A similar question appeared on the GD board, but knowing that better legal minds might be here, it might be interesting to hear opinions.

What risk if any might there be to those who write reviews on TER.  Anyone know of actual cases where it was an issue?

I Like your question, of course the guys here will know much more,,
..Me .as a layperson ,I would say the "reviews are ficticious" so inadmissable,

however,,,In the situation were LE sets one up from an online personal AD... I also, wonder if the "non-exsistance a review" would help support innocence???,

This is the verbiage directly from TER's review submission page:

#15. We consider all reviews to be fictional stories that are posted by TER solely for entertainment purposes.

Still, it would seem that if other stars aligned to put you in a bad spot, your "fictional account" probably wouldn't help your denial in court.  What concerns me more is the combination of:

I review her.
She white lists me.

That would seem to imply that she liked my fictional account of what would be cool to happen enough to vote for my story.  Still, it would be flimsy to come find me using just that information.  If used as additional evidence of a crime, it could prove problematic.

For the record, I was at the same law school as MrFisher.  Oh wait, that wasn't school; it was a massage parlor.

First of all, there is that First Ammendment thingie....
Secondly, regardless of some kind of trace back to your computer (as if!) they can't prove YOU were the one on the keyboard that typed it.  
Third, like they said on the GD Board, anything you write here COULD be just a fantasy.  
Lastly, maybe even the 5th Ammendment might apply.  
Would they try to use that kind of data to twist your arm to testify against a provider or take a harsh plea deal?  Maybe.  But do they have TIME to do some kind of research to find who is writing reviews of hookers and work a case against them that way?  Please.  Vice cops work on quantity mostly unless they are doing what they SHOULD be doing and focusing on abusive pimps, child prostitution, and human trafficing.  

MVR

confident & he knows what is important. very
well said Von

You frequent an agency in, um, say, Arizona.

They, for some inexplicable reason, keep a list of all clients with the date, time, and name of the provider seen.

You wrote a review of the providers after you saw them.  The reviews were dated for the same month that is notated on the list.

The provider is flipped and cooperates with the DA in nailing some of the clients to set an example.

You are now faced with the charges, and the pre-trial discovery includes a printout of your review of the provider who will testify about your session.

That review would then become corroborating evidence that takes it from the realm of he said/ she said into she said and he wrote the review that backs it up.

BTW, the 5th applies to what you say after the charge, not months before - that's just called evidence.

Someone video recorded himself speeding on motorbike and later bragged about it by posting the clip on YouTube.  Well, that clip was used as evidence for issuing him a speeding ticket.

Is review a written confession or evidence?  Shouldn't that need some witness and investigation?

Confident does not mean competent, and well said does not mean accurate.  Almost everything vonrichtofen says (in this answer, at least) is completely wrong.  Consider:


1.  "First of all, there is that First Ammendment thingie...."

So what?  The First Amendment means the government can't punish you merely for saying something.  The governemnt can still use what you say as evidence of a crime, and then punish you for the crime.  If it didn't, the Miranda warning ("...anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law") would be unnecessary.  By vonrichtofen's logic, even a flat-out confession would be useless as evidence.  That ain't how it works.


2.  "Secondly, regardless of some kind of trace back to your computer (as if!) they can't prove YOU were the one on the keyboard that typed it."

Sure they can.  They do it all the time.

There's no need for a "trace".  Computers reveal their internet protocal addresses to other computers when they communicate.  This site has the IP address of everyone who uses it.  So do Hotmail, Yahoo, Google and everyone else out there.  That information can be subpoenaed and used as evidence.

Remember that the prosecution doesn't need to prove anything to an absolute certainty.  They only need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  Sometimes there will be reasonable doubt about this sort of thing, but often there won't -- especially when this piece of evidence is just part of a much larger showing.


3.  "Third, like they said on the GD Board, anything you write here COULD be just a fantasy."

That it could have been does not mean it was.  Do you think the prosecutor can only use evidence after he has proven that it is 100% certain to be what he claims it is?  Literally nothing is 100% certain, so that is not the test for admissibility.


4.  "Lastly, maybe even the 5th Ammendment might apply."

This is what the Fifth Amendment says:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."  

Nothing in it even suggests that the prosecutor is forbidden to use your voluntary statements as evidence against you.


6.  "Would they try to use that kind of data to twist your arm to testify against a provider or take a harsh plea deal?  Maybe."

Yes, but why would this tactic be effective?  Because if you don't cooperate the "data" can be used as evidence against you.  If it couldn't the police would have a lot less leverage against potential witnesses.


7.  "But do they have TIME to do some kind of research to find who is writing reviews of hookers and work a case against them that way?  Please.  Vice cops work on quantity mostly unless they are doing what they SHOULD be doing and focusing on abusive pimps, child prostitution, and human trafficing."

OK, this is a valid point.  But it has nothing to do with WHETHER the reviews can be used as evidence.  It only relates to HOW LIKELY that is to happen.

A review can be used against the person who wrote it, but not against the lady it's written about.  I don't know how likely it is, but it's a risk.

In court, a review would qualify as hearsy.  By definition, hearsay is a statement that was made out of court that is offered to show that what it says was true.  Many laypeople mistakenly believe that hearsay is always inadmissible.  The general rule is that hearsay can't be used, but there are about 25 exceptions to this rule.  Believe it or not, MOST hearsay fits into one or more of the exceptions.  That means that most hearsay evidence offered in court is admissible.

One of the exceptions is for statements against penal interest.  That means statements which the speaker, at the time of the statement, should realize indicates that he or she committed a crime.  It doesn't have to be a flat-out admission of guilt, but flat-out admissions do qualify.  Most reviews are flat-out admissions.  A prosecutor with strong evidence that a particular defendant wrote a particular review will likely be able to use it against him.

So, why can't the review be used against the lady?  Because it isn't her statement.  It's someone else's statement ABOUT her.  It's still hearsay, but a statement that someone else committed a crime is not a statement against THE SPEAKER's penal interest.  That exception thus would not apply.  In most instances, neither would any of the others.

This brings up another point most laypeople don't understand: even admissible evidence can be used only to prove certain things.  It is not admitted for all purposes.  Suppose, for example, that I am accused of shooting someone with a .45.  Testimony by a witness who has seen me use a .45 at the firing range is admissible to show that I know how to use such a gun, and perhaps even that I have access to one.  However, it is NOT admissible to show that I committed the particular shooting. (That's not a great example since few jurors would infer my guilt from that sort of testimony, but I don't have time to come up with a better one.)

I have no idea whether this has actually been done.  I believe TER keeps its servers in another country, and that it does so specifically to make it harder for prosecutors to subpoena the data they contain.  My point is just that the authorities can do this, not that they usually will.

the posts so far have only touched the surface of this troubling problem.

       But for all of the posters who have relied on the Legal Disclaimer that “all works on this site are works of ‘fiction,’” I suggest you go back and read what is printed directly under that disclaimer. Now also remember that criminal law governs what you do , and not how you label it. You may wish to reconsider your position.

Do you remember during the last year or so, some members being kick out because they posted bs reviews to get VIP status, would those actions be a problem per fantasy? Just wondering.

You're doing so well with this, that I was hoping that you (or some of our other great contributors) could go a little further with the below question.

Reviews are submitted to TER through an approval process that includes the ability of TER to edit, and pursuant to a tacit agreement that the review becomes the property of TER upon submission.

The Prosecutor wants to introduce a printout of the Review. Assuming for the sake of argument that the prosecutor has evidence linking the Defendant to the TER username (in AZ they had an undercover at the Agency Meet and Greets, so the linkage could be possible without obtaining the records).

So, how does the Prosecutor lay a foundation for the printed review to come in if the Defendant had no control over the editing and final published product once submitted?  And even if not admitted for the truth of the matter, does the foundation issue affect the admissibility for limited purposes?

This question goes to the very essence of Hearsay evidence - credibility.

Other than a few prominent cases such as the Spitzer case that involved Federal offenses such as Money Laundering, White Slavery, etc by a prominent official, is there ANY history of clients being charged after-the-fact for misdemeanor charges arising from using a provider?  Did Spitzer himself even get charged with anything directly hobby related such as 'soliciting'?  Worrying about LE crawling backwards through the www from TER into your computer to get evidence that you used some provider is just really, IN MY OPINION, borderline paranoia.  

If there are cases like that out there, I would love to hear about them and be proved wrong and educated.  If they exist, I'm thinking they are unique.

Do not mistake my opinion for belief that good judgement and use of well reviewed ladies is not always required.  I just don't believe LE will put that much effort into a misdemeanor soliciting arrest.  Unless there are other factors (violence, use of children, etc), its just not worth their effort.

Even in the Heidi Fliess (sp?) 'Hollywood Madam' scandal where they had her Black Book, did Charlie Scheen (sp?) or any of her clients get charged with using a provider?  I don't recall that they did. Sure their names got released and some of them were embarrassed/humiliated by it and THAT was the deterrent.  Of course Charlie just laughed it off and said 'so what? I'm single' and that was that pretty much.  

It is my understanding that while POSSIBLE to make a misdemeanor case based on evidence and testimony gathered after-the-fact (they do it all the time in traffic accidents and domestic battery cases, but those are different animals with laws written specifically to enable them to do so) it is not common for soliciting charges to be brought after the fact.  

Just my opinion, but I think the odds of LE coming after a client after-the-fact and using reviews off TER as supporting evidence are so small that it defies my imagination.  

MVR

I am grateful to see your posts here again.

One question if I may:

I often hear that TER's servers are in The Netherlands, and therefore the information about IP addresses, etc. that you refer to are out of the hands of US LE.  Do you agree or do we need to fear the possibility of TER becoming a weapon against us possibly?

P.S.

I see that you did mention the fact of LE's servers are outside the country below, but it is still not clear if this fact mitigates the government's ability to obtain information on them.

Also, would testimony from a provider who is cooperating with the state that so-and-so told me he is mrfisher pretty much obviate the need of the government to get ahold of TER's information?

(still not a lawyer)

-- Modified on 3/7/2009 1:34:49 PM

As I recall the prosecutor said that it is not the policy of the government to bring charges unless some form of enslavement or the involvement of children, etc. was involved.

(still not a lawyer)

It's not difficult.  The prosecutor asks if the defendant wrote the review.  If the defendant says yes, it's in.  If he says no, then the prosecutor calls the expert witnesses who can link the review to the defendant.  They explain why the believe he wrote it, and it is then admitted as his out-of-court statement.  The jury gets the statement and the defendant's denial of authorship and decides for itself whether it is genuine.

If defense counsel argues that the statement was edited, he will bear the burden of showing what changes were made to it.  That will be hard to do if the defendant denies submitting anything in the first place.  Persuading the jury that the edits were so major that they portrayed an encounter which never happened will be extrmely difficult, especially if the defendant has submitted many reviews over the years.  After all, why would anyone continue to participate in a site that not only put words into his mouth but actually made it seem he was admitting to crimes?

The defendant makes the ultimate decision in three areas: Whether to plead guilty or not, whether to request jury trial or not, and whether to testify or not. The defense attorney may attempt to persuade or cajole the defendant otherwise, but cannot override the defendant's decision. I'm sure lots of defendants say their attorneys forced them to plead guilty, but the reply to the judge's question of "How do you plead?" comes directly from the defendant's mouth. As for testifying or not, there are many defendants who feel it necessary to tell their side of the story, despite counsel's wishes. And despite what jury instructions say, juries often do count defendants' silence against them.

However, I feel sidone's scenario is unlikely. The foundational evidence, the testimony of the expert witness, would be laid out in the People's case-in-chief. There is no need to have the defendant's denial. This would be before the defendant had an opportunity to testify or not.

And without an admission from the Defendant (way not going to happen if I'm on the case), how does the hearsay evidence get established as the Defendant's statements when there is no way to prove that it was him at the keyboard, submitting the review, and having control over it until it is published?

Yes, it is a little more difficult than it seems.

Good point.  Obviously, I have not had enough caffeine yet today.  That was a pretty lame mistake on my part.

The prosecutor would call the witnesses who connected the review to the particular computer, and would then introduce whatever evidence they might have that the defendant was the one using that computer when the post was submitted.  That would lay the foundation that the statement was the defendant's, which is what DC asked.

That the post may have been edited is not a foundational issue.  It's a point the defendant can argue in his defense, but it won't keep the statement out.

Besides, the prosecutor may have records of what the user submitted along with what was eventually posted.  That way he could show what the user actually submitted.

As I said in my response to Balboa7, that was a pretty lame mistake on my part.  I tried to make up for it in the rest of that response.

I should add that, per the corpus delicti rule, the prosecution would not be allowed to any unsworn, out of court statement by the defendant, including a TER review, unless and until it had introduced other evidence of each element of the charged offense.  Such statements can be used to bolster the prosecution's case, but they cannot be the entire basis upon which any element of the crime is proven.

In re: Establishing who was at the keyboard when the message was sent.

A witness observes a car hit a parked car causing property damage only to the parked car and then leaves the scene without leaving a note on the parked car.  The witness gets the license number of the hit and run vehicle and notifies the police. The witness did not see the driver. When the police arrive the owner of the parked car is present.  The police complete a hit and run accident report identifying the suspect car in the report. The police obtain the registered owner’s information and go directly to the registered owner’s residence to investigate.  When the officers arrive they observe the suspect vehicle in the driveway with damage and paint transfers consistent with the damage and paint on the vehicle that was hit.  The police ask the owner what happened to his car.  The owner looks at the damage and says he has no idea what happened; he just noticed the damage.  The crime is a hit and run misdemeanor because no one was injured and it was property damage only.  Unless the owner admits he was the driver who hit the parked car there is no way it can be proven he was the driver even though he was the owner.  I realize that the registered owner of the car is liable for the property damage regardless of who was driving the car but that is a civil matter.  

Wouldn’t that same rule apply to who was at the keyboard when a particular message was sent?  Unless someone actually witnessed the defendant type and send the message how could it be proven the defendant sent the message?

The defendant is not required to prove he was not the driver when the accident occurred.  The state is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was the driver.  


-- Modified on 3/7/2009 4:18:44 PM

Thank you, mrfisher.  It's nice to be appreciated.

American prosecutors can obtain evidence from other countries, provided that the law of those countries lets them.  I don't know anything about Dutch law, but the fact that the servers are outside the U.S. is not a legal bar by itself.  It would at least make getting the evidence much harder, which would reduce the odds that a prosecutor would bother getting it.

The prosecutor's eagerness to jump through more hoops will increase if the defendant is accused of something more serious than simple prostitution.  For example, it is a sad reality that excorts are sometimes the victims of violent crimes at clients' hands.  A D.A. investigating such a crime might find it worthwhile to get TER records about all of the lady's reviewers as part of the investigation.  That doesn't mean he will prosecute any of them, but it does mean that the evidence is less secure offshore than some people might think.

The answer to your second question will depend upon the state of the other evidence against you and the nature of the charges you face.  Such testimony would definitely help the government, but it might not be enough by itself to connect you to your handle.  It certainly wouldn't be enough to get your reviews admitted as evidence of your guilt unless and until some evidence of each element of the charged offense besides your unsworn, out of court statements has been admitted.

a case where the defendant had taken the stand, denied sex for pay, and the prosecution was cross-examining him by using his review of the same encounter which referenced a donation and then intimate details.

       Assuming the review could be authenticated as the defendant's statements, the defendant could be impeached by the statement. Moreover, to the extent that the review contained language fairly regarded as an admission, it would not be hearsay under many state evidence codes, and the review could be offered for the truth of the admissions therein stated.

      And to the extent that the prosecutor offers reviews of other ladies by the defendant, the prosecutor would simply offer the reviews to show the intent, absence of mistake in being there, or a common plan rather than for the truth of the matter asserted, so therefore no hearsay problem.

      In short once you get over the authentication problem, the evidence will surely come in if the defendant takes the stand as says "I just went for a massage."

The reason that I used the AZ information in my question was to flesh out the purely legal analysis of getting the evidence admitted in an of itself.

The concern that I see in the posts, however, is whether LE will take our reviews and start bringing charges against us.  This instant post by sidone went to the heart of the difference between admissions related statements and regular hearsay evidence (at least in Massachusetts, where we don't have rules of evidence, but rather Principles of Evidence developed by case law, that's how we tend to distinguish the types of statements).

The prosecution needs more than our reviews.  If the review is the only basis for the charge, I believe that the case will ultimately end up dismissed at the Probable Cause stage in those jurisdictions that still have formal PC hearings, or at the Motions stage through a motion to suppress.

I actually disagree with sidone about whether the reviews would survive a motion to suppress if offered as regular hearsay corroboration evidence in cases where the prosecution has something else to support the charges; but that is the beauty of our system anyway - vigorous disagreement.  I think that it would be a jurisdictional determinative outcome at best because every judge makes evidence decisions in their own way and Misdemeanors rarely get appealed by either side, if ever.

In all practicality, for your reviews to be used against you in a case (assuming that there is a cooperating witness against you):

1) The local prosecutor would have to determine the real name of the reviewer through judicial access of the TER databases by convincing a judge to issue either a search warrant, summons, or subpoena and then convince the Foreign nation in which the databases are kept to execute said court order;

2) Once the suspect is identified, (and assuming that they got ALL of the database records) the local prosecutor would then have to convince a judge to issue a search warrant on the suspect's personal computer to establish the corroborating evidence that sidone was talking about in laying the foundation;

3) The local prosecutor would then have to establish at the motion to suppress the validity of the hearsay, which means that it fits into one of the exceptions.  If the exception is a statement of the Defendant against his interest (the review), it would have to be established further that it is a statement made by him.  

Usually, that is done through the person to whom the statement is made.  In the case of written statements, like the review, the credibility of the writing would have to be established on a second level through some demonstration that the actual publication (term used as meaning the process of writing and communicating it from the declarant to the audience) of the statement was inherently credible.  Similar to the official records or business records exception to hearsay. BTW, this is where I think the admissibility would fail and where I disagree with sidone.  

This would require the keeper of the records from TER to appear at the motion to suppress and be subject to cross examination as to the credibility of the records.  At this point, the arguments regarding the loss of control of the review after submission and prior to publication would come in.

4) If all of the is evidence somehow survives a motion to suppress, then the whole thing would then have to be presented to the jury, including all of the disclaimers, TER false review history, and process of writing the review because a written statement cannot come in out of context.  I also disagree that the burden of proof shifts here, because it is up to the prosecution to lay the foundation.

All of the above has to happen in the context of a MISDEMEANOR Charge.  This is really the key element here.  Would your local jurisdiction put the time, expense, and effort into an enterprise that has more of a chance of failing than succeeding (Small Town, USA will play hell getting the warrant or subpoena executed overseas)?

IMHO, no.

This is fun.

thinking motion to suppress as that is where the evidence would be challenged first.  In error, I didn't specify.

The review may as well not be challenged in any procedural posture if the Defendant takes the stand as the review would be used against him when he opened the door.  In that situation, the review would be much more easily admitted as it would be used for impeachment rather than for substantive evidence.

Please read my DING DING DING response to sidone.

I once stood up in the Massachusetts Appeals Court and started arguing the wrong case.  A case that I had argued the week before was so similar to the one I was doing that day, that I launched into the previous argument. I was two minutes into it when I realized my mistake. LOL  My clue was when the three judges, all of the sudden, started ripping open the briefs and looking for whatever the Hell I was arguing. LMFAO.

Thankfully, the cases were similar enough, and I was blessed enough at birth with the gift of BS, that I was able to recover.

Other than that, though, I haven't made a mistake since 1983, when I mistakenly concluded that I was in error.

I think everyone know that. It's like telling us Monday follows Sunday. Effective assistance of counsel was the focal point of the statement.

If the owner says he wasn't driving, the police won't just end the investigation there.  They will ask him who else might have been driving.  If he says he has no idea, the police will ask whether the car might have been taken for a joyride and will look for signs that the car had been stolen (damaged locks, popped ignition, broken windows, etc.)  The more of this they do, the harder it will be to believe the driver's denial.  They may be able to build a pretty solid case even without eyewitness identification.

There may also be other evidence to prove that the owner was the driver.  For example, a neighbor may have seen him get out of his car 30 minutes before the police arrived, which may have been just enough time for him to have driven home from the scene of the accident.  Perhaps other witnesses to the accident saw that the owner was driving.  Or maybe he used a drive-up ATM and left a videotaped record of him in the driver's seat right before the accident.  The fact that you haven't included such evidence in your hypothetical doesn't mean there is none.  It also doesn't mean the police will just throw up their hands without even looking for any.

But even if this particular case can't be proven, that does not imply that all comparable cases will also be impossible to prove.  Maybe the next time around there will be plenty of other evidence, even if this time there isn't.

What you're basically saying is that the lack of direct evidence (a confession or an eyewitness account) means there is no way to convict anyone.  You forget about circumstantial evidence.  Strong enough circumstantial evidence can be more than enough to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.  Evidence that the car went directly to the owner's home is circumstantial evidence that he was driving it at the time.  So is his (presumed) inability to explain who else could have been driving it, along with the lack of any evidence that anyone else had taken the car.  

Like most of us, you seem to intuitively understand the concept of circumstantial evidence.  The paint you described on the bumper is circumstantial evidence that this car was involved in the accident, which is presumably why you mentioned it.  It's often easy to find more circumstantial evidence if you know what to look for.

Prosecutors might not bring charges in a minor case like this if the evidence is weaker than they prefer, but that does not mean that they couldn't.  It also doesn't mean that they would lose if they did.

Proving who typed a message from your computer likewise does not require an eyewitness or a confession.  Let's say the computer is in a house where you live alone, that it is protected by a password that only you know, that it demands the password whenever it has been untouched for ten minutes, and that there is no evidence anyone else was in your house at the time the message was sent.  That's pretty good circumstantial evidence that you were the sender.  

There may be more, too.  Maybe the authorities will search your computer and find emails in your inbox which were forwarded from the same TER handle which posted the message.  Or maybe the lady in question will have your phone number, email, etc. in her phonebook.  Maybe your car will be on surveillnce video in her garage, with you returning an hour after you left it there.  And maybe when you returned your hair was wet and you were carrying the same brand of bottled water the lady keeps stocked in her apartment.

As long as the identity of the computer is clear, this additional evidence would persuade plenty of jurors beyond a reasonable doubt by that you were the sender.

Most importantly, that you posted the review doesn't even HAVE to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Posting a review isn't a crime.  It's just evidence that you did something else which WAS a crime.  That something else is what has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Even if individual items of evidence against you are subject to some doubt, if the evidence is consistent, the doubt minimal and the showing persuasive, a jury can convict.

DC correctly pointed out elsewhere that prosecutors are unlikely to bother with all of this in a routine case.  I'm not saying any of this is likely.  All I'm saying is that it's possible.

A person goes to a public place like Kinko’s FedEx, the library etc. where there are computers for public use.  He opens a TER non VIP account using a false name, then begins posting reviews.  He never pays for the membership so there is no paper trail linking him to his TER Handle.  In this case I can’t see how he could be linked to a review he posted unless he admitted he posted the review; or someone witnessed him typing the review; or he told someone he wrote the review

The evidence you describe would not be enough to tie the user to his TER handle.  But here again, the limited evidence you mention likely would not be the only evidence available.  And here again, the D.A. would probably not bother digging too deeply unless there was more going on than a routine prostitution case.  

For instance, if you're a suspected drug dealer but the authorities can't prove it, they might work harder to prove a misdemeanor case against you and at least get you off the street for a while.

... a lot of time to write the extensive posts here....

may be an indication that, as with the rest of the economy, much of the legal arena has reduced work hours.

I'm grateful to all those who took the time to offer their reasoned opinions.  Thank you to all.

(You must be thinking:  "If only these hours were billable."  I'm sure your pro bono karma account will be full 8o).

If the hobby is legal in The Netherlands (I think it still is), then that bodes well for LE not being able to get their hands on TER's servers.

As for the second part, that is also comforting.

The legal status of prostitution in the Netherlands is irrelevant to whether data TER keeps there can be obtained by an American prosecutor.  Any sort of record can be subpoenaed.  It does not have to be a record of an activity that is illegal in the host country.

Subpoenas routinely seek bank records, medical records, etc.  Banks and doctors are perfectly legal just about everywhere, but that fact does not suggest that American prosecutors would have a hard time getting the records.

A fictional story could not be the basis of a charge, but if you are charged, the fictional story could be evidence.  

There have already been several cases where that happened.  The one that comes to mind was a fireman-arsonist who wrote a fictional story detailing an arson case. It was used against him.

I vaguely remember at least one other case invovling that.  Also, I know of one case where the defendant wrote an essay on age of consent laws, and it was used against him in a child molest case.

Alot about this, so this question is for you-
Now we all know how cops can be, and if you were being interigated, and you admited to your reviews, either the ones that have been written about you, if your a provider, or the ones you have wrote, if your the male..Could the reviews be used as eveidence??

Which takes me to this age old saying:
'' Deny, Deny, Deny'' - Because, Its amazing to me, how many people would admit to something, if they were in the hot seat- So with this factor into the equation, If the suspect Admits to the reviews, can they be used as evidence?