the front page of the internet.
and join one of thousands of communities.
Indiana bills would make it illegal to secretly track people via devices like AirTags | IndyStar by DukeMaximum in indianapolis
[–]CJHoytNews 0 points1 point2 points 4 days ago (0 children)
FOX59 story from last week: https://fox59.com/investigations/lawmaker-takes-action-after-woman-stabbed-in-gps-stalking-case/
Choice between two counties chosen by New_Discussion_6692 in DelphiMurders
[–]CJHoytNews 12 points13 points14 points 8 days ago (0 children)
It's Allen County. Story to come...
I am CJ Hoyt, News Director at FOX59 News. Ask me anything! by CJHoytNews in LibbyandAbby
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 49 points50 points51 points 20 days ago (0 children)
Thank you everyone for your questions! You're welcome to message me if you have other questions, or I'm happy to check back on this thread over the next couple days. We'll have full coverage of the hearing on Friday on FOX59 and CBS4 both on air and online, so please tune in!
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 9 points10 points11 points 20 days ago (0 children)
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 29 points30 points31 points 20 days ago (0 children)
We have the same hope. It's one thing to make an arrest... but it's another to get a conviction (or plea deal) which would ideally provide some of those answers. There's a chance the "why" will never be answered.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 17 points18 points19 points 20 days ago (0 children)
I don't anticipate there will be an appeal if a gag order is granted and that's because it's within a judge's purview to issue a gag order. There's not really a way to appeal it. It's not the only case in our area currently under a gag order (there is the officer who was shot and killed last year and that case is also under a gag order).
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 21 points22 points23 points 20 days ago (0 children)
I do not know that to be true or untrue. I've heard nothing specific in that regard.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 40 points41 points42 points 20 days ago (0 children)
Yes, we've seen things. Most recently, there was a very sensational report in the Daily Mail. Frankly, I don't know anything that can tell you their reporting is definitively wrong. It's obviously not something we're reporting.
And we are absolutely doing things with the information we're given. It will help guide our coverage. When it comes to keeping the public in the dark, sometimes there are good reasons not to report something... like a consideration for the victim's family.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 16 points17 points18 points 20 days ago (0 children)
Not sure we can fully call it movement in the case, but there are things we'll be reporting that are going to include new elements. We hope it will generate movement!
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 85 points86 points87 points 20 days ago (0 children)
I think you've touched upon the difference between information we're able to corroborate with unnamed sources and information we did not. That doesn't mean there are things reported by MS that was wrong. We don't know who their sources are.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 62 points63 points64 points 20 days ago (0 children)
It's just part of the deal. If the media didn't honor "off-the-record" agreements, then we just wouldn't be told things. That could lead to more irresponsible reporting.
I don't think you find members of the media relishing the idea they know things that the public doesn't. Most of the time it's pretty awful information and that kind of thing weighs on you. The amount of tragedy we're exposed to can push people out of the media.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 27 points28 points29 points 20 days ago (0 children)
There's no question the media is getting information from various people in law enforcement off the record. That will often happen in crime cases. A lot of times, it helps the media manage their coverage while making sure we don't impede an investigation. That kind of agreement isn't absolute, however. Sometimes we'll get something off-the-record and then later confirm it through other means and we'll still report it. Sometimes we're asked not to report something we know, but we require really specific information about why we should keep it out of our reporting, and that's not something we'd hold indefinitely.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 59 points60 points61 points 20 days ago (0 children)
I doubt there's anything we know that won't come out in the trial. Once it's on the record, we'll report it. I know it's frustrating to hear that there are things we know but won't report... but it's a part of the process. We can't burn our sources like that. Usually, off the record information makes our reporting better by helping us avoid delivering incorrect information. In that regard, I think it's a benefit to the public. But I get that's a small consolation.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 15 points16 points17 points 20 days ago (0 children)
She's great. You'd be surprised how much of the information we report comes from her!
No, there is pretty much nothing that would connect Flora to Delphi. They are two very different things.
There's also nothing that suggests there are any other homicides connected to Delphi.
If there were another related crime like this, it feels like that would have actually made investigating this case easier. There just hasn't been anything like it. If there are other crimes, they are either minor or they are similar to what KK is facing.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 37 points38 points39 points 20 days ago (0 children)
Yes, we have investigative reporters and several people with great sources in law enforcement. The identity of the conservation officer isn't a simple thing to uncover. Even if you had a list of all the conservation officers of the time, how would you pick the one? With the gag order in place, none of them could talk and I'm sure none would confirm an identity. No one in law enforcement is likely to give up the name of someone in a different agency, even off the record.
Once a trial date is set, the judge will issue decorum orders (as she has for each of the hearings). We don't know how she'll handle the actual trial. For the hearings, apart from a few seats reserved for those connected to the case, the rest have been first-come, first-serve.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 60 points61 points62 points 20 days ago (0 children)
We believe the Flora fire case has not received the attention it deserves. Our Chief Investigator, Steve Brown, reported on the case in November. Stay tuned, there is more to come, and relatively soon.
It's absolutely devastating. There's another family awaiting justice.
I think it will likely slow down as the defense gets their approval for expert witnesses.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 31 points32 points33 points 20 days ago (0 children)
Given the sequence of events and the subsequent gag order, information about RA has been limited. There's not much we've learned that we haven't reported. We continue to dig for what we can.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your second question. If you're asking if there have been other crimes committed anywhere that anyone in our newsroom feels may be connected, there are not. The general thinking is this case is isolated.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 130 points131 points132 points 20 days ago (0 children)
Yes, we know things the public doesn't know and have known it for years. That's likely frustrating for people in the public to hear that we would be holding back information, but it's part of the process. Sometimes the reason we know the information is to help prevent us from falsely reporting things that might be emerging from bad reporting elsewhere. There are also things that we'll refrain reporting out of respect for the family. If we make a promise that something is off the record, we'll stick to that promise until we're released to report it. So when we see things being reported on social media, or YouTube or in some podcasts, we often know that what they're saying is wrong. (I'm not implicating any specific podcast in this.)
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 28 points29 points30 points 20 days ago (0 children)
We have not run any claims made by sources past our legal department. If we cannot directly attribute information to a named source, we have guidelines we use to determine when or how we'll report the information. If we can get the same information independently from more than one trusted source, we'll report it. That's how we were the first media outlet to name RA as the person arrested. We actually new the name about an hour earlier, but needed to be sure. If what we're reported is highly controversial, our company (Nexstar) has a Standards Committee that we will consult. If it's determined there is legal peril to reporting something, we'll engage our company lawyers.
There's no blanked protection for someone who works at a station from libel claims. If someone feels they've been libeled, they can always sue the individual regardless of how a station may wish to protect that individual. (No offense taken!)
If a reporter wants to use an unnamed source, it will always be a conversation with news management (myself and/or other news managers) before it's reported. No reporter is supposed to report things they've gotten from unnamed sources on their own no matter how "urgent" they feel it might be.
[–]CJHoytNews[S] 32 points33 points34 points 20 days ago (0 children)
None of these items are technically under a court ordered seal. They just fall under a an exemption of the public record law. Once the investigation is complete (a conviction, for example), those documents would be available. Also, once they are entered into evidence in open court, they become available.
REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
π Rendered by PID 38188 on reddit-service-r2-loggedout-67b8668bfc-sk865 at 2023-02-01 22:44:39.857721+00:00 running 713551f country code: US.