Watch Exclusive Scott Ritter Interview Here!

WRGBonline ^ | 1/25/03

[kattracks]

Former UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter has broken his silence about his 2001 arrest in an internet sex sting, giving his only local on-camera interview to Channel Six News. Watch Darcy Wells' interview with Ritter by clicking here.

Quick Time 6 required.

[Jean S]

Bump!

[Numbers Guy]

Oh, this interview is precious. Definite must-watch.

He never once says "the case got dismissed because I didn't do anything". You'd think he'd say that. Heck, even OJ claimed he didn't do it.

Now he's blabbering about "moral authority" and "moral responsibility". And you can't see his hands. Hmm.

The interviewer is in her 30's. Scott's probably thinking "hmm, she's attractive, she hasn't asked me a single solitary tough question, I wonder if she has a daughter".

Oh, and he's also "stood before a judge". Now, Scott, what led to you going before that judge? Did you win a "you get to stand before a judge" raffle?

The interviewer now asks the question, "did you . . . " He says he can't discuss it for legal reasons? Why not? The case has been dismissed, it's over.

He *really* wants to get to Baghdad. Uncle Saddam must have someone really special waiting for him there.

"Have you ever broken the law?" He says "yes" because of speeding tickets. Mr. Disengenuous.

I can see why he settled for an interview with someone in a small market. Anyone with a bigger name would have torn him to shreds.

[Jean S]

Yep, he really wanted to get to Baghad to save the world. What an ego this man has.
And how many times did he say "rule of law"? I lost count after about 10.

[DBrow]

The judge told him he was never to discuss the case? What penalties were set if he did? I have heard of this in civil cases but not dismissed misdemeanor cases.

I think he is lying.

[TLBSHOW]

I don't believe he was going to Iraq, his plans were to go to New York City to shoot a commercial. The Iraq thing was to get sympathy from people.

[OKSooner]

A COMMERCIAL?! For WHAT?

[syriacus]

It sounds like WSR was hoping for a Nobel Peace prize, just like WJC had hoped for one.

[ppaul]

"I have the moral authroity..."

Like hell you do, Scott.
Prevert.

[TLBSHOW]

anti-war

[Bonaparte]

"I think he is lying."

He is definitely lying. Aaron Brown demonstrated that a couple nights ago. A sealed record is not the same as a gag order. Legally, he is free to say anything he wants about the case. He is a lying piece of scum.

[Bonaparte]

Oh, and he's also "stood before a judge". Now, Scott, what led to you going before that judge? Did you win a "you get to stand before a judge" raffle?

LOLOL! It's truly pathetic. In all three of his interviews since this story broke, he has parroted the same formula over and over again, stonewalling all the way.

[airedale]

The seal only applies to the state and it's agents in a criminal case. It does not apply to the accused or convicted individual. They can say anything they want about it but the state can't set the record straight. There is no moral or legal requirement from Mr. Ritter to provide full details (accurate or not). It's just like Grand Jury testimony. The state can't disclose it but anyone testifying in front of a Grand Jury can say both what they are going to say and what they did say. Again it doesn't have to be accurate because the state can't respond.

In civil cases when a case has been sealed it applies to all parties.

One of the sentencing options that is available to a judge is that in exchange for your guilty plea if you stay clean for a certain length of time (a year or more) the conviction will be expunged from your record and you can answer that you’ve never been convicted because expongement wipes out the charge and conviction. Provided of course you stay clean for the required length of time.

His responses in this interview and others are dishonest in his reasons for not being able to talk about the details of the case. It says a lot about his comments in other areas.

The reporter never challenged him on his interpretation of the law with the facts. She should have at least done due diligence in this area. A quick talk to any DA , PD or judge could have armed her with the facts and the law.

This omission made me wonder if that line of questioning was off limits in exchange for the interview or was it a VNR (Video News Release). If it was off limits it should have been disclosed.

VNR’s appear on news broadcasts all the time. They are slick packaged PR releases which are made to look like a news story. If you watch the local news you probably see at least 2 in every news broadcast. They are used in all areas, everything from new drugs, to services, clothes, vacation spots, treatments and treatment centers. Remember that when you see the next news story about some new syndrome or new hot idea or product to solve some problem. The company or person whose VNR it is will only be slightly mentioned. They might be the interviewee and the reporter or interviewer will say something like if any of our viewers have more question they can visit our website for links to more information. There is always the popular: “If anyone has any questions about this how can they get in contact with you..

If they are prepared properly they offer the station a couple of advantages:
1. A prepared story to fill their news hole.
2. The people producing the VNR often spend more time and money on the preparation of it than the station could or ever would if they had decided to do real reporting.
3. Studies have shown that information included directly in the news program (not a commercial) has a much higher believability factor than any paid spot or paid program.
4. It’s a commercial that the only cost to the person who’s done the VNR is the cost of producing the VNR and seeing it gets to the news stations across the area where this would apply. They don’t have to spring for the cost of the air time.

VNR’s are one of the dirty little secrets of the broadcast news business.

[isthisnickcool]

I watched about 1/2 of the video. Someone tell this boy his goose is cooked. Heck, it's burned to a crisp.

Buh-bye Ritter.

[Howlin]

He says he can't discuss it for legal reasons?

An absolute lie.

[Howlin]

Somebody on here last night said that even the detectives involved in the case can discuss this case if they want to. I'd never heard of that before.

[Howlin]

The reporter never challenged him on his interpretation of the law with the facts. She should have at least done due diligence in this area. A quick talk to any DA , PD or judge could have armed her with the facts and the law.

Aaron Brown did HIS homework