Article

2003-01-21 Fifth Column

More details are emerging on the arrest of former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter. The Delmar resident was arrested by Colonie police in June of 2001 on a misdemeanor charge. And Channel 6 News has learned that Ritter had been issued a warning after being caught by police once before. Colonie police will not confirm any of this, but Channel 6 News learned that Ritter was caught in a sex sting early in 2001. He was issued a warning then, but eventually arrested for the same thing three months later. Ritter, who has made national headlines for speaking out against going to war with Iraq is keeping silent on this issue. He has been unavailable for comment since details of his arrest were made public. In June of 2001, Ritter was accused of engaging in a sexual discussion, on the Internet with a person who he thought, was a 14 year old girl. It was actually an undercover investigator who agreed to meet with Ritter. When Ritter arrived at the location, expecting to meet the girl, police warned him that he had been set up. Three months later Ritter allegedly fell into the same trap, only this time he was arrested. The misdemeanor charge relating to child endangerment was eventually disposed of and sealed. Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser has since lost her job over the incident. Albany County DA Paul Clyne fired Preiser on Friday because he says she never informed him that the case against Ritter even existed. Prieser would not comment and Ritter has also been unavailable for comment. The case against Ritter was eventually sealed, preventing everyone from disclosing details about the case. In fact, Ritter can deny it ever happened since sealed cases essentially mean, it never happened. CNN tells Channel 6 News, Ritter is on his way to Baghdad, but will be in New York City tomorrow to shoot an anti war message.
This story is starting to get legs. MSNBC has more details:
However, NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about an arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform sexual acts on himself. At that time police said William Ritter was arrested before doing anything, but was facing multiple misdemeanor charges for trying to solicit an underage girl for sexual reasons. Ritter's attorney, Norah Murphy, confirmed that he was arrested in the town of Colonie in June 2001.
There has been speculation on why Ritter had changed his mind on Saddam's weapons. Some thought it was a payoff, he was paid $300K+ to do a documentary on Iraq. Other people had mentioned blackmail. Wonder if Saddam has photos?

Posted by Steve 2003-01-21 10:18 am|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 They probably got him on film with someone they supplied in Iraq - honeytrap with underage bait

Posted by Frank G 2003-01-21 11:19:50|| 2003-01-21 11:19:50|| Front Page Top

#2 Why would these charges be "sealed"? Can anyone with more knowledge of the legal system than I explain?

Posted by Patrick Phillips 2003-01-21 12:01:49|| 2003-01-21 12:01:49|| Front Page Top

#3 To clarify the previous question:

Is is possible that the ADA (Preiser) did not report the case against Ritter to her boss (Clyne) because she liked his position on Sammy and did not want him to go down in flames?

Posted by JAB 2003-01-21 12:08:16|| 2003-01-21 12:08:16|| Front Page Top

#4 I dont like ritter, and see him as a iraqi stooge. But this story is a bad one.

The information has some basic problems:

1)I have seen ages 14 and 16 put on the girl.
2)The court records are closed. "police" who talk about cases with sealed records end up in jail for a while, and being sued in civil court.

It might all be true and above board, but it smells funny.

Posted by flash91 2003-01-21 12:39:20|| 2003-01-21 12:39:20|| Front Page Top

#5 flash91; two different busts with two different girls. 14 year old (he thought) was the first one, the 16 year old was the second. His lawyer admitted he was arrested, but wouldn't talk about it. It looks to me like somebody in the courthouse leaked it to the press. The ADA lost her job over keeping this case quiet. I think it's real, but we'll see.

Posted by Steve 2003-01-21 13:51:21|| 2003-01-21 13:51:21|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, his lawyer confirms a June 2001 arrest so something happened.

According to the above linked MSNBC story, there are 2 reported incidents. One involved a 14 year old, the other a cop posing as a 16 year old. This may explain why there may be confusion about the ages.

This guy has been flaky from the get go. He apparantly lost his security clearance for being married to a former suspected Soviet agent (found this on google, read down).

His behavior has puzzled me for a long time. I always thought it had something to do with resentment over losing his clearance but I am not surprised to learn there is more dirt.

There's a reason they require background checks for sensitive jobs.

Posted by JAB 2003-01-21 13:58:47|| 2003-01-21 13:58:47|| Front Page Top

#7 Here's the MSNBC story with his mug shot, this kind of shoots down his denial it was him:

Posted by Steve 2003-01-21 14:00:47|| 2003-01-21 14:00:47|| Front Page Top

#8 Well, that didn't work. However, World Net Daily is reporting that NBC television affiliate WNYT in Albany has news footage of Ritter being arrested. At the time the video was shot, the station was unaware the arrest was connected to Ritter, WNYT Executive Producer Beth Cohen told WND. The police here have been doing the same thing, they have a great internet sex crimes unit that sits in teen chat rooms, and waits for these pervs to try to pick them up. Sometimes when these guys show up for their "date" the local tv crews are there to film it. Sounds like the cops busted him, and later the ADA found out who he was and tried to cover it up. If these are cops posing as jail bait, why would you put a seal on the bust? Here they put them on the front page as a warning. Anyone know what New York law is on this?

Posted by Steve 2003-01-21 15:29:03|| 2003-01-21 15:29:03|| Front Page Top

#9 Lets see if I get this straight:

1) I take a dramatic public stance against my own government.

2) I accuse said government of being liars and suggest the president should be impeached.

3) Now that every media outlet on the big blue planet earth will notice my every move, I decide to take up with underage girls on the highly traceable media of the internet.

D'oh!

Posted by Frank Martin 2003-01-21 15:34:53|| [varifrank.blogspot.com] 2003-01-21 15:34:53|| Front Page Top

#10 Clever move, isn't it?

Posted by Fred 2003-01-21 15:44:21|| 2003-01-21 15:44:21|| Front Page Top

#11 Steve has a good point. The seal on these cases is usually intended to protect the victim. Though I guess it makes sense, I was not aware that it would be applied to protect the accused after being busted by undercover cops. That's why I suspect the ADA hid it for ideological reasons.

Posted by JAB 2003-01-21 16:48:58|| 2003-01-21 16:48:58|| Front Page Top

#12 I wondered what happened to the 'hard-nosed' Ritter, guess he found Islam to his liking. 9 year old girls and such.

Posted by Kathianne 2003-01-21 17:56:46|| 2003-01-21 17:56:46|| Front Page Top

#13 Of course, if Ritter is a Muslim then this is all halal. That would explain his political changes as well.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-21 18:49:03|| 2003-01-21 18:49:03|| Front Page Top

#14 Ritter is a sick puppy. The interesting questions are the role of the Mukhabarat in all this and who it was who blew Ritter's cover. We'll all be curious to see if any of the cable networks are dumb enough to use Ritter as an "expert" anymore.

Posted by Rodger Dodger 2003-01-21 19:36:14|| 2003-01-21 19:36:14|| Front Page Top

#15 I was a girl that age myself once upon a time, in the next town over, so I can certainly empathize with these young women. However, the timing of Mr. Ritter's situation is a little too politically expedient for me to accept the allegations at face value. This article about a press conference on busting a child pornography ring makes a few interesting points. What's to prevent a scummy situation like this from happening to any of us? All you'd have to do is click on the wrong piece of spam in your hotmail account, and then show up at the wrong hamburger joint when some hapless young lady arrives! Even if you're delighted to see Mr. Ritter's knavery exposed, probing for all the specific details might mean that two teenage girls will grow up with the kind of shame and embarassment that can wreck their chances at a happy marraige later in life. Hats off to the District Attorney who resigned rather than betray a young woman's secrets! If you haven't been dating yourself for a while, I'd suggest reading this eye-opening account of "The Buddy System," and discover the sort of life that even innocent teenage girls are leading these days.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-01-22 00:43:22|| 2003-01-22 00:43:22|| Front Page Top

#16 Not for nothing, but some folks here seem a little unclear on the timeline of events and on Ritter's actual acts.
Ritter, along with other UN inspectors, was booted out of Iraq in the late 1990's. I believe he was still on our team at that time.
The "alleged" contacts with the police officers he believed were underage girls came in March 2001 and June of 2001, prior to 9/11/01.
He didn't get his traitorous lying mug on TV as an expert until 2002 when it was clear W was going to push to reopen the inspections-or-regime change plans that Clinton had promised then abandoned.
Thank God no young girls were actually used or abused by that pervert in Albany but there may very well be something to Iraq blackmailing him while bankrolling him through the "documentary film" scam.
Hope he enjoys Attica. They treat pedophiles right!

Posted by JDB 2003-01-22 03:28:02|| 2003-01-22 03:28:02|| Front Page Top

#17 Will someone clarify something? The second bust did not involve a 16 year old girl. It was an undercover police officer posing as such in the chat room. I am not sure, but wasn't the 14 year old the same situation? If so, then THERE IS NO UNDERAGE VICTIM to protect! So why are court records sealed? The only possible legitimate answer I can think of is to hide the identity of the chat room and nicks used. No sense spoiling the fishing ground.

Posted by Ben 2003-01-22 03:44:17|| 2003-01-22 03:44:17|| Front Page Top

#18 Anonymous: you've got it a little backwards and you're misinformed on what's been made public in this matter.

First, clicking on a piece of spam isn't going to get you under the watchful eye of the law. It doesn't work that way.

Meeting in Internet chat rooms with "teenagers" who are actually undercover cops and then setting up a meeting with said teenager IS going to get you in trouble.

The ADA who got in trouble over this didn't resign to protect young girls identities, there were NO young girls involved. She was FIRED for not reporting the case to her boss.

Even if a kid was involved, sex cases like this aren't routinely sealed...UNLESS some kind of deal is struck. The adult's arrest record is normally public, but the juvenile victim's name is always expunged. Actually, the same is true in adult sex crimes: rape victims names are never included in the public record, at least in most jurisdictions (and probably all of them, these days) At most an age is included in the public record. Believe me, in a prior life I covered a LOT of criminal cases, including those involving juveys and adults, and this is how it works.

Ritter's case was sealed because of a deal, not because of a non-existent girl(s). He probably argued entrapment and, since no kid was actually touched, his lawyer wangled something. Who knows, the cops might have screwed up in some minor way. Deals like this are not unheard of in such cases, especially when someone of notoriety is hauled in AND, if he has no prior record.

The ADA's lack of notice to her boss warranted her firing. This whole matter was obviously a big deal in Albany and I'd be pissed if I was her boss and she didn't tell me that she had a case involving a UN arms inspector. I'd be doubly pissed if I was getting calls from the press and didn't know what the hell they were talking about...which is probably what happened.

Posted by R. McLeod 2003-01-22 04:18:38|| 2003-01-22 04:18:38|| Front Page Top

18:44 magpie
18:44 magpie
18:33 Frank G
18:33 badanov
18:26 Hellfish
18:23 Hellfish
17:40 swksvolFF
17:34 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:30 Ebbuger Whuque4103
17:02 Melancholic
16:27 Gravilet Snanter4154
16:20 Chaise Speaking for Boskone7897
16:02 Skidmark
16:01 Skidmark
15:46 Skidmark
15:41 Skidmark
15:37 swksvolFF
15:36 Skidmark
15:34 Skidmark
15:27 Skidmark
14:48 NoMoreBS
14:31 NoMoreBS
14:16 NoMoreBS
14:15 NoMoreBS