Man, you're as naive as Marple.
"Ok - we'll let you off, and keep this quiet to not embarass your family. You're going to do what we say (or not) in exchange for this.
If you don't agree, this girl you allegedly were talking to will be 12 years old. If you do agree, she's 17. If you don't agree, we'll leak the records to the press."
They could make it a lot worse for him.
But hey, you're already screaming SET-UP and CONSPIRACY THEORY for your hero, aren't you?
Illogical. When have I claimed him my hero? (Don't act like Dane, et al. )
Explain how the evidence makes sense:
a LOCAL sting operation, and a local prosecution for an INTERNET chat.
The likelyhood of cathcing ANYONE locally on a chat room.
The cover up and sealing of the court case.
The concealment of the records ALONE is a conspiracy. Since court records don't automatically seal themselves, it takes a PERSON to do so. And she didn't ANNOUNCE that she was doing so, and required cooperation of a judge = Conspiracy.
So you're saying Ritter went online looking for sex with an underage girl IN HIS OWN TOWN? And cops just happened to be ready for him? And he happened to go to the one place on the internet where they happened to be? You do realize how many chat rooms there are on the Internet, right?
It is not illogical to conclude that one can go to a LOCAL chat room and engage is discourse with someone they think is 13 but is in fact a police officer who is part of a LOCAL sting operation.
Still in all, your amphetamine logic is humorous. Thanks for helping me to a good laugh this bright Sunday morning.