# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Criminal No. 12-65 (CKK)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(January 13, 2013)

Defendant Paul David Hite is charged by Su perseding Indictment with two counts of

attempted coercion and enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b). The

Government alleges that the Defendant engaged in a series of online chats and telephone

conversations with an undercover police detective posing as an adul t and arranged to engage in

illicit sexual activity with a fictitious three ye ar-old boy and twelve yea r-old girl. Presently

before the Court is the Government’s [26] Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Governme nt seeks to admit a variety of evidence

recovered from a laptop seized from the Defe ndant’s residence comprised primarily of (1)

evidence of the Defendant allegedly accessing child pornography; and (2) evidence of the

Defendant’s online chats and email exchanges with other adults discussi ng illicit sexual activity

with minors. Upon consid eration of the pleadings, 1 

# the relevant legal authorities, and the record

as a whole—including an in camera review of the proposed phot ographic evidence—the Court

finds that certain redacted evidence proffe red by the Government meets the standard for

1 

# Gov’t Mot., ECF No. [26]; Def.’s Opp’n, ECF No. [30]; Gov’t Re ply, ECF No. [32].

The Defendant’s [34] Motion for Leave to File a Surreply is GRANTED. The Court considered

the Defendant’s Surreply in resolving the Government’s motion.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

PAUL DAVID HITE,

Defendant.

# 2 admissibility under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) . The Court will require the Government to

redact certain portions of various proposed exhibits to exclude irrelevant and/or unduly

prejudicial evidence that substantially outweighs its probative value. The probative value of the

redacted evidence which the Court finds admi ssible is not substantially outweighed by the

danger of undue prejudice under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. Accordin gly, the Government’s

Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Fe deral Rule of Evidence 404(b) is

GRANTED IN PART as set forth below.

The Court shall provide the Defendant an opportunity to review and object to the

proposed images and redacted chat s with other individu als that the Government seeks to have

admitted, but that the Defendant has not had an opportunity to review in their current form prior

to filing his opposition to the Government’s motion.

I. BACKGROUND

The Court set forth the factual history leading to the Defendant’s arre st at length in prior

opinions, and those discussions are incorporated by reference herein. 6/30/12 Mem. Opin. at 1-

13; 10/9/12 Mem. Opin. at 2-4. The Court will reference certain aspects of the Defendant’s

discussions with the undercover detective known to the Defendant as “JP,” as necessary, and

assumes the parties are fam iliar with the conversations. 2



# II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or other

acts is not admissible to prove a pe rson’s character in or to show that on a particular occasion the

person acted in accordance with the character,” but “may be admissible for another purpose,”

2 

# The chats between the Defendant and “JP” are reproduced in their entirety in Docket

Number [11-1].

# 3 including proving “motive, opportun ity, intent, . . . [or] absence of mistake.” Fed. R. Evid.

404(b)(1), (2). The rule is one of “inclusion ra ther than exclusion. Al though the first sentence of

Rule 404(b) is framed restrictively, the rule its elf is quite permissive, prohibiting the admission

of other crimes evidence in but one circumst ance—for the purpose of proving that a person's

actions conformed to his character.” United States v. Bowie , 232 F.3d 923, 929-30 (D.C. Cir.

2000) (internal quotations omitted).

In addressing trial court determinations on the admissibility of bad acts evidence

under the Federal Rules of Evidence, this circuit has employed a two-step mode

of analysis. Under the first step, which addresses Rule 404(b), “[the court] must

determine whether the evidence is relevant to a material issue other than

character. If so, [the co urt] proceeds to the second inquiry,” under Federal Rule

of Evidence 403, “whether the probative value is substantially outweighed by the

prejudice.”

United States v. Burch , 156 F.3d 1315, 1323 (D.C . Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. Mitchell

,

49 F.3d 769, 775 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

III. DISCUSSION

The Government seeks to introduce five ca tegories of evidence pursuant to Rule 404(b):

(1) Twenty-four images of child pornography in thumbnail view a nd larger views of

five of the twenty-four images. The im ages are a sample of 421 image and video

files found in a “thumbcache” database file on the Defendant’s laptop, Gov’t Mot.

at 12, Gov’t Notice, ECF No. [49];

(2) A printout of forensic analysis of the Internet Explorer web browsing history and

recently accessed files indicating that on ce rtain dates at certain times, the laptop

user accessed image and media files with names “consistent with child

pornography,” see Gov’t Reply Ex. B (browser history); Gov’t Reply Ex. C

(recently accessed files);

(3) Yahoo Instant Messenger ch ats between the Defendant and four separate

individuals (Yahoo User 1, Yahoo User2, Yahoo User 3, and Yahoo User4) on

various dates since June 2011, see Gov’t Reply Ex. D;

(4) Emails obtained from the Defendant’s Yahoo email address indicating the

Defendant established a Skype account, see Gov’t Reply Ex. E; and

# 4 (5) Three emails exchanged by the Defendant and another individua l (Yahoo User5),

including three images attached to the ema ils showing an adult male and a two- to

three-year old boy.

Gov’t Mot. at 11-17. During discovery, the G overnment provided the Defendant all of the

evidence at issue and provide d defense counsel the opportunity to review the photographic

evidence. The Government initially offered only a description of the prec ise evidence it sought

to have admitted, but did not provide the pro posed non-photographic evidence until its Reply

brief. The Defendant filed a Surreply addressi ng the thumbcache evidence, but did not include

any objections to the othe r proposed exhibits.

The Government contends that this evidence is “highly relevant to prove the defendant’s

intent, knowledge, plan, and absence of mist ake in committing the charged offense.” Id. at 18.

The Defendant argues that the evidence proffered by the Government is irrelevant to the issue of

the Defendant’s intent to entice or coerce the minors at issue in the Superseding Indictment, but

does not address the admissibility of the evidence as probative of his knowledge or absence of

mistake. The Court finds the proposed Rule 4 04(b) evidence is proba tive of the Defendant’s

intent in this case. The Court further agr ees with the Government ’s analysis—which the

Defendant does not dispute—that the evidence is generally relevant to the Defendant’s

knowledge and absence of mistake. However, the evidence at i ssue in the Government’s motion

is not probative of a “plan” under Rule 404(b) . The Government doe s not identify a common

scheme or plan, or describe how the proposed Ru le 404(b) evidence is probative of that plan.

See United States v. Burkley , 591 F.2d 903, 920 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (noting plan evidence is

admissible under Rule 404(b) “to show the existe nce of a common scheme or plan embracing the

commission of two or more crim es so related to each other th at proof of the one tends to

establish the other”) (citation omitted). Accordi ngly, for the reasons explained below, the Court

# 5 finds the proposed evidence is probative of the Defendant’s intent, knowledge, and absence of

mistake.

As reflected in the motions practice thus far in the case, the defense will likely contend at

trial that the Defendant lacked the intent to coerce the fictitious minors, and that his

conversations with the detective were merely “f antasies.” The Defendant generally argues that

the proposed 404(b) evidence is inadmissible because it does not “constitute other instances of

using an instrumentality of interstate commerce to persuade, induce, coerce or entice a minor, the

conduct charged in the superseding indictment.” Opp’n at 6. Contrary to the Defendant’s

assertion, a prior bad act doe s not have to involve the exact same intent of the charged offense in

order to be relevant. United States v. Long , 328 F.3d 655, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “Evidence of a

similar act must meet a threshold level of similar ity in order to be admissible to prove intent,”

but that evidence is not required to have the “exact congruence” the Defendant articulates. Id.

“[T]he admissible bad acts eviden ce need not show incidents identic al to the events charged, so

long as they are closely related to the offense, and are probative of intent rather than mere

propensity.” Id. (citation omitted).

In Long , the D.C. Circuit rejected the precise argument the Defendant makes here: that

“[e]xtrinsic act evidence is admissible under the intent theory . . . only if the intent underlying the

extrinsic act is the same illegal intent required for the charged act.” 328 F.3d at 661. Long was

charged with interstate transporta tion of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity

and possession of photographs of minors e ngaged in sexually explicit conduct. Id. at 658.

Pursuant to Rule 404(b), the C ourt admitted testimony of two i ndividuals (“FM” and “AG”) who

had sexual contact with Long while they were between the ages of sixteen and nineteen as

relevant to, among other things, Long’s intent. Id. at 659. On appeal, Long argued that the

# 6 testimony should have been excluded because it was not relevant to the ques tion of his intent to

engage in unlawful sexual activity with minors. Id. at 661. The D.C. Circuit rejected this

argument, finding that although Long’s sexual contact with FM and AG was la wful, the fact that

he admittedly had sexual contact with teenagers was probative of his intent to engage in unlawful

sexual activity with minors at issue in the case. Id. at 662.

The Defendant attempts to distinguish Long on the grounds that th e intent requirement

under the applicable statute in Long —the intent to engage in criminal sexual activity with a

minor—is distinct from the intent relevant in this case—the Defendant’s intent to entice or

coerce a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) with 18

U.S.C. § 2422(b). Certainly, the mens rea the Government must prove in order to convict a

defendant under the relevant statutory provisions in Long and in this case are distinct. However,

the underlying principle in Long , reflected in jurisprudence fr om numerous other Circuits

discussed infra , is that evidence of a defendant’s sexual attraction to children (or teenagers) is

probative of the specific intent element of criminal statutes involving sexual activity with minors.

See e.g.

, United States v. Chambers , 642 F.3d 588, 595 (7th Cir. 20 11) (“Prior instances of

sexual misconduct with a child victim may establish a defendant’s sexual in terest in children and

thereby serve as evidence of the defendant’s motive to commit a charged offense involving the

sexual exploitation of children.”) (citations omitted ). Thus, as a general principle, the Rule

404(b) evidence proffered by the Government is pr obative of the Defendant’s sexual attraction to

children, and as a result, is probative of his intent to entice or coerce the fictitious minors in this

case.

The Defendant also argues that “expert te stimony rebuts the bald conclusory intuitive

assertion the Government makes in its Motion that the possession of ch ild pornography or other

# 7 manifestations of interest in sex with minors evid ences an intent to pers uade, induce, coerce or

entice a minor to engage in sex.” Def.’s Opp’n at 11. In order to be relevant, the Government’s

proposed Rule 404(b) evidence does not have to prove the Defendant’s intent, it need only make

it more probable that the Defendant possessed the requisite intent. Fed. R. Evid. 401(a).

Whether or not the Defendant is sexually attracted to children, though not necessarily

dispositive, is relevant to the broader question of whether, based on all of the evidence presented

to the jury, the Defendant intended to entice or coerce the fictitious minors to engage in illicit

sexual activity. In fact, at least five Circu its have found the relevance of evidence of a

defendant’s sexual attraction to ch ildren in section 2422(b) prosecutions to be so obvious as to

not warrant discussion. United States v. Lewis , 318 F. App’x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2009); accord

United States v. Cooke , 675 F.3d 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012); United States v. Wolford , 386 F.

App’x 479, 484 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Godwin , 399 F. App’x 484, 489-90 (11th Cir.

2010). The Defendant may ultimately convince the jury that despite evidence indicating a sexual

attraction to children, he did not intend to enti ce the minors in question. That is a factual

question for the jury to consider, not a questi on of admissibility of the Government’s proposed

evidence. With the threshold relevance of this general type of evidence established, the Court

will turn to the specific evidence th e Government seeks to admit.

A. Thumbcache images

A forensic analysis of the Defendant’s laptop discovered a “thumbcache” database file on

the laptop containing thumbnail images from still photographs, images or video files containing

child pornography. The database contained 421 thumbnail images , 408 of which were created,

last modified, and last accessed on October 21, 2009. The remaining thirteen images were

created, last modified, and last accessed be tween February 8 and February 10, 2012. The

# 8 Government indicated its expert will testify th at the thumbnail images were created when an

external hard drive containing the explicit images was connected to the computer and the images

were opened. Gov’t Reply at 2-3; Gov’t Mot., E x. A (Computer Forensic Exam. Report) at 1.

The Government does not contend that the images were ever saved to th e laptop, or that the

images were accessible on the laptop at the time it was seized from the Defendant’s home. Id.

The Defendant asserts that his expert will testif y that the thumbcache file was automatically

created by the operating system when the extern al drive containing the explicit images was

connected to the computer. Def.’s Surreply at 4 & n.1.

As a threshold matter, as explained in de tail above, the Defendant’s access to child

pornography is relevant to the Defendant’s intent in this case insofar as it is probative of his

sexual attraction to children. United States v. Lewis , 318 F. App’x 1, 2 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also

United States v. Levinson , No. 11-13268, 2013 WL 49718 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2013). The parties

do not dispute that thumbnail images depict ch ild pornography. Nor do the parties dispute that

the thumbcache database was created when an external drive containing child pornography was

connected to the laptop. The only dispute betw een the parties is whether the Defendant opened

the explicit images while the external drive was connected to the laptop.

The Defendant argues that the Court should conduct a hearing in order to resolve the

dispute between the parties’ respective experts as to how the thumbcache database was created.

The Defendant did not file a Daubert motion or otherwise challenge the admissibility of the

Government’s expert testimony concerning the fo rensic analysis of th e Defendant’s laptop. See

Gov’t Notice of Expert Testimony, ECF No. [27] . The Government mu st introduce evidence

sufficient from which a reasonabl e jury could find by a prepondera nce of the evidence that the

defendant committed the other bad act. United States v. Burwell , 642 F.3d 1062, 1066 (D.C. Cir.

# 9 2011); Long , 328 F.3d 655. The Court is not required to “reach[] a preliminary determination

[prior to trial] as to whethe r the government had presented su fficient evidence to support a

finding that defendants committed the uncharged acts.” Id. Moreover, from the present record,

the Government has proffered sufficient eviden ce to allow a reasonable jury to conclude the

Defendant accessed the explicit images. If the ju ry credits the Government expert’s testimony,

there will be sufficient evidence to support a find ing by the jury that the Defendant accessed the

images. Even if the jury were to credit the Defenda nt’s expert, or credit each expert in part, there

would still be sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude by a preponderance of the evidence

that the Defendant had access to certain child pornography.

Pursuant to the Court’s January 1 0, 2013 Minute Order, on January 11, 2013, the

Government brought to Chambers the precise exhi bits from the thumbcache database it seeks to

admit: one 8 1⁄2 by 11 inch piece of paper containing twenty-four thumbnail images, and five 8 1⁄2

by 11 pieces of paper, each containing an enlarged 3 

# version of one of th e thumbnail images. All

of the photos were in color. The Government i ndicated that the twenty-f our images represented

a sample of the 421 thumnail images in the thumbcache database, selected based on the

similarity of the image to the type of sexual conduct the Defendant discussed with “JP.” The

five enlarged images were selected given their similarity to what the Defendant and JP had

discussed doing with the three ye ar-old boy and the twel ve year-old girl. The Government did

not indicate whether the images pr esented to the Court were crea ted in October 2009 or February

2012.

The Court finds these images are probative evidence of the Defendant’s intent and

3 

# The Court uses the term “enlarged” to indi cate the images are la rger than the bookmark

images. The Court has no information regarding the size of original images stored on the

external hard drive.

# 10 absence of mistake in this case, and are admissible as other cr imes evidence under Rule 404(b).

Although the images created and accessed in February 2012 are more highly probative to the

Defendant’s intent in conversing with JP during that same time frame, the images created and

accessed in October 2009 are still probative of the Defendant’s intent. Accordingly, the

Government shall create a revi sed exhibit of not more than 24 thumbnail images and not more

than 5 enlarged images. 4 

# The revised exhibit should include images accessed in 2012 to the

extent they are representative of the type of sexual conduct the Defendant discussed with JP.

Once the Defendant has had an opportunity to revi ew the revised exhibits and lodge objections

with the Court, the Court shall conduct a second in camera review to determine the admissibility

of the images individually and as a whole under Rule 403.

B. Internet Browser History and Recently Accessed Files

The Defendant objects to the second and th ird types of evidence—browser history and

list of recently accessed files on his laptop—on the grounds the Government offers no evidence

as to the content of the files. The Defendant does not dispute that certain file names that appear

in the proposed exhibits are indi cative of child pornography. No r does the Defendant claim that

some other user accessed the files on the laptop. The Government proffered sufficient evidence

from which the jury could conclude that the Defendant accessed child pornography. Long , 328

F.3d at 660 (noting evidence of a defendant’s other bad acts must be “suffi cient to su pport a jury

finding that the defendant committed the other crime or act”). The fact that the Government has

not produced the actual images or files acces sed on the laptop may go to the weight of the

evidence, but does not bar its admission. See United States v. Godwin , 399 F. App’x 484, 489

4 

# The Court has not yet determined that a total of twenty-four thumbnail images and/or

five enlarged images are necessarily admissible.

# 11 (11th Cir. 2010) (upholding admission of the stat ement by the Defendant to the police following

his arrest that he had engaged in “online sex talk” with other minor girls as relevant to

“Godwin’s intent to induce [the minor] to engage in illegal sexual activity”).

1. Internet Browser History

The proposed evidence of the Defendant ’s browser history, Exhibit B to the

Government’s Reply, is a report generated from forensic software used to analyze the web

browser history on the Defe ndant’s laptop. The repo rt includes the type of file, last visited date,

user, number of hits, and the uniform resource lo cator (“URL”) for the relevant file. Seventy

three URLs are listed in the re port, including five jpeg files with URLs indicative of child

pornography, including in relevant part “B oys-Teen%20Boy%20Fucking %20Preteen” (reported

twice), “boyman69,” “boynbaby,” and “boydadrape.” One additional URL is indicative of

pornography generally (“fuckbrothers2”). Twenty-two of the non-exp licit URLs were last

accessed on January 1, 2011 between 10:31 PM and 10:32 PM. Twenty-eight of the URLs,

including four of the child pornography-related URLs, were la st visited on January 2, 2011

between 2:04 AM and 2:44 AM. The remaining twenty-three URLs, including the “boydadrape”

URL, were last visited on January 20, 2011 between 9:34 PM and 9:35 PM.

The five file names indicative of child por nography are appropriate Rule 404(b) evidence

that is probative of the Defendant’s intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake in communicating

with JP regarding the two fictitious minors, in particular the three year-old boy. The report

indicates each jpeg was last acces sed in January 2011, which is sufficiently close in time to the

events at issue—which took place in February 2012—to make the evidence probative of the

Defendant’s intent with respect to the charges in this case. See United States v. Cooke , 675 F.3d

1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding sexually explicit ema ils exchanged fourteen months before

# 12 the charged offense were “not too remote in tim e” to be probative of the defendant’s intent to

entice or coerce a minor to engage in illicit sexual activity).

Upon review of each of the expl icit URLs and the exhibit as a whole, the Court finds the

probative value of the five URLs indicative of child pornography is not substantially outweighed

by the risk of undue prejudice. The URLs reflec t sexual activity involving minor children, which

is highly probative of the Defendant ’s intent. There is some risk of prejudice given the explicit

nature of the URLs, but the pot ential prejudice is extremely limited, for two reasons. First, the

risk of unfair prejudice is minimized by th e “already-graphic nature of the case.” Wolford , 386

F. App’x at 484. Second, the expl icit images are not being shown to the jury. Thus the Court

shall admit a list of the five URLs indicative of child pornography pursuant to Rule 404(b). 5



# 2. Recently Accessed Files

The Government also seeks to introduce a report listing the most recently accessed files

on the Defendant’s laptop. Gov’t Reply Ex. C. Th e list includes in relevant part the names of

fifty-six “.lnk” files and the date each file was last modified. Eleven of the file names are

indicative of child pornography, including “10yroldsckcock,” “daddy sucks boya,” and

“kid+cumming[1].” Id. at 1. Eight of the explicitly named files have modification dates of July

25, 2010, one file was last modifi ed on January 17, 2011, and two f iles have modification dates

of March 5, 2011. Id. at 1-2. Several other file names imply pornographic content, but it is

unclear whether the files include child po rnography, for example “13facerape,” and

“Beto_Gets_Fucked.” Id.

The eleven file names i ndicative of child pornography ar e appropriate Rule 404(b)

5 

# If the Defendant believes it is important, the Court will admit the en tire exhibit attached

to the Government’s Reply.

# 13 evidence that is probative of the Defendant’s intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake in

communicating with JP rega rding the two fictitious minors, in particular the thre e year-old boy.

The Court shall admit only the three names i ndicative of child pornog raphy with modification

dates after January 1, 2011: 10yroldsckcock,” (last modified January 17, 2011) “daddy sucks

boya,” (last modified March 5, 2011) and “za doom pedo rizmastar kdv rbv (rizmastar hots)

preteen boys hard sex 7yo 8yo 9yo 10yo boy (03.2005ne w) 028,” (last modified March 5, 2011).

The potential for unfair prejudice is limited: the Court is admitting only three images and the

actual images will not be admitted or shown to the ju ry. On this basis, the Court finds the risk of

undue prejudice does not substantially outwei gh the probative value of the file names. 6



# C. Transcripts of Ot her Online Chats

The Government also seeks to admit transc ripts of separate online chats between the

Defendant and four different individuals. The Defendant objects to the admission of transcripts

solely on the basis of re levance: the Defendant argues that since none of the chats were with

minors, they are not probative of his intent to entice or coerce the minors in this case. The Court

has twice rejected this argument. 6/30/12 Mem. Opin.; 10/9/12 Mem. Opi n. Moreover, evidence

the Defendant engaged in explic it discussions of sexual contact with minors, regardless of

whether or not he followed throug h with plans to meet in person, is probative of his intent to

entice or coerce the minors to enga ge in illicit sexual activity. E.g.

, United States v. Levinson

,

No. 11-13268, 2013 WL 49718, at *3 (11th Cir. Jan. 4, 2013); United States v. Cooke , 675 F.3d

1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2012) (upholding admission of sexually explicit emails exchanged with a

sixteen year-old girl fourteen m onths before the conduct at issue); United States v. McDarrah

,

6 

# If the Defendant believes it is important, the Court will admit all file names dated after

January 1, 2011.

# 14 351 F. App’x 558, 563 (2d Cir. 2009) (affirming in troduction of defendant’s email responses to

craigslist ads indicating his interest in sex w ith girls under the age of eighteen as evidence

corroborating his intent to enga ge in actual sexual conduct with minor at issue in the case); see

also United States v. Knowles , 655 F.3d 647 657-58 (7th Cir. 2011) (holding chat transcripts in

which the defendant expressed an interest in ha ving sex with minors and asked to meet with the

minors were relevant Rule 404(b) evidence even absent proof the de fendant actually attempted to

meet with the minors). The Cour t reviewed each conversation line -by-line in order to evaluate

the probative value and potential prejudice of the discussions indi vidually, and as a whole. The

Court shall admit portions of c onversations with all four indi viduals as set forth below.

1. Yahoo User1: “Riley”

Yahoo User1 used a screen name abbreviated to “Riley,” and chatted with the Defendant

on June 24, 2011. Ex. D at 6-7. During the chat, riley describes seeing his 11 year-old nephew

naked in the bathroom and recording him undressing, to which the Defendant replies

“MMMMM,” “fuckin HOT,” and “sexy as hell?” Id. at 6. Riley then describes wanting to have

sexual contact with the boy, and “need[ing] to ge t a roofie to knock him out to fuck him.” Id.

The Defendant suggests “Benadryl, anti-histamine , [or] cold-medicine,” but Riley indicated he

did not have any.

Having reviewed each line of the chat between Riley and the Defendant, the Court finds

the risk of unfair prejudice does not substa ntially outweigh the pr obative value of the

conversation. The Defendant’s chat with Riley is relevant evidence of his intent, knowledge, and

absence of mistake in that it is probative of his sexual attraction to you ng children, and reflects

the fact that Defendant and Rile y had previous conversations about similar topics. The chat is

also probative of the Defendant’s intent with JP because in both cases the Defendant suggests

# 15 using Benadryl to sedate the child before engaging in sexual activity. The conversation took

place approximately six months before the events in this case, which is sufficiently close in time

to make the conversation probative of the Defe ndant’s intent when conversing with JP. The

graphic nature of the chat may cau se some prejudice, but the chat is brief and the risk of unfair

prejudice does not substantially outweigh the immense probative value. Accordingly, the

Defendant’s chat with Riley is admissible under Rules 404(b) and 403. 7



# 2. Yahoo User2: “Justin”

Yahoo User2 used a screen name abbreviated to “Justin,” and chatted with the Defendant

extensively during the evening of January 6 and early morning of January 7, 2012. Ex. D. at 7-

23. The transcript implies that the Defendant asked Justin to prove that he was not a police

officer, so the parties saw each other over a web cam. Id. at 10 (“did not realize was going to be

on cam”). The discussion further implies that Ju stin is significantly youn ger than the Defendant,

though Justin’s age is never explici tly stated in the chat log produced to the Court. For example,

at one point in the conversation Justin asks the Defendant “did you see my ass?” and “you like

younger ass?” The Defendant replies “oh yeah---on BOTH accounts.” Id. at 14. In reference to

their web cam session, Justin later says “im just a lil boi and you saw it and no cops.” Id. at 15.

The parties also briefly discuss a thirteen year-old girl that pur portedly lives next to Justin.

Certain aspects of the conversation with Ju stin are particularly probative of the

Defendant’s intent, knowledge, and absence of mist ake. The Defendant expresses an interest in

sexual activity with a thirt een year-old girl, similar to the twelve year-old girl at issue in Count

Two of the Superseding Indictme nt. The Defendant asking Justin to participate in a web cam

7 

# The Court is not requiring the Government to redact any portion of the Defendant’s

chat with Riley, but for the sake of completeness , the Court reproduced the chat with Riley in the

Appendix.

# 16 session reflects a similar pattern to what the De fendant proposed to JP: having JP engage in a

web cam session before the Defendant traveled to th e District of Columbia. To be fair, portions

of the chat are potentially prejudicial: Justin’s age is not entirely clear, and most of the chat is

comprised of Justin proposing he and Defendant engage in sexual conduct, or asking the

Defendant if he wants to watch Justin perform certain sexual acts . The Court redacted the most

prejudicial and least probative portions of the chat, as set forth in the Appendix to this

Memorandum. The probative value of the redacted chat with Justin is not substantially

outweighed by the risk of undue prejudi ce, and is theref ore admissible.

3. Yahoo User3: “Aussie”

Yahoo User3 used a screen name abbrevia ted to “Aussie,” and chatted with the

Defendant at various points on January 29, January 30, February 1, and February 9, 2012. Ex. D

at 24-29, 36-41, & 74-75. The parties primarily discussed Aussie’s sexual activity with three

children: his seventeen month-ol d nephew, his four year-old ni ece, and his seven year-old

nephew. E.g.

, id. at 24. The Defendant and Aussie also discussed Aussie having sexual contact

with one of the children while another individu al watched via webcam, and briefly discussed

getting together the next time Aussie was in the United States.

The discussions with Aussie as a whole are relevant to Defendant ’s intent given the

subject matter discussed by the parties. Specific portions of the conversa tions are particularly

probative of the Defendant’s inte nt, knowledge, and absence of mistak e in this case. First, the

Defendant admits to Aussie, just as he did to JP , that in the past he had sexual contact with an

eleven year-old boy. Ex. D at 24, 26, & 37. Such admissions are highly relevant to the

Defendant’s intent to actually coerce or entice the minors at issue in this case. The Second

Circuit in United States v. Douglas , 415 F. App’x 271 (2d Cir. 2011), upheld the admission of

# 17 testimony from the defendant’s ex-g irlfriend that she once saw a tran script of a chat in which the

defendant claimed to have molested his niece and other minor children. Id. at 273. Similarly,

the Seventh Circuit in United States v. Zahursky , 580 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2009), affirmed the

district court’s decision to admit transcripts of chats the defendant engaged in with various

female minors as Rule 404(b) evidence. In the chats, the Zahursky “expressed his sexual interest

in fourteen-year-old-girls,” and he “admi[tted] to having had sex with a fourteen-year-old,”

which was relevant to intent to entice the minor female at issue in the case. Id. at 524. The

Defendant’s repeated admission to Aussie is likewi se probative evidence of his intent in this

case.

Second, referring to the eleven year-old boy the Defendant admitted to having sexual

contact with, the Defendant indicated that he “ got [the boy] stoned,” which serves as further

corroboration of the Defendant’s plan to use drugs of some kind when having sexual contact

with children discussed with JP. Ex. D at 39. Third, the Defendant told Aussie that he would

“love to find a guy with access who needs a bud to help him out,” id. at 27, which is consistent

with what the Government claims the Defendant intended in this case: to engage in sexual

conduct with JP and a minor simultaneously. F ourth, the parties not on ly discussed conversing

over Skype, but that same day the Defe ndant opened an account with Skype. Id. at 28, 29; Gov’t

Reply Ex. E. This portion of the parties’ conver sation is significant because Aussie indicated in

earlier discussions that he woul d have illicit sexual contact with children while other adults

watched via Skype. The fact that the Defendant took the step of creating a Skype account to

allow him to interact with Aussie is highly relevant to the jury’s determination as to whether the

Defendant’s discussions with JP were mere “fan tasies,” or whether th e Defendant intended to

coerce or entice the minors in question.

# 18 The subject matter of the Defendant’s conversations with Aussie creates some risk of

prejudice. However, in a case that by defini tion concerns sexual activity with minors, the

discussions with Aussie are not unduly prejudicial. Moreov er, the Court reviewed each line of

the chat, and redacted the most prejudicial but leas t probative portions of th e chat as set forth in

the Appendix. In light of the extensive probative value of the Defendant ’s conversations with

Aussie, the probative value of the redacted chat is not substantially outw eighed by the risk of

undue prejudice. The Court shall admit the redact ed chat with Aussie, as well as the emails

confirming the Defendant’s creation of a Skype account. 8



# 4. Yahoo User4: “adt”

Yahoo User4 used a screen name abbreviated to “adt,” and conversed with the Defendant

on January 16, February 7, and February 14, 2012. Ex. D at 23-24, 69-71, & 86-91. Most of the

conversations concerned how busy both individuals were, id. at 69-71, and their mutual interest

in motorcycles, id. at 86-89. On February 14, after a discussion of their motorcycles, the

Defendant states “l ove a hot motorcycle pervy guy—hehe.” Id. at 89. adt sugge sts that he and

the Defendant “go riding sometime,” and “see if [they] can attr act any passengers.” Id. The

Defendant replied “SURE,” and asked adt “who would be your fantasy passenger?” Id. In

response, adt said “lol,” and “not sure he’d reach teh pegs.” Id. The Defendant indicated he

“love[d] that, too.” Id. After adt asked if the Defendant was located in Maryland, the Defendant

replied that he was in f act in Richmond, Virginia. Id. at 90. The partie s briefly discussed

meeting in person, joking about the lack of la rge towns between their respective locations. Id.

8 

# The Defendant argues that the Skype emails fall outside the scope of Rule 404(b)

because they are not evidence of “other crimes.” As explained by the D.C. Circuit: “[t]he other

activity need not have resulted in a charge or conviction; indeed, the defendant may even have

been acquitted of the conduct, or the c onduct may have been entirely lawful.” United States v.

Long , 328 F.3d 655, 661 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

# 19 Two of the Defendant’s conversa tions with adt implicitly menti on the parties’ interests in

sexual contact with minors, though neither is explicit. The Fe bruary 14, 2012 conversation is

perhaps the most probative of those with adt beca use it involved the Defenda nt raising that topic

towards the end of an otherwise innocuous discussi on of motorcycles. Add itionally, the fact that

the Defendant disclosed his actual geographic location and expresse d interest in meeting up with

adt for an implied illicit purpose is probative of the Defendant’s intent in this case. The

Defendant’s chats with adt pose a minimal risk of prejudice because they only implicitly refer to

sexual contact with children. The Court sha ll admit a limited portion of the Defendant’s

February 14, 2012 chat with adt, as set fort h in the Appendix. The minimal risk of undue

prejudice does not substantia lly outweigh the probative value of the portions the Court is

admitting.

D. Emails with Yahoo User5

Finally, the Government proposes to introduce at trial a se ries of emails between the

Defendant and “James Cox,” referred to by th e Government as Yahoo User5. On October 28,

2011, Cox sent the Defendant an email with the subject line “us,” and th ree attachments: two

photos of a male who appears to be in his early twenties posing w ith a two to thre e year-old boy,

and one photo of the boy alone. 9 

# None of the photos would be considered explicit or sexual in

nature. On October 2, 2011, the Defendant replied with the greeting “hey handsomes,” and

stated that he “really have enjoyed our chats an d want to do more. just to let you know I am

thinking about you.” Gov’t Reply Ex. F. Two da ys later, the Defendant contacted Cox again

saying “missed you in chat last evening,” and “[s] till thinking about you and common interests.”

9 

# The Government submitted the text of the emails as Exhibit F to its Reply. Because the

male minor has not been identified, the Govern ment did not file the attached images on the

public docket, but provided a copy of the images to the Court on January 11, 2013.

# 20 Id.

The Defendant objects to introduction of the emails and attached photos under the rubric

of Rule 404(b) because they are not sexual in nature. Although not exp licit or graphic, the

Defendant addressed the first re ply email to both Cox and the boy, indicated he “want[ed] to do

more,” and followed up two days later referencing their “common interests.” The language in

the emails is consistent with the language the Defendant used in online chats to refer to sexual

contact with children. The sugges tive nature of the Defendant’s emails is sufficiently probative.

See United States v. Thurber , 377 F. App’x 658, 660 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the

defendant’s sexually suggestive onl ine screen name and profile picture were probative of his

intent in contacting individuals in online chat rooms).

The use of this suggestive la nguage in the Defendant’s em ails is probative of the

Defendant’s intent to coerce JP’s three year-old nephew to engage in illicit sexual conduct, given

the implied involvement of a minor child. Mo reover, the fact that the Defendant took the

initiative to email Cox after he was not online on a particular night is par ticularly strong evidence

that the Defendant intended to follow through with the implied disc ussion of sexual conduct

involving the pictured minor child. The fact that the child in the picture appears to be

approximately the same age as JP’s fictional ne phew makes the emails and pictures even more

probative of the Defendant’s intent. For these reasons, the Court finds the Defendant’s emails

with James Cox are appropriate Rule 404(b) evidence of the Defe ndant’s intent, knowledge, and

absence of mistake in this case. The Court shall permit the Government to introduce the photo of

Cox and the unidentified minor in which Cox is hol ding the boy and is not wearing a shirt. The

photograph is probative of the De fendant’s intent insofar as it demonstrates the Defendant was

addressing his reply email to both the adult and the minor child. The Court will exclude the

# 21 other two photographs as duplicative. There is minimal risk of undue prejudice because the

photo and the emails are not sexually explicit. A ccordingly, the Court finds the probative value

of the emails and the single photo is not substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

The proposed Rule 404(b) evidence proffere d by the Government is probative evidence

of the Defendant’s intent, knowledge , and absence of mistake in th is case. The evidence may not

be dispositive of the Defendant’s intent, and the Defendant may ultimately convince the jury that

although there is evidence he is sexually attracted to children, he did not have the requisite intent

under section 2422(b). Evidence in the form of images depicting child pornography and recently

accessed websites and files with names indicative of child pornography is relevant to show the

Defendant’s sexual attraction to chil dren, and is thus probative of hi s intent to persuade or coerce

the minors at issue in this case to engage in illic it sexual activity. In chat s with other individuals,

the Defendant discussed the logistics of engaging in sexual contact with minors and his interest

in having sexual contact with minors (including with the participation of another adult), which is

probative of his intent in enga ging in similar conversations w ith JP. Overall, the redacted

evidence is highly probative of the Defendant’s criminal intent, which will likely be the primary

focus of the defense. The redacted Rule 404(b) evidence is necessary to enable the jury to

properly evaluate the Defendant’s intent in a case where the Defendant’s conduc t is generally

undisputed. At this stage, the Government has met its burden to show that the redacted evidence

is probative of non-propensity pu rposes under Rule 404(b), and th ere is sufficient evidence to

support a finding by the jury that the Defenda nt committed each of the other acts.

The Court will make a determination as to the admissibility of the thumbcache images

(individually and in combination) once the Defenda nt is given an opport unity to review the

# 22 images and lodge objections. As set forth ab ove, the Court reviewed each line of the other

exhibits proposed by the Government, and finds that the probative value of the evidence is not

substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudi ce. Furthermore, the Court finds that all of

the Rule 404(b) evidence in combination is not unduly prejudicial. The Court is admitting only

five lines from the Defendant’s br owser history and the names of three recently accessed files.

The chats have been substantially redacted so as to limit the overall volume of evidence and

remove the least probative but most prejudicial aspects of the chat s. Moreover, the chats each

have separate probative value such that redact ed chats will not be cumulative. The overall

amount of Rule 404(b) evidence is appropriate given that it is a ll relevant to the Defendant’s

intent, which is likely to be the central issue in th e case. Ultimately, the evidence in this case is

probative in part beca use it concerns the di sturbing topics the Defendant discussed in the

conversations leading to the Superseding Indictment . Finally, the Court shal l instruct th e jury as

to the limited purposes for which the evidence is admitted, at the time of admission and in the

final instructions, which substantially limits any risk of unfair prejudice. Long , 328 F.3d at 662.

Accordingly, the Court finds the probative value of the evidence at issue, in isolation and

considered together, is not substantially outweighed by the risk of undue prejudice.

Accordingly, the Government’s [26] Motion in Limine to Introduce Evidence Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) is GRANTED IN PART and otherwis e HELD IN ABEYANCE

as set forth above.

An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Criminal No. 12-65 (CKK)



# APPENDIX

TO

JANUARY 13, 2013 ME MORANDUM OPINION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

v.

PAUL DAVID HITE,

Defendant.YahooChatLogsYahooUser1("riley")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage6/24/1112:27AM riley corvette_2007isawmysistersboynaked6/24/1112:27AM riley corvette_2007hisacaminbathroomb4heshowered6/24/1112:27AM corvette_2007rileymarcheystud6/24/1112:27AM rileycorvette_2007recordedhimgettingundresses6/24/1112:27AM rileycorvette_2007recordedhimgettingundresses6/24/1112:27AM corvette_2007rileyMMMMM6/24/1112:27AM corvette_2007rileyfuckinHOT6/24/1112:29AM corvette_2007rileysexyashell?6/24/1112:29AMrileycorvette_2007godiwanttofuckhimsobadnowhesgotatinylilcockhes11andgottheballsandcockofababy6/24/1112:29AM rileycorvette_2007godiwanttofuckhimsobadnowhesgotatinylilcockhes11andgottheballsandcockofababy6/24/1112:29AM rileycorvette_2007butitssohotseeingit6/24/1112:29AM corvette_2007rileyfuckinhotstud6/24/1112:29AM corvette_2007rileysureitisfantastic6/24/1112:29AM corvette_2007rileyhetheonethatspentthenightawhileback?6/24/1112:30AM rileycorvette_2007yea6/24/1112:30AMcorvette_2007rileygottahavehimbackoverSOON6/24/1112:30AM rileycorvette_2007hesoncounchsleepinbutIneedtogetaroofietoknockhimouttofuckhim6/24/1112:30AM rileycorvette_2007hesoncounchsleepinbutIneedtogetaroofietoknockhimouttofuckhim6/24/1112:31AM corvette_2007rileydamn‐‐‐heoveratyourhousenow?6/24/1112:31AM rileycorvette_2007yea6/24/1112:31AM rileycorvette_2007yea6/24/1112:31AM rileycorvette_2007butnothingtogivehimrightnow6/24/1112:31AM corvette_2007rileyWOW6/24/1112:31AM corvette_2007rileyMMMMM6/24/1112:32AM corvette_2007rileygotmefuckinbonedYahooChatLogsYahooUser1("riley")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage6/24/1112:33AM riley corvette_2007hesgettinalilchubbybutstillgotnicebuttoo6/24/1112:33AM corvette_2007rileyIbet‐‐‐haveanyBenadryl,anti‐histamine,coldmedicine?6/24/1112:34AM rileycorvette_2007nopeineedsomethingthathewontstirforatleastanhourorso6/24/1112:34AM rileycorvette_2007nopeineedsomethingtha0é$n[tab]*åHå≈[cr]áé$φ0é$Θ10[tab]+[eof]0é[tab]╤[tab]+é7[lf]áé[tab]┬0é[tab]╛0[lf]+é79└Iò7k╜F¬uZ7[esc]╧[cr]110712182042Z0YahooChatLogsYahooUser2("justin")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/6/1211:42PM justin corvette_2007hey1/6/1211:43PM corvette_2007 justinhicutie1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007heysweetie1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007heysweetie1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007toldyouiwasntthecops!1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007toldyouiwasntthecops!1/6/1211:43PM corvette_2007lol‐‐‐neverthoughtyouwere1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007wtf?1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007iknowyoudidnt1/6/1211:43PM justincorvette_2007justwasmadyouthoughIwas*****1/6/1211:47PM justincorvette_2007thisismeandericlookinupatyou1/6/1211:48PM justincorvette_2007didyoureallythinkiwasacop?1/6/1211:48PM justincorvette_2007didyoureallythinkiwasacop?1/6/1211:48PM justincorvette_2007????????1/6/1211:48PM justincorvette_2007????????1/6/1211:48PMcorvette_2007 justinmmmm‐‐‐megahot1/6/1211:48PM justincorvette_2007youluckedout!1/6/1211:48PM justincorvette_2007andyouknowyoudid.*****1/6/1211:50PM justincorvette_2007toldyouiwasntacop!1/6/1211:50PM justincorvette_2007lmao1/6/1211:50PM justincorvette_2007lmao1/6/1211:51PM corvette_2007 justinlol1/6/1211:51PM corvette_2007 justinsamehere1/6/1211:51PM justincorvette_2007areyougladandrelieveabit?1/6/1211:51PM corvette_2007 justinforsure1/6/1211:51PMcorvette_2007 justinwhatyoudrinking?1/6/1211:51PM justincorvette_2007notdetectivedanbehindthescreenname*****1/6/1211:56PM corvette_2007 justindidnotrealizewasgoingtobeoncam1/6/1211:56PM justincorvette_2007itoldyounocops*****YahooChatLogsYahooUser2("justin")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/6/1211:59PM justin corvette_2007mmmm....toldyouiwassafe....lmao!willyoufreakingjustsayiamsorry1/6/1211:59PM justincorvette_2007iwouldNEVERsetanyoneup1/6/1211:59PM corvette_2007 justinyouareright‐‐‐‐MYbad1/6/1211:59PM justincorvette_2007thanksbaby1/6/1211:59PM corvette_2007 justinyouarewelcome,cutie1/6/1211:59PM justincorvette_2007icouldshowyoumore...iamopenforwhaterver*****1/7/1212:03AM corvette_2007 justinjustchattingwithyouispleasingme1/7/1212:03AM justincorvette_2007btw....ifthiswasthecopstheywouldhavearrestedyouabout4hoursago*****1/7/1212:15AM justincorvette_2007didyouseemyass?1/7/1212:15AM corvette_2007 justinmmmm‐‐‐yes1/7/1212:16AM justincorvette_2007mmmm1/7/1212:16AM justincorvette_2007youlikeyoungerass?1/7/1212:16AM justincorvette_2007itstightright?1/7/1212:16AM corvette_2007 justinohyeah‐‐‐onBOTHaccounts*****1/7/1212:18AM corvette_2007 justinyouareHOT1/7/1212:18AM justincorvette_2007imsogladyoulikeit....nowcanyouadmityouareapedophile?1/7/1212:18AM justincorvette_2007imsogladyoulikeit....nowcanyouadmityouareapedophile?1/7/1212:18AM justincorvette_2007please????1/7/1212:19AM justincorvette_2007iwontholdagainstyouuntilyoudo1/7/1212:19AMcorvette_2007justinlol‐‐‐‐thanks1/7/1212:19AM corvette_2007 justinweLIKEthesamethings1/7/1212:19AM justincorvette_2007dontbeashamed1/7/1212:19AM justincorvette_2007andyouknowimnotacop1/7/1212:19AM justincorvette_2007andyouknowimnotacop1/7/1212:19AM justincorvette_2007thatturnedyouondidntit?1/7/1212:19AM justincorvette_2007thatturnedyouondidntit?1/7/1212:20AM corvette_2007justinlol‐‐‐YES1/7/1212:20AM corvette_2007 justinofcourseitdidYahooChatLogsYahooUser2("justin")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/7/1212:20AM justin corvette_2007mmmmmmmmmmmmyesssssss1/7/1212:20AM justin corvette_2007andguesssssswhatnocopsaroundyourhouse1/7/1212:20AM justin corvette_2007youcantalkfreeleyaroundme1/7/1212:20AM justincorvette_2007areyoulearningthat.1/7/1212:20AM justincorvette_2007areyoulearningthat.1/7/1212:20AM justincorvette_2007?1/7/1212:20AM justincorvette_2007co¡╢öà╞Ç1[tab]x8(╨±çI@F4£;0Θ╞2|\`╡1N╪LPNW/¿╟3NXF~éπN╓Ç╟4',ûS#'`'ûâH╟5'%1/7/1212:20AM justincorvette_2007co¬╖[eof]█Ü>`0d2@ûká(Ç@╔█£Ωôî£v}£·AN╙4█N≥f+4Nñ[lf]N[tab]₧▄ÉE█Na('ö'1/7/1212:20AM justin corvette_2007co╪αJFIFHH█C[lf][lf][lf][cr][cr]█C[tab][tab]1/7/1212:21AM corvette_2007 justinIam‐‐‐‐thanks1/7/1212:21AM justincorvette_2007imjustalilboiandyousawitandnocops1/7/1212:21AM justincorvette_2007imjustalilboiandyousawitandnocops1/7/1212:21AM justincorvette_2007didilie?1/7/1212:21AM corvette_2007 justinnotatall1/7/1212:22AM justincorvette_2007youlikewhatyousee?1/7/1212:22AM corvette_2007 justinmmmm‐‐‐yes*****1/7/121:07AM corvette_2007 justinyourfriendsstillthere?1/7/121:07AM justincorvette_2007mmmmmm.....thanksbaby....youaretheonewholookshot1/7/121:07AM justincorvette_2007noiwish....butlilgirlnextdoorwantstocumover.1/7/121:07AM justincorvette_2007shouldi?1/7/121:07AM justincorvette_2007shouldi?1/7/121:08AM corvette_2007 justinlilgirl?1/7/121:08AM justincorvette_2007mydadisfuckinghernow....sheis131/7/121:08AMjustincorvette_2007mydadisfuckinghernow....sheis131/7/121:08AM corvette_2007 justinwow‐‐‐megaHOT1/7/121:08AM corvette_2007 justinyoueverfuckher?1/7/121:09AM justincorvette_2007haha.....whatkindaoffreakdoyouthinkiam...1/7/121:09AM justincorvette_2007haha.....whatkindaoffreakdoyouthinkiam...YahooChatLogsYahooUser2("justin")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/7/121:09AM justincorvette_2007no1/7/121:09AM justincorvette_2007butiwantto.1/7/121:09AM justincorvette_2007lmao1/7/121:09AM corvette_2007 justindamn‐‐‐youshouldtapthatpussy1/7/121:09AM justincorvette_2007ifidoyouwanttowatch?1/7/121:09AM corvette_2007 justinyes1/7/121:10AM justincorvette_2007okbrb...letmesee...1/7/121:11AM justincorvette_2007OMG....DADisfuckinghereblind1/7/121:11AM justincorvette_2007lmao1/7/121:11AM justincorvette_2007lmao1/7/121:11AM corvette_2007 justinlol1/7/121:11AM corvette_2007 justinnow?1/7/121:12AM justincorvette_2007yeahitsrotten...sheisscreaming....anditshisname.1/7/121:12AM corvette_2007 justinmmmm‐‐‐‐inyourhouse?1/7/121:12AM justincorvette_2007yeah...shitgoesdowninmyhouse!*****1/7/121:14AM corvette_2007 justinlovetoseeyouwiththegirl1/7/121:14AM corvette_2007 justinmmmmm1/7/121:14AM justinhaha....mmmm...ifyoustayupiwillhaveher.1/7/121:15AM corvette_2007justinmmmmm1/7/121:15AM corvette_2007 justinmmmmm1/7/121:15AM corvette_2007 justinthatwouldbeHOT1/7/121:15AM corvette_2007 justinthatwouldbeHOT1/7/121:16AM justincorvette_2007mmmm....sheissoooooyoung1/7/121:16AM justincorvette_2007sheiscrying.....mmmmmmyeahiwantit1/7/121:16AM corvette_2007 justinyouknowIlOVEit1/7/121:16AM corvette_2007 justinHOT1/7/121:16AM justincorvette_2007itsgoingtobeabit....dadhastounloadinherfirst.1/7/121:17AMjustincorvette_2007hefucksalllilgirlsinneighborhood1/7/121:17AM corvette_2007 justindamn‐‐‐‐understand1/7/121:17AM corvette_2007 justinMMMMMMMMMM1/7/121:17AM corvette_2007 justinHOT1/7/121:17AM corvette_2007 justinGOODdadYahooChatLogsYahooUser2("justin")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/7/121:18AM justincorvette_2007hahaijustdontwanttohimtogetherpreggers1/7/121:18AM corvette_2007 justinunderstand*****1/7/121:26AM justincorvette_2007wehavetochaseourowngirls1/7/121:26AM corvette_2007 justinlol‐‐‐soyoucan'tusehismerchandise?1/7/121:27AM corvette_2007 justinthatwhatyouaresaying?1/7/121:28AM justincorvette_2007heyyouwantagirlwecanfuck?1/7/121:28AM corvette_2007 justinmmmmm1/7/121:28AM corvette_2007 justinmaybe1/7/121:29AM corvette_2007 justintellmemore1/7/121:29AM justincorvette_2007omg....hesentherdown......YahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/29/1211:59PM aussie corvette_2007hey1/30/1212:14AM corvette_2007 aussieheyguy1/30/1212:14AM aussie corvette_2007sorrymissedu..howudoing1/30/1212:14AM corvette_2007 aussiehornedhere‐‐‐you?1/30/1212:15AM aussie corvette_2007same,hornedandperved1/30/1212:15AM aussie corvette_2007same,hornedandperved1/30/1212:15AM corvette_2007 aussielovetheperv‐‐‐‐hehe1/30/1212:16AM aussie corvette_2007sweet...yeah..whatgetsurhardthen?1/30/1212:16AMaussiecorvette_2007sweet...yeah..whatgetsurhardthen?1/30/1212:16AM corvette_2007 aussieboys‐‐‐‐you?1/30/1212:16AM aussiecorvette_2007ohyes1/30/1212:17AM corvette_2007 aussiemmmm‐‐‐‐yougotany?1/30/1212:17AM aussiecorvette_2007yep..u;‐)1/30/1212:17AM aussiecorvette_2007whatareurstatsagainmate?1/30/1212:17AM corvette_2007 aussiefuckinA‐‐‐‐no,dammit‐‐‐‐wishIdid1/30/1212:18AM aussiecorvette_2007itssofuckingintense1/30/1212:18AMcorvette_2007 aussie506'19034w44c6c1/30/1212:18AM corvette_2007 aussiemmmm1/30/1212:18AM aussiecorvette_2007hmnice1/30/1212:18AM aussiecorvette_200738here,6'2",80kgs,7"c1/30/1212:18AM corvette_2007 aussietellmeaboutyourboy1/30/1212:18AM corvette_2007 aussiemmmmm‐‐‐‐NICE1/30/1212:19AM aussiecorvette_2007ihaveaccesstob17month,g4,b71/30/1212:19AM corvette_2007 aussiedamn‐‐‐‐WOW1/30/1212:19AM corvette_2007 aussielovethat1/30/1212:19AM aussiecorvette_2007yeahitsintense1/30/1212:19AM corvette_2007 aussieforfuckinSURE1/30/1212:20AM corvette_2007 aussiewhatyoudowiththem?1/30/1212:23AM corvette_2007 aussiecountmein1/30/1212:31AM aussiecorvette_2007whatevericangetawaywith..theyaremysisterskids1/30/1212:32AM corvette_2007 aussiehehe‐‐‐mmm‐‐‐‐HOT1/30/1212:32AM aussiecorvette_2007udoneanything?1/30/1212:32AM aussiecorvette_2007udoneanything?YahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage1/30/1212:32AM corvette_2007 aussieyrsago‐‐‐‐sonofabud1/30/1212:33AM aussie corvette_2007ohmate..andnowucraveiteh..sharedorhedoesnotknow?1/30/1212:33AM corvette_2007 aussiecraveitforsure1/30/1212:33AM aussie corvette_2007yeahoncetasted.alwaysdeired1/30/1212:33AM aussiecorvette_2007yeahoncetasted.alwaysdeired1/30/1212:33AM aussiecorvette_2007desired1/30/1212:33AM corvette_2007 aussieheknew‐‐‐‐pervbud1/30/1212:33AM corvette_2007 aussiemmmm1/30/1212:34AM aussiecorvette_2007fucknice1/30/1212:34AM aussiecorvette_2007fucknice1/30/1212:34AM corvette_2007 aussiewhatyoudonesofarwiththem?1/30/1212:34AM aussiecorvette_2007uluckyfuck..alwayswantedtodowithamate,butalwaysalone1/30/1212:34AM corvette_2007 aussiewishIwastheretosharewithyou1/30/1212:34AM aussiecorvette_2007jacked,inandover,sucked,hadthemsuckme..fingered1/30/1212:34AM aussiecorvette_2007jacked,inandover,sucked,hadthemsuckme..fingered1/30/1212:35AM corvette_2007 aussieMMMMMMMMMM1/30/1212:35AM corvette_2007 aussietheb7loveit?1/30/1212:38AM aussiecorvette_2007yeahlovestheattention1/30/1212:38AM aussiecorvette_2007yeahlovestheattention1/30/1212:38AM aussiecorvette_2007oursecretgames1/30/1212:38AM aussiecorvette_2007oursecretgames1/30/1212:38AM corvette_2007 aussieHOT1/30/1212:38AM corvette_2007 aussiehegetnakedandhard?2/1/124:01PM aussiecorvette_2007heymateperving?2/1/124:01PM corvette_2007 aussieheystud‐‐‐ohYEAH‐‐‐‐you?2/1/124:03PM aussiecorvette_2007yesmate*****2/1/124:04PM corvette_2007 aussieloveyoursecretgames2/1/124:05PM corvette_2007 aussienonecurrently2/1/124:05PM aussiecorvette_2007hoteh..sofuckingintense2/1/124:05PM aussiecorvette_2007ihadahotsessionlastnightonskypewithenglishmateYahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/124:06PM corvette_2007 aussienice‐‐‐‐‐justyou2?2/1/124:06PM aussiecorvette_2007yeah;‐02/1/124:07PM aussiecorvette_2007iloveothersseeing2/1/124:07PM corvette_2007 aussiemmmm‐‐‐butyouwerealoneorhaveoneofyourhottieswithyou?2/1/124:07PM aussiecorvette_2007ahottiewithme2/1/124:08PM corvette_2007 aussieDAMN‐‐‐LOVEtoseesometime2/1/124:09PM aussiecorvette_2007hehas6yo..2/1/124:09PMaussiecorvette_2007hehas6yo..2/1/124:09PMcorvette_2007 aussieahhh‐‐‐‐MMMMM2/1/124:09PM corvette_2007 aussiewhichonewereyouwithlastnight?2/1/124:10PM aussiecorvette_2007yngestboy2/1/124:10PM aussiecorvette_2007yngestboy2/1/124:10PM aussiecorvette_2007itssafer2/1/124:11PM corvette_2007 aussieMMMMMM‐‐‐the17m?2/1/124:11PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/124:11PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/124:11PM aussiecorvette_2007goodmemory2/1/124:11PM aussiecorvette_2007goodmemory2/1/124:12PM corvette_2007 aussiehehe‐‐‐‐lovepedo‐‐‐‐totallyremember2/1/124:12PM corvette_2007 aussiewhatdidyoudowithhimoncam?2/1/124:13PM aussiecorvette_2007playwithcock.rubbmineonhimetc.dependswhatthedudeisinto2/1/124:13PM corvette_2007 aussiefuckinlovethat2/1/124:14PM corvette_2007 aussiehesuckyourcock?2/1/124:15PM aussiecorvette_2007yes..inuzzleintohismouth2/1/124:16PMcorvette_2007 aussiemmm‐‐‐‐shootinhismouth?2/1/124:17PM aussiecorvette_2007uhaveaccess?2/1/124:17PM corvette_2007 aussiedammit‐‐‐notcurrently‐‐‐‐2/1/124:18PM aussiecorvette_2007loveguyswhogetoffonittoo2/1/124:18PM aussiecorvette_2007udoneanything?2/1/124:18PM corvette_2007 aussieyrsago‐‐‐‐sonofapervbud2/1/124:21PM aussiecorvette_2007fucknice...2/1/124:21PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahdontujustcraveit2/1/124:21PMaussiecorvette_2007iknowimintoitcausemumsbfgotmegoingat8YahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/124:22PM aussiecorvette_2007itsinmyblood2/1/124:22PM aussiecorvette_2007itsinmyblood2/1/124:22PM aussiecorvette_2007andwillbeinmyboystoo2/1/124:22PM aussiecorvette_2007andwillbeinmyboystoo2/1/124:22PM corvette_2007 aussielol‐‐‐‐MMMMMMMMMMMM‐‐‐‐‐fuckinHOT2/1/124:22PM corvette_2007 aussieTOTALLYcraveithere2/1/124:23PM aussiecorvette_2007idontgetmuchtimealone..sowhenido..;‐)2/1/124:23PM corvette_2007aussiehehe‐‐‐‐NICE2/1/124:23PM aussiecorvette_2007loadsofhotvidstoo..inspirational..butrisky..iprefertohavesomeonetheretowatch..neverhadsomeonehereinpersonthough..idlfuckinglovethat2/1/124:23PM aussiecorvette_2007loadsofhotvidstoo..inspirational..butrisky..iprefertohavesomeonetheretowatch..neverhadsomeonehereinpersonthough..idlfuckinglovethat2/1/124:24PM corvette_2007 aussieohyeah‐‐‐‐lovealloftheabove2/1/124:24PM corvette_2007 aussielovetofindaguywithaccesswhoneedsabudtohelphimout2/1/124:25PMctWbc$$$$$fpΦ2/1/124:26PM aussie corvette_2007wishuwerelocal2/1/124:27PM corvette_2007 aussieSAMEforsure2/1/124:27PM corvette_2007 aussielovetoseeyouwiththe7balso‐‐‐‐MMMMMM2/1/124:29PM aussiecorvette_2007heiscute,slim..seehisboneoutline..lovethat..cuteas2/1/124:29PM aussiecorvette_2007getsniceandhardfordad2/1/124:30PM corvette_2007 aussieMMMM‐‐‐lovetosuckhiscockandeatouthisboyass2/1/124:31PM corvette_2007aussieevercamwithhim?2/1/124:32PM aussiecorvette_2007yesbuthavetobecareful,dontwanthimtellindudes2/1/124:33PM corvette_2007 aussietellindudes?2/1/124:35PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahidontwanttogetintotrouble..soikeepitwithotherdads..kindanormalisesit..buttrytokeepitoursecret2/1/124:35PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahidontwanttogetintotrouble..soikeepitwithotherdads..kindanormalisesit..buttrytokeepitoursecret2/1/124:35PM corvette_2007 aussieTOTALLYgotya2/1/124:36PM corvette_2007 aussiemmmm‐‐‐‐wishIhadsomeonetosharewithyouoncamYahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/124:37PM aussiecorvette_2007metoo..butwoulddovids..seehowthingsgo..developsometrustetc,ugotanystuff?2/1/124:38PM corvette_2007 aussiemmmm‐‐‐lovetokeepchattinganddeveloptrust‐‐‐‐Ididhavesomehotvidsandgotcoldfeetafewmotnhsagoanddestroyedthem2/1/124:39PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahimthesamemate2/1/124:39PM aussiecorvette_2007itsrisk2/1/124:39PM aussiecorvette_2007itsrisk2/1/124:39PM corvette_2007 aussieregretitnowbutwereriskyasyousay2/1/124:39PM aussiecorvette_2007risky2/1/124:39PM aussiecorvette_2007igetscaredimgoingtoloseeverything2/1/124:39PM corvette_2007 aussieSAMEhere2/1/124:40PM aussiecorvette_2007anywayhappytochatonskpeifuwant..addmeifulike..seehowwego2/1/124:40PM corvette_2007aussieSURE‐‐‐‐don'thaveskype‐‐‐‐‐thiswon'twork?2/1/124:41PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahthisisntsafe..skypeisencrypted..muchsaferanditjustgoesbetweenus..thisgoesviayahooandiknowtheycheckstuff2/1/124:42PM corvette_2007 aussiegotcha‐‐‐‐willhavetodownloadskype2/1/124:42PM aussiecorvette_2007itsuptoumate2/1/124:43PM aussiecorvette_2007heyurinukyeah?2/1/124:43PM corvette_2007 aussieno‐‐‐usa*****2/1/124:50PM corvette_2007 aussieMMMMMM‐‐‐‐wouldLOVEtodoDisneywithyou2/1/124:50PM aussiecorvette_2007itaketheboys,gftakesthegirl..wesplitup2/1/124:50PM aussiecorvette_2007isitagoodplacetoperv?2/1/124:50PM aussiecorvette_2007loveitiftherewasaprivateplacetoplaythere2/1/124:51PM aussiecorvette_2007wouldmakeitsopervy..2/1/124:51PM corvette_2007 aussiehehe‐‐‐notsureaboutpervin‐‐‐‐‐exceptatthehotel*****2/1/124:54PM aussiecorvette_2007badeh..usingleorhavepartner?2/1/124:54PM corvette_2007 aussielovebad‐‐‐‐lol‐‐‐singlehere2/1/124:55PMaussiecorvette_2007wowfreedomtohavefuneh2/1/124:55PM aussiecorvette_2007urolderyeah..lvoetoseeemwitholderguy2/1/124:55PM aussiecorvette_2007urolderyeah..lvoetoseeemwitholderguy2/1/124:56PM corvette_2007 aussielol‐‐‐‐muchfreedom‐‐‐‐‐MMMMMM‐‐‐‐50here‐‐‐‐LOVEtobeyourolderguyYahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/124:56PMhot2/1/124:56PMhot2/1/124:56PMmatehavetogo..getskypefornexttimeseeu2/1/126:58PM aussiecorvette_2007heymatebackon..anythinghappening?2/1/126:59PM corvette_2007 aussieheystud‐‐‐‐justpervinhere‐‐‐‐hehe‐‐‐you?2/1/126:59PM aussiecorvette_2007atworkwithblueballsnow..afterourchat2/1/126:59PM aussiecorvette_2007atworkwithblueballsnow..afterourchat2/1/127:00PMcorvette_2007 aussiemmm‐‐‐lol‐‐‐‐canrelate2/1/127:01PM aussiecorvette_2007feellikepickingupnatefromschoolforqualitytimetogether;‐)2/1/127:01PM corvette_2007 aussiefuckinLOVEyourscene2/1/127:01PM corvette_2007 aussiehehe‐‐‐‐hewouldLOVEthat2/1/127:02PM corvette_2007 aussienateis7?2/1/127:02PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/127:03PMaussiecorvette_2007danielistheoneone..andkatieis42/1/127:03PM aussiecorvette_2007danielistheoneone..andkatieis42/1/127:03PM corvette_2007 aussiefuckinA,stud‐‐‐‐allMEGAHOT2/1/127:03PM aussiecorvette_2007ohyes2/1/127:03PM aussiecorvette_2007uhairyorsmooth?2/1/127:03PM corvette_2007 aussiehairyhere‐‐‐‐you?2/1/127:04PM aussiecorvette_2007perfectsame2/1/127:04PMaussiecorvette_2007lovefeelingemagainstme2/1/127:04PMaussiecorvette_2007lovefeelingemagainstme2/1/127:05PM corvette_2007 aussiemmm‐‐‐‐same‐‐‐‐lovethecontrast2/1/127:05PM aussiecorvette_2007yesperfect,hairysmooth,bigsmall,yngold,innocentcontrollingandthepower..fuckitsawesome2/1/127:05PM aussiecorvette_2007yesperfect,hairysmooth,bigsmall,yngold,innocentcontrollingandthepower..fuckitsawesome2/1/127:06PM corvette_2007 aussielol‐‐‐‐TOTALLYagreed2/1/127:06PM corvette_2007 aussieMMMMMM2/1/127:06PM corvette_2007 aussietonguekisswiththem?2/1/1210:18PM aussiecorvette_2007ustillperving?YahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/1210:19PM corvette_2007 aussieheystud‐‐‐youKNOWit‐‐‐lol2/1/1210:19PM aussie corvette_2007ohhot..edgineh2/1/1210:19PM corvette_2007 aussiemmm‐‐yes‐‐‐‐justwishyouwerehere2/1/1210:27PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahbehoteh..2/1/1210:27PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahbehoteh..2/1/1210:27PM aussiecorvette_2007lovetoplaywithadaddytype..ucouldbegramps..ahappyfamilyallofus2/1/1210:27PMcorvette_2007 aussiefuckinA,stud‐‐‐mmm‐‐‐lol‐‐‐‐wouldlovetoinahappyfamily2/1/1210:28PM aussiecorvette_2007;‐)sohowdidugetintoit..diduplaywhenuwreynger?2/1/1210:28PM aussiecorvette_2007;‐)sohowdidugetintoit..diduplaywhenuwreynger?2/1/1210:29PM corvette_2007 aussieno‐‐‐lol‐‐‐hadafuckbudyrsagothatwaspervy‐‐‐‐hegotmeintoitwithhisboy2/1/1210:30PM aussiecorvette_2007fuckurlucky..musthavebeennice..makeurheadspin?2/1/1210:30PM aussiecorvette_2007fuckurlucky..musthavebeennice..makeurheadspin?2/1/1210:30PMcorvette_2007 aussiewaslucky‐‐‐‐butdidnotlast‐‐‐‐TOTALLY‐‐‐‐LOVEDit2/1/1210:30PM aussiecorvette_2007pityulosttouch..hisboyisprobadadnow2/1/1210:31PM aussiecorvette_2007whydiditnotlast2/1/1210:31PM aussiecorvette_2007whydiditnotlast2/1/1210:31PM corvette_2007 aussiehemovedaway‐‐‐‐wifewasafterhim2/1/1210:32PM aussiecorvette_2007ohfuck..maybesheknew?2/1/1210:32PM aussiecorvette_2007ohfuck..maybesheknew?2/1/1210:33PM aussiecorvette_2007howoodwashisboy?washeintoit?2/1/1210:33PM aussiecorvette_2007howoodwashisboy?washeintoit?2/1/1210:33PM corvette_2007 aussienotsure‐‐‐‐thinkheleftthecountry‐‐‐‐verysudden‐‐‐‐11‐‐‐‐heLOVEDit2/1/1210:33PM aussiecorvette_2007ohfuckperfect2/1/1210:33PM aussiecorvette_2007ohfuckperfect2/1/1210:33PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahprobintrouble..whythefuckdoesithavetobesohard..whenitssoperfect2/1/1210:34PM corvette_2007 aussieAGREED‐‐‐‐weALLlovedit2/1/1210:34PM corvette_2007 aussieIKNOW‐‐‐andSOnatural‐‐‐kidsloveittoo2/1/1210:34PM aussiecorvette_2007ohyeah..theytotallyloveit..sowhosaysits18..itsfucked2/1/1210:35PM aussiecorvette_2007and..theirbodiesrespond2/1/1210:35PM aussiecorvette_2007and..theirbodiesrespond2/1/1210:35PM corvette_2007 aussiejustvictorianpuritanbullshit‐‐‐lolYahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/1210:35PM corvette_2007 aussieTOTALLY2/1/1210:36PM aussie corvette_2007theyevenhaeamazingboygasms2/1/1210:36PM aussiecorvette_2007theyevenhaeamazingboygasms2/1/1210:36PM corvette_2007 aussielol‐‐‐yes‐‐‐‐natehaddrycumsyet?2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007lastyearwasfirsttime2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007lastyearwasfirsttime2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007ihadtocoachhimtorelaxandenjoy,hewasworried2/1/1210:38PMaussiecorvette_2007sohot2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007sohot2/1/1210:38PM corvette_2007 aussieMMMMMMMMMM2/1/1210:38PM corvette_2007 aussieNICE2/1/1210:38PM aussiecorvette_2007fuckyes2/1/1210:38PM corvette_2007 aussiebetheLOVESitnow2/1/1210:39PM corvette_2007 aussiewhatgetshimoff?2/1/1210:39PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/1210:39PM aussiecorvette_2007yes2/1/1210:39PM aussiecorvette_2007concentratedworkonhiscock..particularlythehead,niceandwetandkissing2/1/1210:39PM aussiecorvette_2007concentratedworkonhiscock..particularlythehead,niceandwetandkissing2/1/1210:40PM corvette_2007 aussiehot‐‐‐‐kissinghiscock?2/1/1210:40PM aussiecorvette_2007yesandlips2/1/1210:40PM corvette_2007 aussiewow‐‐‐helikestomouthkiss?2/1/1210:41PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahihavefromearlyage..2/1/1210:41PMaussiecorvette_2007helikesitcauseitsadultthingtodo2/1/1210:41PM aussiecorvette_2007helikesitcauseitsadultthingtodo2/1/1210:42PM corvette_2007 aussieLOVEthat‐‐‐‐sofuckinHOT2/1/1210:42PM corvette_2007 aussieheliketongue?2/1/1210:42PM aussiecorvette_2007yeah;‐)itsagameforhim,sophotforme2/1/1210:42PMaussiecorvette_2007udothatwithurmatesboy?2/1/1210:42PM corvette_2007 aussieYESYahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/1210:43PM corvette_2007 aussieloveditall‐‐‐particularlyifyougothimstoned‐‐‐‐hehe2/1/1210:44PM aussie corvette_2007ohmate..thatssokewl2/1/1210:45PM aussie corvette_2007yeahsomealcholishottoo2/1/1210:45PM corvette_2007 aussieohyeah‐‐‐‐‐greatforrelaxingabit2/1/1210:46PM aussiecorvette_2007totally2/1/1210:46PM aussiecorvette_2007lovetomeeturmate..whocorruptedu..introducedutoit..verybraveofhim2/1/1210:46PM aussiecorvette_2007lovetomeeturmate..whocorruptedu..introducedutoit..verybraveofhim2/1/1210:47PM corvette_2007 aussieyes‐‐‐‐wehadplayedawhilebeforeandhestarted"feelingmeoutaboutthescene2/1/1210:48PM aussiecorvette_2007hot..niceone..uthinkitwasodd?orheverypersuasive?2/1/1210:49PM corvette_2007 aussieheknewIwasopenandpervy2/1/1210:55PM aussiecorvette_2007ahsweet2/1/1210:55PM aussiecorvette_2007ahsweet2/1/1210:55PM aussiecorvette_2007urluckymate..betitwaslove2/1/1210:56PM corvette_2007 aussiewassweetforthefewweeksitlasted‐‐‐‐‐LOVEDithere2/1/1210:56PM aussiecorvette_2007oh..weeks,thatssad.hopeuappreciateditatthetime..itsamazingeh..thaswhyiwannasharewithrightperson2/1/1210:57PM corvette_2007 aussieTOTALLYamazing‐‐‐‐‐wasinutopia2/1/1210:57PM corvette_2007 aussielovetofindsimilarsituationagain2/1/1211:00PM aussiecorvette_2007igetlotssayingthesame..buthastoberight..uknow..itssorisky2/1/1211:01PMcorvette_2007 aussieTOTALLYconcur‐‐‐‐righttherewithyou2/1/1211:08PM aussiecorvette_2007thereisonedudelocally..wehavechattedforages..nevershownhimthough..hesynger,buthotandlivesinterstate..neverbeenabletoarrange..whenheishereihavefamilyeventsorsomething2/1/1211:08PM aussiecorvette_2007butitssointense,impatient2/1/1211:09PMcorvette_2007 aussiethinkpatienceandinstinctthekey‐‐‐‐‐havetodeveloptrustasyousay2/1/1211:10PM aussiecorvette_2007yeah2/1/1211:10PM aussiecorvette_2007thxforchattingiappreciateit..ivaluethatyouhavehadexpereincefromtheotherside2/1/1211:11PM corvette_2007 aussieyouaremorethanwelcome‐‐‐‐lovetochataboutpedo*****YahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/1/1211:10PM aussie corvette_2007sougotanyyngmatesorfuckbuddies?**********2/1/1211:20PM corvette_2007 aussieyw‐‐‐‐‐wow‐‐‐‐nice‐‐‐‐‐nothingroutinecurrently‐‐‐‐justarandomhookupeverynowandthen2/1/1211:21PM corvette_2007 aussiesohunguponperv‐‐‐‐lol‐‐‐‐THATiswhatreallybonesmeanymore2/1/1211:21PM aussiecorvette_2007yeahunderstandsamehere..apervorgasmisamazing2/1/1211:22PMcorvette_2007aussiethebonerIgetwithpervisamazing2/1/1211:22PM corvette_2007 aussienothingelsecompares2/1/1211:26PM aussiecorvette_2007exactly2/1/1211:27PM corvette_2007 aussiehehe‐‐‐beenbonedalldaychattingwithyou*****2/1/1211:49PM aussiecorvette_2007mypervtimeisusuallysaturdaymorningwhensheworks,keepthemoccupiedandchooseonetoplaywith..theylvoeplaystationordvds2/1/1211:50PM corvette_2007 aussienice‐‐‐‐sotheother2entertainthemselveswhileyouplaywithoneofthem?2/1/1211:50PM corvette_2007 aussieHOT2/1/1211:50PM aussiecorvette_2007yes..figureitssaferthatway,othertimeisifsheisoutevenings..theyareinbed..thenfuntimeintheirroom2/1/1211:50PM aussiecorvette_2007yes..figureitssaferthatway,othertimeisifsheisoutevenings..theyareinbed..thenfuntimeintheirroom2/1/1211:50PM aussiecorvette_2007sometimestheysleep2/1/1211:50PM aussiecorvette_2007sometimestheysleep2/1/1211:51PM corvette_2007 aussiefuckinHOT2/1/1211:51PM corvette_2007 aussiesotheylivewithyou?2/1/1211:55PMaussiecorvette_2007yes*****2/9/1211:01PMaussiecorvette_2007matehowsthings?2/9/1211:05PM corvette_2007 aussieheystud2/9/1211:05PM corvette_2007 aussiepervin‐‐‐lol‐‐‐you?*****2/9/1211:09PM corvette_2007 aussielovetoseeyou(andothers)oncamsometimeYahooChatLogsYahooUser3("aussie")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/9/1211:13PM corvette_2007 aussiemmm‐‐‐‐gottarunhere‐‐‐‐thanksforsayinghello‐‐‐‐keepintouchYahooChatLogsYahooUser4("adt")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/14/1210:25PM corvette_2007 adtloveahotmotorcyclepervyguy‐‐‐‐hehe2/14/1210:26PM adt corvette_2007lol2/14/1210:26PM adt corvette_2007wechouldgoridingsometime.2/14/1210:26PM corvette_2007 adtotherareawehaveincommon2/14/1210:26PM adtcorvette_2007seeifwecanattractanypassangers.:P2/14/1210:26PM adtcorvette_2007seeifwecanattractanypassangers.:P2/14/1210:26PMcorvette_2007 adtSURE2/14/1210:26PM corvette_2007 adtmmmmm2/14/1210:27PM corvette_2007 adtwhowouldbeyourfantasypassenger?2/14/1210:28PM adtcorvette_2007lol2/14/1210:28PM adtcorvette_2007notsurehe'dreachtehpegs.2/14/1210:28PM adtcorvette_2007notsurehe'dreachtehpegs.2/14/1210:29PM corvette_2007 adtohYEAH2/14/1210:29PM corvette_2007 adtlovethat,too****2/14/1210:37PM adtcorvette_2007youareinmd,right?2/14/1210:38PM corvette_2007 adtno‐‐‐‐va‐‐‐‐Richmond2/14/1210:38PMadtcorvette_2007Ohok.2/14/1210:38PMadtcorvette_2007iknewyouwereclose.2/14/1210:38PM adtcorvette_2007iknewyouwereclose.2/14/1210:38PM corvette_2007 adtyes‐‐‐‐nottoofaratall2/14/1210:39PM adtcorvette_2007:)2/14/1210:40PM adtcorvette_2007heywecouldmeetinthemiddleinthebigtownof...........2/14/1210:40PM adtadtwell.2/14/1210:40PM adtadtlol2/14/1210:40PM corvette_2007 adtsure‐‐‐‐willhavetodothatsometime2/14/1210:41PM adtcorvette_2007lol2/14/1210:41PM adtcorvette_2007lol2/14/1210:41PM adtcorvette_2007meaningtherereallyisntmuchbetweenusYahooChatLogsYahooUser4("adt")Date/Time(Local) Sender RexipientMessage2/14/1210:41PM adt corvette_2007meaningtherereallyisntmuchbetweenus2/14/1210:41PM adt corvette_2007lotsatrees2/14/1210:41PM adt corvette_2007lotsatrees2/14/1210:41PM corvette_2007 adtyouarecorrect2/14/1210:41PM corvette_2007 adtpickatree‐‐‐‐hehe