A Convicted Sex Offender Tells His Side Of The Story In Vanity Fair

Meg
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 04:34 pm: [report]

Yeah that’s unfortunate for J. But if he felt uncomfortable about the woman bringing her kids along, why didn’t he just hook up with someone else? His claim that he was going to skip out when the kids showed up just sounds like a lame, last minute excuse at this point.

Everyone should know by now that sex with kids is illegal, prostitution is illegal and that you can’t trust everyone on the internet. C’mon! And why didn’t this woman set off a red flag for him, does he have no instincts or morals?

When it comes to breaking the law, especially with sex crimes, people really need to understand that it’s a very big deal. There are thousands of police officers and task forces dedicated to arresting people for prostitution, sex with minors, etc.

So if something seems even remotely like a gray area, it’s probably wisest not to do it.

Goldfinch86
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 04:41 pm: [report]

I think she wanted to bring the kids, I have watched alot of these shows about it and it’s alot of people instigating things and blurring the line into entrapment. He wanted to have sex, she kept bringing the children into, he would have probably walked away if there had been children there, besides that she’s alot better than a hooker. He wasn’t doing anything illegal until the law said he was, when they themselves brought the issue of sex with children into it.

C.Munro
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 04:48 pm: [report]

I think there shouldn’t really be a case against him.  The state can’t prove he had intent to have sex with children, and he shouldn’t have to prove that he didn’t. 

To me it’s just another example of lazy cops and lazy prosecutors entrapping people to further their own careers, without regard for (1) punishing real crimes, or (2) the rights of the citizens they’re throwing into jail for nothing more than saying a few dumb things and meeting somebody.  Unfortunately, this is how law enforcement works in this country.

Glamby
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 05:19 pm: [report]

I am a prosecutor, so take it for what it’s worth, but from what i see in the transcript it’s not her always bringing up the kids.  What I see in that transcript is that when she asks him what he likes, before she ever mentions anything about kids, he’s the first to bring up “young rape”.  Then later asks for age, she responds with her and says that he wanted to know theirs, not hers.  Then immediately jumps to asking if she’s looking for a daddy to take her and the kids.  Then he asks her “would you like to be like side lovers doing you and the girls”.  This wasn’t a case where the Det. emailed him and said, hey do you want to have sex with my kids and he said, sure, yeah.  He initiated the topic. 

Child solicitation is a real crime with real physical and emotional consequences.  Suppose J didn’t want to have sex with the children (still a stretch for me to believe), yet he knew she was bringing these kids to a meeting with him with the intent that he have sex with him.  That’s not endangering those children or inflicting severe emotional trauma on those children? He’s willingly participating in that.  He thought he was meeting someone and her kids were going to be there, and it’s undisputed he knew that she was bringing them with the intent that she wanted him to have sex with them.  I’m sorry, but in my book, that’s not “saying a few dumb things”.

snap
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 05:30 pm: [report]

maybe he didn’t *want* to have sex with the kids, but he agreed to it!  and he showed up!  he obviously had no qualms about subordinating his ideas for her fantasies.  to me, EVERYTHING in that article suggests that he WOULD READILY HAVE ABUSED THE GIRLS.  if she wanted him to do that, he would not have said no.  furthermore, he actively described abusing children and what he’d do to her children.  that alone was disgusting.

Goldfinch86
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 06:02 pm: [report]

Snap when did the article say girls. And by the way not everyone is sick which is what this is making any man who wants to have sex with a woman with children into. You don;t know for certain he would have done anything, how do you know he even said anything about the kids. Where are you getting this information from your imagination?

AlisonNoelle
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 06:07 pm: [report]

Wow this article is alot to digest. While its obvious the guy was desperate for any kind of attention from a real woman, I do NOT think that he wanted to have anything to do with the girls. While I didn’t read anything that he said about what he would do with the girls when they met up I did read alot of leading from the detective. It seemed pretty obvious to me that he was primarily interested in meeting with just the woman. This kind of makes me rethink everything. How many of the registered sex offenders in our neighborhoods are guys like this? Someone who got caught up in a fantasy? So very very sad really.

ayonali
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 06:16 pm: [report]

One of the sad things with this (and kudos to vanity fair for this) is that so many people don’t even bother to listen to the other (convicted) parties side of the story. They hear the notion of sex crime, and automatically go into “He’s Guilty!” Speaking from experience with a family member who was wrongly accused with zero evidence, and the state still convicted. I’m interested in the notion of “Why?” This was clearly entrapment. I imagine that he had gone through the same scenario that my family member went through. That as soon as the prosecution said what he was being accused of, there wasn’t a thing he could do to defend himself. Not to say that this stuff doesn’t happen. There are many cases, and many victims. But it seems like this is a witch hunt. Just my two cents.

Kate2009
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 06:52 pm: [report]

He’s a total creep, but it doesn’t matter.  This is too close to entrapment for comfort.

mrcash
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 08:45 pm: [report]

It’s different when they get a person to come have sex with a minor ONLY. We don’t know what he would have done in the situation, no matter what he said. And I think on those shows, they only get them for charges like supplying alcohol to a minor or contributing to the delinquency of a minor, not actual sex offender charges, because they didn’t actually have sex with a minor. A lot of times if the person is already in trouble they violate their parole and go to jail anyway.

snap
wrote on November 5 2009 @ 08:59 pm: [report]

@goldfinch:  i read the actual vanity fair article, which explains that he described rather extensively what he would do to the girls.  so yeah, my “imagination” is the ACTUAL SOURCE.  read it, hun.

scylla
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 01:36 am: [report]

Oh, for god’s sake.  HE DID NOT COMMIT A CRIME.  That’s what I don’t get about these kinds of cases.  He said sick things—but guess what?  Not a crime.  This isn’t like child pornography; there are no real children involved.

I do not defend what this man said.  I don’t know if I can even defend his intentions.  But the fact of the matter is this—he never acted upon any supposed intentions (which are virtually unprovable).  He isn’t a rapist.  He isn’t a child molester.  He said disgusting things about people that never existed in an attempt to get laid (by someone he had every reason to think was a consenting adult).

We are veering into some frighteningly Orwellian territory.  Yes, we do it in the name of “protecting the children,” but how many stupid, desperate, lonely men do we lock up (for, you know, NOT committing a crime) in our attempt to catch real sex offenders?  And, as AlisonNoelle points out, how many people on the sex offender registry are guys like this?  How many people are we punishing for life (after they have served their time?  Keep in mind that both kinds of “sex offenders” (the real ones and the ones who kindasortamaybe might commit crimes against imaginary people) actually have insanely low rates of recidivism, no matter what Nancy Grace likes to imply.

This is entrapment and this is thoughtcrime.

GreenAura
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:41 am: [report]

Well, I know a guy who is a convicted sex offender, lets call him Frank.  Frank exposed his penis to an 11 year old boy.  Here’s the catch: Frank was also 11 when it happened.  Frank and his friend were playing in his friends bedroom and decided to show each other their junk.  The friend’s mom walked in, flipped out, called the cops saying that Frank exposed himself to her precious baby boy.  Long story short, a judge found him guilty and at 11 years old he was convicted.  Now he has to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life and cannot leave the state he lives in w/o permission.  He had to be home schooled because he was no longer allowed near school grounds. 

My point is that these cases are often not as simple (or fair) as they seem and unless you know all the facts of the case, you shouldn’t judge.

hannahsguy
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:48 am: [report]

This is why I’m moving to Europe.  I totally agree with C. Munro’s post.

Check this story out, it’ll make your skin crawl with disgust for the U.S. criminal justice system:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/15-year-old-girl-faces-sex-offender-status-for-the-next-20-years

ChocoBoo
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:51 am: [report]

As creepy as the article is, he never physically went after any (albeit imaginary) kids during the case. He’s a total creep, but I don’t see how this is a form of “justice”. What about the real predators, who stay hiding behind a ‘nice neighbor’ facade? Trolling for whackos in a chat-room doesn’t make one a super-sleuth.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:52 am: [report]

@scylla - first let me say i admit to not knowing the details of this particular case, and refuse to pass judgement one way or the other…  but to insist a crime has to BE committed is wrong.  you can ATTEMP to commit murder, and its a crime.  you can CONSPIRE to rob a bank and its a crime.  i dont think someone should be convicted of child rape or w/e the charge would be called in this case, but attempted rape, or conspiracy to rape a child would fit better.  again, not in this case per se, but in general.

@CMun - i know ur stance on cops, and you know mine.  that being said, i agree that these types of cases seem wrong to me as well, and i wish law enforcement would reconsider or discipline themselves more in cases like this.

bumbler
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 08:59 am: [report]

@Scylla It’s illegal to just threaten to kill someone.  If you then show up at that person’s home with duct tape and a hacksaw in the trunk of your car they can certainly prosecute you before you’ve actually killed them or even laid hands on them.

Riley
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:39 am: [report]

They did not use a wire on the guy because Deery understood what his intentions were.  Every time he veered towards meeting her alone she made sure that children were brought back in to play.

If the meet had been allowed to progress until the actual acts were imminent, their case would have been shot.  He was a victim of circumstance and an over-zealous “thought-pol” division of the government.

Disgusting fantasies shouldn’t be a prosecutable offense.

Reminds me of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act, spend more time chasing ghosts and inciting fear in the general public than actually protecting the people.

C.Munro
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:47 am: [report]

@Macho:  Actually, I think most of the blame for these kind of cases belongs with the prosecutors, although I do wish more police would stand up and say, “This is neither an appropriate nor effective way to catch the kind of scumbags I’m supposed to catch.” 

@bumbler:  Yes, but threats of violence are a specific kind of speech that precedent says is not protected under the first amendment. 

What disturbs me most about this case is the detective made numerous attempts to steer his suspect toward a sexual encounter with minors.  That is entrapment.  He created a criminal out of a horny douchebag, and that is wrong.  It would be like cops going on Craigslist saying, “I’ll sell you this used home stereo really cheap, but you’ve got to buy a couple of 8-balls of coke before I’ll sell it to you,” and then busting someone for possession of a controlled substance.

occumb
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:54 am: [report]

While these lines are definitely blurry, I do think there’s a bigger issue here, and I appreciate VF bringing it to light. Convicted sex offenders are (supposedly) highly monitored, and rightly so in many cases. However, I think everyone has a right to privacy and the opportunity to rehabilitate. During Halloween, there were many news stories in my area about how the police go door-to-door to check on convicted sex offenders to make sure they’re home and not in costume. I understand the underlying need, but this type of thing feels like we glorify that we’ve “got our eye” on these “horrible, scary, highly likely to relapse” people. 1: We do not, as the Dugard case clearly shows. 2: Some people do truly rehabilitate, and they will always be victims of this system. If I were a murderer out on parole, I would not be held up to this type of public scrutiny, and I may be just as likely to commit another offense.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 10:55 am: [report]

agreed with entrapment.

bogart4017
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 12:32 pm: [report]

Anybody should know as far as the internet goes—-the first mention of kids and you should be leaving skid marks across the screen.
This particular case sounds like a cross between entrapment and “we need our numbers this month”.

scylla
wrote on November 6 2009 @ 05:44 pm: [report]

@MuchoMacho: True.  I never meant to imply that the attempt to commit a crime isn’t a crime in itself, though, as you rightly point out, it’s a different kind of crime. 

@bumbler: You can’t “show up at the house” of a person who doesn’t exist.  No jury in the world would convict somebody for threatening to kill a nonexistent person.  By that logic, I could be convicted of a serious crime for making horribly graphic threats against somebody’s imaginary friend.

ayonali
wrote on November 9 2009 @ 03:27 pm: [report]

Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. And this is the hot button issue right now. 80’s was drugs, 90’s was gangs. the last few years. It’s all about sex crimes. And if you want to see some disturbing trends, go to a book store. go watch the telly. Everyday they find someone new. Some new boogeyman to go after. Personally, with that experience. I no longer trust the state of Oregan. I watched all the evidence get thrown out of the window (literally! pre trial motions were made with the judge favoring EVERY motion in the prosecutions favor. And watched a man not able to say ANYTHING in his defense.  And they tell you “I’m not here to find you innocent, I’m here to prove guilt.” - Four detectives said that. FOUR. Believe what you will with the justice system. But with something so tainted, and people too ignorant of reality. It’s hard to tell what’s really going on. And this gentleman in the article is another example. Who are we to judge. We hear the crime and automatically assume guilt without even bothering to give another look. I hate the so called “Justice System.” It’s too corrupted. And anyone who says otherwise has never watched an innocent man go to prison. Have that evil on your soul.