Sinking deeper into depression, he fled into chat rooms, where he arranged rendezvous with adult women willing to watch him masturbate.
At first, the meetings took place in cars or out-of-the-way places. No crime.""I have your phone number and I will be getting your IP address from Yahoo and your carrier," the officer responded.
Later, he switched to using a webcam, according to a profile by Matt Bai in the New York Times Magazine. "We can do this 2 ways call me and you can turn yourself in at a latter date or I'll get a warrant for you and come pick you up."Ritter turned himself in.
Then came that fateful day in February 2009 on which, in a Yahoo chat room for adults, he conversed with "Emily." Although she told him she was 15, Emily was actually a small-town police officer, trolling for sexual predators online. At his trial, he testified that he never for a moment believed he was talking to a minor; he assumed he was chatting with a bored housewife pretending to be 15.
Again, the Internet is not as private as you might think and some people, when provoked, will retaliate in ways that the child's parent(s) may find physically, emotionally and financially uncomfortable.
It all comes down to this: If you respect your child's privacy online, you're stupid.Thus, the claims of Plumridge and Ritter, that they knew they were chatting with adults but ignored that reality for purposes of fantasy role-playing, appear to have some scientific basis.