I'll try to explain why some of us are still willing to listen to Ritter, even though the conviction is a matter of record. There are two main reasons:

First, we've seen more than enough evidence over the past two decades to prove that the security state will manufacture crimes, and entrap and humiliate its opponents, to discredit valid claims and criticisms. Scott Ritter would hardly be the first; Michael Flynn was one of the more recent and high-profile cases.

Second, even if Ritter is a pedophile, his arguments are not affected by that, and accepting them neither imputes complicity in his predilections, nor implies approval of them. Kaczynski was widely acknowledged to have sound concerns about the future of technologically advanced nations; this doesn't mean we should all start mailing bombs to people. It was necessary to use the testimony of war criminals to convict other war criminals at Nuremberg, and we're up against comparable psychopaths and totalitarians now.

Personally, I'm agnostic. Since it was a sting, no actual children were involved; therefore the moral stakes must be lower even if you think they exist.