IN - Subway's Jared Fogle - plea deal in federal child *advertiser censored* case, 2015

[human]

I have to wonder if this is even true. I just am not sure it is at all. And I agree with you. I think that this so far is a case of over reaching. They should be out there saying they found nothing and that he has cooperated and that is it.

I think this is horrible and should be actionable if it turns out that he is innocent of this or at very least there is no evidence to support the claims.

I imagine that attorneys were questioned on how to proceed properly on a celebrity. .

 

[Magdalyn]

3. The overwhelming reliance on hearsay; especially when not supported by the data recovered from Jane Doe's mobile data:

Where a warrant is sought based on hearsay information, the affidavit must either:
(1) Contain reliable information establishing the credibility of the source and of each of the declarants of the hearsay and establishing that there is a factual basis for the information furnished; or
(2) contain information that establishes that the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay. State v. Spillers, 847 N.E.2d 949, 953-54 (Ind. 2006) (citing Ind. Code § 35-33-5-2(b)(1) and (2)).

The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in several where:
(1) the informant has given correct information in the past,
(2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant’s statements,
(3) some basis for the informant’s knowledge is demonstrated, or
(4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted. Id. (citation omitted).

However, these examples are not exclusive, and “depending on the facts, other considerations may come into play in establishing the reliability of the informant or the hearsay.” Id.

With regard to anonymous sources, our supreme court has stated:

Respectfully snipped for space:

FWIW, Jane Doe is not the anonymous informant your case law speaks of. She is not a phone tipster who called in and said, "Colonel Mustard did it, in the Conservatory, with the revolver!", hung up, and police cannot identify her, the defense can never question her. The officer interviewed her on the phone, then in person, at her residence, then took possession of her cell phone to analyze. The state could reasonably subpoena her at trial. A defense lawyer could question her. LE knows who she is.

To review the reasons you've cited the warrant may not be valid:

Considering that the ownership of zoophilic *advertiser censored* is LEGAL in the state of Indiana; how was the initial search of Russell Taylor's home even legal?

I wouldn't be surprised if all the evidence gets tossed in the Taylor case because the basis for the search was not legal.

Answer: The warrant wasn't for zoophilic *advertiser censored*. It was for evidence of bestiality.


The basis of concern slightly shifts here, the emphasis now a 'meeting the standard', yet underscored by lack of pet ownership, and still including the legality of zoophilic *advertiser censored*:

While I'm glad that the piece of human garbage is behind bars, I don't see how the information provided met the standard to obtain a warrant (noting that there is no mention of the defendant owning an animal and that type of *advertiser censored* is legal in Indiana).

Answer: There is no legal standard that maintains an animal must be owned by a person being served a search warrant for evidence of bestiality. The 'owning zoophilic *advertiser censored* is legal' is a red herring. It was never in question. Again, the warrant wasn't looking for legal zoophilic *advertiser censored*, no one has argued its legality.

Argument completely changes then to:

The search warrant was obtained completely on hearsay. That's a HUGE problem for the State.

Your own quoted case law states:

The trustworthiness of hearsay for the purpose of proving probable cause can be established in several where:
(1) the informant has given correct information in the past,
(2) independent police investigation corroborates the informant’s statements,
(3) some basis for the informant’s knowledge is demonstrated, or
(4) the informant predicts conduct or activity by the suspect that is not ordinarily easily predicted. Id. (citation omitted).

They did do an independent police investigation that corroborates the informant's statements. They examined her phone. Some basis for the knowledge is demonstrated. Note it does not say all must be demonstrated. It would be intellectually dishonest to say none of the basis of her knowledge is found on the texts. Nothing mentioned in the above case law states 'verbatim transcript via text must back up statement.'

The goal posts have moved considerably from the initial reason cited why you believe the warrant may not hold up. I'm sure the defense attorney will try them all, as you have--that's his/her job, and I'd expect no less. I remain confident the warrants will stick, as will the evidence. We shall have to wait and see what happens.

I really am ready to move on topic-wise, but I did enjoy the discourse, so thanks! :seeya:

 

[Magdalyn]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-fogle-investigation-russell-taylor/30050615/

Indianapolis attorney Brad Banks, who is representing Taylor, said it is his understanding that Taylor and Fogle met through Taylor's work at the American Heart Association.

 

[Magdalyn]

If this woman who heard him make a comment about middle school girls (potentially serious, potentially jokingly, potentially lustfully, potentially sarcastic) is all it takes to obtain a search warrant for his home (and after obtaining the warrant, tipping off the media to cover the search) then hundreds of thousands of Americans should look forward to their reputations ruined because of random comments out of context.

I REALLY hope there was more than this comment to merit the search warrant, if not we've really become a fascist nation.

I have to wonder if this is even true. I just am not sure it is at all. And I agree with you. I think that this so far is a case of over reaching. They should be out there saying they found nothing and that he has cooperated and that is it.

I think this is horrible and should be actionable if it turns out that he is innocent of this or at very least there is no evidence to support the claims.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there that there is no chance the state police contacted the United State's Attorney's Office, and the FBI, to investigate--then raid, based on the investigation--JF's house based on the single statement "Middle school girls are hot."

We don't even have a search warrant affidavit to examine which hints at any of the probable cause in JF's case.

To be fair, we can't possibly know whether the police and FBI have been over-reaching. They have made no statement as to their evidence, reasons, witness statements, informants, nothing. We do not know what they know, and they (LE and FBI) are under no obligation to share what they know at this point, or anything they've found, with us or the media.

This is all we know:

Tim Horty, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office in the Southern District of Indiana, which is involved in the investigation, declined to comment on the reason for the raid and referred to Subway’s initial statement on Twitter. The F.B.I. is also involved in the investigation, and the Indiana State Police said that they were assisting the United States attorney’s office.

And we know Jared's former employee, whom he's done events with, was also raided recently. That's pretty much it. All we can do is guess. :dunno:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I imagine that attorneys were questioned on how to proceed properly on a celebrity. .

Nah.. They don't care. I just hope they come out and are as obvious if it turns out they are wrong.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there that there is no chance the state police contacted the United State's Attorney's Office, and the FBI, to investigate--then raid, based on the investigation--JF's house based on the single statement "Middle school girls are hot."

We don't even have a search warrant affidavit to examine which hints at any of the probable cause in JF's case.

To be fair, we can't possibly know whether the police and FBI have been over-reaching. They have made no statement as to their evidence, reasons, witness statements, informants, nothing. We do not know what they know, and they (LE and FBI) are under no obligation to share what they know at this point, or anything they've found, with us or the media.

This is all we know:



And we know Jared's former employee, whom he's done events with, was also raided recently. That's pretty much it. All we can do is guess. :dunno:

I am not so sure. It could be that they have wanted to go after him since Taylor get nabbed.

I don't see anything here and I know there would have been by now. When they do that raid, that is the last step and arrest.
So far what I see is he is not guilty here and they are dragging their heels about saying so.

 

[HastingsChi]

Respectfully snipped for space:

FWIW, Jane Doe is not the anonymous informant your case law speaks of. She is not a phone tipster who called in and said, "Colonel Mustard did it, in the Conservatory, with the revolver!", hung up, and police cannot identify her, the defense can never question her. The officer interviewed her on the phone, then in person, at her residence, then took possession of her cell phone to analyze. The state could reasonably subpoena her at trial. A defense lawyer could question her. LE knows who she is.

To review the reasons you've cited the warrant may not be valid:



Answer: The warrant wasn't for zoophilic *advertiser censored*. It was for evidence of bestiality.


The basis of concern slightly shifts here, the emphasis now a 'meeting the standard', yet underscored by lack of pet ownership, and still including the legality of zoophilic *advertiser censored*:



Answer: There is no legal standard that maintains an animal must be owned by a person being served a search warrant for evidence of bestiality. The 'owning zoophilic *advertiser censored* is legal' is a red herring. It was never in question. Again, the warrant wasn't looking for legal zoophilic *advertiser censored*, no one has argued its legality.

Argument completely changes then to:



Your own quoted case law states:



They did do an independent police investigation that corroborates the informant's statements. They examined her phone. Some basis for the knowledge is demonstrated. Note it does not say all must be demonstrated. It would be intellectually dishonest to say none of the basis of her knowledge is found on the texts. Nothing mentioned in the above case law states 'verbatim transcript via text must back up statement.'

The goal posts have moved considerably from the initial reason cited why you believe the warrant may not hold up. I'm sure the defense attorney will try them all, as you have--that's his/her job, and I'd expect no less. I remain confident the warrants will stick, as will the evidence. We shall have to wait and see what happens.

I really am ready to move on topic-wise, but I did enjoy the discourse, so thanks! :seeya:

Thanks for yet another thoughtful, thorough reply.

You are correct that there may be information in the warrant affidavit not mentioned in the criminal complaint.

Two things of interest would be:
- If police determined if human garbage Taylor owned any animals.
- If human garbage Taylor ever traveled to Thailand

Why are these key?
1) Jane Doe was not fully honest with LE during the interview. We know this by her statements in the criminal complaint not completely meshing with the information recovered from her mobile.

2) If human garbage Taylor traveled to Thailand then Doe's statement and the officer's declaration are viable, if there was never any travel to Thailand then the standard may not have been met.

We won't know the answers to these questions until the warrant affidavit is made public (If it ever is).

Again, couldn't be happier he's incarcerated.

 

[HastingsChi]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say there that there is no chance the state police contacted the United State's Attorney's Office, and the FBI, to investigate--then raid, based on the investigation--JF's house based on the single statement "Middle school girls are hot."

We don't even have a search warrant affidavit to examine which hints at any of the probable cause in JF's case.

To be fair, we can't possibly know whether the police and FBI have been over-reaching. They have made no statement as to their evidence, reasons, witness statements, informants, nothing. We do not know what they know, and they (LE and FBI) are under no obligation to share what they know at this point, or anything they've found, with us or the media.

This is all we know:



And we know Jared's former employee, whom he's done events with, was also raided recently. That's pretty much it. All we can do is guess. :dunno:

The reason I would agree that there was much more information than the "middle school girls" comment used to obtain the warrant is that law enforcement was confident enough that they would find what they were looking for to tip off the media so they could broadcast the events. (Camera crews were at the scene less than an hour after the search began. Fogel lives 30 minutes outside of Indianapolis. Coverage needed to be planned and crews reassigned. No doubt that they were given a heads up)

Why did I post the comment about someone's statement about a comment whose context is not known being the basis for the warrant?

Because that's all the media is reporting and headlines state "Woman Reveals Comment Allegedly from Subway Guy Jared Fogle that Led to Raid"; and the mouth breathers have no problem with it.

When, in reality, everyone should have a problem with law enforcement's lack of disclosure and the media's awful reporting.

Imagine if it was you and you were completely innocent; you'd wouldn't want law enforcement tipping off the media lynch mob to do what they do to you.

Frankly, I don't know if Fogle is innocent or guilty, but I do know that regardless of the outcome he's never going to get back what he's already lost.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Jared Fogle lawyers claim FBI found no evidence of child *advertiser censored* in Subway spokesman's home

Jared Fogle's lawyers claim the FBI found no evidence of child *advertiser censored* when they raided his home on July 7

His lawyers claim this is why Fogle is not in custody and will not be arrested

Last week, a Florida woman who is friends with Jared Fogle claimed he spoke about his attraction to underage girls on multiple occasions

The woman said that Fogle told her more than once that 'middle school girls are hot'

Federal authorities confirmed this woman's story

Subway cut ties with Fogle after the FBI raid on his home

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d*-Subway-spokesman-s-home.html#ixzz3fmGA2L4e

 

[Inthedetails]

This should help out Subway's PR: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie bought Subway sandwiches with their kids....

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...-angelina-jolie-grub-subway-article-1.2291524

 

[human]

This should help out Subway's PR: Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie bought Subway sandwiches with their kids....

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...-angelina-jolie-grub-subway-article-1.2291524

New family spokespeople? They certainly are thin enough

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

^^^ LOL re thin enough ^^^

Yep, still sticking to my experience that the exams/results will take awhile...they may have prelim results, and may have seen a few images...but no AUSA's office is going to want to rush this......................they've got to show control/custody of when images were downloaded, etc. ++++ and that takes time. Who else could use the computer? Passwords/files saved, etc. They're going to document all of that. Why rush that just to go make a quick arrest? They won't, unless there are exigent circumstances.

 

[DEPUTYDAWG]

What do you know, 2 coworkers got a search warrant signed yesterday for a new child *advertiser censored* case for our office...they conducted the search warrant this morning and just arrived to the office with carts of evidence. Guess what, no arrest...and inventorying/paperwork will be completed this afternoon, then items for exams will be driven to other offices to start the process......don't expect an arrest for awhile

Back to actually on topic here...I'm guessing they've got some solid evidence and/or info against Jared and did before the search was conducted. It just takes time.

 

[nightwatch]

What do you know, 2 coworkers got a search warrant signed yesterday for a new child *advertiser censored* case for our office...they conducted the search warrant this morning and just arrived to the office with carts of evidence. Guess what, no arrest...and inventorying/paperwork will be completed this afternoon, then items for exams will be driven to other offices to start the process......don't expect an arrest for awhile

Back to actually on topic here...I'm guessing they've got some solid evidence and/or info against Jared and did before the search was conducted. It just takes time.

Thanks for your input on this case, it is appreciated

ciao

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Thanks for your input on this case, it is appreciated

ciao

Ditto!

 

[EllieBee]

On a side note, nowadays in the US child *advertiser censored* probably means filming kids in bathing suits in a pool or smth. I am mistrustful of the severity of such charges, because the US labels as sex offenders drunks college kids that pee on the side of the road in the middle of the day. My husband has to remind me constantly not to walk naked close to the windows in my own house, not because someone might peep on me, but because I might get in trouble with the law. Crazy.

:thud:

 

[angelainwi]

So...its been almost 3 weeks since Jared Fogle's house was raided and nothing turned up. When does he get his life back?

 

[jjenny]

New family spokespeople? They certainly are thin enough

She needs to eat a sandwich or two.

 

[john's mom]

I was watching dvr'd season of Chicago Fire this weekend and don't you know Jared's Subway commercial came on. ��

 

[tezi]

She needs to eat a sandwich or two.

At least! LOL