The procedural error was that the prosecution neglected to have someone testify that the evidence submitted of the emails, texts and phone calls was a true representation of the actual emails, texts and phone calls originally made.
That's a mistake for the prosecution to contend with in correctly making their case before the court, but it doesn't stop everyone else from casting their own judgement.
I can't think of any other plausible explanation of why he was arrested with $500 in his hand at a specific place that had been prearranged over email, phone calls and texts, other than to commit the rape of a 12-year-old girl, for that price, that had been discussed with the undercover officers - can you?
Seems like this judgement is discussing a procedural error from the prosecution, not that he didn't try to meet a 12-year-old girl in the back of her uncle's van to rape her.
But who knows, maybe he'll return to the thread and explain what he thought he was doing when arrested in that police sting and what all those emails, texts and phone calls he exchanged with undercover investigators were about, if not that.
"When one looks at the evidence in this case, no reasonable person could conclude that the defendant did not send e-mails, text messages, and have the phone conversations regarding having sex with a 12-year-old girl."
> The cop went in believing that a pedophile were almost certainly present (because a child's parents reported them), and so was going to find something no matter what.
The articles I linked above state that it was a sting operation. The perpetrator thought he was paying $500 to the uncle of a 12-year-old girl (who was apparently still slightly too old for his liking) so that he could rape her, but really this was a scenario set up by the police to gather evidence, with the goal of preventing future harm to an actual child.