Reporting the Sexual Abuse of a Child

[bishop_attack]

Police are alerted, and turning it over to CPS. I had to be 100% sure of everything before submitting a report. Hopefully I didn't incriminate myself in the process, as my intentions were to gain as much content as possible. I don't know if it will be sufficient, as I don't know the laws surrounding text messages as evidence. The messages are haunting, and she is the most abysmal, abhorrent person I've ever encountered.

[geek]

Police are alerted, and turning it over to CPS. I had to be 100% sure of everything before submitting a report. Hopefully I didn't incriminate myself in the process, as my intentions were to gain as much content as possible. I don't know if it will be sufficient, as I don't know the laws surrounding text messages as evidence. The messages are haunting, and she is the most abysmal, abhorrent person I've ever encountered.

You did the right thing. You may have saved that little girl's life and future. Lesson learned I hope, about online sexual encounters...

[Mercy&Grace]

In Reply#6 you state "The messages, photos, and videos I have of her clearly indicate I'm not being played." In Reply# 11 you state " I don't know if it will be sufficient, as I don't know the laws surrounding text messages as evidence. "

Which is it ?

[cdwjava]

I don't see that the statements are mutually exclusive. He could have seen messages, images and texts, and still not know if that is sufficient to prosecute the woman. Heck, I don't know that it's enough, either. Tracing back the other party may be no easy task, and if the other party is in another city, county or state, there will be additional issues involved in both the investigation and identification of the suspect - not to mention a question of jurisdiction.

[budwad]

OP said she was a local girl in his original post. Go back and read his posts, one after the other, and then tell us what you cop nose tells you. Would he have incriminated himself receiving photos and videos of a child? It's all BS. His words are all wrong. Just my opinion of course.

[Dogmatique]

OP said she was a local girl in his original post. Go back and read his posts, one after the other, and then tell us what you cop nose tells you. Would he have incriminated himself receiving photos and videos of a child? It's all BS. His words are all wrong. Just my opinion of course.

Actually, after re-reading the original post, I think you have a point.

Depending on exactly what was said and when, it may not be too much of a stretch to believe he actually (and actively) encouraged the woman.

[eerelations]

He did say he encouraged the woman to be more depraved...but unless he spelled out that what he meant by "depraved" was for the woman to have sex with a four-year-old girl, then it's quite possible that having sex with a four-year-old girl was not actually what he meant by "depraved." (And yes, "depravity" can mean a lot of different things to different people, and many of these meanings aren't illegal, or even particularly immoral.) He also said that when she posted herself having sex with a four-year-old girl, he said he immediately became ill (indicating that he probably didn't mean for the woman to do this, he was thinking of some other kind of depravity), and he saved those pics because he thought he may need them if he wished to do something about this sick-making thing he saw.

Makes sense to me.

[Dogmatique]

He did say he encouraged the woman to be more depraved...but unless he spelled out that what he meant by "depraved" was for the woman to have sex with a four-year-old girl, then it's quite possible that having sex with a four-year-old girl was not actually what he meant by "depraved." (And yes, "depravity" can mean a lot of different things to different people, and many of these meanings aren't illegal, or even particularly immoral.) He also said that when she posted herself having sex with a four-year-old girl, he said he immediately became ill (indicating that he probably didn't mean for the woman to do this, he was thinking of some other kind of depravity), and he saved those pics because he thought he may need them if he wished to do something about this sick-making thing he saw.

Makes sense to me.

It would however also make sense for anyone "caught" in the same situation to of course deny feeling anything other than sick to the stomach.

(Just how the conversation switched to child porn in the first place is ... curious. How does that even happen without both parties at least being verbally curious about it?)

[llworking]

It would however also make sense for anyone "caught" in the same situation to of course deny feeling anything other than sick to the stomach.

(Just how the conversation switched to child porn in the first place is ... curious. How does that even happen without both parties at least being verbally curious about it?)

I dunno...I read it the way that erelations does. That the guy was into being "bad" on the internet until it got to the point where a child was involved, and then it was no longer ok. I really do not think that someone would be willing to get the police involved if they were actually soliciting child porn.

[eerelations]

Doggy, he didn't say he talked to her about child porn, he said he encouraged her to be more depraved. That could mean a hundred different things. He might even have just been saying banal and general things like "Go on go on do more sexy stuff!" and she took that to mean have sex with her child (the kind of person who would send out pics of herself having sex with a child is def the kind of person who would think "more sexy stuff" might mean "have sex with a child") - and when he saw it he became ill and thought "Well I sure didn't mean that."

The above is based solely on what he said in his original thread - and we really don't have anything else to go on except that.

And I agree with llworking - if OP did indeed explicitly tell this woman to send him pics of herself having sex with her child, I seriously doubt he would then tell the cops about it.