Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: rbV5
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: rbV5
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: waggy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: Queasy
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: rbV5
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>
Originally posted by: Queasy
Reading everything that happened in that article, I can certainly see why the prosecutor would have a hard time pursuing it. Many of these cases would be problematic at best with them not being in this DA's jurisdiction and NBC and the police unable to guarantee that chat logs were accurate and complete.</end quote></div>
Yea sure, thats what we've heard from all the other DA's around the county involved in the Dateline cases.:roll:</end quote></div>
If a person chats online in another county and never enters this DA's county to meet up with underage boys/girls, how could he prosecute them? It would be the responsibility of the DA in the county that the accused person is from.</end quote></div>
not to mention if they can't prove the chat logs from start to finish there is problems.
</end quote></div>
Here's an interesting
LOG you might want to look at.
</end quote></div>
what part of the DA or police can not gurentee they are complete and true?
thats even ignoring that the DA has NO juristiction.
I am really suprised more people are not fighting it and winning over it.
</end quote></div>
Clearly the DA had jurisdiction over the 24 cases where some guy showed up in Murphy to molest one of the town's young boys. I guess you can also ignore Perverted Justice's overwhelming conviction rate or the amount of pervs that cop a plea without ever needing to be humiliated in trial.
I'd be pissed at the DA in my county.</end quote></div>
i don't like it either. but i can understand why he is doing it. they should have had police in every step of it.
shrug.