Archive for Thursday, January 10, 2008

Trial set for sex offender caught in Baldwin City sting operation

January 10, 2008

Advertisement

Registered sex offender to stand trial in Baldwin sex case

A judge ordered a registered sex offender to stand trial on charges of enticing a child he met in an Internet chat room. Enlarge video

Derek Marsocci already had the engraved dog tags for his two new sex slaves in the cab of his truck when he went to meet a 13-year-old girl and her mother.

Instead, he was greeted by law enforcement officers in an undercover online sex sting conducted by the Baldwin City Police Department.

Marsocci, a 45-year-old interstate truck driver and a registered sex offender, was arrested Dec. 13 in the parking lot of the Great Mall of the Great Plains in Olathe. According to the Missouri Sex Offender Registry, Marsocci, who lists his home address as Centerview, Mo., has a 2002 conviction for fourth-degree sexual assault in Fort Smith, Ark.

During Marsocci's preliminary hearing Wednesday in Douglas County District Court, Baldwin City police officer J.W. Hawkins testified that he posed online as 30-year-old single mother Tara Jones and her 13-year-old daughter, Kylie.

Hawkins said between Nov. 21 and Dec. 13, Marsocci initiated sexually inappropriate conversations in a Yahoo chat room, thinking he was corresponding with an underage girl, not a Baldwin City police officer.

"He asked if he could talk to Kylie during the first conversation," Hawkins testified. "He said to have her sit down at the computer and talk to him and that she should be naked."

Hawkins explained that the chats progressed to talk of "training" the two to become Marsocci's sex slaves.

According to the chat transcripts, Marsocci wanted to impregnate the girl and keep her in the cab of his truck for a month while he traveled the country.

He even went as far as instructing Tara to pull her daughter out of school and begin home-schooling her, Hawkins said.

On Dec. 13, Marsocci arranged to meet the two in person. Instead, he met Baldwin City police officers and Johnson County sheriff's deputies.

"He had two heart-shaped dog tags that appeared to go on dog collars," Hawkins said, describing that both were engraved with Marsocci's nicknames for his two "slaves."

Marsocci's attorney, Michael Clarke, objected to what he called a warrantless search of his client's truck. Clarke also has filed at least seven motions, many of which question the constitutionality of the online investigation.

At the conclusion of Wednesday's preliminary hearing, Judge Michael Malone found there was probable cause for Marsocci to stand trial on one count of enticement of a child.

A jury trial is scheduled for March 17.

Comments

ksdivakat 7 years, 5 months ago

But I bet if he would have got caught with a marijuana cigarette they would have thrown the book at him! But this is just a little child enticement! What a joke DG county is!

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

"one count of enticement of a child."

Who was the child?

compmd 7 years, 5 months ago

ksdivakat and consumer1,

I don't know of any crime specifically called "enticement of a child," but it does sound like he is being charged with violating statute 21-3523 subsection 2, which is a severity level 1 felony. Considering his prior conviction, rest assured this is not going to go well for him.

staff04 7 years, 5 months ago

First, I think the guy is sick and have zero tolerance for sex offenders or anyone who would even THINK about harming a child and am glad this guy is not in a position to hurt anyone where he is now.

But, I also find it a little curious that Baldwin City PD has the time and resources to initiate an online sting operation...

Confrontation 7 years, 5 months ago

What's really disgusting is that this sicko was back on the streets after his first conviction. These idiots never just stop at one conviction.

Sigmund 7 years, 5 months ago

My guess is Janet Reid got this wrong or Judge Malone did. Enticement of a child was repealed. It used to read "21-3509. Enticement Of A Child. Enticement of a child is inviting, persuading or attempting to persuade a child under the age of sixteen (16) years to enter any vehicle, building, room or secluded place with intent to commit an unlawful sexual act upon or with the person of said child. Enticement is a class D felony." http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=11667

The problem, of course, is there was no child just a fictional child played by an adult. As compmd pointed out what Reid and hopefully Malone meant was, Derek Marsocci will face trial on a single charge of "Electronic solicitation" a severity level 1 person felony. http://www.kslegislature.org/legsrv-statutes/getStatute.do?number=11681

Shardwurm 7 years, 5 months ago

Sorry Pywacket...I disagree.

I am curious where the funding for this activity is coming from. If the city has received a grant of some kind then that's fine. If the taxpayers of Baldwin are footing the bill for arresting criminals from other states then I'd rather the money be put towards more coverage at the high school - Lord knows they need it.

This is Baldwin PD's second 'sting' in the last few months. Very nice that he was caught...but I do wonder whether the department is over-staffed if they have time for these things.

staff04 7 years, 5 months ago

Listen py, I didn't say it was wrong of them, I just thought it was surprising. Just the same as I would think it curious if Mayberry PD or my hometown of Ottawa's PD did something like this. It just isn't the kind of thing you expect to hear about from small rural towns.

But I don't disagree with anything you say. You're absolutely right that they should be doing more than just "putting in their time."

Haiku_Cuckoo 7 years, 5 months ago

Pervs are everywhere. Yes, even in small rural towns. Kudos to the Baldwin PD. For those expressing concerns about the budget of this operation, don't you feel that the safety of children is worth the price of an internet connection and an officer's salary? There are no elaborate expenses needed to find pervs on the internet.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 5 months ago

Those of youse whose criticizing a police dept. for getting a nutless pervert off the streets haven't thought that maybe the BCPD person did this on their own time.

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 5 months ago

Rusty tin would be good, but give it to him and make him do it himself.

KLATTU 7 years, 5 months ago

"...but I do wonder whether the department is over-staffed if they have time for these things."

So you think getting a guy off the streets who "wanted to impregnate the {13 year old} girl and keep her in the cab of his truck for a month" is a waste of time? What the hell is wrong with you?

kneejerkreaction 7 years, 5 months ago

And who the H cares where this guy came from? He ended up in YOUR backyard.

fairylight 7 years, 5 months ago

gr (Anonymous) says:

"one count of enticement of a child."

Who was the child?

The child has the right to remain anonymous. The child is not the one who committed the crime. Why would you feel it was OK to ask a child to be named on a public forum?

Alia Ahmed 7 years, 5 months ago

Pywacket, Funny about the donuts. The alleged perpetrator seems like he was trying to be like the guy in this story.
http://www.kspr.com/news/whereyoulive/wright/12439161.html

jamnjohnks 7 years, 5 months ago

Fairylight,

I agree with your thought, but in this particular case there is no child. It was a law enforcement officer who was pretending to be a 13 year old child. Seems to me they are charging him "enticement of a fictional character".
And just so it's known, I think they should put this pervert away for a very long time. Evidence seems to indicate that his a sick individual who should not be out on the streets.

geniusmannumber1 7 years, 5 months ago

I am 100% against child molesters! This man should be punished horribly! Unless he didn't do it! Then we should let him go, I suppose.

Ceallach 7 years, 5 months ago

Didn't do it? He already had a dog tag for what he believed to be a 13 year old girl he wanted to impregnate! I say lock him up for 25 or 30 years then give him a fair trial. Let's see how sexy he feels in 2038.

fairylight 7 years, 5 months ago

"jamnjohnks (Anonymous) says:

Fairylight,

I agree with your thought, but in this particular case there is no child. It was a law enforcement officer who was pretending to be a 13 year old child. Seems to me they are charging him "enticement of a fictional character". And just so it's known, I think they should put this pervert away for a very long time. Evidence seems to indicate that his a sick individual who should not be out on the streets."

Ah, My bad,lol, I should have read with more comprehension. Last year or sometime back there was a case like that. There was no true victim, just the proven intent of an adult to be prepared to molest a child. I don't remember the outcome . Like most people I am acutely opposed to giving child molesters- pedophiles or the like a break of any-kind . HOWEVER, I find it unsettling to convict a person of a crime when there really is no victim. While I agree he seemed ready, the intent was there and of course you want to stop him before a child is harmed- this seems to 'zealous' to be anything other than a huge waste of resources-(time, money,man-power).

Creeps have been around since time began. We need to teach our children to beware of them and I feel we all need to accept a certain amount of culpability in creating a atmosphere where kids not only are exposed to the dregs of society in chat rooms etc. but encourage to be little sex objects. That is another topic I know, it simply seems to go hand in hand with this rant, lol. ANYWAY. Thank you for pointing my misconception out.

Father_Guido_Sarducci 7 years, 5 months ago

I will say a prayer for this sad, pathetic soul!

May God have mercy on him!

Sigmund 7 years, 5 months ago

DirtyLinen, in the case of the old law, the one enticed had to be under 16 regardless of the intent of belief of the offender. In the new statute it clearly states "Enticing or soliciting a person whom the offender believes to be a child under the age of 16."

It is clear that the actual age of the the solicited or enticed is not what matters, but the intent of the offender to entice a minor that needs to be proved.

Under the old law a 14 year old could inflate her age ("I'm 17, really") and if you enticed you were guilty if you believed her. Under the new law as long as you reasonably reasonably believe you are soliciting someone over 16 years old, no matter what their age you are innocent. But once the persons tells you they are a child, you are guilty no matter what their age.

The new law is cleaner for prosecutors, judges, and juries making life for defendants much more difficult. I don't recall the New York Statute you talked about, if you find a reference feel free to share ...

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

"But once the persons tells you they are a child, you are guilty no matter what their age."

Cool. All women: If being raped, say you're a child. Penalty higher.

Sigmund 7 years, 5 months ago

gr (Anonymous) says:"But once the persons tells you they are a child, you are guilty no matter what their age." Cool. All women: If being raped, say you're a child. Penalty higher."

Nothing in this article my comments discusses rape. So not only are you wrong, but also a moron.

gr 7 years, 5 months ago

"But once the persons tells you they are a child, you are guilty no matter what their age."

rile 5 years, 5 months ago

i know this is old news i just found this out recently i have knowen Derek Marscocci since 2001.....I dont know if anyone will read this or not. like i said this is old news i dont live in Kansas i'm living in washington state.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.