Regarding Scott Ritter: Yes, It's Possible to Be Set Up By a Government AND Still Be GUILTY of Sex Crimes!

“To live outside the law, you must be honest.”

-- Bob Dylan

Why do people insist these two things must be mutually exclusive? They are not. No one with any form of rational brain function, or who had actually read the court filings or case history, would be able to claim that these two ideas cannot coexist together.

In reality, both of these could absolutely be accurate. Unfortunately, the case of Scott Ritter, he has provided zero concrete evidence so far to prove the story that he was set up by the government. He merely has his accusations, and for those who already despise the government and mistrust it due to legitimate reasons, these accusations are credible simply because he worked for them, and therefore no evidence is required.

However, the same people who have decided to fully believe this story on a complete lack of evidence also shun the mountains of evidence of his guilt and his own confessions in regards to the multiple sex crimes he's committed over the years. They desperately want to believe so badly that the government framed an innocent man, who would never have engaged knowingly in a sex act with a minor, that they refuse to look at the evidence at all. That would shatter their false reality.

The reality is this: if the government knew that his coping mechanism for stress was to frequent sexual chat rooms, and find women with which to masturbate in front of, as he has exhibitionist tendencies, the best way they could possibly use to take him down and taint his reputation would be to conduct sting operations in order to infiltrate the chat rooms they knew he used and catch him in the act. This is exactly what I believe they did.

If this man was innocent, and would never have committed sexual acts with an underage victim, then he never would have done what he did.

New York

Let me ask you a question: If you were talking to someone online, and decided to meet up in person for sex, if they told you before you were about to meet that they were actually 14 or 16 years old, would you have cancelled that sexual rendezvous? Or would you have shown up to meet the minor at the designated location for sex anyway?

Scott Ritter showed up anyway. And was immediately arrested. Twice. Once with a sting operation in which an agent was pretending to be a 14 year old meeting up with him for sex in 2001, and another with a 16 year old who was meeting him for sex in 2003. Both of these encounters took place in New York State. Ritter was able to get the first charges dropped as a first time offender, but the second set of charges he had to undergo court ordered sexual abuser counseling in order to have them dropped. It wasn't until the third set of charges, which took place in the State of Pennsylvania in 2009, when he finally did prison time.

A few articles from the time of those New York crimes:

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/2003/01/22/Old-arrest-could-silence-Iraq-arms-expert/83551043294214/

https://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/01/22/ritter.arrest/

https://www.mrt.com/news/article/Feds-Get-Sealed-Case-of-Ritter-s-Arrest-7786178.php

A person who does not want to engage in sexual activity with a minor will not willingly go meet up with a person after they have explicitly told them that they are underage. Period. End of story. No one who is innocent would do that. Not a single, solitary person who is someone who would not sleep with an underage person would have followed through on that meet up. Scott Ritter did.

If he hadn't, he would never have been arrested at the scene both of those times. It was when he showed up anyway, ready to meet that minor for a sexual encounter, despite knowing the purported age, that the authorities had him dead to rights. This is not even remotely an argument. You cannot claim this to be "a set up". He didn't have to go. He could have easily avoided it by staying home. Instead, he wanted to meet that minor and have sex. That's how they got him.

According to the records, the official charges filed in New York against Ritter were "Disseminating Indecent Material to Minors", a Class D Felony, carrying up to a 7 year prison sentence. Given that he was arrested at the scene of a physical location where he had agreed to meet up in person with whom he believed to be underage girls, he was quite lucky these were the charges.

Again, the first offense was with someone he believed to be 14, and the second was with someone he believed to be 16. These conversations were captured during chat, and used as evidence against him in Court. His plea deal arrangement with the Judge in the second case allowed him to have this case dropped and sealed, provided that he attend court-mandated counseling while staying out of internet chat rooms for the entirety of the 6 months of his counseling sessions. He completed this, but it was clearly not long enough, as he continued to re-offend.

Pennsylvania

It didn't take long for Scott Ritter to once again be caught by law enforcement. He had received 6 months of specific sex offender treatment in 2003 after his previous arrest as a condition of having his second arrest on this crime being dropped in lieu of serving his sentence. Still, Ritter continued to use online chats to meet people online, disregarding what they claimed their ages to be, just to have the opportunity to masturbate in front of anyone he could to relieve his need to be an exhibitionist.

This is the part of his case that is stone-cold fact, regardless of what side you come down on. Ritter used the internet to meet females online in order to find someone who was willing to allow him to masturbate in front of them in order to relieve whatever need he had to do this. This is a fact. He's been caught doing this multiple times in his life, which tells you that he's gotten away with doing this many, many times when it wasn't a law enforcement officer and just a person on the other side of that camera.

The times it just so happened to be a law enforcement officer doing their job as a sting operator just so happened to be the times he was caught. His own criminal defense attorney, Gary Kohlman, actually stated that Ritter regularly used chat rooms as a coping mechanism. Yes, he admitted this.

"Kohlman has said Ritter used sexually explicit chats on the Internet as a way to handle his depression over being called unpatriotic for his criticism of American policy on Iraq."

Rubinkam, Michael. “Ex-UN inspector gets prison in Pa. sex case.” The Guardian, 26 October 2011

Sting operations for sex offenders began in 1999 in the United States. By 2001, they were nationwide and had been chosen to operate by both federal and local law enforcement agencies on an undercover basis just as typical criminal undercover stings had been doing since the 1970s. Some of these stings would be in person, while many would take place online.

From the years 2004 - 2007, the television show "To Catch a Predator" became a nationwide phenomenon. This took advantage of these types of criminal investigations and displayed them to the public. The producers of this program would partner with law enforcement and would arrest these sexual offenders in front of the cameras for an audience, as criminal acts are considered public record and are not private information.

By the time Scott Ritter met up with the first "underage girl" he'd been caught with in order to fulfill his needs of exhibitionism, these stings had already been put in place. No one can possibly know how many years he'd been doing this very thing in the years prior to this. In the 1990s, the internet had AOL chat rooms and phone sex chat lines where you could meet people.

The only way a person can find out how often a person uses a chat room for this type of purpose is if they admit it (per his lawyer's statement, for example), the person on the other end goes to the press (where they would be summarily dismissed, smeared, and treated like Tara Reade in the Biden scandal), or if it was law enforcement.

Now, if you have a willing, of-legal-age partner who is accepting of what you wish to do, and allows it, then this is perfectly legal and acceptable. What makes this illegal? Two things:

• 1 - This was a non-consensual circumstance overall. One, it was a law enforcement officer who told him he would get in trouble, and did not consent to the video he would send. He had turned the camera off after he was told the "girl" was 15, stating he "might get into trouble"... therefore, recognizing and acknowledging the danger involved.

According to the official Court affidavit, he then asked "Do you want to see it finish?", at which point, he just turned the camera back on and proceeded to ejaculate in front of the camera. The entire conversation, photographs, and videos attached to it, were all shown to the Jury in the trial.

• 2 - He was told, twice, this was a 15 year old girl. He deliberately turned the camera off when he found out, and vocalized he recognized this was the case. Yet, he still chose to continue "finishing" and continued to do so on camera for the person on the other end.

Although this case is now old (so most records are not in the online system beyond a period of time), all of the appeals are online. These appeals contain all of the information. For example, PACER (the online system for the State of Pennsylvania) has this case under William S. Ritter vs. John Tuttle, et. al. Civil Action number 3:15-cv-1235. You can also do any google search under "William Scott Ritter New York Arrests" or "Scott Ritter Pennsylvania Arrest" and you'll hit pay dirt, with all the hits you could possibly need. Since those of you who don't want to learn anything about this, and have been actively avoiding any information whatsoever so you can continue your narrative, I'll add some more here.

https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/index.jsf

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5c17f93a342cca0c54acd86c

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna45049386

https://casetext.com/case/commonwealth-v-ritter-9

On February 7, 2009, Detective Ryan Venneman of the Barrett Township Police Department was conducting undercover operations investigating the crime of internet sexual exploitation of children in a Yahoo Instant Messenger chat room. Detective Venneman was acting as a young female named “Emily” when he was contacted online by Ritter, posing as “delmarm4fun,” a 44–year–old male from Albany, New York. At the onset of the online chat, “Emily” specifically identified herself to Ritter as a 15–year–old female from the Poconos.

The online conversation was sexual in nature. During the conversation, Ritter provided “Emily” with a link to his webcam, asking her to share photographs with him. Ritter was particularly interested in whether “Emily's” exboyfriend took “any traditional ex pics” of her, by which he meant nude or provocative photographs. In response to Ritter's repeated requests to send additional photos, “Emily” transmitted a photograph to which Ritter replied, “that'l [sic] get a reaction.” Ritter then stated that he was “waiting for [“Emily”] to put up another pic so [he] can continue to “react.”’ The webcam was operational at the time and displayed a man's face and upper body area. When queried as to what he meant by “react,” Ritter responded that he reacted “below the screen,” “where [his] hands are,” indicating his hands are “down lower.” Ritter then communicated to “Emily” that he was having a “big reaction here” and asked “Emily” if she would like to see more. Ritter then adjusted the webcam to focus on his genital area where he exposed himself to “Emily” and proceeded to masturbate.

Ritter turned off the webcam for a period of time. He, however, continued to engage in sexually explicit communications with “Emily,” including asking her if she tasted her ex-boyfriend's penis, her favorite sexual position, if her ex-boyfriend ejaculated inside her, if he used a condom, and if she performed oral sex on him. “Emily” cautioned Ritter that she was only 15 years old and she did not want them to get in trouble because of their respective ages. Unfazed by “Emily's” age, Ritter asked “Emily,” “you want to see it finish?” Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for “Emily.” Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station. Ritter was subsequently charged with unlawful contact with a minor (sexual offenses), 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 6318(a)(1), unlawful contact with a minor (open lewdness), 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann . § 6318(a)(2), unlawful contact with a minor (obscene and other sexual materials and performances), 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 6318(a)(4), corruption of minors, 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 6301(a)(1), criminal use of a communications facility, 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 7512(a), and indecent exposure, 18 Pa.Cons .Stat.Ann. § 3127.

Prior to trial, the Commonwealth uncovered information, via a Google search, of Ritter's prior arrests from online sex sting operations in New York. The public internet search yielded news articles reporting that, in April 2011, Ritter communicated online in a chat room with an undercover police officer posing as a 14–year–old female and arranged to meet the “girl” at a local business in Albany. Ritter arrived at the designated location and was questioned by the authorities; however, he was released without any charges being filed. Two months later, Ritter was again caught in the same kind of sex sting after he tried to lure what he thought was a 16–year–old female to a fast food restaurant. Ritter was subsequently charged, but the Albany District Attorney placed the case on hold.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Official Prosecution Affidavit, 2009

William Scott Ritter, Jr.'s entire legal defense consisted of the "fantasy" defense. Not once, not one single, solitary time, did he mention the government in his defense in court. This was a ploy for the presses and his fans only. I want you to understand this very, very clearly. If this was in any way a legitimate defense, or if he had any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up, he would have used it in court. Instead, he knew this would make him look even more like a lunatic. So did his lawyer. Instead, he used the "fantasy" defense.

In court, his entire defense was that he didn't believe she wasn't 18, despite being told she was, twice. Despite twice before being told by two other officers they were 14 and 16, choosing to show up at those locations for sex anyway, and getting arrested... once leading to 6 months of mandatory sex offender counseling. He didn't believe it.

Why didn't he believe it? Because the chat room was 18 and over. Well, what safeguards ensured that, Mr. Ritter? Was there a check system that required your ID to verify that you were, indeed, over 18 like when you walk into a bar and they have to look at your driver's license? No. It's a button that simply asks you if you are 18. My 15 year old presses "yes" on this all the time. So does every other child in the world. Don't play stupid.

No one bought it on that jury. Not a single soul. My guess is that there might have been parents who used that internet, too. Who knew that those chat sites merely had "yes" or "no" buttons that anyone could lie to in order to get in. The fantasy defense is notorious for being a failure. Primarily because it's the weakest defense in the defense attorney playbook for a serial sex offender. It's used when you have absolutely no other defense available to you. This is not a joke. They decided the weakest defense they could possibly use was better than "the government is trying to set me up". That tells you the sheer credibility of his actual claims on that to the lot of you.

What about his appeals? He's had several. He's appealed this now all three times he's been able. All three appeals have been completely absent of any mention whatsoever of any mention of the government or a set up of any kind. His appeals merely state that he felt Pennsylvania obtained his sealed records from New York illegally. They did not.

New York sent them to Pennsylvania first illegally, yes. Pennsylvania sent them right back. Then, Pennsylvania went through the proper legal channels to obtain them. You see, New York is a very flexible state with sealed records. If a Judge determines that a criminal case requires them, he can sign a court order to unseal them at any point. It's in the law. As for Pennsylvania, as long as the cases are within the same guidelines (and in this case, the cases are an exact match for each other), the case history can be used to show prior bad acts as a history. Scott Ritter had no case here on appeal.

So, what did Scott Ritter say after his conviction? "I didn't do it", maybe? "I'm innocent, the government tried to frame me!", perhaps? Or... was this what he said on the court record instead?

"A lifetime of accomplishments weighed against a moment of human frailty," the former U.S. Marine said in a clear, steady voice. "I take full responsibility for my actions. This should never have been made public. Something like this should be kept between a man and his family... If any man can stand here and say he's learned his lesson, I can."

Scott, Andrew. “Prison for ex-U.N. official Scott Ritter in Monroe sex sting case.” Pocono Record, 27 October 2011

That doesn't sound like a man stating his innocence to the Judge and courtroom after being convicted, does it? In fact... it sounds like a confession to me.

You are going to think whatever you want to. Evidence has never once in the history of the world changed a mind determined to believe what it desperately wants to believe. Just know this. This is MY opinion based on the evidence I've seen. William Scott Ritter is a sick man. He has a problem. A sexually deviant problem. He doesn't give two shits who he takes it out on. He doesn't care if it's a grown woman or a child. He simply doesn't care. Any warm body will do. That's exactly what makes him so dangerous. That's exactly why I oppose bringing him around the public.

He is a predator. He will never stop doing this. It's who he is. It's how he deals with his stress. Hopefully, he will understand to only find really disturbed older women to do this to now, who are willing to deal with his bullshit in this way, and when someone says they're underage, he actually shuts his fucking computer down. But, I don't trust it. He's already proven he can spiral out of control and it can happen several years down the road.

Just because he's been a figure in historical events doesn't mean he isn't also a human being. He's a fucking person. He has mental health issues. He struggles with them every fucking day. He has severe depression that spirals out of control. He has severe anxiety. He's just a man like any other. And you need to stop seeing him as some great hero military guy and see him for the broken man he is. He's a man with problems... and he deals with them in unhealthy ways. We all do sometimes. Stop glorifying him and SEE him for once.