ShareThis Page
Nation

Ex-Subway pitchman in suit: Victim's parents to blame

| Friday, Sept. 2, 2016, 2:24 a.m.
Jared Fogle, imprisoned for child pornography and sex abuse, says the parents of one of his female victims are to blame for what he describes as her 'destructive behaviors.'
Jared Fogle, imprisoned for child pornography and sex abuse, says the parents of one of his female victims are to blame for what he describes as her 'destructive behaviors.'

INDIANAPOLIS — Subway's former pitchman imprisoned for child pornography and sex abuse is arguing in a court filing that the parents of one of his female victims are to blame for what he describes as her “destructive behaviors.”

Jared Fogle's motion filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis also argues that the parents may be responsible for the girl's injuries alleged in a civil lawsuit against him.

The victim was a subject in some of the child pornography in Fogle's criminal case and filed a lawsuit against him in March. It seeks monetary damages for, among other things, personal injury and emotional distress.

Fogle's filing alleges the parents fought and abused alcohol in front of her. It argues that's among the causes of her distress and contends the parents may be liable for some or all of her claims against Fogle.

Fogle was sentenced in November to more than 15 years in prison after pleading guilty to distributing and receiving child pornography and traveling out of state to engage in illicit sexual conduct with a minor. Fogle has paid restitution to his victims, but they can still sue him and seek additional money.

The parents are not named in the court documents, and the victim is referred to only by the pseudonym “Jane Doe.”

Fogle's Thursday filing also points the finger at the parents' divorce, describing it as acrimonious. “Custody and parenting time (agreements),” it says, “required Jane Doe to constantly rotate her living arrangements caused unnecessary stress, anxiety, and trauma for Jane Doe.”

The victim's lawsuit, which seeks at least $300,000 in damages, names Fogle and the former head of his anti-obesity charity, Russell Taylor. Taylor's wife is also a defendant in the suit.

Prosecutors who charged Fogle and Taylor last year said Taylor used cameras hidden in the Indianapolis-area homes where he lived to secretly film 12 minors and shared some of the images with Fogle. The pornography was produced over a four-year period.

Fogle encouraged Taylor to continue filming children, who were recorded as they were nude, changing clothes or engaged in other activities while visiting Taylor's homes, prosecutors said.

The Indiana girl suing was among those filmed and has suffered “significant emotional trauma,” her attorney M. Michael Stephenson said around the time the suit was filed.

The girl's attorneys didn't immediately respond to an after-hours inquiry from The Associated Press seeking comment on the latest filing.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me