shown to me had to apparent relation to sex or control issues, and I had no idea what the “correct answer” would be on any of them.

Here are some excerpts the Psychiatric evaluation:

“On September 24, 2003, I spent two and a half hours in clinical examinations of Mr. Shams. During this time I reviewed his sexual history in detail, finding nothing out of the ordinary in regard to sexual practices… There is no history of substance abuse problems… Mr. Shams’ affection for his young daughters (ages 4 and 2 at that time) is quite evident and appropriate.”

The psychiatrist had given me two tests to look for the special personality disorders common among child-molesters. The doctor summarized the two tests as follows:

According to the “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2” I was described as someone who in “Interpersonal Relations” was deemed to be “quite outgoing and sociable,” having a “strong need to be around others, he us gregarious and enjoys attention.” In other words, unlike those who have the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, or paraphilic child molestation disorder, I was not an isolationist shying away from adult social relationships.

According to the “Millon Clinical Multi-Axial Inventory – III” test , “The MCMI – III profile of this man is generally typified by a well-balanced, easy going personal style. Although he evinces a desire for the esteem of others, these needs are pursued in a socially acceptable manner.” In other words, I was not the kind of person who has a polarized personality, fixated on control of others. According to the doctor’s report, “Although no Axis I clinical syndromes were suggested by the diagnostic profile, Mr. Shams’ personality configuration was that of a Histrionic Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Personality Features.” In other words, though the doctor didn’t find any personality disorders associated with child-molesters, he found another personality disorder whereby I tend to believe that no matter what the problem is, I can figure it out. This theme also occurred in the later tests conducted by the Psychologist.

The psychologist conducted three projective psychological tests – “Incomplete Sentences Blank Revised” (RISB), “Thematic Apperception Test” (TAT), and the “Rorschach Inkblots”. Here are some excerpts from the psychologist’s report:

“Mr. Shams’ response to the items on the RISB are not indicative of psychopathology… The items indicate an individual who is inclined to follow rules and to experience considerable guilt when he breaks rules. Evident is an individual who has a wide variety of interests, enjoys other adults, is empathic towards others, and is nurturing as a father. While Mr. Shams’ responses indicate that he is likely to be quick to come to the aid of others, he is less inclined to ask others for help. He tends to believe that with hard work he can solve any problems he encounters in his life.

“The results of the TAT yield stories appropriate to the stimulus materials. Evident are themes of positive adult relationships… Evident themes do not include issues of control or manipulation. Evident themes do include qualities of being understanding of and nurturing towards children.

“The results of the Rorschach yield evidence of good personality integration. Evident is an individual who overall has good impulse control and an individual who will use fantasy to deal with impulses. Evident also is a person who can and will use fantasy in a creative, problem solving way.”

In other words, the three tests indicated that I had a personality where I was nurturing towards children, had adult interests and was unlikely to ask others for help. Instead I used fantasy to solve my problems. This is exactly what happened in my life. I was having problems in my marriage and instead of seeking help from others, I resorted to the fantasy life finding escape in the fantasy of the cyber world.
The psychologist continued to summarize the results of the three tests :

“The results of the projective tests are significant both for what is evident and for what is not evident.

“Evident is a bright individual who is creative in dealing with issues and problems in everyday life… Evident is a man who is mature in his interactions with others and who demonstrates adult interests and an adult perspective on human relationships and interaction. His impulse control and control over emotions, even strong emotions, is good… He tends to use fantasy as a way of problem solving and as a way of emotional release…

“Mr. Shams demonstrates a strong sense of right and wrong and desires to do what is right… he does not appear to be fixated in early developmental stages of life and displays appropriate adult interests. He does not display an inappropriate interest in children. Rather he consistently displays an empathic understanding of children as well as protective qualities towards children.

“… There is no evidence of an individual with poor impulse control. There is no evidence of an individual with anti-social or psychopathic tendencies. There is no evidence to suggest that Mr. Shams is sadistic or unduly focused on controlling others. He does not display either a conscious or an unconscious desire to control others for his own satisfaction. He does not display an avoidance of adult interaction or adult relationships. He does not display poor impulse control.”

These results that not only do I consciously or subconsciously not display the characteristics – poor impulse control, lack of empathy for children, desire to control others, avoidance of adult social relationships, fixation on childhood development stages, etc – that are common in child-molesters, but that I actually display the opposite characteristics – good impulse control, empathy for children, no desire to control others, interest in adult relationship, no fixation on childhood development stages, etc – that are not found in child-molesters. In fact, lack of empathy for children is one of the major personality disorders that child-molesters share. That is why modern psychological treatments for child-molesters focus on creating empathy towards children.

“The utter lack of empathy for their victims is one of the main focuses of new treatments being devised for child molesters and other such offenders.”

[Daniel Goleman – "Emotional Intelligence – why it can matter more than IQ" – 1997, p.107]

The reports of the two doctors along with the results of the polygraph examination were submitted by my attorney to the DA’s office in Austin. One assistant DA who was on the case in the beginning told my attorney that she had never seen such good reports from psychological evaluations for anyone accused of any crimes against children. Despite that she urged my attorney to convince me to accept a plea-bargain and accept probation. I rejected that offer. Later, a second assistant DA who ended up prosecuting me told my attorney that he didn’t think I displayed characteristics of a typical child-molester. He too pressured me to accept a plea-bargain and offered an 8 year probation with no prison time. Again I rejected the offer because I was not guilty of what they charged me with.

During the time before my trial I also contacted “Lisa” – the 19 year old girl I had demanded the photo ID from when I met her (in 2002 )and suspected that she was underage. I informed her of what had happened to me. Though initially she was upset at me for not contacting her for so long, she agreed that she would testify on my behalf in the court about our meeting when I had asked her for her ID. She also wrote a letter to the DA’s office, describing the incident.

The reason why I contacted “Lisa” and why the incident with her was important was that it showed how I behaved when I suspected the person was underage. The whole case against me was built on the fictional character of “Amy” and the hypothesis that if “Amy” had been a real minor, I would have committed “aggravated sexual assault”. To counter this fictional hypothesis, I wanted to bring a factual event that showed how I actually did behave when I suspected the person I was meeting was a minor. Had I been a real “Internet child predator” – as I was called in the media – I would have been delighted to meet “Lisa” and to think that she was a minor. No police was watching me then. But my reaction was completely opposite. I was alarmed and refused to have any contact with her unless she showed me a valid photo ID verifying her age as 19. Therefore, I argued, had “Amy” turned out to be real minor, I would have left her without any contact as I did do in a factual incident with “Lisa”.

Before my arrest I had been part of a Theological Discussion group in Austin for a while. Most of the people in that group were Christians belonging to a local church. After my arrest several of my friends as well as several members of the Theological discussion group also wrote letters to the DA’s office vying for my innocence and emphasizing that despite these charges against me, they would still trust me with their children and grandchildren.

None of this made any difference. The DA, under political pressure from the Texas Attorney General’s office, presumed my guilt and continued pressuring me for a guilty plea. I continued to refuse. Finally, after 18 months of my arrest my case went to court for trial in January of 2005.

Category: General

On Monday, the 18th of January, jury selection began. That was the first time I realized that instead of assuming that I was innocent until proven guilty, most of the potential jury members had already assumed me guilty once they became aware of the charge against me – I could feel their contempt as they stared at me in anger. There were a couple of people who saw through the logical problems with the state’s case. One of them objected that since the whole interaction between “Amy” and I took place over the Internet, how can anyone be sure that I believed I was chatting with a minor. Another person objected that it seemed like a trap since the police officer lied and pretended to be a minor. A third person simply reminded everyone that the accused is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Besides these three, the rest of them either stayed quiet and stared at me with contempt, or spoke against me. One woman started crying and stated that she was molested as a child and that if she ended up on the jury it must be because God put her there for a purpose – i.e. to convict me. Everyone looked at her with sympathy. The stares then returned to me even angrier than before.

The jury selection process allowed 10 peremptory strikes each to the defense and the prosecution respectively; meaning that the defense and the prosecution could strike 10 potential jurors out of contention without any reason. Besides that, they could also object to other jurors and ask the court to strike them for cause. For example, if a juror stated that he believed the accused was guilty already, and that he was unlikely to change his mind about it, that person could be struck for cause without using a peremptory strike. Similarly, if a person is related to the defendant or knows him, he would be struck for cause without wasting any peremptory strikes.

My defense attorney made several errors during this process. One person, Mr. Vasquez clearly said that he already believed I was guilty. He should have been struck for cause, but my defense attorney didn’t ask the judge for that; instead, he wasted one of our 10 peremptory strikes to get rid of Mr. Vasquez. One police officer – who must have had sympathy for the sting operation carried out by his colleagues – should also have been struck for cause, but my defense attorney didn’t object and also didn’t strike him out using a peremptory strike. The police officer ended up on the final jury of 12.

There were two prosecutors during the trial – Patrick McNelis from the DA’s office and John Saba assisting him from the Attorney General’s office. One person during jury selection indicated that he was an acquaintance of John Saba. He too should have been struck for cause, but my attorney never objected to it and therefore, he too ended up on the jury.

Another person, Mr. Torsiero, stated that if I am found guilty he would not consider probation but would want me in prison. The law with regards to jury selection requires that all members of the jury must be willing to consider the full range of punishment (which, in my case included probation); otherwise they could not be on the jury. Several times Mr. Torsiero was asked by the judge and the prosecutors if he would consider probation at all and he continued to say no. Then, when pressured again by the prosecutor and reminded that he can’t be on the jury unless he was willing to consider the full range of punishment, he reluctantly agreed, stating that he would consider probation only if it were a “matter of national security.” Everyone knew that my case had nothing to do with “national security” and that this person made that unreasonable condition only to qualify as a juror. The law requires people to consider the full range of punishments without any pre-stated conditions. This person should have been struck for cause, but again my defense attorney did not object and the person ended up on the jury.

At that point I was not well versed in laws and trusted the judgment of my defense attorney. Later, when I did my own investigation and also when my appellate attorney pointed out, I realized that my defense attorney made serious errors during the jury selection process. In a personal letter to me, my appellate attorney told me that in her opinion several of the people who ended up on the jury should never have been on the jury. She pointed out that some of the people who should have been struck for cause were not struck for cause and instead, my defense attorney wasted peremptory strikes on them; in other cases he didn’t strike them at all. However, since my defense never objected to the final jury, my appellate attorney was unable to bring that up during the appeal process.

Coming back to my trial, the 12 members – several of whom should never have been there – of the jury were finally selected. Right at the beginning my constitutional rights granted by the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution were violated. It says:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…” [http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charter s/bill_of_rights_transcript.html]

That same afternoon, the trial began. The state presented its main witness, Captain Torsiello, who had pretended to be “Amy” with me on the chats. The prosecutor and the witness read the entire text of the three chats in front of the jury, with the prosecutor representing maninaustin2003 (me) and Capt. Torsiello representing “Amy”. Right away the evidence was being distorted. The chats were presented before the jury in verbal form – with full verbal expressions for dramatic effects - as if the conversation between “Amy” and I took place either in person or on the telephone, with Torsiello talking in an innocent tone of a 13 year old while the prosecutor speaking like an adult who was looking for a prey. This completely changed the very nature and character of the state’s only relevant piece of evidence. The actual chats were not verbal, but written without any verbal clues or expression. I had no other clue to interpret the text in front of me except my past experience on the Internet and the clues given by “Amy’s” profile, which stated her age to be 18.

The very presentation of the key evidence in a false manner of verbal conversation created bias against me. I was not aware enough of the legal issues then and relied completely on my defense attorney, who never objected to this prejudicial and false misrepresentation of the key piece of evidence against me. Again, since he never objected, my appellate attorney later could not bring up this issue in my appeal.

When it was the turn of the defense to cross-examine Capt. Torsiello, he was asked if he knew whether people lied about themselves on these Internet chats, he acknowledged that they did [R.R. IV, p.28]. When he was asked if during the chats he could tell whether I believed I was talking to a 13 year old or an 18 year old, and he replied that he couldn’t tell [R.R. IV p.46].

Let us pause here and examine these two points carefully, for they expose the flaws in the entire case against me. The statute under which I was arrested and was being prosecuted states that the person accused of “criminal solicitation of a minor” must believe that he was talking to a minor regardless of whether the person he is talking to is a minor or not. First of all, the language of the statute is nothing but a classical case of semantic gymnastics to create a law that somehow tries to avoid the obvious logical flaw that if a person does not solicit an actual minor then regardless of what he believed, he did not solicit a minor. That flaw is obvious and straightforward. The flaw can be shown through many simple examples. Here are a couple of comical ones that illustrate the logical fallacy.

Suppose a person hates the comic character of Charlie Brown and states that he wants to kill Charlie Brown. Can that person be charged with planning or threatening a murder regardless of whether he believed Charlie Brown was a real person or a cartoon character? Whether he believed that Charlie Brown was a real person is irrelevant because Charlie Brown is in reality not a real person. Similarly, regardless of whether a person believes that the person he is soliciting is a minor or not, he is actually not soliciting a minor if the person he is soliciting is in reality not a minor. The personal belief of the accused becomes irrelevant in the face of facts and reality.

Suppose a man believes that he is actually a woman and is pregnant. He sues his employer for sexual discrimination when he is denied maternal leave. Would his law suit hold? Of course, not. The reason is simple. Regardless of whether the man believes he is a women and/or is pregnant, the reality and the fact is that he is actually neither a woman nor pregnant. He cannot stand in front of the judge and argue that since he believes he is a pregnant woman, he must be treated as such. The judge will throw him out of the court in the face of the obvious facts. Further, he will most likely be classified as insane. Similarly, whether a person believes he is soliciting a minor or not, if the person he is soliciting is not a minor, his belief is absolutely irrelevant. The people who have legislated and accepted the statute are perhaps suffering from the same mental disorder that the man in this example who believes himself to be a pregnant woman.
Hopefully, these two examples illustrate the basic logical fallacy inherent in the statute. It is for this reason that at least a couple of judges have thrown such “solicitation of minor” cases out of court because of the fact that no minor was actually involved. So, to get around this, several states in the U.S. have resorted to semantic gymnastics to try and hide the fallacy by stating that if the person believed he was soliciting a minor, then he will be charged as such regardless of whether the person solicited was a minor or not.

Besides this obvious logical contradiction, the statute also suffers from another flaw. How can the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt what another person actually believed? How can you objectively prove anyone’s beliefs and that too without a reasonable doubt? That is a logical impossibility. Remember, “Justice” is “based on facts and objective real existence of actual things”. One cannot possibly prove someone’s beliefs objectively.

These flaws are obvious to anyone who has the very basic knowledge of logic 101. But in their witch-hunt enthusiasm, many legislators as well as judges in the U.S. have over looked these two obvious logical contradictions in the statute, and continue to prosecute and convict witches based on logical fallacies.

Coming back to my trial, the star witness of the state, Capt. Torsiello, who was potentially the only person in any position to judge whether I believed “Amy” to be a minor, stated clearly in his testimony that he couldn’t tell whether I believed “Amy” to be a minor or not. The law requires the state to prove all elements of the indictment without a reasonable doubt. Since my indictment stated that I must have believed “Amy” to be 13, the burden was on the state to prove that without any reasonable doubt. Now, the only person who was in any situation to make any judgments regarding my beliefs about “Amy’s” age, was expressing clear doubt regarding my belief. That should have been the end of the case right then and there.

Not only that, but the state’s star witness also confirmed my defense that people on the Internet chats often lie about their age, and therefore, I had no reason to believe “Amy” when “she” told me that “she” was 13 – especially in the light of the fact that “she” stated her age as 18 on “her” yahoo profile and that in my experience on the Internet chats, I had found people to lie about their age (exactly as Capt. Torsiello confirmed).

The trial should have ended here had the principle of innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt had been followed and had the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt been put - as it should have been – on the state. However, in reality, and true to the traditions of witch hunts, the burden of proving my innocence was put on me, while the jury and the judge had already presumed me guilty until proven innocent in their minds.

After Capt. Torsiello’s testimony, the state brought irrelevant witnesses to the stand. One police officer described how state agencies in collaboration with a federal agency as well as local police tracked my movements from my office to the meeting place. A second witness described how he was a computer expert and had traced the chats to my computer. Neither of these testimonies was relevant in proving the state’s allegations. I never denied that I chatted with “Amy” or that I went to the meeting place to meet “her”. However, there is a reason why these extra witnesses were brought out: to give the impression to the jury that there was ample evidence and witnesses against me. Whether the “evidence” or “witnesses” were relevant to proving the allegations was of no concern. Those familiar with the witch-hunt trials of New England in the 17th century would notice that this is a fairly common tactics in witch-hunts.

Once the state rested its case, from the defense side I was the main witness. I went to the witness stand and explained the whole background and the context in which my chats with “Amy” took place. I explained that I believed “Amy” was an adult playing roles as is often the case on such Internet chats. I told the jury about my past experiences on chats with “Lisa” and various other adult women who pretended to be underage on Yahoo chats. I showed them the pictures of the screenshots with the shortcut method of looking at a person’s profile as well as the full-blown screen shot of “Amy’s” detailed profile page. On both shots, it clearly showed “her” Age as 18.

During cross examination, the prosecutor asked me to read parts of the chat out loud with him again as if it were a verbal communication. My defense objected, but it was over-ruled by Judge Julie Kocurek. What was the point of the prosecutor asking me to read parts of the chats out loud? There was nothing in there that would prove that I believed I was chatting with a minor. The sole purpose was to have the jury hear from my mouth some of the sexual stuff in the chats to make them more prejudiced against me. People are often hypocritical and extra-sensitive when it comes to hearing explicit sexual talk – regardless of what it is about.

There was absolutely nothing in the chats that people sitting in the court room – including members of the jury, the prosecutors, and the judge – had not said at some point in their lives to a sexual (or potentially sexual) partner. But at that moment they were all suddenly transformed into righteous virgins, who had never heard such “ungodly talk” in their lives. As soon as sex is mentioned – especially in the context of a witch hunt [“The Devil in the Shape of a Woman: Witchcraft in Colonial New England”- By Carol F. Karlsen, New York, 1998, p.198, pp.47-48] – most people who themselves are adulterers or fornicators (as most people in the sexually lax society of the U.S. are) start to act self-righteous and open their mouths in pretentious shock. The members of the jury, the prosecutors and the judge – all of them – displayed similar hypocritical shock at hearing some of the sexual talk from the chats.

After that the prosecutor brought my briefcase that was confiscated by the police when I was arrested. He asked me if the briefcase was mine. I replied “Yes”. He then tossed the briefcase rudely in my lap and mentioned triumphantly to the jury that the briefcase was discovered in my car. In my mind I was think, “and?” I thought he was going to make some point about it. But that was it. What did that briefcase had to do with the state’s allegation? Absolutely nothing!

Next, he presented my notebook that was also in my car when I was arrested. In that notebook I had jotted down the directions of the location where I was supposed to meet “Amy”. The prosecutor again triumphantly raised the notebook and proclaimed to the jury that the police found the notebook in my car and it had directions to the meeting location. Again I waited for him to make some point that had something to do with him proving the allegation against me. But no more comments were made about the notebook.

The state had now successfully proved a few facts. It had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I had written directions to the meeting location in a notebook; that I had taken the notebook with me to the meeting location (what else would I do with it?); and most importantly, that I had my work-related briefcase in my car when I went to meet “Amy”. It also proved that I had used sexual language when chatting with “Amy” – Capt. Torsiello.

In reality, all these facts were completely useless and irrelevant – none of them had anything to do with proving the state’s allegations that I solicited a minor and that I believed that I was chatting with a minor. But just like the irrelevant witnesses, these irrelevant pieces of evidence were presented to create an impression that the state’s case against me was fool-proof and that there were an abundance of evidence and witnesses against me. This again is very typical of witch-hunts. Since in a witch hunt there is lack of factual evidence, people tend to create the illusion that there is real evidence by bringing in irrelevant things in the trial. Those who have studied the trials of the Salem witch hunts in 1692, will immediately recognize these tactics [“Salem Possessed: The Social Origins of Witchcraft” – By Paul Boyer & Stephen Nissen Baum, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974, pp.12-16]. No more need to be said about these “evidences”.

The prosecutor, Patrick McNelis, was a very seasoned prosecutor, and he was well aware that he had no real tangible evidence against me. His only hope rested in creating as much prejudice in the jury-members’ minds against me as possible. He had his work cut out there. The jury was already prejudiced against me.

Next, he proceeded to attack my mention of the incident with “Lisa”. As previously mentioned, “Lisa” had a very youthful face, which alarmed me into thinking that she might be a minor. The prosecutor asked me that once I was satisfied that “Lisa” was actually 19, was I sexually attracted to her. I responded in the affirmative. He then angrily shouted at me that I would have sex with a girl whose face looked like that of a 15-year-old’s face. I pointed out to him that “Lisa” was actually and adult but he continued to put me down for being attracted to someone whose face looked like the face of a 15-year-old girl.

The impression he was trying to give to the jury was that I was some kind of a pervert who was attracted to someone who could have been mistaken for a 15-year-old. Besides being completely false, the implication was also ignoring that fact that I refused any contact with “Lisa” when I thought that she might have been a minor. Further, it is extremely ridiculous to imply any such thing. I have seen 30-year-old women who look like they are in their teens. So now anyone who is attracted to any adult woman who may have a youthful appearance becomes a pervert, a child-molester, or a child-predator?

Perhaps, the state of Texas will next be passing a law where people will be arrested and prosecuted for having sex with adult women who may have the youthful appearance of a 15-year-old. The reader might think that I am joking or being sarcastic, but I am not. A close examination would show that this law would logically be no different than the current law supporting these Internet sting operations. Both laws have to do with the power of the thought-police. In cases such as mine, the state alleged that I solicited a minor. The fact that the person I chatted with was an adult is deemed to be irrelevant. The law insists that even if the person was an adult, I still must be guilty of soliciting a minor if I could have thought and believed that the person was a minor. In the same manner, it would not matter if a woman is actually 30. Any person having sex with a 30-year-old who looked like a 15-year-old could similarly be charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child because he could have thought or believed (or fantasized) that he was having sex with a minor. What is the difference between the two? Absolutely nothing! In both cases, there is no minor involved. The charges are based on one’s thoughts and beliefs rather than the actual facts and realities.

Given the hypocritical nature of many of these lawmakers in the U.S., I wouldn’t be surprised at all if people like the Texas lieutenant governor, David Dewhurst, and Attorney General, Greg Abbott, brought such a bill to the Texas senate. Once the thought-police is given power in one matter, they usually never stop there and seek to continue to expand their network of thought regulation. After all, wouldn’t people feel a little bit safer if all such people who will have sex with adult women who have a very youthful look, are put behind bars? Who is to say what such dangerous people might do next. If they can have sex with a 30-year-old who looks like a 15-year-old, what is to stop them from having sex with an actual 15-year-old? Better to lock all such witches behind bars in a classic pre-emptive strike operation.

And once again the political heroes can claim that they have put dangerous “child-rapists” behind bars and protected “our children and our future.” Parents all over will take a sigh of relief that their heroes have rid the streets of yet more witches and monsters. The heroes get re-elected and have great political careers. Everyone is happy, except of course the “child-rapist” who is behind bars for having consensual sex with a 30-year-old who looked like she was 15. Today, there are many such “child predators” behind bars who chatted online with an adult who pretended to be a minor.

Coming back to my trial, the prosecutor then took out my letter that I had written to him before the trial. He selectively started reading parts from the letter to the jury to prejudice them. My lawyer never objected to that. The prosecutor then read out the part where I mentioned that at one point I did think “Amy” was a minor. He conveniently omitted the context and the part where I explained how I changed my mind and, basing on my checks and experience, decided that “Amy” was an adult. He never gave me a chance to read the rest of the letter to the jury or to explain that one statement. This was a direct violation of the “Rule of Optional Completeness” (Tex.R.Evid.107) Legally, this rule was designed to

“…guard against the possibility of confusion, distortion, or false impression that could rise from use of an act, writing, conversation, declaration or transaction out of proper context.” [Livingston v. State, 739 S.W.2d 311, 331 (Tex.Crim.App.1987), cert.denied, 487 U.S.1210, 108 S.Ct.2858, 101 L.Ed.2d 895 (1988)]

According to this rule, the defense has the right to object and to demand that the entire context be read/revealed to the jury in order to diffuse any chances of confusion. My defense attorney failed to object to this, and I had no idea what this rule was at that time. As you will see later, the prosecutor continued to violate this rule and in fact it was this very violation that the members of the jury used to convict me in the end.

After my testimony, the jury was asked to go to another room. The prosecutors were objecting to the judge that I be not allowed to present my next three witnesses – “Lisa” and the two doctors from Michigan. They argued that “Lisa’s” testimony was irrelevant to the case and since they hadn’t actually accused me of being a “pedophile”, the doctors’ testimonies were also not necessary. In fact, all three witnesses were very relevant to the case.

The 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” [http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html].

The State had alleged that I was the type of person who used the Internet to prey on children and minors. They also alleged that had “Amy” been a real minor, I would have committed aggravated sexual assault. Though they never called me a “pedophile,” the implications in the charge and their opening statements were clearly pointing to someone who targets children – i.e. a pedophile. Therefore, the two doctors’ testimonies were very much relevant. Further, the state’s allegations were based on hypothetical “what if” scenarios. “Lisa’s” testimony would show what I actually did and how I actually acted in a situation where I suspected that the person I met was a minor. My incident with “Lisa” was a fact and not a hypothetical scenario like the state’s case against me. Therefore, in accordance with my 6th Amendment rights, “Lisa’s” testimony was very important and relevant in supporting my story and in refuting the State’s hypothetical allegations and implications.

According to the “Texas Rules Of Evidence” [“Courtroom Handbook on Texas Evidence” – 2007 (Goode, Wellborn and Sharlot – Volume 2A – Article IV)], “relevant evidence” means

“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” (Rule 401, p.9)

According to Rule 404, in criminal cases, evidence of an accused person’s character or character traits is admissible for the purpose of proving action in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. (p.10). Further,

“n cases in which a person’s character or character trait is an essential element of a charge, claim or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct” (Rule 405(b), p.11).

So according to the Texas Rules of Evidence, I had a right to have “Lisa” testify on my behalf . However, the judge refused to allow “Lisa” to testify. She did allow the two doctors to testify. If it was the truth the court was after, why did it deny me the right to present a witness who could provide proof “of specific instances of my conduct.”? The judge also strictly forbade the two doctors from using the word “child” or to make any reference to the polygraph test that I had passed.

My attorney then summarized “Lisa’s” testimony for the court records in the absence of the jury. He came to me and informed me of the judge’s ruling. He told me that he had preserved “Lisa’s” testimony in the court’s record so that even though the jury will never hear it, I could bring it up in my appeal should I lose the case. I was disappointed, but trusted my attorney and was confident that if the case does go to an appeal, I will be able to bring up “Lisa’s” testimony in that.

The jury came back to the courtroom and we presented our next witness – the psychiatrist who had tested me in Michigan. The doctor testified that I had no mental illness, nor any of the clinical indicators that showed that I would be “likely to get into sexual problematic behavior with minors.” He pointed out that his clinical tests indicated that I had a personality disorder with traits of narcissism and histrionics with a very high level of intelligence. The prosecutor asked the doctor to read out the same line from my letter where I had written that at one time I thought that “Amy” might actually be a minor. He asked the doctor, why I would continue to chat with “Amy” after I had such a thought. The doctor replied that he was not surprised at all. He explained that a combination of my personality disorder with traits of narcissism and a high degree of intelligence made me believe that I was smart enough to figure out if the individual I was talking to was truly a minor. This statement of the doctor supported my testimony where I indicated how I had developed my own checks, and had finally determined correctly that “Amy” was an adult. The doctor ended his testimony by saying that he found nothing in my psychological makeup to indicate that I was the type of person who would target a minor for the express purpose of having sex with a minor. (R.R.V pp.47-54)

After the psychiatrist’s testimony, the next witness was the psychologist who had tested me in Michigan. The psychologist explained the types of tests he performed on me and stressed that there was no way I could have faked answers to the questions he asked me during the tests because these were “projective tests” with no set right or wrong answers. He stressed that though as a Christian he was disgusted at reading some of the explicit sexual statements in the chats, as a psychologist he found “no evidence of a person who has any sexual focus on children or adolescents or minor.” When the prosecutor asked him if he thought I was that kind of person who would get in his car to travel to meet and have sex with a 13-year-old, the doctor replied, “In my opinion, he’s not the kind of person who would do that kind of thing with the intent of having sex with a minor person.” (R.R. V pp.77-79)

After the two doctors’ testimonies the defense rested. In his closing statement, the prosecutor again tried to prejudice the jury against me by misrepresenting the facts. He said to the jury that it is very different when an adult woman says, “I am 15, and I want to be spanked,” and when one says, “I am 13.” For the first statement he used a low sexual tone of voice, but for the second statement he used a simple straightforward tone implying innocence. This again was a false presentation of facts. My conversations with the 30-year-old woman who pretended to be 15 years old, and the 40+-year-old male police officer (Capt. Torsiello) who pretended to be 13 years old, were not verbal, but written. Therefore, the different tones of voices were irrelevant and gave a false impression. From the factual perspective of the written text with no sound-effects, there was not much difference between the two statements – “I am 15” and “I am 13.” Both had to be interpreted by the reader in the light of his background experiences on these Internet chats and from what he saw in the “Age” fields on the respective chatter’s Yahoo profile.

The prosecutor, Mr. McNelis, continued to use emotional appeal during his closing arguments. Pointing to the psychiatrist’s statement that I had a very high degree of intelligence, he cautioned the jury: “This man is the most intelligent person you will all be with in a room in your life. Heck! He is smarter than me. He is so intelligent that he will fool you all into believing that he is innocent.” In other words, he was aware that he had no case against me and that he had not presented any hard evidence of my guilt to the jury. So, he wanted to caution the jury that if they had it in their minds that I was not guilty, it wasn’t because the state had not presented any evidence against me, but because I was so smart that I had fooled them all. In fact, the assistant prosecutor, John Saba, acknowledged in his closing arguments that “the defendant has chosen a defense that is impossible to break.” It was impossible to break because the State had no proof against me. Too bad the jury members weren’t looking for factual evidence; they were looking for emotional appeal and the pleadings of the prosecutors that I could have done what they alleged.

A simple word analysis will reveal that it was impossible for the state to prove the charge against me. The Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary [http://www.merriam-webster.com] definitions of the words proof and prove reveal why it was impossible to prove that I had either solicited a minor or attempted to solicit a minor:

Proof: The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
Prove: To test the truth, validity, or genuineness of.

Let us recall the definitions of the words truth, valid and genuine:

Truth: The body of real things, events and facts; actuality; the property of being in accord with fact or reality.
Valid: Logically correct.
Genuine: Actual; true; free from hypocrisy or pretense.

So, in order to prove the charge against me, the state needed to demonstrate that the charge was the truth, – i.e. based on reality – valid, – i.e. logically correct – or genuine – i.e. actual, true and not based on hypocrisy or pretense.

We have already seen that the whole case against me was based on fiction and alleged potential actions based on speculations about my belief. There was no real minor and I never solicited any actual minor. So the truth part goes out of the window.

Now this is what happened. I was charged with solicitation of a minor, who was actually a 40+-year-old adult pretending to be a minor and yet deceiving me by stating “her” (his) age as an 18-year-old adult. I was smart enough to figure out correctly – despite the logical hodge-podge – that I was chatting with an adult pretending to be a minor. Even though I was correct, and the state acknowledged that I was correct, I was somehow guilty of soliciting a non-existent minor. If this is not a huge jumble of illogic, then I don’t know what is. Therefore, the validity or logical correctness also goes out the window.

Let us check for genuineness. As the definition states, anything genuine must be free from hypocrisy and pretense. What does pretense mean?

Pretense: A claim made or implied; esp. one not supported by fact; make-believe; fiction; false show.

Let us see what the words make-believe and fiction mean:

Make-Believe: Imaginary; pretended.
Fiction: An invented story; an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth; the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination.

“Amy” was a make-believe and fictional character. It was imaginary and an invented story. It was assumed that anyone chatting with this fictional character was possibly soliciting an imaginary minor irrespective of the truth that there was no real minor. Thus, there was absolutely nothing genuine that the state could test since it was all fictional.

Therefore, the State could in no way test the truth, validity, or genuineness of the charge against me. Thus, it was impossible for them to prove the charge against me. It was for this reason that the prosecutors were busy rousing the emotions of the jury members. They knew that logically they could never prove the charge against me.

I was very confident that I would win the case. I had presented my side of the story, and the two doctors had supported my story and emphatically denied that I was the kind of person who would want to target minors for sex. The state had produced absolutely no evidence to refute either my testimony or any parts of the two doctors’ testimonies. In fact, the state’s own star witness, Mr. Torsiello – the only person in any position to determine whether I thought “Amy” was an adult or a minor – had acknowledged that he couldn’t tell whether I believed “Amy” to be an adult or a minor. He further corroborated my testimony by stating that on these Internet chats people often lie about their age, identity and gender – all three things that he himself had also lied about when he posed as “Amy”. On top of all that, there really was no minor involved and I did actually chat with an adult who was role-playing as a minor – exactly what I had described in my testimony. With all these facts on my side, there was no way the jury would find me guilty – or so I thought.

At that point in my life, I still believed that America was what it was projected to be – the land of justice and freedom. I was naïve enough to believe that in the U.S. justice system, where I was supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and where the burden of proof was on the state, justice would be done. I knew that the state had tried to do many things to prejudice the jury against me, but I was not on trial for my sexual immorality. So, no matter how much the jury disliked my infidelity towards my wife, I was still not guilty of soliciting a minor – the State had not produced any evidence or witness to prove its allegations.

I went to my lawyer’s office and we waited there for about two hours as the jury deliberated. My lawyer then received a call from the court that our presence was required at the court as the jury had asked a question regarding one of the doctors’ testimonies. So we went back to the court.

I was about to receive the shock of my life. It took the court reporter a little while to transcribe the part from the psychiatrist’s testimony from short-hand. We were given a copy of the part that was sent to the jury room. It had one line: the part from the psychiatrist’s testimony where he had read (at the request of the prosecutor) that part of my letter where I had mentioned that at one point I thought that “Amy” might have been a minor. Only one sentence from my letter, put in the doctor’s mouth by the prosecutor – without any context from my letter and without the doctor’s explanation as to why I continued to talk to “Amy” after this passing thought occurred to me and how I determined that “Amy” was an adult – was what the jury had requested.

The reality of the U.S. Injustice system was beginning to dawn on me. The jury had presumed me guilty. However, as they deliberated they could not find an