His defense is the only valid one, and it's not going to be a walk in the park
for prosecutors.

If there was ever a case that set the line for internet entrapment, this
appears to be it.

While Alex may have been horribly wrong and had the worst of intentions when he
wrote that alleged note, the issue of the e-mails is strong. Specifically, the
issue of when things got sexual, how, and how much was initiated by the agent
who took over the identity, and when, are all going to come into play.

In the worst-case scenario for Alex, he got sexual before the agent took over,
and the agent was merely intercepting a clear intent to commit a crime. In
that case he gets convicted.

In the best-case scenario for Alex, he was more concerned for the girl's
welfare, her family panicked merely because they were talking, the agent
stepped in, got sexual, and his entrapment defense saves him from a conviction.

There is very little middle ground here. Even a conviction may not hold up
under appeal, and that could take several years.

My guess is it's simply a coin toss if there's a clear demarkation point in
sexual chat before/after the FBI got in.

John Fernandez

John Fernandez wrote:

My guess is it's simply a coin toss if there's a clear demarkation point in
sexual chat before/after the FBI got in.

When it comes right down to it, analyzing a trial from newspaper accounts is
like trying to analyze a chess position when you know only 2/3 of the pieces on
the board, and some of the pieces that you do know about are misplaced.

Wick Deer

My guess is it's simply a coin toss if there's a clear demarkation point in
sexual chat before/after the FBI got in.

When it comes right down to it, analyzing a trial from newspaper accounts is
like trying to analyze a chess position when you know only 2/3 of the pieces
on
the board, and some of the pieces that you do know about are misplaced.

Actually, this is a pretty clear-cut case.

The information is out there, it's just that the judge is unpredictable.

His conversations with the girl and not the agent are what this case is going
to turn on.

It will depend on when the parent chose to get involved, and what had occurred
before that point. If he was just talking to her, that's not illegal.

Listen to Clarence Darrow talkin'... With your expert opinion, I am
surprising this trial is even going on.
Gordo, go troll in the other newsgroups some, please?

Aviv

LeModernCaveman wrote:



Actually, this is a pretty clear-cut case.

The information is out there, it's just that the judge is unpredictable.

His conversations with the girl and not the agent are what this case is going
to turn on.

It will depend on when the parent chose to get involved, and what had occurred
before that point. If he was just talking to her, that's not illegal.

Make that "surprised"

Aviv Friedman wrote:

Listen to Clarence Darrow talkin'... With your expert opinion, I am
surprising this trial is even going on.
Gordo, go troll in the other newsgroups some, please?

Aviv

LeModernCaveman wrote:



Actually, this is a pretty clear-cut case.

The information is out there, it's just that the judge is unpredictable.

His conversations with the girl and not the agent are what this case
is going
to turn on.

It will depend on when the parent chose to get involved, and what had
occurred
before that point. If he was just talking to her, that's not illegal.

illSpam (Wickdeer3) wrote in message ...
John Fernandez wrote:

My guess is it's simply a coin toss if there's a clear demarkation point in
sexual chat before/after the FBI got in.

When it comes right down to it, analyzing a trial from newspaper accounts is
like trying to analyze a chess position when you know only 2/3 of the pieces on
the board, and some of the pieces that you do know about are misplaced.

Wick Deer
___________________________________
Having participated in a celebrity criminal trial (baseball players),
I can speak from personal experience that Wick Deer's statement is
absolutely correct. Read the newspaper articles for what they are
worth, but do not put too much value in them. What are "facts" to a
newspaper reporter, are often a world of difference from what becomes
admissible, and how it is presented, in open court.

KidDon