You are on page 1of 57

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY FORTY~THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Vs.

NO. 2238 CRIMINAL 2009 ~:' f.1

,. r"\ -:1

:~

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

'r I

r.,

, -., :" '·1

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER JR.

COMMONWEALTH'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION IN LIMINE .~:;

PROHIBITED/LIMITED EXPERT TESTIMONY '.,) ~:) o

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES E. David Christine, Jr., District Attorney of Monroe County,

Attorney for the Commonwealth, by and through Michael Rakaczewski, Assistant

District Attorney, and files the following brief as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On or about February 7, 2009, the Defendant contacted Detective Ryan

Venneman via the internet while Detetctive Venneman had assumed the identify

of 'Emily". a 15 year old minor female,

After "Emily" identified herself as a 15 year old girl from the Poconos, the

Defendant asked her to share pictures, while he indicated he had a webcam. She

sent photos to him to which he commented "very very cute" [Chat Log 2/7/09 124314 PM]. The Defendant asked "Emily" if her ex-boyfriend took "any traditional 'ex' pics?" of her, [Chat Log 2/7/09 1 :05:20 PM] inferring if he took any nude/provocative photos of the 15 year old'. After "Emily" indicated he did I the Defendant requested that she share them with him. [Chat Log 217/09 1 :06:40

PM]. The Defendant asked if "Emily" had any more pies. After she sent an

I hcse tj pe of photos have become a recent phenomena among youthful e-rnailers and texters, commonly referred to as "sexting", See attached exhibit "A".

additional photo, the Defendant indicated to her "that'l get a reaction" [Chat Log 217109 1: 17: 11 PM]. He then indicated he was "waiting for ["Emily"] to put up arother pic so I can contiue to 'react' "[Chat Log 2/7109 1 :19:38 PM]. When questioned about what he meant, he then indicated he reacted "below the screen" [Chat Log 217109 1:20:18 PM]. The Defendant then askes "Emily" "did your ex ever play for you on cam?" [Chat Log 2f7109 1 :21 :02 PM). He indicates he has a "big reaction here" [Chat Log 2/7/09 1 :22:25 PM]. When asked what he means, the Defendant states "where my hands are" [Chat Log 217109 1 :22:51 PM) then indicating his hands are "down lower" [Chat Log 217109 1:23:12 PM]. The Defendant then asks "Emily" if "you want to see more" {Chat Log 217109 1 :~~3:43 PM]. He then masturbates, exposing himself over the internet to "Emily". The Defendant continues to engage in very sexually explicit communications with "Emily" including asking her if she tasted her ex-boyfriends penis, her favorite sexual position, if her ex-boyfriend ejaculated in her, if he used a condom, and if she performed oral sex on him. "Emily" tells the Defendant that she doesn't want them to get in trouble because of their ages, to which the Defendant agrees saving "ok" [Chat Log 2/7/09 1 :39:23 PM). The Defendant then asks her age again stating "187" [Chat Log 2/7109 1 :42:53 PM] to which "Emily" again states that she is "15" [Chat Log 2/7/09 1 :42:59 PM], The Defendant states "aha", "my bad", "didn't realize you were 15.,."[Chat Log 2/7/091:43:02 PM -1:43:59 PM]. He later asks "you want to see it finish?" [Chat Log 2/7/09 1 :46:40 PMJ. "Emily" agrees and the Defendant turns his webcam back on and ejaculates.

A criminal complaint was filed against this Defendant on October 16,

2009. He had a preliminary arraignment on November 9, 2009 and his

preliminary hearing on October 16, 2009, at which time he waived his charges to

court. The Defendant was formally arraigned at the Courthouse on January 11,

2010.

The Defendant indicated he was calling two experts to testify2 as follows:

Marcus Lawson regarding:

1. Proper undercover procedures In conducting online chat investigations;

2. Yahoo chatrooms: What they are, how they are created, how users

acquire profiles, how chatrooms are accessed by the users once they

have profiles and the terms of the Yahoo Servie Agreement, and

3. The results of a forensic review of Mr. Ritter's household computers.

Doctor Richard Hamill regarding:

1 The ability of consenting participants in adult internet chatrooms to

fantasize and assume that other adult participants are doing likewise.

The Commonwealth filed a Motion in Limine seeking to prohibit/limit the

purported experts' testimony.

II. QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

Should the Motion in Limine be granted to prohibiUlimit the

purported experts' testimony?

Suggested Answer: Yes.

III. ARGUMENT:

~ Thrs refers to the Defendant's proffer as contained in his letter dated August 24, 20 I O. Attached as exhibit "U'

A Motion in Limine is a procedure for obtaining a ruling on the admissibility of evidence prior to or during trial. The ruling is similar to that upon a motion to suppress evidence. Questions concerning the admissibility of evidence lie within the sound discretion of the trial court, and an appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision on such questions absent a clear abuse of discretion. In determining whether evidence should be admitted, the trial court must weigh the relevance and probative value of the evidence against the prejudicial effect of that evidence. Commonwealth v Maloney, 876 A.2d 1002,2005 PA Super 206.

Marcus Lawson

1. "Proper" undercover procedures in conducting online chat investigations.

yw Enforcement Internet Chat Stings

Mr. Lawson has indicated that "(iln none my unercover operations did I assume the role of a minor ... " (Marcus Lawson preliminary Report pg. 10] because he "did not have the proper frame of reference to playa believable 12 to 15 year old boy or girl" [Marcus Lawson preliminary Report pg. 10]. He does not have the required expertise to testify in this field as he himself has never conducted an online chat investigation posing as a minor. Further, he admits he does not "have the proper frame of reference" to do so.

In order to qualify as an expert in a given field, a witness must possess more expertise than is within the ordinary range of training, knowledge, intelligence, or experience. Bennett v. Graham, 552 Pa. 205, 209, 714 A.2d 393,

39.2J.1998). "The test to be applied when qualifying a witness to testify as an expert witness is whether the witness has any reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge on the subject under investigation," Whittington v. ];piscopal Hosp., 768 A2d 1144 (Pa.Super.2001) (quoting Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 541 Pa. 474, 481,664 A,2d 525, 528 (1995)). If a witness possesses neither experience nor education in the subject matter under investigation, the witness should be found not to qualify as an expert. Dierolf v. ~Iadec 399 Pa.Super. 9,581 A.2d 649..1 651 (1990).

It appears the majority of his training and/or experience is in the area/field of child pornography investigations. He is certainly qualified to testify regarding forensic examinations of computers and maters related to child pronography, however, this defendant is not charged with any child pornography offenes.

His opinion in this area would be beyond the area of expertise to which he would be qualified. See also Pa.R.E. Rule 702.

He also states he has "never seen an arrest made based on a single hour long chat .. , nor has he "seen one that ended with the law enforcement officer informing the subject that he was to be arresed without first securing a search warrant...' [Marcus Lawson preliminary Report pg. 10-11 J Such a statement is inadmissable.

Admissibility depends on relevance and probative value; evidence is relevant if it logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact. Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d

89L!?70 Pa. 117, Sup.2002, reargument denied, certiorari denied 123 S.Ct.

2284, 539 U.S. 919, 156 L.Ed.2d 137. See also Pa.R.E. Rule 401.

Whether Mr. Lawson has seen hundreds of arrests or no arrests at all

after an hour long chat is irrelevant. The number of arrests Mr. Lawson has seen

does not tend to make any fact at issue more or less probable, nor does it

support any inference or presumption regarding any material fact. Detective

Venemman has successfully prosecuted at least 23 crimes with similar charges,

including cases resulting in successful federal prosecution. Sometimes the

suspect drives to a prearranged location, sometimes the suspect simply sends

pornography or exposes himself over a webcam. Sometimes the chats last

months, sometimes, as in this case, a single day.

The statute itself provides as follows:

§ 6318. Unlawful contact with minor

(a) Offense defined.wwA person commits an offense if he is intentionally in contact with a minor, or a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of his duties who has assumed the identity of a minor, for the purpose of engaging in an activity prohibited under any of the following, and either the person initiating the contact or the person being contacted is within this Commonwealth:

(1) Any of the offenses enumerated in Chapter 31 (relating to sexual offenses).

(2) Open lewdness as defined in section 5901 (relating to open lewdness).

(3) Prostitution as defined in section 5902 (relating to prostitution and related offenses).

(4) Obscene and other sexual materials and performances as defined in section 5903 (relating to obscene and other sexual materials and performances).

(5) Sexual abuse of children as defined in section 6312 (relating to sexual abuse of children).

(6) Sexual exploitation of children as defined in section 6320 (relating to sexual exploitation of children).

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6318

According to the plain meaning of the statute, anyone who is in contact

with a minor with the intent to commit a prohibited sex offense has committed this

offense. There is no requirement of a continuing course of action. There is no

requirment that it occur more than once. Police can arrest a defendant if he

violates this law a single time. As in undercover drug operations, police can

choose to make multiple "buys" from the same defendant but can still arrest after

one "buy", even if it occurred within only one hour. This testimony is nothing more

than an attempt to undermine the criminal investigation by personally attacking

this detective. This testimony is more prejudicial than probative and prohibited by

Pa RE. Rule 401.

He has never "seen one that ended with the law enforcement officer

mforrrunq the subject that he was to be arresed without first securing a search

warrant ... " Again, whether Mr. Lawson has ever seen this before is irrelevant.

ThH fact that Detective Venneman did not secure a search warrant does not tend

to make any fact at issue more or less probable, nor does it support any

inference or presumption regarding a material fact. Whether a warrant was

executed or not has no bearing on the case. It is not disputed that no warrant

was executed, the defendant was not charged with any possessory crimes,

Including possession of child pornography. This testimony is nothing more than

an attempt to undermine the criminal investigation by personally attacking this

detective. This testimony is more prejudicial than probative and prohibited by

Pa RE. Rule 401.

Mr. Lawson theorizes that "[i]f Mr. Ritter had indeed been an exploiter of

children with actual victims, Officer Venneman would never have known it."

[Marcus Lawson preliminary Report pg. 11J To the contrary, by the nature of his conduct. the Defendant has demonstrated that he has attempted to exploit

children. He has also demonstrated by his past conduct that he has sought to sexually exploit children to satisfy his own sexual desires", The fact that there

was no "actual victim" in this case is irrelevant. The statute itself alows a law

enforcement officer to poses as a minor victim. As to what Detective Venneman

would know or would not know in the future is speculation and mere conjecture.

A witness will not be permitted to express a guess or to state a judgment based

on mere conjecture,Marks v. Lumbermen's Ins, Co. of Philadelphia, 49 A,2d 855

Pa Super, 1946

Further, to give his opinion that he is not an exploiter, or to infer that he is

n01 at risk to offend or re-offend, as he has already been arrested twice in the

past for similar conduct, is beyond the scope of his alleged expertise. He is not a

psychlatist or psychologist tranined in the risks of recidivism rates in sexual

offenders. His opinion in this area would be beyond the area of expertise to

wh.ch he would be qualified. See also PaRE Rule 702.

Mr. Lawson opines that "the risk of targeting suspects who do not in fact

, It I~ unknown if Mr. Lawson is aware of the Defendant's previous attempts to contact a minor over the internet to sexually exploit as he makes no reference to them.

intend to contact actual minors... is particularly high" and that anonymous internet chatting "by its very nature is a highly fantasy based endeavor." And that the "fantasy basis" is such that "people tend to not believe much of what is said". The Defendant has proffered similar "expert" trestimony about the "fantasy" nature of internet chats, but his other expert is a clinical psychologist. (see ... his report'! If this is a psychologist's area of expertise, it is certainly beyond the scope of this witness's expertise. He is not a psychiatist or psychologist. However, even if he were, such testimony is mere conjecture and speculation and prohibited. No matter how skilled or experienced witness may be, he will not be permitted to guess or to state judgment based on mere conjecture. Collins v. Handl 246 A.2d 398 Pa.,1968. Obviously both experts are aware of the ablity of adults to fantasize. However, the ability of people, inluding adults, to fantasize and be untruthful, is certainly not beyond the knowledge or experience of an average layman. Expert opinion testimony is proper only where formation of an opinion on a subject requires knowledge, information, or skill beyond what is possessed by the ordinary juror. Ovitsky v. Capital City Economic Development gotP..:.,.846 A.2d 124, Super.2004, reargument denied.

(t also clealy assess the credibility of a specific class of individuals, those who enagage in "anonymous internet chatting", which specifically include this detendant. It not only provides an expert opinion as to the veracity of this particular class of people, but also specficially bolsters the Defendants credibiltiy. He has already stated in his chats with Detective Venneman, once he was confronted with what he had done, that he believed this was all fantasy, in

accordance with the proffered experts anticipated testimony. And if he testifies, it is expected he will testify to the same. The Pennsylvania appellate court has consistently maintained that expert testimony as to the veracity of a particular class of people, of which the victim is a member, is inadmissible. See Commonwealth v Baledis, 560 Pa. 567, 747 A.2d 341 (expert testimony that child victims of sexual abuse generally delay in coming forth and are reluctant in revealing abuse improperly bolstered victim's credibility and was inaddmissable) Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 529 Pa, 168.602 A.2d 830 (1992) (expert testimony that the victim displayed behavior patterns consistent with those typically displayed by sexually abused children inadmissible); Commonwealth v. Gallagher! 519 Pa. 291, 547 A2d 355 (1988) (expert testimony that rape victim suffered from rape trauma syndrome and thus it was of no moment that she could not identify attacker two weeks after assault, yet was positive of his identity at trial inadmissible); Commonwealth v. Rounds! 518 Pa. 204! 542 A,2d 997 ill88} (expert testimony that expert believed the victim was not lying when she told expert of sexual abuse inadmissible); .commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77, 541 A .. ~!J 315 (1988) (expert testimony by child psychologist that children do not fabricate sexual experiences in child sex assault trial inadmissible); Cgmm_onwealth v. Seese, 512 Pa. 439, 517 A2d 920 (1986) (expert testimony of pediatrician that eight year olds do not lie about sexual abuse in a case where victim was an eight year old boy inadmissible).

Expert testimony is generally admissible in any case, where such testimony goes to a subject requiring special knowledge, skill or intelligence

beyond that possessed by the ordinary juror. Seese, 517 A.2d at 921. A

determination of whether or not a witness is telling the truth is a subject well

within the ordinary knowledge and experience of the average juror. Id. at 922.

The court in Balodis, also stated: " In rejecting the need for expert

testimony on the question of a witness' veracity, this court warned of the

consequences, which would follow, should such expert testimony be permitted:

For example, if testimony as to the veracity of various classes of people

on particular subjects were to be permitted as evidence, one could imagine "experts" testifying as to the veracity of the elderly, of various ethnic groups, of members of different religious faiths, of persons employed in various trades and professions, etc. Such testimony, admitted as evidence, would encourage jurors to shift their focus from determining the credibility of the particular witness who testified at trial, allowing them instead to defer to the so-called "expert" assessment of the truthfulness of the class of people of which the particular witness is a member.

As such, this type of testimony, even from a valid expert, that asses

credibility is clearly prohibited. This is exactly what the defendant is seeking to do with hrs expert testimony. He is claiming this class of people, people engaged in

"anonymous internet chatting", are untruthful.

The Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force (ICAC) may have a

protocal and procedures that "apply to (undercover) ICAe investigations"

(ephasis added). By the plain language of the protocol cited in his report, they do

noi apply to other law enforcement who are not ICAC members. Detective

vennernan was not a ICAG memebr at the time of this investigation. Whether he

followed or didn't follow any of their rules, regulations, protocal, procedures, etc

IS irrelevant He was not required to do so. Mr. Lawson fails to cite any authority

that requires all law enforcement agencies across the country, specifically

including Pennsylvania, to follow ICAG protocal. In the absence of any such authority, this testimony has no relevance. Whether or not Detective venneman foilowed ICAG protocal does not tend to make any fact at issue more or less probable. nor does it support any inference or presumption regarding a material fact. This testimony is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the criminal Investigation by personally attacking this detective. This testimony is more prejudicial than probative and prohibited by Pa.R.E. Rule 401.

Mr. Lawson infers that Detective Veneman's intent is to "trick people" [Marcus Lawson preliminary Report pg. 12J and nothing more than "a hunt for arrest statistics" [Marcus Lawson preliminary Report pg, 11] Mr. Lawson does not and cannot know his intent. This is clearly beyond his area of expertise and Inadmissable. This conclusion and determination also fails to meet the standard for the reliability of expert testimony established in Frye v. United States, 54 App,D.C. 46, 293 F, 1013 (D.C, 1923) This testimony is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the criminal investigation by personally attacking the detective, This testimony is more prejudicial than probative and prohibited by Pa R.E Rule 401.

He opines that the investigation was not long enough or in depth enough to determine if this defendant was a "valid target" let alone a "danger to children", Whether or not this Defendant is a "valid target" is beyond the scope of his expertise. His conclusion and determination as to who would constitute a "valid tarqet" also fails to meet the standard for the reliability of expert testimony established in Frye v. United States, 54 ARP.D.C, 46, 293 F, 1013 (D,C, 1923),

He fails to cite any authority supporting who can be and who cannot be a "valld target" of a criminal investigation, especially when they have been arrested twice before for similar offenses.

Whether or not this Defendant is "danger to children" is beyond the scope of his expertise. To conclude he is not a "danger to children" when he engaged in t.he same conduct he was arrested for twice in the past, is beyond the scope of his alleged expertise. He is not a psychiatist or psychologist trained in diagnosing pediaphilia, or recidivism risks of sex offensers. His conclusion and determination that he is not a "danger to children" also fails to meet the standard for the reliability of expert testimony established in Frye v. United States, 54 62QJ2.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. 1923). This testimony is nothing more than an attempt to undermine the criminal investigation by personally attacking the detective. This testimony is more prejudicial than probative and prohibited by

Pa R.E.. Rule 401.

Defendant's chat with "Emily"

Mr. Lawson opines that "people who use adult chat rooms have an expectation that others in the room will be adults over 18" and puts forth his opinion as fact that uses have this expectation. He also states that "anyone usng yahoo chat services would necessarily expect that other users had gone through this registration proxcess ... " Lawson fails to state what reports, or scientific surveys he has reviewed that support this conculsion. Furthemore this conclusion is based on an assumption and amounts to speculation and mere conjecture. To be competent, expert testimony must be stated with reasonable certainty. The

purpose of the standard requiring expert testimony to be stated with reasonable certainty is not to render proof needlessly difficult, but to avoid speculation under the rubric of expert opinion, It is not enough for an expert to say that something could have happened, as anybody can guess; instead, expert testimony must assert that it is the professional opinion of the witness that the result in question came from the cause alleged, 8etl v, Erie Ins, Exchange, 957 A,2d 1244 Pa.Super., 2008.

Mr. Lawson states "I do not believe that there was even close to sufficient interaction or time to convince Mr. Ritter that "Emily" was not an adult playing games ... " He is not a psychiatist or psychologist. As such, it is clearly beyond his area of expertise and inadmissable. Even if he were, this is outright speculation and mere conjecture, Further, his conclusion and determination that "there was even close to sufficient interaction or time to convince Mr. Ritter that "Emily' was not an adult playing games" fails to meet the standard for the reliability of expert testimony established in Frye v. United States, 54 App,D.C. 46. 293 ~ 1013 (D.C. 1923).

Mr Lawson states: "I find it highly unlikely than actual 15 year old females would encourage a middle age man in his 40's to expose himself and masturbate on camera." He also states that a photo exchange would be "unlikely" for a real 15 year old female speaking with a 44 year old man, and more likely that of an adult. First. this mistates the evidence. "Emily" did not encourage the Defendant to expose himself and masturbate. Second, he fails to cite any studies or scientific surveys he relies upon for this conclusion. This is an assumption and

amouts to speculation and conjecture. Furthmore, whether he personally believes it would be "unlikely" or even "highly unikely" is irrelevant and does not competent expert testimony

To be competent, expert testimony must be stated with reasonable certainty. The purpose of the standard requiring expert testimony to be stated with reasonable certainty is not to render proof needlessly difficult, but to avoid speculation under the rubric of expert opinion. It is not enough for an expert to say that something could have happened, as anybody can guess; instead, expert testimony must assert that it is the professional opinion of the witness that the result In question came from the cause alleged.Betz v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 957 A.2d 1244 Pa.Super.,2008. Although an expert need not testify with absolute certainty or rule out all possible causes of a condition, his testimony must at least expresses the requisite degree of professional certainty. "An expert fails this standard of certainty if he testifies 'that the alleged cause "possibly", or "could have" led to the result, that it "could very properly account" for the result, or even that it was "very highly probable" that it caused the result". Eaddy v. Hamaty. 694 A.2d 639, 642 (Pa.Super.1997). This would then include conclusions stated as "unlikely" and "highly unikely".

Mr Lawson also states: "I have never encountered a real 15 year old girl who solicited a 44 year old man to expose himself' that mistates the facts and evidence. "Emily" did not solicite the Defendant to expose himself. Further, whether or not Mr. Lawson has ever encountered a real 15 year old girl who solicited a 44 year old man to expose himself, does not tend to make any fact at

Issue more or less probable, nor does it support any inference or presumption regarding a material fact. It is irrelvant.

He further opines "that type of behavior is far more indicative of the typical fantasy banter ... ". To say it is fantasy is to delvie into the minds of the people engaging in such banter. Again he is not psychologist or psychiatrist. He is not qualified to detemine what is fantasy and what is not. Even if he were, to say they were fantasizing and did not really mean what they specifically said, is to say they are lying. Again, expert testimony as to somenes veracity and credibilitty is .moermissable. Further, this conclusion fails to meet the standard for the reliability of expert testimony established in frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46~.3 t. 1013 (D.C. 1923).

Mr. Lawson states that "[i]n my experience, the method employed by Officer Venneman tends to result in arrests of persons who have no interest in children but rather are caught up In the fantasy of the moment and believe they am engaged anonymously with another adult." Again, Detective Venneman's methods have resulted in at least 23 crimes with similar charges, including cases resulting in successful federal prosecution. These Include 2 jury trials, in which the jury heard evidence of "fantasy" and entrapment, but all 12 jurors in both cases rejected both arguments.

Whether or not this Defendant has any "interest in children" is beyond the scope of his expertise. He is not a psychiatist or psychologist trained in diagnosing pediaphilia. He is also not qualified to testify or opine what is "fantasy" ami what IS not. The average juror can read the chat logs for him or herself and

make their own determination as to what is or is not fantasy based on the

coversations themselves.

His interpretation of the chats amounts to an editorial on entrapment.

which include such statements as "Emily" "taking the lead"; "taking the initiative";

"encouraged"; "baits"; and "cajoling". Pennsylvania statutes provide as follows: § 313. Entrapment

(a) General rule.-wA public law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either:

(1) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or

(2) employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it.

18 Pa.C.S.A. § 313

'Whether entrapment has occurred is a question for the jury unless the

evidence points to only one conclusion, thereby making it a question of law for

the court" Commonwealth v. Clark, 453 Pa.Super. 257 t 683 A.2d 901 t 905 (.1]96). citing Commonwealth Vo Harris. 431 PaoSupero 222, 636 A,2d 210, 213

As such, this is a jury issue and Mr. Lawson's tesimony impermissibly

encrouches on the province of the jury.

Yahoo chatrooms:

There is no objection to Mr. Lawson's testimony about: What they are,

how they are created, how users acquire profiles, how chatrooms are accessed by the users once they have profiles and the terms of the Yahoo Servie Agreement. This generalized testimony is factual and informative and therefore not objectionalbe.

The results of a forensic review:

The actual foresic review is not objectionalbe or the methodoligy, however, Mr. Lawson goes further than this in his report. He opines that because of his forensic examination, and the absence of child pornography or anv other chats with minors. he has no predisposition to engage in illegal behavior with minors.

Dr. Richard Hamil:

The ability of consenting participants in adult internet chatrooms to fantasize and assume that other adult participants are doing likewise.

Such testimony is mere conjecture and speculation and prohibited. No matter how skilled or experienced witness may be, he will not be permitted to gUBSS or to state judgment based on mere conjecture. Collins v. Hand, 246 A.2d ~9~ Pa .. 1968. Obviously the average Jay person is aware of the ablity of adults to fantasize. However, the ability of people, inluding adults, to fantasize and be untruthful, is certainly not beyond the knowledge or experience of an average layman. Expert opinion testimony is proper only where formation of an opinion on a subject requires knowledge, information, or skill beyond what is possessed by the ordinary juror. Ovitsky v. Capital City Economic DeveloQment Corp., 846 A.2d L4__4" Super.2004, reargument denied.

It also clealy assess the credibility of a specific class of individuals, those who enagage in "anonymous internet chatting", which specifically include this defendant. It not only provides an expert opinion as to the veracity of this particular class of people, but also specficially bolsters the Defendants credibiltiy. He has already stated in his chats with Detective venneman, once he was confronted with what he had done, that he believed this was all fantasy, in accordance with the proffered experts anticipated testimony. And if he testifies, it IS expected he will testify to the same. The Pennsylvania appellate court has consistently maintained that expert testimony as to the veracity of a particular class of people, of which the victim is a member, is inadmissible. See Commonwealth v Balodis, 560 Pa. 567. 747 A.2d 341 (expert testimony that child victims of sexual abuse generally delay in coming forth and are reluctant in revealing abuse improperly bolstered victim's credibility and was inaddmissable) Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 529 Pa. 168,602 A.2d 830 (1992) (expert testimony that the victim displayed behavior patterns consistent with those typically displayed by sexually abused children inadmissible); Commonwealth v. Gallagher, 519 Pa. 291, 547 A.2d 355 (1988) (expert testimony that rape victim suffered from rape trauma syndrome and thus it was of no moment that she could not identify attacker two weeks after assault, yet was positive of his identity at trial inadmissible); Commonwealth v. Rounds, 518 Pa. 204, 542 A.2d 997 (19lJJD (expert testimony that expert believed the victim was not lying when she told expert of sexual abuse inadmissible); Commonwealth v. Davis, 518 Pa. 77, §~L.8:.2d 315 (1988) (expert testimony by child psychologist that children do not

fabricate sexual experiences in child sex assault trial inadmissible);

Commonwealth v. Seese. 512 Pa, 439, 517 A.2d 920 (1986) (expert testimony of

pediatrician that eight year olds do not lie about sexual abuse in a case where

VIctim was an eight year old boy inadmissible).

Expert testimony is generally admissible in any case, where such

testimony goes to a subject requiring special knowledge, skill or intelligence

beyond that possessed by the ordinary juror. Seese, 517 A.2d at 921. A

determination of whether or not a witness is telling the truth is a subject well

within the ordinary knowledge and experience of the average juror. ld. at 922.

The court in Balodis. also stated: " In rejecting the need for expert

testimony on the question of a witness' veracity, this court warned of the

consequences, which would follow, should such expert testimony be permitted:

For example, if testimony as to the veracity of various classes of people

on particular subjects were to be permitted as evidence, one could imagine "experts" testifying as to the veracity of the elderly, of various ethnic groups, of members of different religious faiths, of persons employed in various trades and professions, etc. Such testimony, admitted as evidence, would encourage jurors to shift their focus from determining the credibility of the particular witness who testified at trial, allowing them instead to defer to the so-called "expert" assessment of the truthfulness of the class of people of which the particular witness is a member,

As such, this type of testimony, even from a valid expert, that assess

credibility is clearly prohibited. This is exactly what the defendant IS seeking to do with his expert testimony. He is claiming this class of people, people engaged in

"anonymous internet chatting", are untruthful. Further, this conclusion fails to

meet the standard for the reliability of expert testimony established in Frye v.

United States, 54 App.D.C. 46,293 F, 1013 (D.C. 1923).

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Commonwealth respectfully requests this

Honorable Court to grant the Commonwealth's

Respectfully Submitted,

Michael Rakaczewski, Esquire I.D. No. 81290

Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney Monroe County Courthouse Stroudsburg, PA 18360 (570) 420-3470

L~'I/-OFFICES

!dJ 007/008

The RoUtld Up • S~

~Bao~l~

->--".--.~-. ----------------------

Sexting

'EleetroDic porn' an epidemic amonglt teens and young adults

.By: Korey Middleton

POlted: 4/13/09

QreenJJburg.Salem. High Schooljuutor Jamie Bennish never 1hought her c1as.watcs would be arrested for: poIMJ.stinrnude pictures oftboir glrlft1.ends.

For child pomoa.raphy, DO less.

"They did not necessarily ohoose to recoive the pictures, although I find it que$ionable tMt they did not deJote the pbotos from their ceD phones after some period ottUM," Beniab. said in an interview with CBS News.

Tc:~ing hal become a ptefmed way to oommunicate among teens ancl youns adIilts. In a swvey oondUC1ecl by jpIIImts.oom, toen.pn ,,8 l3·17 send or reoeive appro~J;y 1,742 text me_I" per month. Ofthosc survoyed, 2S percent ofteCDagonl who arc in a Jelat:loDsbip coDmIUDioatc with their sfgniftcMt o'thonl via text DlNSBglnS between tho ho\lr8 of 12 and 5 a.m,

"I w1sb ,ttis a.nd WOIrlm would think t9ke." said Nadia Cano, graduate coorcliDatOr for the SmIalIU1d OeMer Diversity Reaouroe Center. "It's exploiting yoursel£fl

Several incldent3 urou the cowury hJ.volvlng "aexdng." acndina nude or semi-nude picture. via text tneS88ge have occurred involvina lHnS betweOJl the 'ses of 13 and 19. In. a survey oocdllOtod by the National Campai&D. to PteV81lt Teen and Unphumed ~pncy for Cosmo Oirl mapztao, 20 pfll'Cent of teens admitted they have ci.thtr .,entOl' posted nude or somi-nu!;1e picture. or video oftbeauelvea. Among young Ad. (epa 20.26). 33 potcont have admitted to "ud1na or posting nude or semi~nwk: images of tb.emselves.

'It's just wrons overall," AdriaPa Abatea, a sophomore aeography student. said. "Thcro should be some kind ofpnnJsbrnent."

Sexually euggeBtive message. (text, ,,-mall, iluu,nt messagini) are even more prevalent than soxually suggestl"" images.

Thirty-nine percent of teens have sent or posted sElxuaUy wg,gcstivo menages. Flfty.nine pereent ot

10fJ

51112009 IO~34 AM

III 008/003

I

I 20fl

I_

htq>:llwww.rollDdupnowa.com/hoJMIlndex.dn.1ovO.lrdllpllt.yArtlolll ...

you.os adu.tt$ have sent or poSUtd sexually :JUggeBtiVII messages.

"I received It. (sexually explicit] e-mail overMySpace.ItCanosaid."Iwas off'onded by that."

'"i: -.

Amongst the roasons for sending sexually auaacstive message' 63 percent of teens said the priJna!)r rel80D "" to be "fun or tHrtatlous." Fifty-two peNent of teen gl:rls did so 88 a "SIIIXY proaent" for a boyfriend. and 40 percent said they sent "xuaUy charpd images or nwss&p, "ajoke.

"( think kids mould be awa.re of ~ law, II Cano said. "The university and the schools Call do their pan to help."

The survey mentioml ways t""ns and adults oan protect themselves.

Hyour messaps and imapi will ~t pPSCd around, even if you think ~ won\" The ~onal . Campalsn to provonI Teen and Umplarmed'Pregnancy aeid. "Forty percent oftemlliDd yoUng I4Ults say they have had a sexually SUUD&tive JtJeiSB8e display to them aDd 20 percent say tho)' have sbared sueh a message with 800100lltl other than the person for whom It was originally Jru:ant.1I

Ac~ to the survey t DlOasaaos. that are sent on cyberspace will never truly 8P away. }>Qtential employers, collage recruiters and even potential partners can aU read posts or $00 pioture. someone ~postcd,

"J:: ,'.

"CeU phone companies should provide: contrels," Abarca said.~IW.e nocd ~ make parents aware." Sex.1:iD& to attractpotentialpamws is another common reaso~ te:~ns and YO\lllg aclults·send sexuaUy~ < sugesdvc mos_geI or imapa, Twenty-one ~ent of lean girls and 39 ~oent otteoa. boys said they have sent 5\Wh coment to JOl1'I.IIone whom they want"d to da" or hook up with.

"It's a reflection of society," cano said. " Kids are mundllted with sexual Images and I tbfnk girhl and women are. cont\wed by what is ICccpt.d,"

Parents and. administrator. are struaJing to combat the "soxting opidemic" flXnOnpt: teens and yO'llllg adults,

,I Just 18 YQU need to talk opealy and boneatly with your kJda about real life tel( an4 relatiollllb.ipa. you abo want to diecuss onlina and coB phone activity, II the National Campaijll to Prr:vcnt Tnn aM Unp~ PreanancY HId, "Make 5Uf(l your kid81Wly understand that DlO8SBFS or pictures they send ovor tho lntomot or tholt. QeD phOlleI are not truly private or anonymous. II

Some states are considering the legaltmtion of sexting. Lawmakert in Voimont ate oonsiderlaS pGssinl a blll to legalize the o~ exclump ot ~e ima&eS betwNn poople .,13 to 18. Under CWTont law? p8J.'licipants caa be charged with ohild pornog;t'aphy.lftbe law, that has already passed the Vermont Seftate, go_ through, only the paulrAa on of suoh trMacs will remain a orime.

Many paronts con:dder ohild pornography to be a haruh crime for possessing nude images of boyftieQds or girlfriends. Cbiefpublfc defender of We9tmorelan.d CoUftty, Penn. Dame Bertani said the felony ohargcs arc bomndous.

"It should be an issue bet".II'eeD the 8Obool, tho: parents and the kids- and p.rimllri1y tho parent. and the

5/112009 J 0:34 AM

LAW-OFFICES

IjJ 009/009

TM Round Up - Scxting

bttp:llwww.roundupnewl.cQJD!homollndex.cfiu?evem-dJapll).An(cl.: .:'

. ,

i .

r ! ~

'J

rl :1

I:

"

I!

kids. U Bertaai said in an interview with CBS news,

Bertani added tltJd such punishment should be relerv«t for sex offenders. not teenagerS 'Who mlgbt have usee! poor judgment, but meant nothing malioioUl,

Others aren't as sympathetic,

"J wouldn't want a child to be prosecuted, but ignorance isn't an excuse," Cano said. nTheN should be eduoation for this, to

--------------------------------------------------------------------

C Copyright 2009 The RoUDd. Up

S/II2009 10:34 AM

,r •• __ • _~ ... __ ....... ,_,________"._~ •• _ ....... ~_._ ••• ' • __ ._._ • __ ~ ~ .• >_. , •. , ..... __ ~. , ... ~_~._ .... ~ ..... ;, ...... , _ +~_~ ._ •• __ • __ ._._. ._ ....... ~ •• _,

RollI~rt M. WLlllb(!,.~~ lsffrey L Cihb~ . Julin Ponnv Clark leffrev R '\ellJld

'IV Gary Kohlman leremlnhA (ollir» Madv GilllOIl

Brur '(' R. Lerner Andrew [1. Roth John M. V\'cw

Douglas L. GrIJenfkl,1 Rog~r Pollak

.vnnn Ronnnl Mav-rsor

1.,(:U)1 Davun .

DCl\'Ki K' Virk

Robnrt Alexander Mallhp.w Clash-Dr-xle:

BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L,C.

Attornevs &' Counselors

805 Fifteenth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 842~2600 Facsimile: (202) B42-188fJ WVI'W .bredho fr. com

August 24, 2010

joshua B. Shiffrin

Ramya Revindran

Daniel A. Zibel

Erin K. Pitts

Douglas E. Callahan Kimberly Sanchez Ocasio Osvaldo Vazquez

Laurence Gold

Patricia Pnlach

Susan G. Lahne

Sarah M. Fox

Kathleen Keller

Abigail V. Carter

Tearyn J. Parroff

OfCoun.&1

Elliot Bredhoff (t9ZH0041 Henry Kaiser 11911-1989)

Michae J Rakaczewski

Clffice of the District Attorney Commonweal th of Pennsylvania (_ 'ounty of Monroe Courthouse ~·tr()udsburg. PA 18360-2117

RE: Commonwealth v. William Scott Ritter Docket No. 2238 Criminal 2009

l.iear Mr. [~akaczewski:

ln anticipation of the trial now scheduled for September 9,2010, the defense reserves the right to call two expert witnesses. Mr. Lawson and Dr, Richard Hamill, in its case-in-chief.

We anticipate that Mr. Lawson's testimony will encompass the following subject mattcr s:

I. Proper undercover procedures in conducting online chat investigations; ) Yahoo chatrooms: What they are, how they are created, how users acquire profiles, how chatrooms are accessed by users once they have profiles and the terms of the Yahoo Service Agreement, and

1. "['II( results of a forensic review of Mr. Ritter's household computers.

We aru icipatr- that Dr. Hamill's testimony will encompass the following subject mat tcr

";'}w ability of consenting participants in adult internet chatrooms to fantasize and assume that other adult participants are doing likewise.

For your «onvenience, 1 am enclosing the curriculum vitas for Dr. Hamill and Mr. Lawson

vlichael l{akaC'zewski .\ ugu s.t 21-. ;~o 10

Sincerely,

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

VS.

William Scott Ritter Jr

Marcus K Lawson, President Global CompuSearch LLC

September 14,2610

Preliminary Report

HISTORY:

Global CompuSearch (GCS) has been retained by counsel for Mr. William Scott Ritter, the defendant in the instant case. It was explained to me by Attorney Gary Kohlman that Mr. Ritter's.caae involved allegations of using the Internet to solicit a pohcs officer who was attempting to portray hImself as a minor in Yahoo a chat room.

Attorney Kohlman explained to me that the allegations were as follows: on February 7. 2009 Mr. Ritter. while in a Yahoo chat room, contacted Barrett Township Police Department Patrol Officer Ryan Venneman. What was said by Officer Venneman in the chat room prior to Mr. Ritter's contact was unknown but between 12:38PM and 1:68PM, Officer Venneman and Mr. Ritter engaged In a private chat culminatingwl1h Mr. Ritter masturbating in view of his computer web cam and subsequently being informed by Officer Venneman that he had violated Penneylvania state law and was going to be arrested. As discussed at further length below. Yahoo fnstant Messenger is a real time

. interactive software application that allows users to engage each other over the tntarnet. Typically that interaction Is by typing messages back and forth but can include interaction via web cam andfor microphone.

Attorney Kohlman requested GCS to provide opinions regarding the following: (1) what is Yahoo chat and how does it work. (2) whether a forensic revlew of Mr. Ritter's home computers revealed any interest in sexual interaction with minors (3) whether any standards existed for the conducting of chat stings and whether a professional opInion could be proffered regarding the actions of Officer Venneman In the instant case.

In rendering the opinions stated here, and as described at further length in thfs.report, t have relied on my training and experience in the areas of law enforcement and forensic computer practices; my review'and knowledge of the literature regard!.ng proper police

procedure regarding Internet stings and child exploitatIon crimes, a forensic examination of Mr. Ritter's computers that I personally performed; and written materials that were given to me by Attorney Kohlman's office.

Personal Qualifications; MatGus lawson, J.D. :

I am the President of, and a Computer Forensics Examiner at, Global CompuSearch

LL C, a private computer forensics firm with offices in Spokane Washington, Portland Oregon and Palm Springs CalifornIa. I was previously employed as a Special Agent with the United States Customs Service (now Department of Homeland Security) for twelve years. Previous to his employment with the Customs Service, I was employed as a Special Agent with both the Drug Enforcement Administration and U.S. Secret Service for five years. My education consists of a Bachelor of Science Degree in Administration of Justice from Portland State University and a Juris Doctor from Pepperdine University School of Law. During my employment with the United States Customs Service I investigated and worked as an undercover operative in cases of fraud, narcotics, weapons violations, terrorism and child pornography. The investigation of these offenses via the lnternet by use of computers was my chief area of responsibility as a Special Agent from approximately 1995 to August of 2000. For eleven of the twelve years I was a Special Agent wIth the Customs Sef\flCe , specialized in the investigation of chlld pornography and child sexual abuse cases. During my employment with the United States Customs Service I personally coordinated four undercover child pomography sting operations and initiated child pornographyandlor child exploitation investigations through out the United States and the world. I began working in the field of child exploitation with my first undercover child pornographyfexploitation operation in 1989 (prior to the wide spread use of the Internet) and continued these types of undercover operations (using the Internet) from 1995 until 2000. 1 coordinated these types of investigations with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Scotland Yard, the German Pollzel! Naval Investigative SefVicel Army Criminal Intelligence Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigations and scores of state and local police agencies. During thIs period of employment with the government I engag~ in hundreds, °if not thol.:'sands of underoover conversations, both by mail an<Hhe Internet and .personally taught other local, state and tederal law enforcement officers how to conduct successful on-line Internet chat operations.

IJuring my employment with the government and as President of GCS, I have coordinated training seminars and trained at seminars coordinated by others on numerous occasions averaging 3 training seminars per year through 2010. In 19961 created one of the first investigative manuals in use by law enforcement investigators and prosecutors outlinIng investigative techniques and strategIes on the Internet with a particular emphasis on protocols for undercover chat ~ings. I was part Qf the inception, planning and creation of the U.S. Customs Cybar Smuggling Center in 1997. I testified before the Or~on State Legislature as an expert witness on issues pertainin9, to the drafting of child pornography Jegisfation. During my period of employment wIth the Customs Service I represented U.s. Customs child pornography investigative efforts in

oZ

numerous print media and television interviews including NBC Nightly News, The Vlontel Williams Show and BBC Television.

As President of GCS I continue to investigate Internet and computer issues in both the criminal and civil arenas and employ a team of 5 forensics examiners and their support staft. Since its inception, the company has served approximately 3000 clients with their electronic discovery, computer forensics, expert witness and litigation support needs averaging 4000 forensic investigative hours per year.

My company is regularly retained in matters involving computer evidence analysis and investigation by the United States Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, School Districts. Public Defenders Offices, both state and federal, throughout the United States and private Jaw firms throughout the world. Global CompuSearch has assisted attorneys in litIgation in almost every state in the union as well as GermanYt England, ftaly, Korea and Japan. Global CompuSearch assists attorneys across a broad spectrum of practice types including family law, business litigation, criminal defense, criminal prosecution, probate law, medical malpraotlce and employment matters.

GCS is routinely retained by defense teams for criminal matters, however it is important to note that our services are retained by prosecutors and other government agencies as well and all of the examiners who work for me have not only investigated cases for the prosecution but testified in them as well.

! at n a published author on computer forensic matters in the Oregon Criminal Defense Investigators Manual and the Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, I have also authored seven classes on computer forensic investigations for WestLaw Corporation's WestLaw LegalEd Center, I have been recognized as an expert witness in U.S, Federal Court. U,S, Military Court and manystata courts and have testified as such in the areas of Internet investigative techniques, computer forensics investigations, computer evidence and child pornography.

Since becoming a private consultant I have peraonally continued to review numerous crimit"!af cases each year brought as a res~ftof Internet based chat stings and now have a combined total of 21 years of experience In. the investigation and evaluation of persons who are suspected of soliciting minors for sexual purposes. to the course of these 21 years I have investigated and evaluated sting arrest cases f have become intimately familiar with the habits and personas of persons who are sexually motivated to seek out minors compared with those that are not.

When evaluating these types of cases l consider four major areas. that I have found play a significant role in determining if an arrested person Is a danger to minors; (1) The protocol used by law enforcement in the chat sting (2) the degree of solicitation of the defendant done during the chats by the taw enforcement officer (3) a comptete review otall other chats the defendant has engaged in independent of the one leading to thearrest and (4) a complete and thorough review of the defendants computer(s) for Indicia of any underlying sexual interest In mmors.

>-hese four areas are prerequisites for me in every Internet chat case that I evaluate and very few result in my determination that a defendant has absolutely no underlying Faraphilia toward minors and was arrested based on the flawed tactics and/or protocol of law enforcement.

Forensic Examln!lDgn of Mr. Bitter's Computers: Methodology

Attorney Kohlman had informed me that he had directed a local computer forensic firm, u.s. Data Forensics in Herndon Virginia to make forensic images of all the computers In Mr. Ritter's home. Attorney Kohlman directed this company to send these forensic copies to the GCS main office in Spokane Washington.

Or. August 16,2010, GCS received 2 hard drives containing forensic images of an HP Pavillion aOOO desktop computer, an HP Compaq Presario V6000 laptop computer, an ACHr Extensa 5620--4020 laptop computer and an HP Pavilion a141 On desktop computer from U.S. Data Forensics as requested by Attorney Kohlman. The images were logged into evidence at GCS and a second backup forensic copy was made.

GCS had previously received paper discovery from Attorney Kohlman's office oonsisting of various documents including an Affidavit of Probable Cause by Officer Venneman, a printout of the chat dialog between Officer Venneman and Mr. Ritter of February 7, 2009 and a CD containing what appeared to be a video of the chat session between OffiGef Venneman and Mr. Ritter, I subsequently also received both a prIntout of the Yahoo profile used by Officer Venneman as "Emily" and illegible copies of the pictures transmitted by Officer Venneman to Mr. Ritter during the chat.

I, Ms reus. Lawson, author of this report, begin the review of the above mentioned paper discovery and the examination of the media in this case at the Spokane Washington office: of Global compusearch, In my analysis of the Ritter media j used EnCase forensic software, version 6.16.2 by Guidance Software, Net Anafyslst version 1.51, by Digital Detective, Print Screen Deiuxe, version 5,Oa by American Systems and Super Yahoo Decoder by Plravi Technologies.

EnCase software allows both the collection and analysis of computer data at the sector level white maintaining the'original integrity of the data such that nothing about the data is changed in any' way. Thus, file names, file paths, creation, modmcatlon and access dates, in essence, everything about the original media remains exactly the same under analysis with EnCase software.

EnCase software allows not only the analysis orfiles in the computers acttve volume, or file.s visible to the user upon accessing the computers operating system. but also files which, having been prevIously deleted, stiU reside in unallocated file space. By way of simple explanation, unallocated file space is the area on the media that is available for the storage of new flfes. This area can also contain the remnants of previous files which the user has decided to delete. When a file is "deleted" by the user, it is not In fact "erased ". Rather, what 90GUfS is that certain designators about the files location are changed allowing that portion of the media to be available for the storage of new files in

4

the future. The file Itself remains In the same position on the media as it did originally. Ine file will remain in place on the media indefinitely, or until overwritten by new files .

. :tlUS, previously deleted files are recoverable by EnCase software. If the fife has been

I ecently deleted and EnCase is able to determine the previous location (file path) of the file, it will automatically undelete the file for viewing. The filels infomlation in the EnCase soflwarewill note that it is a deleted and recovered file. If EnCase cannot determine the files previous file path, it will not recover the file and a "script" seeking that particular file type must be run on the media.

Net Analysis software allows for the recovery and analysis of both active and deleted Internet history on a computer that has previously accessed the Internet with an Internet browser. Net Analysis is run against the forensic image and will recall. conect and assemble all recoverable Intemet history. presenting the results in a manner that allows them to be ordered and sorted according to their date/time stamps such that a chronology of Internet use can be established.

Print Screen software by American Systems allows screen captures of various items of relevance noted during a forensic review so that they can be later used as visual reference for the examiner's report and/or as court exhibits. When screen capturing items of relevance related to pornography, only the file infonnation of that file is captured. It is the policy of GCS to not screen capture images of pornography of any type and in particular, it is the policy of GCS that child pornography is never screen captured at any 1ime or for any reason.

AI! Yahoo chats created when using Yahoo Instant Messenger are encrypted in a .dat file and cannot be read by anyone other than the owner/user of the Yahoo account unless they are decrypted. Super Yahoo decoder by Plravl Technologies Is a software utiljt~1 that decodes these encrypted Yahoo Messenger Arohive History Files .

. Forensic. Ex~mjnation of Mr. Ritter's Comauters: Anal\!,fis of}~rchived Yah~o Chgds

I began my analysis of this case by first reviewing the four forensic images sent to me from U.S. Data Forensics In an effort to determine which computens) had been used by Mr. Ritter and specifically which computens) had been used for Internet chatting. This review indIcated that two of the four computers, the Compaq Presano (hereinafter "laptop 1") and Acer Extensa (hereinafter "laptop 2") laptops were the only two computers that appeared to have any signfficant use by Mr. Ritter, with laptop 1 being identffied as the computer used almost exclusively by him. Laptop 2, I noted, appeared to be primarlly used by Mr. Ritter's wife and ohildren but because it had previously had Yahoo Messenger Installed' included it In my review of Mr. Ritter's chat activities.

r'ahoo itself is a popular Internet content provider. The Internet content/services it orovices is wide and Includes- a search engine, email, news service and chatting

5

platforms to name a few. It is the chatting service that Is at issue in this case. Yahoo users can chat individu~lIy with other Yahoo users or corporately in Yahoo chat rooms. Many people begin in Yahoo chat rooms and then engage someone from that room privately. In order to use Yahoo chat, whether in a chat room or individually, a user must first create a Yahoo profile. Creating a Yahoo profile requires the user to piok a nickname, password, state their birth date, their sex, their nationality and their zip code. Once a profile Is created, to access the Yahoo chat servlce, the user must next download Yahoo Messenger, Yahoo's chatting platform or "protocol", Once Yahoo Messenger is downloaded, the program can be clicked on, opening the Yahoo chat window on the desktop. The user then enters their nickname and password and is connected to the Yahoo chat platform. A user who may have other contacts from Yahoo (for instance from using Yahoo email) can send them an invitation to chat and if the other user accepts, chat one on one with that person in real time by typing at the keyboard. Yahoo chat protocol also provides for this interaction by web cam and microphone. If the user wIshes, Yahoo provides a platform of various Yahoo chat rooms, crested and authorized by Yahoo. These chat rooms cover a variety of topIcs from religion to sports to adult topics which are found under the heading of "Romance".

Laptop 1: This laptop computer appeared to be primarily, if not exclusively, used by Mr. Ritter and had seen extensive use of Yahoo Instant Messenger. I first used EnCase to locate and export all archived (saved) Yahoo chats. Yahoo chats ate saved by the Yahoo software as they occur and reside in dated, named ·individual folders within the Yahoo program on the users computer. As mentioned above, these archived chats are encrypted however (so that only the profile user can retrieve and read them) and thus must be exported and opened with a third party utifity, in this case Super Yahoo Decoder. Using EnCase 1 located and exported several hundred archived Yahoo chat folders. I noted that the dates of these chat archives ranged from August of 2008 through February of 2009, meaning that I would be able to review all of Mr. Ritter's individual chats for the previous 18 months prior to his arrest.

An option that Yahoo Messenger users have when using the software is the ability to look at profiles of chat partners (or potential chat partners) by clicking on the other chatter's name and clicking a link that opens the other person's Yahoo proote page in an Internet browser. These profile checks are recorded in the browser Internet History files. Thus, in addition to the exporting of the archived Yahoo chats I ran Net Analysis software and recovered aU active and deleted Internet historY from the computer. This second step is important to perform in addition to exporting existing chat archives because it will reveal profile searches done by the user that (1) were not archived for some reason (2) reveal the length of time the user has used the Yahoo Messenger software and (3) reveal the type of chat partner the user is seeking and engaging. The Net Analysis recovery revealed that Mr. Ritter had been accessing Yahoo profifes with this computer since November of 2006. It is likely that the gap in time between the earliest profile views of November 2006 and the archived chats of August 2008 'S that Yahoo Messenger was deleted and/or updated prior to August 2008. Nevertheless, between the Net Analysis recovery of profile visits and the EnCase recovery of archived chats. I Was able to see (and read) through virtually all avanable information on the

computer about Mr. Ritter's chat partners and chatting habits since November of 2006 to the present.

Jsing the chat decoder I opened and read through some 700+ archived chats. In none of these did Mr. Ritter engage anyone in chat that stated they were a minor. In fact on two occasions I noted incidents where in the first lines of exchange (where typically clge, sex and location are shared) the other chatter stated they were under 18 and Mr. Hitter informed them they were too young and dismissed the chat

Using the Net Analysis software I also reviewed every Yahoo profile Mr. Ritter accessed with the computer. As stated above, these profile visits give an indication of they type of person the user is engaging where the actual chat archives are not available. Many, if not most of the profiles I observed had ages stated andfor gave some information in the profile that clearly indicated they were not a minor (i.e, college student, children etc.). Anain, I saw no profiles accessed by Mr. Ritter of juveniles or people claiming to be juveniles

I screen captured over 100 samples of chats and profile searches I collected from Mr. Ritter's computer. I collected this large number as representative samples because of the extensive volume of chatting that occurred on laptop 1 yet not a single incident of chRtting with someone claiming to be a minor could be found ..

i also screen captured such a large representative sample because there was no law enforcement seizure and examination of Mr. Ritter's computer as would normally be the case in a prosecution of this type. TypicallYJ in fact in every case in my experience, a search warrant is obtained and the defendant's computer Is seized when law enforcement feels they have probable cause to make an arrest In an Internet chat case. Certainly evidence corroborating that the defendant was engaged in the chats which are alleged would be valuable but typically, if law enforcement truly feels the defendant is seeking minors on the Internetl they want to review the defendant's chat history to determine If there are any potential victims. For reasons unclear, Officer Venneman did

not (10 that in this case. .

Laptop 2: Although this computer did not appear to be Mr. Ritter's primary machine, my initial review indioated that Yahoo Messenger had been loaded on it previously and subsequently deleted. When the Yahoo program is deleted. any saved chat archives are also deleted and because these archives are actually encrypted .dat files, they are not recoverable without considerable time and expense. This was the case with laptop

2 and thus I was unable to review any saved chat archives. I was however able to run Net Analysis on the drive and recovered aM active and deleted internet history which showed that Yahoo had been used on this machine a limited number of times starting in November of 2008. and continuing intermlttenHy until February of 2009. A search through this history, as with laptop 1, revealed numerous instances of the access and viewing of chat partners profiles. Again, as with laptop 1, 1 saw no indication whatsoever that Mr. Ritter was engaging anyone In Yahoo chats Who stated they were a minor and every Ghat profile tnat had a stated age (and the majority did) was an adult.

l:\s with laptop 1, I screen captured a collection of sample profile searches which show either the age of the profile selected and viewed or offered some other information that showed the profile clearly belonged to an adult.

n~1I Forensic IpvestigatioQ of Mr. -RiH;er's Comt!uter(s]

As mentioned above, when evaluating chat cases that come into my office, one of the steps I take is a complete and thorough review of the defendants computerts) for indicia 0-0 any underlying sexual interest in minors. I have actively and personally done

. forensics reviews on hundreds of computers where the owners were alleged to be involved in chHd exploitation crimes. These many investigations and over 21 years of experience in the field of child exploitation investigations have shown me where to look, and what to look for, when forensically examining a computer for evidence of a sexual proclivity toward children. These steps are outlined below.

Laptop 1: I began my investigation into the historical use of the computer by first preprocessing an EnCase case file. This pre-processing uses EnCase functions to recover all previously deleted fold~rs, verify file signatures (which will reveal if a file rs mislabeled to disguise its presence) and mount all compound files (which opens zip and similar file types). This pre-processlnc assures that a subsequent review of images, movies and keywords does not miss items that might be uniquely hidden or otherwise un-viewable. Once the case file had been pre-processed I began my review by viewing all images and movIes in active file space. Active file space Is the area of the drive containing all active (non deleted) flies that would be accessible to someone sitting at tile keyboard. There were approximately 50,000+ active images and although I noted a small amount of adult pornography. it was not extensive and there was no evidence of child pornography, child erotica or Jlteenfl pornography of any kind.

I next ran an EnCase funotion that causes the forensic software to search the unallocated portion of the drive and recover aU previously deleted images as well as all previously deleted folders which might have contained images or movies. Any im~ge6 found would not be viewable to the user without sophisticated forensic softw'are but nevertheless can show a past history of the images that the user looked at. There were approximately 46,000 images located and reviewed from unaUocated file space. There was no child pornography, child erotica or "teen" pornography of any kind found. What I did note however was numerous thumbnail images that clearly appeared to be from . Yahoo profiles that had bean accessed. Without question. all such images I observed were very clearly adults.

I next used EnCase to run several common keywords typically associated with child ~xploitation offenses that are 'commonly encountered in the computers of persons who do SOl whether by viewing and trading child pornography, seeking out potential minor vlotims or searching out others who have similar interests. The running of keywords in this manner searches the drives active and deleted fife space and will alert to the word where ever it is found. Hence, Internet searches, web pages, stories, emans or any other textuel type of data th€1t contelns the word will be found. These keywords-included

'lolita", "teen", "nude teen', "teen sex", "preteen", "r@gold", "nussytan", "kiddy porn" and 'child porn". I received no keyword hits that indicated the machine had ever been used· to search for or view items with these terms and hence no indication that Mr. Ritter ever searched. out such terms, visited web sites of this type, exchanged emails or saved, r~ad or wrote stories dealing with these tOPICS.

I next used the program Net Analysis to search for these same keywords. As discussed above, the Windows Operating System keeps a running textual tog of Windows

. Explorer browsing history. Net Analysis is a separate forensic software than EnCase and allows for the recovery of both active and deleted Internet History log files, As I.dld with EnCase, I ran keyvvord searches to determine if any web sItes had ever been . accessed that contained the words "lolita", "teen", "nude teen", "teen sex", "preteen") "r@gold", "hussytan", "kiddy porn" and "child porn". I saw no relevant Internet history results for any of these keywords meaning that there was no indication that Mr. Ritter ever searched out such terms or visited web sites dealing with these type of topics.

Laptop 2: As with laptop 1, I began my analysis by first pre-processing an EnCase case file. Once the oase file had been pre-processed I began my review by viewing all images and movies in active fife space. There were approximately 11,000+ active images. I noted no adult pornography and there was no evidence of child pornography, child erotica or "teen" pornography of any kind.

As with laptop 1, j again ran the EnCase scripts to recover all deleted images on the drive. The EnCase function worked correctly and in reviewing the 7,000+ images f encountered no child pornography or child erotica, no "teen" oriented pornography nor any adult pornography. As with laptop 1, I did note more thumbnail images that appeared to have been cached when Yahoo profiles with personal pictures were accessed. All of these, without exception were clearly of adults.

I next used EnCase to run keywords typically associated with child exploitation offenses. As stated above, the running of keywords in this manner searches the drives active and deleted file space and wllt alert to the word where ever it is found. Hence, Internet searches, ·web pages, stories or any other teXtual type of data that contains the word will be found. These keywords included "lolita", "teen", "nude teen", "teen sex", "preteen", "r@gold", "hussyfan", "kiddy porn", "young models" and "child porn". , received no keyword hits that indicated the machine had ever been used to search for or view items with these terms and hence no Indication that Mr. Ritter ever searched out such terms, vjsited web sltes of this type, exchanged em ails or saved, read or wrote stories dealing with these topics

il...s with laptop 'I, I cross checked my EnCase searches by using Net Analysis to search the computers deleted and active Internet history for the same keywords, This search revealed no Internet searches or visits for any sites catering to child or teen exploitation. (Examples below)

9

5'.. Vine First

. __ \-

Find Text Data

NetAnaly$~s; Find first

le.l No matching records have been found.

r~~OK'" "~ ,p 1

.~.u·~...-...--!. H 'I;";;.,.,I~·_

baw Enforcement Internet Chat sting§"

Internet chat stings have been conducted since the mid 1990's and grew out of pre Internet stings operations by using the United States mail by (then) U.S. Customs and the Postal Inspection $ervige. As the Internet became a more available and user friendly source of contaet, these "mal{ s11ngs" migrated online. They are often performed by law enforcement officers who assume a role in a chat room, blog or Interest group and wait for contact from potential Violators. Many assume the role of children however many do not and choose to assume the role of an adult with access to children. In none my undercover operations did I' assume the role of a minor and always played the rote of an adult with access to children, primarily because as a 40+ year old male, I did not have the proper frame of reference to play a believable 12 to 15 year old bOy or girl since my frame of referenc.e to chatting and sexual matters was that of an adult male. In my experience, and in the training I 9~ve to Jaw enforcement, ohate also typicaUy go on for multiple sessions In an effort to determine if the target has ever soRcited children in the past. viewed child pornography or wished to meet In person for the purpose of sex with .a minor. Up until Mr. Ritter's case t had never sean an arrest made based on a sin91e hour long chat nor have I seen one that ended with the law enforcement officer

HI

·,nforming the subject that he was to be arrested without first securing a search warrant for the subjects home and computer. If Mr. RItter had indeed been an exploiter of children with actual victims, Officer Venneman would never have known it.

hs with any other type of law enforcement sting operation. be it a drug sting, stolen art sting or the like, it IS always incumbent upon the undercover law enforcement officer to avoid leading the defendant into an action they would not otherwise take. Even if one isn't concerned with the propriety of luring people into committing criminal acts they would not otherwise do. most law enforcement entities are at feast concerned about preserving their arrests through the court process and have very strict guidelines about who does undercover chat stings and how they are done.

Such guidelines are particularly important in the context of internet chat stings because the risk of targeting suspects who do not in fact intend to contact actual minors for sexual purposes is particularly high. From my experience in this field I know that anonymous Internet chattIng by its very nature is a highly fantasy based endeavor. People very rarely use their true identities at> the anonymous nature of the typical (non government monitored) chat allows people to be and do things they would never do in person. Most people who spend much time In Internet chat rooms quickly realize that alrnost nothing anyone says about themselves is true. People often portray themselves as different sexes, different ages and certainly better looking than reality would indicate. This is particularly true In chats of a sexual nature and in rooms typically used for sex chat connections. In other words, the fantasy basis of Internet chat rooms where people typically congregate for sexually oriented chat are such that people tend to not believe much of what is said by the other person and focus instead on the sexual desires they nave at the moment. Hence what can be a valuable tool for rooting out persons who twly are a danger to children can easily become a hunt fo·r arrest statistics instead.

i.aw enforcement managers acrose the country have begun to realize the need for coordinated efforts in their efforts to combat child exploitation. One of those efforts has been the creation of Internet Crimes Against Children Task Forces. Initiated by the Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention ~e Internet Crimes Against Children Task ~orce Program (ICAG) helps state and local law enforcement agencies develop responses to cyber enticement and chUd pornography eases. They do so in a variety of ways but most effectiv~ly by providing standards and policies (as wef{ as training) in the proper conduc1ing of child exploitation investigations. (Note: An ICAe task force exists in Delaware County Pennsylvania, it is unknown if Officer Venneman has availed himself of its resources.)

Recognizing that a potent method to the uprooting of child exploiters is the use of Internet chat stings, ICAe Operational and InvesUgative Standards address them. Section 4.3.4 (d) of the ICAe Program Operational and Investigative Standards state among other potentially relevant polnts:

The following minimum standards apply to (undercover) !CAe investigations:

1 1

(a) Only sworn, on~duty ICAG personnel shall conduct ICAG investigations in an undercover capacity.

(I.) {CAe personnel shall not upload, transmit or iotwera pornographic or sexually explicit images.

(c) Other than photographs of law enforcement otticen: who have provided their informed written consent, no actual human images shall be uploaded, transmitted o: forwarded by ICAC personnel.

{d} Daring online dialogue, undercover officers should allow the investigative target to set the tone, pece and subjeot matter a! the oniine conversation. Image transfer shalf be initiated by the target.

The purpose of documenting this and other similar instructions is obvious, the tendency for people who would not otherwise be predisposed to commit a child exploitation crime carl be easily induced to do so and thus law enforcement officere need to be especIally vigilant in how they interact with potential targets. The entire point of doing online Internet chat stings is to find and apprehend people who are dangerous to children, not trick people who are not so into doing something you can arrest them for.

In the instant case, as will be discussed more thoroughly below, no effort was made to engage Mr. Ritter long enough or in depth enough to determine If he was even a valid target of investigation, let alone a danger to children. This is contrary to not only ICAG policy as it appears from their Operational and Investigative Standards Manual but also, jn my experience, contrary to typical law enforcement chat ~nvestjgative protocol.

Mr. RJ@r's Chat With "Emj(y18~g§" on 2"109

The nrst issue with Officer Venneman's interaction with Mr. Ritter in this case is where he chose to engage potential targets as I1Emilyt'. A Yahoo profile is required to be created by every Internet user who wishes to usa Yahoo chat. The user must enter an age when creating the profile. there are no exceptions and if an age is not provided, a profile can not be created. Yahoo chat protocol does not allow anyone who signs up for a Yahoo profile givIng a birthday under the age of 18 years old to enter into a Yahoo chat room. The screens below illustrate the process of attempting to $Ign up for a Yahoo profile and enter a Yahoo chat room aftar giving a ~frthday making the person 14

years old .

The first screen shows an error message that a birth date is required.

i ~ ,,;.:., y*'! l:0w& )kd !~ !Pi

r:«t . ,( ,;, 1_~~~"'IW~~rn.1ft'olI·M'¢lWuiiH:

. ; r~,1:;;r!. !&9~"<t" Ulil'«~

. \\' ... , "

jlt·o

,'.

;o;{r.Ym~!9,yty~t.w;~I!;':':";:"'II""j ';r:. \: ~<f&~:~~

:;;,fuJ f;j;i

~i'~;!kap

.;.",lliN~~ '~t.(r.:g~

'::;:~;:~I:·~M(.lwmu~.ron ~

ji

,

I

!

I

i

~. ~ I

·:";~f·' ;/:'; ~~~f1ol~' :,;:<,<:; . W"'li1!P;fiiljtlll1»lt' ':<;,;;t/ro!

~~;~·:~;l~\·; rl\&.Ill~~t?41mil~ .;:,.:,;,~1¥'11

il@!t.i.~l!j~o!",I''''.m'I''·:''''$!",,,,,j~1 '~~'i>I~~ •. ~'I'v.~~>.I;.~n.'!",,~''''-l!.~~.;:<:t ~~~!I;;'t>i~.

'"' ., , , .. _ .. _. , , fmtIllNl_... ,

'The second screen shows the addition of a birth date of June 1 r 1996.

:::T'!, ~I

Ii

~\l

II

II ;;I~ .J

'11

~I

II \1 II

I

F.

> .~'fsIl ~Itltd, ~

!io!.e -

!:;"~ :_u~' ~.)!~~Rru-if;\:SfiMt.J -:-;!T:~' J.!«A

14·

The third screen shows the new profile attempting to enter the Yahoo chat room IINew ,lersey"

1 securel

I i 10 help cut down on spam and

! ! bot!!, you'll be asked (0 verify your I ( actoUflll>efore entering 8 chat

; . room, Just click on the venfication ! ! link when you enter a chat room to

I i geI3100~~:~]

r~~~~~~;~~: '

C~tegQrf.~

F-J (o'''''''ter( \')'ll",'''.:.'t

W lil!",-\.'.~ 10\.: ~'\ool' ..

+ 0 Cultl!r'15 t\ C~\rI1I'iV.ll'.:t·( It; tJ Enlertaitlllili t\ ~l';$ tJ Filmllf &rlQm~ LJGomes

D Go';~rr.m!'ni ~. Po!ij;:~ CJ ~iil&l S. We):pm CJ Hoblies & Craft::

LJNu~jc

t: t7.-t I1eO'''f'!ion;, ~,fl\VI;;

," w-n - _ ... ~: ... ~ _T>i.!' 0..;

.tl f.I tlp'liO" ,)

,··Uf\~1 ' .....

CJ Reigk,p' ~B6'efs ~. CJ RORH!1Cf:

:t O~d'II'I:

." '. ~

CJ B'r' lccati!):l

Dffiend~

fl Schools &. EdlKatit":"!

'f'~MO' Cnat 1:'3 MW 3iai18ble t~ UMrs

: i w~o are '18 yellrs of 1I~! Dr tlkier. User·

I ,

~ . crf.ateo rOo(ffi tlr~' CUfrent~ unll\lalab~,

! ! £!lsI SlIiet(·,t\!. Maf~ t!~lp

I I

i i

L_. _

+, Mhr.erota(l62} [w282J t 1'1is6isS~pi~144) li:2-iOj 'l rtlr~lli1fi(1r.l} fwmj of tttont('no(79) [wiG,! ~t Nel:r~sk6~106; ri~194l :t Nevada{9~ (V,' tSS)

~t., Hew ~rr¢lke(11]6j tN16~ :~ Ne'/:' Jersev(H6) ~NH5)

'He~I; Jersev: 1(44) Eim) new ]ersi!I:2~3.f) (ri62j tle'/i Jerse'~':3(22Hw33)

r ;"1' i,.>j"'iW Ali 1\ (",Vj'

.' .... { •..... .,1 ... 1. ,~..t, ti l.f)

t,;~w JersfY;S(12) [w221 h:~( Jersey;6~9) r't;" is]

H;;'N Jersey: 7(7) (w 131

"

~. New Nexiro(8Z) r~: 1831,

{iQ,w.RQ9IIl " ~ancel

~.

'1

FinallYI the result of that attempt by the underage profile, rejected .

.,.,~._ .. ~ __ ••. _. __ . __ ... ___...._.r

15

Hence, people who use Yahoo chat rooms have an expectation that others in the room will ba adults over 18. In fact, 8,S can be seen from the profile account information provided by the government in this case that Officer Venneman stated in his profile when he created it that his birth date was January 1, 1985 making him 24) not 15. If Officer Venneman had put a birth date that made "Emily" appear 15, he would have been denied entrance to any Yahoo chat rooms, This is extremely important in that he has now given a false age to allow himself entry to an adults only chat room and it is Incumbent upon hIm to overcome the expectation that everyone else In the room has that he is at least 18 years old.

This is not to say that minors don't potentialty lie and create profiles with false ages to get into Yahoo ch~t. Howeverthat does not change the fact that users of Yahoo chat rooms have an expectation that everyone else in the room Is at least 18. In a sense it Is somewhat similar to a bar that is checking identifications at the door. People entering would have the very real assumption that everyone else in the bar was at least 21. That is not to say a minor could not slip in with a fake ID but that does not change the fact that the other patrons have an expectation that everyone in the bar is of age.

1 noted Mr, Ritters Yahoo profile states his age as "44" and his interests as "Adult oriented fun with the right person" (emphasis mine). I also know that the Yahoo Terms of Servjce Agreement (TOS) that every user must acknowledge when downloading the chat software says among other things;

'You etuee to not use the venoo! Services to:"

"impereoneie any person or entity, inoluding, but not limited to, a Yahoo! ottiolet, forum leader, guide or host. or falsely state or oihervdee misrepresent your affiliation with a pereon or entity,.u

Anyone using Yahoo's chat services would necessarily expect that the. other users had gone through this registration process and agreed to these terms as well. Thus, to ensure that the target pf an internet sting actuaUY intends to instigate unlawful conduct toward a minor (and not an adun·ehgaged in a fantasy about being a minor). it is incumbent that a law enforcement official in Officer Venneman's position to take care and that suffiolent time is spent to make sure the target has overcome what would be a normal expectation, that their. chat partner was an adult.

In the exchange I read, I do not believe that there was even close to sufficient interaction or time to convince Mr. Ritter that "Emilyl was not an adult playing games with him or engaged in fantasy. As an initial matter, based on my experience in law enforcement, I find it highly unlikely that any actual 15 year old females would encourage a middle age man in his 40's to expose himself and masturbate on camera .. In my experience, men who exploit minors for sexual purposes do so in subtle Ways that often takes weeks or months. In other words, real pedophiles take considerable time and patience to lure f'grooh1~') mmors into compromising situations. In my experience t have never encountered a real 15 year old girl who solicited a 44 year old

16

nan to expose hImself, Rather, that type of behavior is far more indicative of the typical tantasy banter that occurs in chat rooms by the thousands, nIght and day, around the world

It is because of this highly suggestive fantasy atmosphere in Internet chat rooms that law snforcement officers pay particular attention to reFtding and/or encouraging a subject into actIng or saying something they would not othe(Wis6 be predisposed to say or do. In my experience the method employed by Officer Venneman tends to result in arrests of persons who have no interest In children but rather are caught up in the fantasy of the moment and beHave they are engaged anonymously with another adult.

In reviewing the chat dialog itself, I noted that contrary to ICAG stated policy (above) and my experience in both engaging in undercover chats and reviewing the chats of other law enforcement officers, Officer Venneman initiates a photo exchange with Mr. Ritter within 2 minutes and 3 seconds of the chat connection, Not only would this be . unfift;ely for a real 15 year old female speaking with a 44 year old man, the exchange begins with obvious encouragement on the part of "Emily!! that is more likely that of an adult who wants to see and exchange sexual banter and images.

(I note that I have not yet had an opportunity to review legible printed copies or digital flies of the piotures transmitted from Officer Venneman to Mr. Ritter during the chat. For this reason, this Is a preliminary report. I understand that the government will be producing these pictures to defense counsel, and I will issue a final report after I have reviewed them. J

At 1.'2A:·WM, Officer Venneman excuses himself from the chat for roughly 16 minutes returning at 1 :OOPM. Eight mInutes and 30 seconds later, Officer Venneman, taking the lead again, asks Mr. Ritter to send a picture. When told he only has a camera on his laptop, Officer Venneman, again taking the initiative, asks to see It. Again, this Is an important point. Not only is It against established chat investigative protocol, it also creates doubt as to the veracity of Officer Venneman's character of "Emilylt tn that, practically speaking. not only Is IIEmny" in an adults only chat room, "sne" is expressing an interest In viewing a 44 year old adult male, who she has never talked to previOusly, on his web camera. An unlikely scenario and far more Indicative of another adult in an adult chat room wishing to engage in fantasy banter and view sexual chat and Images. At 1 :09 .Mr. Ritter turns on his web cam. At this point, Officer Venneman turns on a camera of his own pointed at his computer monitor which takes a moment for him to steady.

Note from the screen capture that at this point in the vldeo of the chat provided by the government, it IS eVident that Mr. Ritter is clothed and his camera is pointed from his shoulders up, This too is significant because as one reads th~ continuing dialog from this point on I it is Officer Venneman who makes the overtures of wanting to se~ "more", not Mr. Ritter. Note the following exchange after Officer Venneman sends another pioture of "Emily".

Venneman - '1 :20:06PM "101 why 1 dldn see u react"

vsnneman ~ -!:20:11PM "didn't even see u smile"

.A.nd at 1 :23:00 in response to Mr. Ritter saying he was "reacting" to Officer Venneman's pi~ture.

Venneman - 1 :23:00PM IFf don't see where there at'

Venneman -1:23:28PM "I cant see them I only see ur shoulder"

Wilen Me Ritter is encouraged sufficiently to tilt his web cam below his shoulders, the video shows that he still has his shirt covering his privates to which Officer Venneman further baits with;

Venneman -1:25:19PM "u nav somethin like sock"

Venneman - 1 :26:02PM "looks big but it could be a sock or somethln"

This last exchange is also telling in that '1Emily", as a 15 year old girl (in an adult chat room) has apparently seen enough male penises to determine one that is "big" from one that is not. Again, this is not indicative of a 15 year old girl and much more that of a person who regularly chats in adult chat rooms.

At 1:42 :53PM we see Mr. Ritter asking Officer Venneman if he is 18, to which Officer Venneman states "no irn 15". The response to this answer is that Mr. Ritter turns off his

. web cam. It was only after more cajoling by Officer Venneman that Mr. Ritter turns his web cam back on.

Venneman ~ 1 :43:44PM "whats wrong"

Ritter ~ 1 :43 :59PM 'Idldn't realize you were 15" Venneman- 1 :44: 11 PM "so why u don't like me"

venenrnan- 1:45:13PM "I guess J cant see u on cam nornors''

In the thousands of Internet chat Investigations I have particpated in andfor reviewed, I have never seen an'ything like the final exchange with Officer Venneman. Officer Venneman informs Mr. Ritter "you know ur In a lot of trouble don't u", He then goes on to inform Mr. Ritter he is an "under cover. police officer" and tha1 he would soon be arrested. As discussed above there IS a very Important reason this is not done. The point of participating in undercover- chat investigations is to root out persons who are dangerous to children. Hence, in every case I have encountered where the police feet that sufficient evidence has been coUected online for an arrest, the subje9t has no idea that they are under investigation (so that they won't destroy evidence) and a search warrant is obtained for the subjects computer to determfne if other victims may exist. the subject possesses chnd pornography or there is other evidence of ongoIng child exploitatjon. In other words the point of these investigations Is not to tock someone into committing an act you can arrest them for, but to locate and remove child predators. As I stated above, had Mr. Ritter actually been a child predator, perhaps. with multipre victims, by his actions Officer Venneman would never have known it nor would anyone 8fse in law enforcement.

18

Moreover, by concluding the chat in this manner, without conducting any other investigation, Officer Venneman was unable to ascertain whether Mr. Ritter intended to have unlawful contact with an actual minor or whether he was believed himself to be engaged in fantasy with another adult. Mr. Ritters comments to Officer Venneman after his revelation of beIng a police officer obviously support the later.

CO,NClVSJONS

Rev;e-w of Ritter Chat H;stor'l

My review was extremely thorough and J examined every chat of hundreds archived during the process of Mr. Ritter's chatting over the 18 months priorto his arrest. I also reviewed scores of profiles from the Internet history fifes from his computer(s) representing people he had engaged or sought to engage from November of 2006 to tile present. I did not uncover a single instance where Mr. Ritter engaged, or attempted to engagej a person in chat who represented they were a minor. To the contrary I encountered two occasions where Mr. Ritter encountered people who stated they were minors and he dismissed them immediately. With no exceptions, the only "minor" Mr. Ritter appears to have chatted with since November of 2006 is Officer Venneman.

This is not indicative a person who seeks out and solicits minors for illicit Internet conversations. fn my opinion, Mr. Ritter's past chatting history, and it was extensive, shows absolutely no predisposition to engage in illegal behavior with minors. Rather, Mr. Ritter appears to use adult Internet chat rooms as a safe and anonymous method to practice soctal voyeurtsm and exhibitionism,

,For&nsi!( Exa.ms of Ritter Comeutf~rs

I J1 the hundreds of computers I have examined in child exploitation cases I can state that it would be highly unusual for an i.fldividual who has a sexual attraction to minors to have absolutely no indicia ofthaton a computer that they use daily on,thelnternet. Studies by the National Center for Missing and exploited Children, the Crimes Against Children Research Foundation and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have found tha~ 213 (67%) of persons arrested for committing online offenses against minors also possessed chUd pornography. My own experience bears this out and I would add that 'the 1/3 of people who do not possess child pornography almost always have some other indication of their Interest in the form of child erotica, stories or the like. People who are sexually attracted to milJors. read about It, collect pictures about it, read stories about it and/or attempt to reach out to others about it online. My very thorough forensic review of Me Rltter'$ computers found nothing to indicate even a passIng Interest In sex with minors.

Pglice Su.ndards and Training in tnternot Cbat rnvoatigatlons

I ••

19

Among other relevant procedures, ICAG Operational and Investigative Standards state that undercover officers doing online investigations must let the subject in question be the one who leads the undercover into the offense, not the other way around, 'It states that undercover officers should let the target set the tone and pace of the diatog and not encourage or cajole targets into committing crimes, Virtually afllegiUmate, supervteed undercover operations recognize that lnternet chat rooms are fantasy based and great care must be taken to assure that people who become targets are not lead into doing acts they otherwise would not by officers.

! trained many Jaw enforcement personnel in how to properly set up and conduct online chat sting operations when I was employed by the government. I created and ran four of my own undercover operations for child exploitatlon offenses as weft I have engaged in and/or reviewed thousands of Internet chats In child exploitation cases. Procedures and methods are used in legitimate operations for vaJid reasons. Such operatlons are designed to uncover child predators arid reveal victims of child sexual abuse, not create headlines and arrest statistics. A methodology that cajoles otherwise law abiding people into committing acts they can then be arrested for without even a passing regard for whether that person is actually a danger to chifdren is not, in my opinion, a legitimate online operation.

I can state unequivocally that Officer Venneman's conduct in this case is not typical of now legitimate and supervised law enforcement online undercover investigations are conducted.

RItter - VennellJan Chat of 2/7/0j,

Officer Venneman chooses an improper forum for his undercover activities when he seeks chat partners In Yahoo chat rooms pretending to be a minor. Yahoo chat rooms by default do not allow minors in them. In order to enter a Yahoo chat room one must create a profile that gives an age of at least 18. Officer Venneman listed an age in his profile that would have mace him 24. People in Yahoo chat rooms h~ve a \,e~ real expectation that everyone else in the room 1s an adult. It is th~foHfinGurnb;ent on a police officer attempting 10 pass himself off as a minor In an area that is 'by Its nature fantasy based and restricted to adul~ to take the time 10 assure that the people they choose to interact with have no question they are a minor. Typically this is done over multiple chat sessions with an ultimate goal of a personal meeting for sexual relations

where the target has no question that they are meeting a minor. .

This did not occur here. Officer Venneman's entire "InvestIgation" took a total of 56 minutes (considering the 15 minutes he excused hlmselffrom. the chat). tn addition, it was Officer Venneman who first sent pictures, asked to see Mr. Ritter on his web cam. complained that he could not $e& enough of the "actlon" and then accused Mr. Ritter of faking when he would not openly display his penis,

Apparently after being satisfied that he had cajoled Mr. Ritter intq sufficient acts to arrest him, Officer Venneman then announced his "real" persona which, If Mr. Ritter had

.'.0

been an actual child predator, would have guaranteed the destruction of any ability to gather evIdence and identify victims,

Based on my experience, and the training I have given to law enforcement. Officer venneman could not have reasonably deduced from this chat that Mr. Ritter was an online predator worthy of being arrested instead of an adult engaged in fantasy with other adults,

In my opinion, this case Is one of the most reckless examples I have seen of a law enforcement officer attempting to make an online undercover arrest. The result of Officer Venneman's conduct during hts "investigation" Is that he managed to convince someone into dOing something that superficially appears to support an arrest without regard for whether Mr. Ritter was actually a danger to children or predisposed to be so.

As I stated at the beginning of this report, I am frequently asked by defense attorneys to review online chatting cases and have reviewed scores of them, I rarely am WlUing to offer an opinion favorable to a defendant as few such defendants have the combination of factors this case has; a defendant with computers that don't show even a p~ssjng interest in minors.' not a single chat out of hundreds reviewed where the defendant previously chatted with anyone saying they were a minor, a chat sting done in an adults only area of the Internet where the officer had to lie about his age to engage the defendant and finally, a chat transcript that shows a person who has no interest In meeting, and only commits the acts he is requested and or cajoled into. In this case I feel confident doing so.

_~ .. ' Date: qJ;;Z / .:; til 0

Marcus K L on, President

Global CompuSearch LlC

2t

forensic mental health 'associates

. "._~ ~_~~~~~~~R~I~CH~A~R~D~~~.~H~~~I~~~I~Ph~.D~~~D~'R~E~C~~~R~~~~~~~~~~

437 WEST.ERN AVENUE OJ ALBANY, N.Y. 12203 • (518)489-7971 tI FAX (518) 489.0012

September 28, 2010

W. Gary Kohlman

Bredhoff & KaiserP.LL.C. 605151h Street N;W., Suite 1000 WMhington D.C. 20005

£bt facsimilt to: {2921 842·1QOO

Re: Expert testimony

Dear Mr. Kohlman:

Pursuant to your request, I am providing for you a brief Slimmary of my credentials, and a synopsis of the opinions about which I am WiUlng to testify .:

As a clinical psychologist, I have served as the Difector of Forensic Mental Health AssociateS since 1983 - a period of 27 years. My primary responsibilities Invofve performing evaluatiOns of convicted sex offenders, and overseeing the provJslon of tntatrnent to the approximawly 160 convicted sex offenders· and sexual abusers who are receiving mental health care at this agency. The farge majority of my clients are referNd by local county probation departments. the New York State OMsion of Parole. and tile United States Probatton Department Annually, I perform approximately 150 to 200 specialiZed psychOlogical evaluations of individuals who have been conviCted for various sex offenses and referred py their community supervisIon agency, and/or who request voluntarily to receive $peeJallzed services to assist them In becomtng abs~nent from inappropriate sexual behavior. f have been quatlfted as an expert witness on these issues on numerous occasions, In New York and in other states.

Over the past fifteen years, we have seen a continuaflv Increaslng number Ofdients Who have been Involved tn lntemet~related sex offWI84M or Inappropriate sexual behaVior. Forih8 past d9(lUde, I have had the contraot to provide sex oll'ender tJeatment aervices in Norlheaatem New York. State for.probationeJS superviaecf by the United Siates Probation Deparunent. Each month, t perform approxlmately foUr psychological evalualfons of sax offenders referred by the federal probation deparlmEmt. and almost alf of these fifty"'OHO evaluations involve lotem.tobased sex offenses, In addition, Irvgulwly provide evaluations and treatment services to. probationers and parotees who have committed intemetNbasad offenses, and who were prosecuted and OQnvicted in the State orimfnaJ courts, Andy. I also have a mod&&t but also continuaHy Increasing number of voluntary clients who partidpate in specl,tlxed sel'\liCe$ in . order to addre$s thetr Inappropriate and/Or Hlegaf sexual behavior on the tntemet.

In order to maintain a stete-.of-1he..art knOWledge of!hia field, J participate in professional educationat workshops in both local New Yort< State as well aft national conferences on sex offender management. Both as current Prvsident of the New York State Alllanoa of Sex Oft'ender Servloe Providers1 and as the past PnMident of the Now York. State chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexuat Abusers, I have ensured that our annual state sex offender management conferences always include presenters on Internat sexual behavior and Intemet-based sex offenses. For example, at our 2010 annual c:onferGnCG. we presented one

workshop by the F.B.I. and U.s. Attomeys Office on this topjc, as well as a full day of training on Inlemet~based offenses by well-respected national expert James Tanner. My colleagues and I were. so .Impressed With Mr. Tanner's training that we have comraoted with him to present three more days of training this fait on Intemet-baS(Jd offenses and sexual behavior.

In summary, by participating in professional tmlnlng conferences, as well as by bOth ragularty

. providing these speaall%ed evaluatIOns and working each week in my role 8$ OCJootherapiat in soma of our epeciatized therapy groups, I have come to know a great deal abOut Intem.t-based

sexual behavior and. sexual practices. .

In the following New York State counties, I have been qualified as an e>cpert in sex offender evaluation and tfeatment In either County (ctiminaQ Court or Supreme Court: Albany, saratoga, Re,,$$8Iaerf·Scheneotady, Columbia, Washington, Warmn, Clinton. Essex, Otsego, SchOharie, Delaware, Dutchess, Queens, Kings, Rtdlmond and Suffolk Counties. I have been qualified as an expert witness in sevet'81 counties In Vennont. In addition, I have been qualified as an expert

witness in file United Stales Court, Southem Florida DJsbiat. .

Based on my training and experience. I am willing to provide testimony ebout the nature of sexual behavior on the Internet. Primarily~ I aotIcIpate 1hat my remarks wltl dispel1he belleUhat peopfe Involved fn Internet sexuaf interactions make the aS5~mption that other per1lclpenls are befng truthful with them. It is typical that people present either some idealized version of them$l8lves, or a totally fictitious persona. In the adult <:hat rooms and meetIng places. participants very often present themselves as more attractive, often by being modesUy deceptive (e.g., exchanging digital photos of themselves at a younger ag&. or when in better physt~1 shape). Many others are more deceptive and manipulative (e.g., saying they are single and avaUable when they are net, or lying about other significant aspects of iheJr lives). In fact. many pretend to be other t;ypes of people, and converse from tile perspective of these alternative persona (for example, aQults claiming to be young girl. or young boys). In the more private conversations, it is not at aU unusual for people to enact these fictitious persona role$ while engagIilg fn sexual interactlons. Regardl .. of the extent to which people are truthful in their pntsentations of themselves, t know exceptionaUy few participants In Intemet sexual actl.vfties who woutd afflnn that they typicaJly beHeve tfle lnformatfon proVided to them by the peopJe with Whom they are intera~lng. In this forum) dec:epUon. fantaslzfng. and rote.playing are so commonplace that most people vmo engage in Internet-based eexuat Interactions simply cannot and do no~ beReve that others are who they say they are.

A second point I would like to make in my testimony is rather obYious~ but pemaps nee41 to be artlool.ated. This point's that people tend to go on the Intemet to the sites that offer what interests them. If ""ey want to buy outdoor clo.thing, 1h.y go to the L. L Bean site, or some similar clothing site. If they want Interactions with teenagers, they go to the teen chat rooms. If they WMI1t sexual interacUQIlS with adUlts, they go to 1he adult chat rooms. One can Infer a person's motivation, intent and interests fmm his or her dloice of web-sHes and chat rooms.

Please feel free to contaot me regarding my testimony. Thanks, In advance, fOr letting me know when you Wi$h me to travel to PennsylVanIa for the hearing.

Sincerely,

,,~rt, r-/~;t'~

Riahard M. Hamill, Ph.D. Cllnica' PsychologIst

'57E15',59l3::

celmarrrlfu.'l 1:.$ not in your Messengn,' L st

Use caution 111 corresponding with P~o)h~ yOl font know and never share confidential or private i~lforrnatlt!O with them.

h,~j)[)' 3.. .1

(;elmarrn·;fu'l (2/7/2009 12:38:48 PM) h t';rnily'18325 (2/7/2009 12:39:00 PM): h

emily1S325 (2/7/2009 12:39:13 PM): as I (lslmarm4fun (2rr12009 12:39:25 PM): 44fm, ,c.lMny aelrnarm4run (2n12009 12:39:26 PM): you?

emily18325 (2/7f2009 12'39:41 PM): If u like "OJnger then im fine Clelmarm4fun (21712009 12:39:46 PM):

celmarm4fun (V712009 12:39:48 PM): ane?

eml1y18325 (21712009 12:39:50 PM): 1?

delm$rm4fun (217/2009 12:39:54 PM): alia

delmarm4fun (2111200912:39:57 PM) Ny' or FA?

ernily18325 (2/7/2009 12:40:00 PM): p.~

ernlly18325 (21712009 12:40:02 PM): pocono.'

delmarm4fu!"t (2/7/200912:40:07 PM): coot

delmarm4fu1 (2/7/200912:40;OB PM): pi,:;?

emUy18325 (2(7/200912:40:24 PM): y~a u

delmarm4fu"l (21712009 12:40:29 PM): cum

emlly183.?5 (2.17/20091:2::40:51 PM): k

v ot) hava accepted the invitation to s',:wt oho':'~ sharlnq.

delmGirm4fun (2/712009 12:41:47 PM): nice delmlilrm4fun (21712009 12:411:51 PM): more'; delmlllrm4fun (2/7/2009 12:41 :54 PM!: emily1S325 (2/7/200912:42:05 PM): delm~Tm4fun (2/7/200912:42:05 PMt: no')

emlly18325 ;2f712009 12:42:13 PM)::Jl)nt be ~'eady 101101 delmarm4fun has accepted your Invit>3t1o 1 to start photo sharing.

delm9rm4fun (2/7/2009 12:42:26 PM~I: forgiVE one delmarm4fun (2/7/2.00912:42:27 PM:,' 10 delmarm4fun (2/7/2.009 12:43: 14 PM:,: vt;·ry very cute emlly1632.5 (2/7/2009 12:43:22 PM) ~\IoI'/lW t~ emily18325 (2'7/200~ 12:43:34 PM): brb delmitrm4fun (2/7/2009 12:43:42 PM): 0 •. delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 12:46:07 PM):

deimarm4full (2/7/2009 12:54:02 PM~: b~ck )Iet? delmarrn4fun (:2/7(2009 1 :00:39 PM): hrnrnm emlly18325 (2/7/2009 1:00:53 PM): back delmarrn4fun (21712009 1 :00:58 PM): welcome dslmarmefun (2f712009 1:01 :13 PM): lunch blMk? emilyi 6325 (2/7/2009 1 :01 :28 PM): ?

o~lmarm4fun (2f7/2009 1'01 :28 PM): Ie,i

delmarm4fun (217/2009 1 :01 :32 PM): vrhure Ghl you go'>

ernily183~5 (2/7/2009 1 :01 :46 PM): im house /dog sitlin and neighbor was at ~ne door delmarm4fun (21712009 1:01:50 PM): ah~

·:jelmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :02:00 PM): home ac t'!e? or do you have friends over? enily18325 (2/7120091:02:17 PM): no i cent

enily1B325 (2/7/2009 1:02:32 PM): im ~IHe ;IClle

:iifitlmarrn4fun (2/7/2009 1 :O:!.:35 PM)' 0'<:

j",I01arm4fun (2/7/20091:02:40 PM): what kine of dogs? jelmarm4fu(l (21712009 1:02:44 PM): big'} littl~.? a'nily18325 (2/7/20091:03:10 PM): boxer

(

··1['5'359133

PAGE 02/07

'1elmarrn4fl.lll (2/7/2009 1:03:14 PM): nice

oelrnarmafun (2/7/2009 1 :03:24 PM): yot.: guys getting much Snow over there? emily18325 ~2/7/2009 1 :0:3:40 PM): no it~ nlcs today

delrnarmafun (2f7/2009 1 :03:43 PM): cool

deJmarm4fun (:2/7/200~ 1 :03:58 PM): yO~1 chatting with freinds, or just cruising the net? emily18325 (2/7/20091:04:12 PM): none of m~' friends are on

delm~rrn4fun (217120091:04:19 PM): that sucks

delrnarrnefun (21712009 1:04:20 PM): 101

ernily18325 (2/7/20091:04:27 PM): lei yea Its (11<

deimarm4full (2/7/2009 1:04:46 PM): so you got your digital cam with you? tlJfl"lily18325 (2/7/20091:04:59 PM): no

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1:05:02 PM) dont hay 1

emily18325 (2/7/20091:08:07 PM). i used my xs

delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :05:10 F'lM): aha

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :05:20 PM)' he take ~ny traditional "ex" Pics.? (-;lrt'1l1y1e325 (2/7/2009 1:05:23 PM): he was a pic freak 101 dElrmarm~fun (2/7/20091 :05:26 PM): 10\

delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :06:1 0 PM): he ·~ver t ave you "strike a pose" for him? emily18325 (2(712009 1 :06:21 PM): lei 101 yee

filmily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :06:30 PM): stl~·& a pose 10J

de!rnarrnllfun (2/7/2009 1:06:34 PM): JOi

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :06:40 PM): care to sl)are?

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1:06:55 PM): i com have them he does

delmarm4fun (21712009 1:07:06 PM): lucf;y hi-r

emlly18325 (2/712009 1:07:11 PM): 101

delmerm4f(.IIl (21712009 1 :07:32 PM}: you have a weboam on your computer'? emlly16325 (2/7/2009 1:07:41 PM): no 1m using my laptop

emily18325 (2/7/20091:07:48 PM): and She brings hers with her delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :07:56 PM): ok

delmarm4fun (.2/7/20091:08:12 PM): my laptop has a earn built in f:!fnily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :08:22 PM): k kool

{lsJ'l1arm4fun (217/2009 1 :08:27 PM): yup

emily1 e326 (2/7/2009 1 :06:38 PM): u I'la'v a pte i can see dQtmarm4fun (217/2009 1 :06:43 PM): Just the cam emlly18325 (2/7/2009 1 :08:55 PM): k may i see delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1:08:59 PM): sure

v{)\, have eccepted the invitation to start webcarn.

:1elrnawl4run (2/7/2009 1 :09:30 PM): hi em'ly18325 (2/7/20091:09:413 PM): hi deimarm4fLin (21712009 1:09:49 PM): is it working? er~rry18328 (21112009 1 :09:57 PM): yea ,jehnarm4fun (21712009 1:10:00 PM): cool

delrTJarm4fuf) (:Z17/2009 1 :10:1 B PM): pass tM face test? ·jehnarm4fun (2/7/20091:10:21 PM):

Hmily18326 (2/7/2009 1: 10:26 PM): 10J 101 yE!9

enlily18325 (2/7/2009 1: 10:34 PM): why u dent think u would cielmarrn4fun (2/7f200Q 1:10:38 PM): 101

delrnarm4fun (2/7/2009 1: 10:44 PM): each has their own taste I;111lHy18325 (2/7/20091:11:17 PM): 10' urKooi

delmarm4fun (2/7/20091:11:20 PM): [01

delrnarmcfun (21712009 1: 11 :23 PM): thallks

emHy18325 (2/712009 1: 11:29 PM): yw

·jelrlarm4fun (21712009 1: 11 :57 PM) lOU watch many guys on cam? ertliiyHl325 (2/7/2009 1: 12: 16 PM): j use 2 see my x on cam delMarm4fun (2/712009 1:12:Z0 PM): COOl

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1: 12:25 PM): sse him In what way? Illmily18326 (2.'7/20091·12:39 PM) like u i see

> \. "

PAGE 03/07

e'i'lily16325 (2f!12009 1·12~50 PM): he snow me pies and stuff when talkin 2 hili) d.elmarm4fun (21712009 1'12:56 PM): nice

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1: 13:04 PM) were YOi.1 on cam with him as well? e"ily18325 (2/7/2009 1: 13:22 PM): no i didnf hav 1 for him

e'l1i1y18325 (2/7/20091 :13:25 PM): i Just saw lurn

delrnarm4 fun (21712009 1: 13:31 PM): you like?

e -nlly1 8325 (.2/7/2009 1: 13:36 PM): yea

delmairn4fun (21712009 1:13:42 PM)

d'!1lmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :14:12 PM): when did you guys break up? eilUy18325 (2/7/2009 1'14:19 PM): last feb

d~lmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1: 14:25 PM): bummer

e11i1y18325 (2/7/2009 1-14:38 PM): yea he was kool

e,1'Ii1y18325 (2/7/20091:14:42 PM): he moved cuz his job delmarm41un (2/7/20091:14:47 PM): his age'(

e'l'lily18325 (21712009 1: 14: 51 PM): wh at on ur shnt

e,,,ily18325 (21712009 1: 14:53 PM): 26

dtalmarm4fun (21712009 1: 15:03 PM): Fire Department emlly183Z!> (2!7/2009 1:15;14 PM): wow ur a firefighter ,;IE~lmarm4fun {2!7!2009 1:1~:17 PM): 101

df~lmarln4fun (2/7/2009 1:15:19 PM): yes

'illnily18325 (2/7/20091:15:22 PM): kool

,;1rnily18325 (2/7/2009 1:15:32 PM): whay ill albanny

!l!mily18325 (21712009 1: 16;41 PM): 101 sneelec that all fucked up $mily18325 (2/7/2009 1:15:43 PM): albany

delmarm4h.I''l (217J2009 1 15:44 PM): 101

dp.lmarm4fu n (217/2009 1: 1 5:47PM) yes

ell1i1y113325 (21712009 1; 15:59 PM): k kODI

delmarrnafun (2171~009 1 :16:11 PM): a.ny more pies? dnlmarm4fun hes accepted your invitatio'1 to start photo sharing.

J~~lmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1:16~48 PM) nice beach pic emily18325 (2J7/20091~16:57 PM): 101 ty . delmarm4fun (217120091:17;11 PM)- thal'l gel a reaction delmarm4ful1 (2n12009 1:17:12 PM): 101

ernily18325 (2/7/2009 1: 17:22 PM): from who delmarm4fun (2/7/20091:17:26 PM)· 101. .. me dolmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1-17:32 PM) or anyone seeing

ernily18320 (2/7/2009 1:17:51 PM); im alone house Silting so it just u seeln dalmarmafun (217/2009 1:17:56 PM): 101

delmarm4fun (21712009 1: 17:69 PM): then me

emily '1 8325 (2/7120091:18:03 PM): 101 k

ernlly18325 (217120091:18:23 PM): ur shirts says bethleem thats like near me dalmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1: 18:30 PM): bethlehem NY

;jelmarm4fun (21712009 1: 18:34 PM): south of Albany

er'1ily18325 (2/7/20091:18:41 PM): 00 never heard of It

eWlfly18325 (2/7/20091:16:46 PM): heard of ~llbal'ly but

dElimarm4fuil (217120091:18:50 PM): cool

c:wll1y18325 \2f7!2009 1: 18:58 PM): so wtl",! u clair,

dE.1marm4fun (:21712009 1:19:05 PM): meaning,?

er"'lily~8325 (217120091:19:19 PM): in) drinkh: soda and a twlx bar

delmarrnafun (:2/7/2009 1 :19:38 PM): I'm waiting for you to put up another pic so I ean continue to react"

:Jetmarm4fun (21712009 1 ~ 19:$9 PM): 101

~nli1y18J25 (2/7/2009 1:~0;oe PM): 101 why i didn see u react BIIlily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :20:11 PM): didnt sven see u smile jelmarm4fun (21712009 1:20:14 PM): 101

delmsrm4fun (2/7/2009 1:20:18 PM); below tre screen .:le!mmrm4fIJfl (2_'7/2009 1:20:19 PM): 101

.: 'la595'3133

{;llnHy18325 (2/712009 1:2024 PM): what dEllmarm4fun {2f7/2009 1 :20:33 PM}: loi

dalmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :21:02 PM): did your ex ever play for you on oam? ernily18325 (217/2009 1 :21: 1 0 PM): yea i Saw hirn

d~}lmBrm4tun (2/7/2009 1 :21 :17 PM): so he "reacted"

emily18325 (217/2009 1:21:27 PM): j guess yea

delmarm4tun (21712009 1 :21:29 PM): 101

dfllmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :22:2eJ PM) big reaction here delmsrm4fun {217/2009 1 :22:26 PM). 101

ernlly18325 (2/7120091:22:33 PM): what u mean delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :22:51 PM): where my hands are delmsrrn4fun (2/7/2009 1 :22:52 PM): 101

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :23:00 PM): i dont see where there at delrnarmsfun (21712009 1 :23:12 PM): down lower

emlly18325 (21712009 1 :23:28 f:lM): j cant see them j only see ur shOulder d~lmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :23:36 PM): I know

delmarm4fun (217/2009 1:23:43 PM): you want to see more? ~wli1y18325 (2/7/20091 :23:50 PM): if u want

dr;'!lmerm4fun (21712009 1 :23:56 PM): onl." if you do ernily18325 (2f712009 1 :24:00 PM): 101 k

delmarm4fun (2nJ2D09 1 :24:03 I'M) 101

eMily18325 (21712009 1 :24:09 PM): IOi

eMily18325 (217120091:24;42 PM): 101 wow

er.,ily18325 (21712009 1:24:46 PM): that really u delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :24:50 PM): yes

8Mlfy18325 (21712009 1 ::25:07 PM): u Iyln

amlly18325 (217120091:25:19 PM): w hay somsthln like sock delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :25:22 PM) lol

jefmarm4flln (2/7/2009 1 :25:42 PM)' think')

emify18325 (2/7/20091:26:02 PM): looks big but it could be a sock or somethin emily1832S (217/20091:26:13 PM): 101000 k its not

d&lmarm4fun (2/7/20091:26:18 PM)· 101

emily18325 (21712009 126:3fJ PM): wow

je-lmarm4fun (217120091:26:49 PM), like?

emily18326 (21712009 1 ;.26:59 PM): Its kool

::1~lmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :27:04 PM): 101

jelmarm4fLin (2/7/20091:27:14 ~M) too bad you don't have frelnds online now as well ~n1ily18325 (2/7/2009 1 ;27;36 PM): 101

ef'llily18325 (2/7/200Sl1:27:59 PM): my x wasnt that big 'jelmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :28:08 PM): how big was he? emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :28:14 PM): not like u 10J delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1:26:18 PM): 101

,;Jelmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :28:23 PM): thick 8" hare emlly18325 (217/20091:28:34 PM): yal;l and 1 saw his for real delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :28:39 PM): tal

\lelmarm4fun (2(7/2009 1 :.28:43 PM): taste It"

en)ily18325 (2/7f2009 1 :28:60 PM): 101

delmarm4fun (.2/7/2009 1 ;29:08 PM): or Just see? l::!mfly18325 (2/7/20091:29:14 PM): we had sex

emily18326 (2171;2009 1 :29:21 PM): he come cverwhen i was house sitUn Ij$lmarm4fun (2/7/.2009 1 :29:26 F'M): 0001

delmarm4fun (21712009 1:29:36 PM): fev POSItion?

emily18325 (217120091:29;42 PM): I was on my back

delmarm4fun (2/712009 1 :29:55 PM); he cum in you?

dtlmarm4fun (2/71'2009 1 :29:59 PM): or use a rubber?

mmJly18325 (2/7/20091:30:02 PM): condurn

dl!llmarm4fun (2!7!2009 1 :30:12 PM): ever suck him off?

~rnily183215 (2/7f2009 1:30:35 PM): can i call u and talk 2 u while u do that 101

fC,AGE 04/07

• I :~

"70595:133

el"iily18325 (2/7/2009 1·.31 :06 PM): i Jont havnic emily18325 (2/7/20091.31:13 PM): on phone bl Clelmarm4fun (2171'2009 1 :31:30 PM): got 8 CE1\i7 emlly1832S (2/7/20091:31:40 F'M): use barbs house phone emily16325 {2/712009 1:31:45 PM): i can call u an that

delmarm4fun (2f7/2009 1 :31 :59 PM): it wouls be a long distanclll number Elmily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :32:07 PM): i MV call1r't card

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :32:15 PM): ok

emily18328 (2/7/2009 1:33:04 PM): ICII w~lI n()!ed ur numbe-r 2 call 101 deimarm4full (21712009 1 :33:33 PM): e 1B 36~j·6530

emHy18325 (2/7/2,0091:33:39 f=!M): turt ur celt

delmarrn4fu;1 (2/7/2009 1 :33:44 PM): yes

p.l"Jlily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :33:84 PM): k

el"f!tly18325 (2/7/2009 1 :34:00 PM): tf111 mE' If J can here me emilyHl325 (2nt2009 1:34:09 PM): y'~!l

emHy1S325 (2/7/20091:34:17 PM): darn

emlly18325 {2/7/2009 1 :34:31 PM): 1I ok lei

emily18325 (21712009 1 :34:47 PM): Its kCJol yeE,

$lTIily18S25 (21712009 1 :35:10 PM): 1m eJnlly

~rnily11S325- (2/7/2009 1 :35',20 PM): hi blli

ernlly18325 (2/7/2009 1 :35:37 PM): what

emlly18325 (2/7/20091:35:46 PM): yea. can

1:)1311 ended. 2 min, 26 sec. (1:36 PM)

Did you excerlence a problem with this call? Report a Flrobll;lm

emily18325 (217120091:36:26 F'M): u there

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :36:3'7 PM): did you call me cell? Il'I'l'lily18325 (2/7/20091:36:50 PM): yea but noboby piced up delmarrn4fl.ln (2/7/2009 1 :36:53 PM): did

deilTlarm4fl.ln (2/7/2009 1 :36:65 PM): try again

emily16325 (2/7/2009 1 :37:42 PM): it wont let me cell now em!fy16325 (2/712009 1 :37:44 PM): dam it

emily18325 (217/2009 1:37:56 PM): says i have 1 min left so it wont let me make call emlly18325 (2/7/2009 1 ;39:09 PM): i have 2 call whe-Il i nav more min on delrnarm4fun (2/712009 1 :38:11 PM): 101

emily18325 (2/7/20091·38:16 PM): lm sury

delrnarm4fun (21712009 1 :38:20 PM): its cool

delmarm4fun (2/712009 1 :38:26 PM): want mo -o call?

mnlly18325 (2/7/2009 1 :38:41 PM): no l (iOl'1t l,lJant to take chance of barb seeln it on her phone delmarm4fun (2.1712001) 1:36:40 PM): ok

delmarm4flln (217120091 :3-8:55 PM): cO~ild s~W it was a wrong number delrnarrn4fun (2/7/2009 1 :38:57 PM): 101

<;m·ly18325 (217120091:39:06 PM): still dont want to chance It

em"y18325 (217120091:39:19 PM): dont want us in trouble cuz my age and urs delmarm4fun (21712009 1:39:23 PM): ok

delmarm4fun (217/2009 1 :40:26 PM): u there?

emily18325 (21712009 1 :40:29 PM) yea

delmarm4fU~ (2/7f2009 1 :40:42 PM): so ... any rsquests? emily18325 (2nJ2009 1 :40:50 PM): do what u Ijke k delmarm4fUl~ (217/20091:40:58 PM): u tell me t3mHy18325 (2/712009 1:41 :013 PM). eunnc i like watcl'-in emHy18325 (2/7/2009 1:41: 13 PM): u do what u like Jelmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :41 :48 PM}: like cum?

emily1 e325 (21712009 1 :41 :59 PM): never had it j~lmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :42:08 PM): I rneen seeing

,lmjly18325 (2/7/2009 1;42:19 PM): 101 my x showed me alot of It in ptcs dmiiy'/8325 (2/7/20091:42:34 PM): he show me pies of girls my age l;t'Tlily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :42:047 PM): was Iii weird but kool 2 compare me 2 them

PAGE 65/07

:: -'E"595'3133

deimar:n4fun (21712009 1:42:53 PM): 18? el1lily18325 (2/7/20091:42:59 PM): no rm15 delmarrn4fun (2/7/2009 1 :43:02 PM): aha delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :43:39 I'M): my bad emily18325 (21712009 1 :43:44 PM): whats wrong

delmarm4fun (217/2009 1 :43:69 PM): didn't realize you were 15 .,,, emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :44: 11 PM): so why u dont like me deimarrn4fLln (217/20091:44:15 PM): I do

delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :44: 19 PM): very much

detmarm4fun (2f712009 1 :44:21 PM): 101 .

delmarm4fun (2/712009 1 :44:31 PM): just don't want any trouble emUy18J25 (2/7/2009 1:44:38 PM): i dont 2

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :44:51 PM): thats why i was being safe and u not callin me delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :44:66 PM): understcd

deimarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :44:159 PM): thanks

emily18325 (217120091:45:13 PM): i guess i cant see u on cam nomore de!marm4fun (2/7/2009 1:45:16 PM): 101

de1marm4fun (21712009 1:45:27 PM): did yolu like ft'>

emlly18325 (2/7/2009 1 :45:30 PM): yeO!!

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :45;4$ PM): ana here 1 was fantasizing about fucking you delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :45:50 PM): whlie yOL houses at

emlly18325 (2/7120091:45:58 PM): lot 101

emlly18325 (21712009 1 :46:21 PM): guess u turned it off np de!marm4fun (2/7/20091.46:40 PM): you want to see it finish? e,.r.ny18325 (2/7/2009 1 :46:46 PM): IQI sure

de'rnarrndfun (2/7/2009 1 :47;00 PM): ex ever cum for YO-.1 on cam? ernlly18325 (21712009 1 :47;06 PM): 1 time

delmarm4fun (217/2009 1 :47: 19 PM): he Cum alot?

emUy18325 (2/7/2009 1 :47:29 PM): not that I Gould SEle delmarm4fun (21712009 147:32 PM): 101

'<cu hav~ accepted the invitation to start webcam

(/lrnily18325 {2/7/2009 1:48:38 PM): 101 ur back

emUy18325 (2/7/2009 1 :49:20 PM): what were u thinkin that was quick delmarm4fun (2/712009 1 :49:45 PM): 101

delmarrnafun (2f7f2009 1 :49:!S2 PM): u$ing my imagination erplly18325 (21712009 1 :60:02 PM): 00 think of what u said before delmarm4fun (21712009 1:60: 12 PM): yup

en"ily1832S (2/7/20091:60:16 PM): 101 k

delmarm4fun (21712009 1:50:39 PM): thanks for the chat delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1:50:42 PM):

emlly18325 (2/7/20091:60:49 PM): loi where u goin delmarrn4fun (217120091:51:00 PM): clean UP and shower

@mlly18325 (2/7/2009 1:51 :07 PM): you know ur In alot of trouble dont u delmarm4fun ('2J712009 1 :51 :20 PM): huh?

ernily18325 (21712009 1 :51 :21 PM): im a under cover police offioer errdly18325 (21712009 1: 51 :30 PM): u need to call me asap delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :51 :33 PM): nah

delmarm4fun (21712009 1 :51 :38 PM): your not 15

delmann4fun (2/7120091:51:46 PM): Yahoo is for 18 and over delmarm4fun (2/712009 1 :51 :50 PM): its all fantasy

delmarmefun (2/7/2009 1 :51 :~7 PM): no crime.

emily18325 (2/7/200Q 1:52:06 PM): i am a under cover pOlice officer that does intenet crimes emily18325 (217120091:52:18 PM): sec 6318 of the PA crimes code

<:Jelmarm4fun (217/2009 1;52;19 PM): no you're not

amily18325 (2/7/20091:52:25 PM): unlawful contact with a minor ljefrnarm4fun (2nJ2009 1 :52:32 PM): you're not a minor

delrn1!llrr,,4fun (2/7/2009 1 :52:42 PM): no one under 18 can aece$S Yahoo chat rooms

PAGE 05/07

PAGE 07/07

deimarm4fun (2/7/200a 1:52:59 PM): so its aU fantasy

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :53:01 PM): nopE but he section was written by the law makers to include Officer undercover purported to be a minor

delmarp14fun (21712009 1:53:24 PM): but why would yol.: tell me? delrnarm4fun (21712009 1:53:26 PM): 101

emlly18325 (217/20091:53:36 PM): I have yOIJ' phone number and I will be getting your IP address from Yahoo and your carrier

delmarm4ful1 (2/7/2009 1:54:01 PM): well, I don't think you're 15 delmarm4fun (21712009 1:54:03 PM): never did

delmerrY)4fun (2/712009 1:54:07 PM): it was all fanta$y

emlly18325 (2/7/2009 1:54:20 PM): we can do thls.2 ways oall me and you can turn your self In at a latter date or I will get a warrant for you and come pick you up.

delmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1:54:21 PM): as far as I know, you're a 56 year old housewife delmarm4fun (2/7(2009 1:54:37 PM): wh i do I call?

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :54:58 PM): I will give you my number look II up on the internet and you will sal"! it Gomes back 10 Barrett Twp Police)epMment.

I!tfilily18:325 (217120091:55:09 PM): 570~595·3476

(jelmann4fun (2/7/2009 1:55:15 PM): and your name?

emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :55:23 PM): Offic~1' Venneman

delmarrn4fun (2/7/2009 1 :55:27 PM); first name

ernily18325 (2/7/20091:&15:36 PM): You cen ~(jdre$$ me by Officer aelmarm4fun (2/7/2009 1 :55:41 PM): badge number?

emily16325 (21712009 1:55:44 PM): 22629

delmarm4fun (217/2009 1 :55:49 PM): supervisors name? emHy1S325 (2/7/2009 1 :55:57 PM): Chief is Steven Williams

emily1 5325 (217120091 :56:33 PM): I can give you my control oenter number to verify that im working end employeed with Barrett Twp Police

delmarm4fun (2/7120091:57:14 PM): what number de' Mfl right now to talk to you? emily18325 (2/7/2009 1 :67:29 PM): 570·595-3<176

detmarmsfun (2/7/2009 1 :57:35 PM}: direct 'lumber?

t!lmily18325 (217120091:57:52 PM): lm the only one at station so i will pick up del'flann4fun (2f7/20091:58:16 PM): you call me

'tlmily18325 (2/7l200~ 1'58:19 PM): ck

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF MONROE COUNTY FORTY-THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMMONWEAL TH OF PENNSYLVANIA

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NO. 2238 CRIMINAL 2009

Vs.

WILLIAM scan RITTER JR.

.J- ? 'JC~-

'.' C. . /

I. Michael Rakaczewski, Esquire, hereby certify that this Jfrday of August

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2010, 1 served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Brief in regard to the

above-captioned matter upon:

Todd Henry, Esq. 1500 Walnut Street 22nc1 Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Michael Rakaczewski, Esquire I.D. No. 81290

Assistant District Attorney Office of the District Attorney Monroe County Courthouse Stroudsburg, PA 18360 (570) 420-3470

You might also like