Return to Transcripts main page
Dr. Drew
Parents Turn to Prayers Instead of Doctors for Sick Daughter; Newly Released X-Rated Text Messages from Jared Fogle. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired April 19, 2016 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DREW PINSKY, "DR. DREW ON CALL" HOST: Tonight, a sickly young woman says prosecute my parents. She claimed they turned to prayer instead of
doctors. And now she needs a heart-lung transplant and she blames them.
And, shocking new X-rated text messages from convicted pedophile Jared Fogle. Let`s get started.
(MUSIC)
A young woman born with a life-threatening illness, but religious parents relied on prayer, not medical science. Now she is dying and wants her
parents to pay. Watch this from NBC.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIAH WALTON, REFUSED MEDICAL TREATMENT BY PARENTS: It feels like my lungs burn it feels like I can`t get the oxygen I need.
REPORTER: Her life threatening condition was caused by a congenital heart defect that doctors tell her could have been easily fixed when she was
young. But Walton says her parents refused to take her to the doctor because they believe in healing through prayer.
Her mother tells NBC news they pursued natural medicine and didn`t realize how sick Mariah was.
M. WALTON: And I think it`s time to prosecute them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Joining me, Areva Martin, attorney and legal consultant; Sara Azari, defense attorney; and Darren Kavinoky, attorney.
Now, I want to show you as best I can with this little life-size heart, pretty much, what this woman had. I don`t know how close you can get in on
this, but the, you know, the heart consist of two chambers, the right chamber and left chamber, I know they`re not necessarily right and left
because they sit in your chest. But this one, the right side is a very low pressure system it`s what comes in from the venous. The unoxygenated blood
goes out through this, to the pulmonary arteries, goes out to the lungs, comes back into this, goes into the left ventricle, oxygenated, pumps out
through this big red thing here through the main part of the body.
Now, this is a high-pressure system here on the left. A hole, where that actually that hole is here for the model, going left to right, when this
high-pressure system constricts, it goes from this chamber to this chamber. The blood goes out of the high pressure system into the low pressure
system, fills this chamber up, makes it a high-pressure system too, but you see a thin wall is here. It`s not equipped to deal with the high pressure.
It starts to fail. It becomes a high-pressure system and fills the arteries. That becomes high-pressure as well, not meant to be a high-
pressure system.
The entire lung vascular system start to breaks down, the heart fails and now you need a heart-lung transplant. Now this hole between the left and
the right can easily be fixed in childhood. Easily be fixed. And so the fact they didn`t fix it is insanity in my opinion.
DARREN KAVINOKY, ATTORNEY: So my wondering in all this. And I really feel for this young lady, in the case illustrates obviously the tension between
personal liberties and religious freedoms versus how children need to be taken care of. I just wondered how much of this was known to the parents
at the time versus hindsight.
PINSKY: If they had taken that child, you`re looking at a picture of, to a doctor and that doctor, he or she had laid hands on and put a stethoscope
on that child`s chest, I guarantee you, in 30 seconds, that doctor would have had the diagnosis. This makes a loud sound when you have a -- what`s
called a ventricular septal defect like a loud sound. You hear it when you put the stethoscope on the chest. The fact, she never saw a doctor.
SARA AZARI, ATTORNEY: And I don`t really understand -- I don`t believe the mother saying she didn`t know the extent of how ill her child ...
PINSKY: No I do believe that.
AZARI: ... was turning blue, she was passing out.
PINSKY: Yeah, well if you`re praying to God, what do you care? His God is going to take care of it. I believe she didn`t know, she didn`t realize it
because she had no one teller her, that they never took her to medical care.
AREVA MARTIN, ATTORNEY: I think what`s so interesting about the Idaho law, and this is where this case is, it has this exemption for criminal
prosecution, and then it has this little corky thing in the law Dr. Drew that says, if you combine any kind of medical care with prayer you know
longer have the exemption. So if you go down the route of prayer, you can`t then deviate and add in medical care because then you lose the
exception.
PINSKY: Which they were doing natural care, so-called, whatever that was.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: They have not been prosecuted and the prosecutor in this county is not taking this case, not charging them. So presumably they are saying you
meet the criteria for the exemption.
PINSKY: All right, you guys are attorneys, all three of you are attorneys and I`m glad, because you can explain this to me, the silly me. I don`t
understand. I don`t understand why, to allow this child`s heart to fail, predictably, guaranteed it`s going to fail. Guaranteed she`s going to need
a heart-lung transplant. I mean there are certain ventricular septal defects you can watch or whatnot, clearly this was not one of those. Heart
is going to fail. Kid is going to die. Why is that different than not feeding the kid?
Or -- hold on -- or just abandoning the kid on the street and leaving there, or just taking a bullet and putting it in the head of the child.
Why is this different?
KAVINOKY: It`s different because if you`re talking about religious freedom ...
PINSKY: I have a new religion. New religion is I get to shoot my kid in the head. That`s my new religion, is that an exception now?
KAVINOKY: I don`t think so.
PINSKY: Why not? Why is this different? Because you don`t understand it, you`re not used to seeing it.
(CROSSTALK)
... but it says foregone for me. As a trained professional, it`s a foregone conclusion, not healing this, not treating this is the same as the
bullet. Why can`t the law say that?
KAVINOKY: I`d say reasonableness on the part of the parents at the time that this was going on. I think ultimately that`s what it turns on, and
we`re taking a lot of facts.
(CROSSTALK)
MARTIN: Darren, Dr. Drew was absolutely categorically correct on this point. This law makes no sense. It does not protect the welfare of
children in this state.
PINSKY: Thank you.
MARTIN: Children are at risk, they are dying, they are getting diseases that can be cured. And their parents are getting to walk away So thank
God this girl had the courage to stand up and say she`s going to sue.
PINSKY: She testified at a town hall about the healings that she had received. Listen to how she describes her first doctor visit at age 18.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
M. WALTON: I was very scared going there. On the way back, I had been crying because I was so scared about what my parents were going to say to
me because my parents, my whole life threatened me if I were to go something terrible would happen to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Mariah credits her sister for helping her get that treatment, get the treatment she so desperately need. Now, listen to how the parents
reacted to her diagnosis.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
M. WALTON: When I got back to my parents, my mom didn`t even want to look at me. She said don`t talk about it. I don`t want to hear about it. Then
my sister, Rachel, volunteered to take me in. Because she`s like, we can`t be afraid of your parents anymore. We will get you help. And so, I went
in, we started doing tests and they found and they said, you know, if you don`t get help, you have less than five years to live.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Now, Mariah`s mother posted this on Facebook, "I have never been charged or prosecuted, nor have I ever used faith healing as a defense
against any claims of neglect. While I`m deeply saddened about Mariah`s health issues, no one is aware of her congenital heart defect until she was
18 years old. This law does not apply on Mariah`s case because I have and have never used faith healing as a defense. Mariah`s case is being used in
a political agenda without regard to the truth."
OK. So A, I agree with her. They didn`t know until she was 18 because they neglected her medical care.
AZARI: But they should have known.
PINSKY: Of course they should have. There`s a bunch of legal leeways in there about never using faith healing as a defense, three times, as a
defense to what?
AZARI: Neglect.
PINSKY: Neglect.
MARTIN: Well obviously someone talked to her and obviously someone has coached her to write that statement and the reality is, this girl, any
child should go to the pediatrician. There should be regular well check ups that happen to all kids. And if what you`re saying is true, and I
believe you a great deal, that that should have been detected and that conditions could have been cured, and she would not be dying at age 20.
PINSKY: Next, I will actually have Mariah`s sister in here. Thank God that she -- here`s where God does his work, he gets Mariah`s sister
involved. She takes Mariah to proper care. She fought to get this medical care yet still the sister and Mariah, they both live with guilt. The
sister`s story, up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A waitress in Texas got a $1,000 tip on a $9 tab. 18-year-old told Alesha Palmer told some customers she was getting ready to
go off to college. A man who was sitting at another table overheard her and told the restaurants manager he wanted to help her. Palmer didn`t see
the tip until the guy have left and she never even got his name.
ALESHA PALMER, WAITRESS: I was like, there`s no way this is happening. This has got to be a dream.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It really, you know, restores your faith because there`s so much bad going on. You always hear of all the bad things, you
don`t hear about the good.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Palmer is going to a junior college, going to transfer to a culinary arts school one day and then open her own pastry
shop. Hopefully she can make her dream come true.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Parents are protected from prosecution if they refuse medical care because of their faith, even if a child dies from a treatable
illness.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It`s a first amendment right. Freedom of religion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Walton is pushing for legislation that would require treatment for children in imminent danger of dying.
M. WALTON: I think it`s time to prosecute them.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The 20-year-old is now awaiting transplant for heart and both lungs. While her parents don`t feel she should be used as a
poster child for this cause, Mariah is hoping Idaho`s law will change.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: That was an NBC report about Mariah Walton. Her religious parents refused to seek medical aid for her predictably life-threatening condition.
Instead, allegedly, they relied on prayer. Now the child is 20 years of age and she will die if she doesn`t get aggressive treatment. Namely
heart-lung transplant.
Back with Areva, Sara, and Darren. Joining me on the phone, I have Emily Walton, Mariah`s older sister. Emily first of all thank you for joining us
and thank you for getting Mariah to proper care.
EMILY WALTON, MARIAH`S SISTER: Thank you. I have other siblings that helped as well, but I am happy to have helped.
PINSKY: Yeah, it`s really quite a dramatic story. I am a little bit -- I don`t want to use a weird religious term, but I`m exorcised about this
whole thing. We need an exorcism I`m so worked up about it, because I don`t see why it`s different than any other kind of neglect like not
feeding a child and not housing a child, leaving them somewhere to die. This is just a slow motion death.
E. WALTON: You know, I agree with you. And I would also point out that, you know, when a parent decides to not care for their child as well as they
should, many times that`s reversible, right? So, if you choose to not educate your child, the child can go out and get educated, but in a
situation like this, if it`s allowed to go on too long, the child either becomes severely disabled like Mariah or dies. And so, you know, it`s not
reversible.
PINSKY: Now, Emily I understand you feel guilty for not seeking treatment for Mariah earlier, perhaps against your parents wishes?
E. WALTON: Yeah, I mean I would say I carry this terrible burden of guilt daily all the time but I definitely think, oh I made a really bad choice at
that point by not stepping up and doing the right thing, and I wish I would have.
PINSKY: When did you know she was sick?
E. WALTON: When did we know? You know, I knew probably, you know, it was obvious when she was about 10. Looking back, it was obviously much
earlier. To me I can really tell when I was about 10 and I`m, you know, 17 years older than her, so I was 27.
PINSKY: What were your parents thinking? Do they just assume this was something they could pray away? Were they in denial? How does somebody do
that to a child?
E. WALTON: Well, I think they were in denial. I think there`s probably some ways they could rationalize, like she`s just smaller, maybe she just
has asthma. But, you know, looking back, there were definite signs that something was really wrong and she should have seen a doctor.
PINSKY: I got to ask you guys something. So religious freedom is a First Amendment right, are there limits on what a religion can prescribe? If I
say my religious beliefs are, I get to kill, Darren, that`s my religious belief, I just have to do that and it`s my religious belief, who are you to
say ...
KAVINOKY: With the Native Americans and their peyote worship. And there are many places where there`s a distinction beliefs ...
PINSKY: I don`t want to associate -- I don`t want to get into behavior or drug use. I want to talk about people living and dying. Why can`t we get
in the way of somebody`s religious distortions, I don`t think the Pope would allow this.
MARTIN: We can Dr. Drew. Idaho is only one of six states that still allows for this exemption. Other states around the nation have repealed
this law. They no longer say you can be exempt from criminal prosecution if you place your child in the position of imminent harm or danger. So
this doesn`t have to be. This is the legislature in Idaho refusing to stand-up for the rights of kids.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that your personal rights as a parent don`t trump your obligation, cannot jeopardize the care of your child.
PINSKY: In that piece from NBC, I just saw I think an attorney saying, or maybe a state legislature, saying that it`s a First Amendment right,
quoting the First Amendment, what`s he talking about?
MARTIN: He can say that all day and all night but that`s not accurate.
AZARI: And the issue is, when you`re talking about your First Amendment right, if it`s a parent who has an ailment and he decides to rub olive oil
and set a prayer circle, that`s his prerogative, but this is dealing with a child and the child is dependent on the adult for their care and their
well-being. That`s the issue.
PINSKY: In this program all the time, big people take care of little people. Adults take care of children. You want to talk natural law,
that`s a natural law. That`s one thing this specie is dependent on. And if we`re going forsake that we`re forsaking everything. You want to talk a
sacred obligation, that`s one we can all point at and say, OK we got that one, Darren.
KAVINOKY: Well yes, and I`m a parent, too. So it`s not that I`m not sympathetic here but America is a country founded on ideas of religious
freedom and the idea that we can worship how we please. So it`s a very sensitive area I think when we start to get into the First Amendment.
PINSKY: So Emily, I think what Darren is saying is that, my religion that includes me killing Darren is OK with him, but I would argue it`s not OK.
He said it`s OK because he`s sensitive to the issues. But I would argue that it`s not OK to allow your parents to neglect the medical care, the
basic routine medical care that could have easily picked this up, frankly at age one, had she seen a doctor.
E. WALTON: Yeah, you know, I`m going to quote Mariah. This quote did not end up in one of the interviews we did yesterday, but she -- someone said,
what would you say back to this legislature who says, you know, these are First Amendment rights. And she said, well a kid like me has a right to
live. Truly, in the end, if you are dead, all your constitutional rights are moot. If you`re dead, it`s over. And so like first basic rule, keep
people alive, let them live. And then we can look at the amendment.
PINSKY: Emily, I would argue that your parents are as much a victim of this interpretation of the First Amendment as your sister is. Because they
must be dying now that they have allowed this to happen to their daughter. It must kill them. And they are the perpetrators of this because of
distorted thinking. It`s no different than if they have a thought disturbance that went unattended to, and God knows social service would
have gotten in the way of that, Areva, would they not?
MARTIN: And that`s important to note about this law, because you are exempt from criminal prosecution, if someone had gone to child protection
services and reported this family, they could have stepped in, they could have removed this child possibly in Idaho. Order medical treatment to be
provided, and when we talk about the state there, the state has -- state should be protecting your First Amendment rights, but the state should be
protecting kids. That`s a fundamental right that kids are entitled to and they should be standing up for kids and not allow, even their parents to do
anything that causes them harm.
KAVINOKY: But, Areva, it`s a slippery slope when ...
(CROSSTALK)
KAVINOKY: Getting into government legislating -- when they start enacting policies that can infringe on people`s ...
MARTIN: All we`re saying is stand up for a child that is helpless.
PINSKY: Hold on, stop here, stop here. Emily, can you stay with a minute?
E. WALTON: Sure.
PINSKY: Is this conversation upsetting you? I`m sure you have something to add to this.
E. WALTON: Oh, I have had many conversations about this. I`m hardened at this point, don`t worry.
PINSKY: OK, very good, so stay with me. We will continue this story, we will talk to Emily a little bit more. We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
E. WALTON: There`s 10 kids in our family. Most of us were very fortunate to get through with everything intact and we were OK but Mariah she`s the
second to the youngest and she, you know, has suffered greatly for not being able to go to the doctor. And, you know, I think, as the oldest
sister, I watched her, she was much smaller, she was blue, often. She wasn`t doing well, she wasn`t growing. And even though, you know, when I
was younger, I asked my parents to take her to the doctor and we could see that something was wrong, you know, they didn`t want to.
And I -- in some ways I regret not just picking her up and taking her to the E.R. and insisting someone do something. And in fact if anyone out
there is listening and has a family situation like that, I would actually encourage you to just do that and let the chips fall where they may because
someone`s life isn`t worth it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: A young woman desperate for a heart-lung transplant is blaming her parents for the life-threatening illness that has progressed. She says
they shunned physicians, relied on prayer. I`m back with Areva, Sara, and Darren, on the phone I have the woman you saw there, Emily Walton, she`s
Mariah`s oldest sister.
Emily, I want to ask you a question. Now I made the case your parents are also a victim of these laws, and must be just mortified that they allowed
your sister to get so sick. We`ve been pretty hard on them here and I continue I will be, but I`m mostly hard on the law and the fact that no one
steps in and this is allowed to happened which is insane, in my opinion. But, I`m wondering, let me see if I can formulate this question. I lost my
train of thought completely.
KAVINOKY: I wonder, how is it Drew that you propose that we legislate what that minimum care is ...
PINSKY: I`m don`t say, we legislate, what I`m saying is that we allowed denial and neglect as something you can justify as a religious privilege.
It`s under religious freedom, it`s my freedom to neglect anymore than feed, or house, or supervise kids. Why not say it`s my religion the kids grow up
on their own out in the woods? It`s the same thing.
AZARI: It`s archaic and frankly it has no business being in the law. Neglect is neglect. I`m with you on that.
PINSKY: Yes.
AZARI: You know, and I think that ...
PINSKY: Normally you defend people to do bad things. Sara I`m shocked. I don`t know what to make of this.
MARTIN: It`s not that complicated. There are six states in the union that would allow this kind of conduct. You are acting as if this is so
complicated to do. All we are asking is that parents provide care for their kids, particularly life-threatening situations. This young girl is
facing a death sentence when something simple could have been done for her care.
KAVINOKY: I totally get that, and I also wonder that as we sit here right now and look at this with the clarity 20/20 hindsight, how much of this,
really, in realtime, would have been appreciated or was appreciated by the parents at the time.
PINSKY: You brought me right back to where I was.
KAVINOKY: That`s why I`m here.
PINSKY: So, which was Mariah, this is -- that although we are being tough on your parents, I`m looking at you Emily, I`m looking at Mariah and I`m
seeing some pretty substantial people here, you young ladies. And your parents, although we`re being harsh on them, they did something right. So
I`m going to let you speak to that in a second.
I think -- are you guys able to survive this in ways by supporting one another. But let me address Darren`s question which is, if they had so
much as a medical student put a stethoscope on that child, they could have prognosticated with 98 percent accuracy where this child would be right
now. It`s easy. It`s one of the easiest things you can do in pediatric medicine. You hear a big VSD, you know where that`s going, you repair it.
It`s fixed right then.
You don`t fix it, you have a dead child. Mariah, how about -- how you have turned out? What did they do right? Emily, sorry.
E. WALTON: Yeah, my parents, you know, taught us to work hard, they thought us to respect other people. You know my siblings and I were very
close. And those things I have carried with me and they have been very good. But, you know, I didn`t have my GED, we were " home-schooled." I
didn`t have my GED until I was 28, got my GED, went to college, graduated with honors, you know, so things are OK now but they were very hard for a
long time.
And, you know, quite frankly, the way they raised us has had some very bad repercussions too.
PINSKY: OK, all right. So, there`s resiliency, there`s good genetics here, that she`s smart and be able to find her way through this. What`s
your relationship like with your parents now?
E. WALTON: You know, when we don`t talk about this, it`s actually OK. I mean I have opposed the way they raised us since I was 12 or 13. And so no
secret that I don`t appreciate any of this. You know and your comment about them being victims of the law, I appreciate that, I think it`s true,
but I would say victims of far right-wing ideology.
And I think, you know, that`s what I think when I saw this Bundy group going, you know, go and occupy this refuge. This idea that you`re going to
do these amazing great things and aren`t amazing or great and is going to turn out wonderful that turns out terrible and it shares them leads part.
And that`s really what I think the story of my parents is.
MARTIN: I think, Emily, I just want to say, you are so courageous. You might have say that they really resonated with me and that`s, if you see
something and you said, "Maybe you should have said something or taken her to an emergency room". And we have the power to do that, even within our
own family, even our parents on that.
You can tell a teacher. You can tell a school administrator. People what are called mandatory reporters. They have to report neglect and abuse of
children. So I hope people watching this get that message. That`s an important message.
PINSKY: Absolutely. And, Emily, you say, we heard from that allegedly, the aunt said the medical treatment was refused not because of religion,
but because your mom was paranoid of physicians particularly, is that true?
E. WALTON: I mean, my mom was paranoid of a lot of things. Like, there are two reasons I am comfortable with calling it faith healing, right?
When we were children, Mariah didn`t look healthy. My parents would have us gather around Mariah and pray, that the devil wouldn`t comeback into
Mariah, or that if we were like very obedient children that the devil would stop showing up and like, you know, that don`t being inside Mariah or
something. So that`s crazy.
PINSKY: Great. That`s good, she blames you guys for her heart condition. Well done.
E. WALTON: Yes. Our disobedience, so, you know, there`s that. And then, there`s the fact that I asked them a lot when I was old enough to
understand what was going on, you know, before (inaudible) they can ask them to Mariah to the doctor. And my mom said, we just don`t believe in
that.
PINSKY: Yeah, OK.
E. WALTON: So whatever that means, you guys, that to me it`s obvious.
PINSKY: Well, I don`t believe that the sun -- I don`t believe the sun comes up. I don`t believe in reality. I don`t believe whatever. That`s
not an excuse more neglect.
And I just got to say, you know, the paranoia, the hyperreligiosity, what if it is a mental illness? Does she have any kind of defense there? Well,
if it`s not about religious freedom or what it does, she had liabilities if you just say this is a personality disorder or this is thought disturbance,
it really the religiosity with a symptom of something else that caused her to hide those First Amendment.
AZARI: I think it`s a stretch.
PINSKY: She`s sounds not well.
AZARI: I mean, it`s either mental illness or there`s this archaic law that allows this exemption. I think it`s a stretch to say that she`s so fanatic
and has this ideology because she`s mentally ill. I mean, I think we all agree that she probably ...
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: But you understand that hyperreligiosity is a symptom of mental illness?
AZARI: Yes.
KAVINOKY: But there`s a difference between being legally insane and not ...
PINSKY: I didn`t say illegally insane. I`m saying, can she hide behind some sort of diagnosis? And I`m not advocating for this.
MARTIN: No.
KAVINOKY: Probably not
(CROSSTALK)
KAVINOKY: ... to crazy variety, not the legal defense variety.
PINSKY: The usual variety of crazy, OK.
Emily, listen, god bless you. Here is where God did his work. You got your sister to medical care. Hopefully, she get a hard lung. Those
actually go very, very well. I`m sorry she has to go through all this. I can`t tell you how upset I am but I appreciate you standing up and not just
helping your sister but helping anyone else who might be in a situation like this.
E. WALTON: All right, thank you.
PINSKY: All right, next off, newly released x-rated text messages from pedophile Jared Fogle. They reveal how much he was willing to pay for a
child under 16. The disgusting details when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Hey, Jared.
JARED FOGLE, PEDOPHILE: Hey, guys.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For 15 years Jared Fogle enjoy the spotlight of being of one of America`s biggest pitchman.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prosecutors painted a picture of the ex-Subway spokesman as a person leading a double life, publically encouraging
Americans to eat healthy, privately engaging in sexual acts with prostitutes and looking at sexually explicit images of children.
Prosecutor Josh Minkler said, Fogle`s punishment fits the crime, 15 years in prison for victimizing 14 minors.
JOSH MINKLER, PROSECUTOR: I think it`s fitting that if he is treated more harshly in prison, then he deserves it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fogle`s attorneys said hope for a lesser sentence of five years fearing he might be targeted by other prisoners.
PINSKY: It`s "HLN Icon", we have a bombshell tonight. WE have newly released x-rated text messages from Subway pitchman turned convicted
pedophile, Jared Fogle.
Prosecutor say, "The sexually charged texts should keep him locked up for years". I want to play it for you an audio recreation. Here it is.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
FOGLE: So, I have a proposition for you. And it`s something I would pay you very well if you were able to help.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK, what is it let me know?
FOGLE: Do you have any access to any young girls? Like 15 or 16?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why, baby?
FOGLE: Because it`s what I crave. I would hook you up nicely if you did.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much because I have a cousin who is 15.
FOGLE: What`s she look like? If she`s good looking, I will give you 300 and her the same.
PINSKY: Everybody get your nausea medicine, handy. I feel I vomit episode coming on here.
I`m back with the Areva, Sara, Darren. Sara, you aren`t believe --here`s the defense, Attorney, so I`ll let you defend this man, how bad if he
thinks he deserves less time?
AZARI: OK. He is basically what Jared Fogle saying is, he saying that these were fantasies ...
PINSKY: Please don`t say slippery slope.
AZARI: No spiller slope.
(CROSSTALK)
KAVINOKY: No slope.
PINSKY: Thank you, you too
KAVINOKY: I`m just glad you`re finally stepping up to advocate on behalf or Jared Fogle, as need -- no, you`re not.
PINSKY: No, stop it. I`m going back to my religious beliefs if I kill you.
ARIZA: He`s saying that these are fantasies, right. They didn`t actually affect the conduct, OK? So these should not be used against me in
sentencing. But I have news for him, relevant conduct, even if intended at a federal sentencing can be considered by a judge as an aggravating factor
for sentencing. And that`s what this judge did when he gave him more than the 12 years that was bargained for in the plea agreement.
But, he`s in his right to appeal the sentence because he`s more than he bargained for. Usually the judge goes with what the party`s agreed to in
plea agreement. In this case, the judge was probably was (inaudible) as you are. And he said, "You know what, no, I need to depart from this and I
have to give them 15 years." So, I think he`s right in his rights appeal.
Now, the issue I have is with the prosecution who clearly thought that 12 years is enough at the end of the spectrum. We`re not coming back saying,
"Oh no, you know, we`re going to go with what he got, which is 15. And that`s the problem I have, is the government bargained for a maximum of 12
years. Now the government is coming in saying, "Oh, but we like this".
MARTIN: I disagree with you on this. The government said to him, "We will agree to make this recommendation but you know in all these plea
agreements, it`s very clear that the discretion of the judge is what`s going to matter, and there`s no agreement that you`re getting ...
AZARI: Absolutely.
MARTIN: ... that time in the document. That`s an agreement to recommend. It`s not an agreement to sentence."
AZARI: But they are going against the recommendation. They recommended 12 years in writing, in the plea agreement, and now that he`s appealed and
wants 12 years, they are saying, "No. We want the 15."
MARTIN: That`s not what they did in the plea agreement.
PINSKY: I`m going to serve you up, Darren. I`m going to serve you another group of text messages, an exchange.
KAVINOKY: Perfect.
PINSKY: Here`s an audio recreation and then you got a chance to comment, Darren, about your slippery slope with this pedophile. Go ahead.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
FOGLE: It`s Jay again. It was good seeing you at Harrah`s. I`m horny again. Is your Asian friends available?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are you going to pay me too or can I comeback?
FOGLE: I can pay you a little finder`s fee. I`ll pay you big for a 14 or 15-year-old.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
PINSKY: So, Darren, if he were a John out on the street talking to a prostitute, the cop would go, here`s your handcuffs, right?
KAVINOKY: Yes.
PINSKY: Why is this different?
KAVINOKY: Well, look, here we`re talking about a plea bargain case. And there`s two kinds of plea bargains that are available. Sometimes you can
plea bargain for a specific period of time where everybody is on board. I`m pleading guilty. I`m going to get exactly this amount of time.
This was different. This was a plea bargain where the defense said, look, we`re going to argue that we`ve got to suffer at least five years and the
prosecutor said, "We`re going to argue for a max of 12.5."
Judge is not constrained by that, as we have been talking about. A federal judge has the power to ...
PINSKY: Are we arguing about three years?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
MARIN: He could have gotten 50. Let`s just bring this back to reality. What he was charged with and what they could prove, he would have been
facing 50 years in jail. This guy got off easy.
PINSKY: His buddy who merely provided him the materials got 20 something years.
(CROSSTALK)
KAVINOKY: Oh wait, no, not merely. His buddy was in charge of production. His buddy was ...
MARTIN: Yes, his buddy has a bigger role.
KAVINOKY: Much worse off ...
MARTIN: Yeah. And my question is this ...
PINSKY: What? What`s worse off?
(CROSSTALK)
AZARI: What`s going on with the punter? What`s going on with this woman?
PINSKY: Oh, I want to know that, too. Oh I want to know that too. Maybe she made the deal to give him the text or something. But that woman, she
needs to be put a way as long as or longer than this guy.
AZARI: This is at the Hollywood (inaudible), with adults prostitutes. This is children she`s exploiting.
PINSKY: Why do you, guys -- this whole show tonight about how you guys move away from principle and into these specific circumstances. The
principle is, he had intent to buy sexual favors from a child. If he had the intent to buy from a prostitute, you would prosecute him. If he went
up to a child and did something or tried to do something, you would prosecute him.
He went nearly that far with this woman to have an exchange, a business exchange to give money to get her niece. I`m vomiting again. Why is it
not the same thing?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Let`s be clear.
KAVINOKY: This is the context about what the fight is about is whether the judge exceeded her power.
PINSKY: He did -- thank god. Thank god. She used her discretion and she was a wise judge. She should laugh when they come back in and ask for a
reduction.
MARTIN: I want the record to reflect that I`m 100 percent aligning with you, Dr. Drew. I think the guy got off easy. And the nerve of him to
fight over three years when he could have been facing 50 years ...
(CROSSTALK)
PINSKY: Mark this date. Mark this date. In one hour, Areva Martin and Dr. Drew Pinsky agree 100 percent on one particular, clear, issue that we
think that judge should laugh these guys out of the court when they come back. Her discretionary judgment was outstanding.
I`ve got more. I have the reporter coming up who secretly recorded. Remember, the woman that recorded the conversations? I`ve got her. She
recorded her conversation with Jared Fogle. He tried to prey her own children. I got to know how she survived these conversations. They were
just -- I just don`t have words to describe it. I`m anxious to talk to her.
We`ll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
FOGLE: I just landed in Vegas.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How was your flight, honey?
FOGLE: It was good. Did you find me some young girls or boys?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. I`ve been looking too.
FOGLE: Can you find me some?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much will you give me for doing it?
FOGLE: Depends, on, if they can prove their age. If they can and you get me 16 or below, I`ll give you 400 at least.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
PINSKY: That is an audio recreation of text messages between Jared Fogle and a woman, prosecutors say, got him children for sex.
This is a horrific story. This man, the man in that text exchange, Jared Fogle, wants his sentence for child molestation reduced.
Prosecutors say, "I agree his texts prove, well, they say he proved his determination to seek sex with minors. I say they prove the level of
depravity and the profundity of his pedophilia.
Back with Areva, Sara and Darren, and joining us, I`m very privileged to have Rochelle Herman. She is the journalist who really blew this whole
thing open. She`s secretly recorded Jared Fogle and then shared these recordings with the FBI. Now, the FBI is not confirming any of her
accounts. I want to play for you first this from "Dr. Phil Show."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROCHELLE HERMAN, FORMER FBI UNDERCOVER AGENT: What ages seems to be the easiest?
FOGLE: You know, I don`t know. Like, you know, early middle school probably one of the best.
HERMAN: Yeah?
FOGLE: You know, they don`t know if they`re coming or going.
HERMAN: Mm-hm.
FOGLE: I could see you -- out a young, you know, sixth or seventh grader, you know, just .
HERMAN: Need to find out if they`d be all right with that?
FOGLE: No, they definitely are all right with that. They`re very much into exploring and, you know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PINSKY: Rochelle, I want to thank you for being here and thank you for putting yourself in the position to help out this horrific criminal,
frankly. And those of us who are listening to this story throughout the evolution, we all felt so much for you and wondered how you tolerated this.
It was so much to go through.
HERMAN: Well, it`s hard to explain the pressure I was under. And I want to thank you for having me here this evening. But the toll it took, I`m
comforted in knowing I was just one small cog in a very large investigation that spanned over many years. I have nothing but the highest regard for
all the FBI I met and worked with. I tried my best to be a valuable member of their worldwide team.
PINSKY: But, Rochelle, we heard you -- I could just -- I would literally, I almost had to take nausea medicine myself to hear what you had to sit
through with this creep trying to -- or thinking he was manipulating you into bringing your own children into this. It was breathtaking. And you
just -- you stood strong. I just wonder what in those moments was going through your mind.
HERMAN: Complete shock, frankly. I mean, at times it was even too dangerous for my children to live with me. So you can imagine how I felt.
You know, I had to send them to their father. It was just extremely stressful. I knew that I needed to concentrate and move forward with as
much strength as I could put together.
PINSKY: Areva, do have question?
MARTIN: Rochelle, I have a question for you. As a lawyer, when I look at the text messages, the first thing goes through my mind is why was he
memorializing this conduct. Did he ever ask you to keep these conversations secret or do anything to try to .
PINSKY: Or did he even understand how deprived, deprave this was?
KAVINOKY: This is just damn stupid.
MARTIN: Did he understand what he was doing .
PINSKY: Yeah.
MARTIN: . by writing these things in a text message?
HERMAN: No. He did not. He was very comfortable sharing this information with me and, you know, frankly, I really believe that he`s done it before.
I don`t understand how I could have been the first.
PINSKY: Oh, there`s no doubt in my mind, Rochelle, you`re absolutely right. Nor the last if he gets out. I mean, he`s -- this guy has got to
be watched with cameras, something on him 24/7.
HERMAN: If he gets out.
MARTIN: He is going to get out.
PINSKY: 2029, right, is when he`s getting out.
KAVINOKY: When he`s eligible or parole. And under the federal system, you do most of your time, you`ll do 80 percent plus.
AZARI: Yeah, exactly.
PINSKY: It`s stunning to think about how they`re going to have -- because this is not going away. This is not a part-time endeavor. This is someone
with a chronic condition that is recalcitrant. And it`s going to be a preoccupation when he comes out as much as before he went in.
We have more of this when we come back. Be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PINSKY: Next month, Jared Fogle`s defense team faces off with attorneys for the government. They are battling over the 15-year sentence for child
porn, child sexual assault. Back with Areva, Sara, Darren, and Rochelle.
Darren, as it stands, as I said, he`ll be eligible for parole in 2029. He needs to be somewhere put away.
KAVINOKY: Yeah, it`s interesting. I`m looking into my crystal ball. I don`t think his appeal is going anywhere. The real issue is whether the
judge abused her discretion. I think the answer is no.
PINSKY: There are some questions about the family.
MARTIN: Yes. I do, I want to know. This man has a wife or ex-wife and two daughters. So, I`m wondering should they visit him in prison or try to
reunite with him?
PINSKY: The daughters need a professional therapist. They need someone who`s working with these kids but my bet is, yes, that the daughters have
to have a relationship where they reconcile. This says nothing about him. This is about the fact that the daughters need to reconcile that they have
a very, very sick father.
But, Rochelle, do you have any further thoughts on this case as we sort of -- he`s starting to wrangle over three years. I think he gets what he gets
and that`s that.
HERMAN: Well, you know, I do believe that justice will be served. You know, going in for the appeal is, to me, ludicrous.
PINSKY: Yeah, yeah.
HERMAN: It really is.
AZARI: It`s his right.
PINSKY: Yeah, I .
AZARI: It`s ludicrous.
PINSKY: ... but it his right, yes, and it`s ludicrous.
MARTIN: And he`s contested his right to deny the appeal. So .
PINSKY: Yes. It`s .
MARTIN: . it`s going to be denied.
AZARI: And he`s not going to prevail because if there`s no abuse of discretion here.
PINSKY: I know. And I know there`s a billable hours that we`re forsaking for you, Sara. But this is -- I apologize, but yeah. No, no, I agree with
you.
Rochelle, again, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for the work you did. This is a dangerous person and he`s where he needs to be, and he
needs to be carefully under lock and key for a long, long time.
Thank you all for watching. We`ll see you next time. Nancy Grace, up next.
END
