Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Labonte18: "
<<"I will say.. Since he was not arrested.. That means they found nothing on scene." >>
Isn't it true that if Jared deleted offensive things that he was sent on his computer, that there is still a "footprint" of that on the hard drive? When you say he was not arrested (*so everything must be okay..) what if that is the reason they took the computer, to dive DEEP into the computer to find things he possibly deleted?
Means exactly what I said.. They found nothing on scene. The scouring back at the FBI lab will dig deeper.. But, only so much. They're not going to invest the same time and money on this that they might a terrorism investigation, I wouldn't think. And recovering shredded files requires ALOT of time and money. I'm not talking the simple "Hit delete and empty recycle bin".. We're talking overwriting the file with random data 35 times.. "Gutmann Method". Had they found a folder on the desktop with gigs of child porn, he'd have been immediately arrested. So, we know that didn't happen.
Then we could get into the whole encryption thing.. It could take weeks or longer to break encryption, and there's some they cannot break. There's cases where people have actually been arrested for contempt for not giving their passwords over because LE couldn't break their encryption. In general, nowadays.. This is weird, but true.. Most courts agree that the 5th amendment protects you from having to give authorities your passwords.. HOWEVER.. Biometrics, such as a fingerprint, are not protected. So, if you lock your iPhone with a fingerprint, you can be compelled to unlock it.. But if you use a password, you cannot be compelled to give that. Ah, America, you're a strange old bird, aren't you?
Here's the thing.. If this is a situation where his former charity director fingered him.. And it is a false accusation.. The FBI will come back with a "We have an obligation to investigate.." line.. But, people are already seeing that the damage is done. So, they would have a tough road with that, because what evidence the guy gave them will come out, and if it's at all sketchy ("he said..." type thing) then they will, probably rightfully so, be heavily criticized. Which will probably affect future investigations. They went in too publicly with this, I think. Typical of police in this day and age. Possibly the smarter thing to do.. Send in 4 agents, all in a plain car.. 2 monitor the perimeter of the house, 2 knock and serve warrant.. It's kept quiet.. If it's all bullcrap, noone knows. If it's not, then you have your big press conference. What was served by having so many people at that search, other than publicity? This was done with so many people, at least partially, knowing that it'd hit the news wire.
It's a real problem with a situation like this.. On one hand, you can agree with them that the investigation needs to happen, but if the evidence is at all sketchy, knowing that it will destroy a life.. Where does that balance lie? It's simple to say "Whatever is necessary when children are at risk".. But.. The accused is at risk as well.. And, if it is a 'simple' possession case.. There's arguments to be made here.
I hold to the innocent until proven guilty.. So, right now, I think of him as innocent. Does it all make me raise an eyebrow? Yep.. Could that opinion change? Yep.
One note.. We're all assuming that this is a child porn investigation.. It's also possible that whatever the director's name was fingered him as a drug kingpin or something.. after all, they had dogs there.. Seems to me that dogs can't necessarily sniff out data. Perhaps looking for hidden compartments or something? But.. In general, you think dogs, you think drugs. The feds have said nothing.. The child porn has been assumed by everyone.. Though, I do think local police said something about it.
They have to analyze everything first before an arrest is made but they are calling him a suspect. Now the foundation was ran out of his home supposedly; So they have to do their due diligence. Jmo.
But since postal inspectors were there as well; Then he mailed or received something of illegality worth. I think they may have taped conversations with him and Taylor as well. Jmo.
Or people just don't automatically think that a search of a house, or even an arrest means someone is automatically guilty.
It just means they have enough to jack your whole life up whether guilty or not. But the postal inspectors were not there for stamp fraud. He probably was caught sending and receiving evidence via usps as well. Jmo
It just means they have enough to jack your whole life up whether guilty or not. But the postal inspectors were not there for stamp fraud. He probably was caught sending and receiving evidence via usps as well. Jmo
Im not defending him but just because you receive a package does not mean you are guilty of something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.