The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Churchhoney]

11 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

I wonder if Boob is still getting a sizeable check from the cellphone tower that's sitting on his property?

I've never been able to figure out why he would. I expect that that was a JB boast that doesn't have a huge amount of substance.

There's a fair amount of open plots of land where he lives, not much in the way of mountains or other obstructing geography, and only pretty average cellphone demand, I would think. .... In other words, they can't really need a ton of towers there, and I'd think there would be a lot of property they could use for the ones that they do need. ...

That being the case, you'd only get a modest annual payment because they have so many options for places to put the tower. They never had to fight for it. He got a little lucky in being the guy to get one, but I'd be shocked if he gets more than a few thousand a year from it. That's nice but it doesn't go very far for a household of 30. 

[Obsidian]

Warning: rambling ahead

Many here seem to believe that this is an attempt to get a payout, quite likely instigated by Jim Bob, and I think so too. He and Michelle raised their children to have little education and few critical thinking skills, to believe that their parents are godly umbrellas of protection, to believe Gothard's crap about abuse and their parents' perverted beliefs about sex, and to not just live but to think within very strict parameters of their religion. This has been so successfully done that we refer to the adult children as 'kidults' and are constantly pointing out how unaware they are of how they come across, particularly Jill and Derick with their mission and newsletters and Jessa and Ben with their whatever. 

And yet I am reading that they need to be humiliated by lawyers, to grow up and see the truth and to start making sense. How would they do that when they are living in that stunted world? Some people do, but they don't seem to have. We see a lot of them but do they see much of us, so that their eyes can be opened to alternative views and an idea of how they come across? Do they have the ability to think critically enough to doubt their parents? 

Then there's the whole issue of them being famous and cashing in on it. That was their dear parents' doing. They had zero choice, I'm sure. Yes, they're continuing to peddle themselves and their ideas, but why would they stop when it's the only way of life they know and probably all they have to feel productive, and an easy way for them to get a chance to be lazy for once and still earn a living? They did spend their childhoods working, after all. Now they're copying the adult lives modelled by their parents. Being publicly known doesn't mean the public has the right to know everything.

Back to Boob doing this. He's the main umbrella and probably always right. Yeah, they're going to contradict themselves because they're parroting their horrific parents within a context of their horrific upbringing and the horrific Gothard teachings. The abuse was nothing to Jill and Jessa because Daddy said so. It's embarrassing to have it public because... whyever they think it is. To be able to say all they've said without seeing a problem with the contradictions, to the point that they'll take it to court, well, that's the level of awareness they're approaching things with. The fact that their father (or a lawyer) would put them through this when they're so vulnerable to being ripped to logical shreds is a reflection on him, not so much them. 

I seem to be going for the 'stupid and brainwashed' defence. Sorry, J-women, if I'm underestimating you and you are capable of living up to the higher standards that other members here are expecting of you. 

[hathorlive]

38 minutes ago, Obsidian said:

And yet I am reading that they need to be humiliated by lawyers, to grow up and see the truth and to start making sense. How would they do that when they are living in that stunted world? Some people do, but they don't seem to have. We see a lot of them but do they see much of us, so that their eyes can be opened to alternative views and an idea of how they come across? Do they have the ability to think critically enough to doubt their parents? 

I don't think we are saying they NEED to be humiliated by lawyers, but that they ARE going to be humiliated by lawyers because they have no clue about what can of worms they are opening.

And now, the kids didn't ask to be on TV but you have to admit Jill and Jessa have willingly joined the famewhore train.  Which one whined about her molestation by her brother by saying there goes her big wedding or baby shower?  I mean, perspective here.  If you are so traumatized people found out, why is your "big moment" more important? Because they are willing participants of it now. 

If the lawsuit is the girls' idea, then they are responsible for what happens.  If they get into the middle of depositions and don't like being grilled by lawyers, they can walk away.  It can be hard to break free of being controlled, but it is doable.  What they don't get to do in a court of law is continue to keep protecting their molester and minimizing the harm that was done to them and then claim they were harmed by In Touch and the city they live in.  At some point, cognitive dissonance will kick in and they are in for a world of hurt.

The problem here is that most of us understand that lawyers are paid to be mean.  If you've ever testified in a court case, its the worst thing you could ever experience.  If anything, we are warning them what's about to happen.  But again, you don't get to sue everyone for your suffering and then not provide official sworn testimony about that suffering.  They can't have it both ways.

I don't think anyone here wants them to be ripped to shreds in court but we know it's a trainwreck that their parents should never have started.

[sometimesy]

When does the next season of "Counting On 10-15 million from Lawsuits" start? In the next few weeks isn't it? 

[Sew Sumi]

June 12. 

[GeeGolly]

Well I'm guessing there's one thing we can all agree on, or maybe not, but I'm thinking Josh can't be happy with this court case. Whether or not he chalks his actions up to teenage curiosity or whatever, his name is going to be plastered all over the internet. And the tabloids will throw in Ashley Madison and the Ok Cupid photo thing too.

The girls should get points for not protecting Josh this time around. 

[Mollie]

10 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Well I'm guessing there's one thing we can all agree on, or maybe not, but I'm thinking Josh can't be happy with this court case. Whether or not he chalks his actions up to teenage curiosity or whatever, his name is going to be plastered all over the internet. And the tabloids will throw in Ashley Madison and the Ok Cupid photo thing too.

The girls should get points for not protecting Josh this time around. 

I bet that business is really down at Josh's used car lot.  I wonder if people show up there just to ask him questions.

[ginger90]

Prior to this lawsuit,  was it out there as fact that Jinger was a victim? (My brain may not have retained that info)

[GeeGolly]

46 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Prior to this lawsuit,  was it out there as fact that Jinger was a victim? (My brain may not have retained that info)

Kind of, sort of, but not really. If you read the report you knew Joy was one because she was the 5 year old. One could assume Jana wasn't because one of the girls who wasn't touched mentioned things an older girl was doing. Most folks assumed it was Jill, Jessa, Jinger and Joy.

[JoanArc]

8 hours ago, sometimesy said:

When does the next season of "Counting On 10-15 million from Lawsuits" start? In the next few weeks isn't it? 

It's more like "14 Million.....and pregnant again!"

[Churchhoney]

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Well I'm guessing there's one thing we can all agree on, or maybe not, but I'm thinking Josh can't be happy with this court case. Whether or not he chalks his actions up to teenage curiosity or whatever, his name is going to be plastered all over the internet. And the tabloids will throw in Ashley Madison and the Ok Cupid photo thing too.

The girls should get points for not protecting Josh this time around. 

Do we know for sure that they're not going to protect him when push comes to shove, though? That's something I'm puzzled about in this, too. The lawsuit suggests that. But then there's the talk from the time of the original revelations -- and the fact that in between the whole family's been full of anger and crying: About his Ashley Madison behavior. ..... Remember how, when they talked on the show about their walk of fire and so on, that it was all about adultery and his evilness as an adulterer.. And the child molestation stuff didn't come up at all?                       

I mean, the rest of the world focuses on that. But we've had very clear indications for years now that that family, for whatever reasons, does not. At least when speaking in a public forum (although I expect not at all, period.... don't know for sure, though, of course).

Anyway, what I'm really wondering about is the cognitive dissonance of all that and what JB actually expects the girls to say about it under questioning and what they expect to say..... I mean, if they're expecting to repeat the stuff they've said in the past, then that means they go right on defending Joshley, in fact saying that the police reports and In Touch completely mangled the story of "their family," falsified it -- and it seemed pretty clear that they meant not just the story of the girls and the parents but the story of Josh, too. ............

And then, on the other hand, if somehow the family story has now changed -- and now they actually are expected (by JB and M) to say and are themselves expecting to say that, yes, they were affected by what he did at the time and they did know about it and it was some level of trauma that the publication of it renewed for them...............Well, yes, then they won't be defending Joshley, which is good. (Hopefully they wouldn't be defending their parents' indefensible behavior, either, but I find it literally impossible to imagine that JB's contemplating that possibility, although perhaps I'm underestimating him...).... Anyway, if they do go this route (And I don't see how it's possible for Joy and Jinger not to go this route, since we know they were awake...), then another problem arises. Because this route completely conflicts with tons of evidence that's already out there of everybody who's spoken completely and totally minimizing it and strenuously defending Josh and the parents. (and, as I think I recall, kind of implying that they were speaking to some extent for all the victims, not just the two who appeared on Fox, although I'm not sure about that.) .....

In any case, though, if they stop defending him, then they have a big credibility problem with having said the exact opposite previously -- and not at the time of the actual events, when people might be more understanding of your being in denial or confusion, but just a couple of years ago... 

Anyway, I'm really really wondering to what degree they've thought all this through. And what JB and M are expecting and wanting the girls to say and what the girls are expecting and planning to say. And whether the girls have the slightest idea of how much they maybe required to say.

I really have a hard time believing that it has been thought through to this level and that the girls really understand what they're being asked to do here. And I have a hard time seeing that now, suddenly, JB would be on board with the idea that the girls will blame Josh and speak of this as if it actually was traumatic to some degree-- because in that case they certainly have to blame JB and M, too, for being incredibly negligent in their approach to all the kids, don't they? 

This is the thing that horrifies me most about the whole mess. I just don't believe that the girls know what the hell they're getting into. And if they don't....well, wow.

I just hope somebody, anybody, settles quickly. But I'm sure that's not going to happen. 

[Churchhoney]

Another thing that baffles me, among so many. 

CNN and NBC are really courting them for interviews, potentially paid interviews??? (well, the idea of "paid interviews" drives me insane anyway, especially in cases like this where you really are supposedly interviewing these people because their situation is news ... but anyway...)

Anyway -- are they really still that much of a tv draw any more? Does more than about 1 percent of American even have the slightest idea who they are? And has anybody at those networks listened to them talk? Ever? Like, to a talking head on the show?   .... Because what are they expecting from people who literally say nothing but the same euphemistic and completely unclear cliches over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? For years on end?

Just WTF?

[queenanne]

5 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Another thing that baffles me, among so many. 

CNN and NBC are really courting them for interviews, potentially paid interviews??? (well, the idea of "paid interviews" drives me insane anyway, especially in cases like this where you really are supposedly interviewing these people because their situation is news ... but anyway...)

Anyway -- are they really still that much of a tv draw any more? Does more than about 1 percent of American even have the slightest idea who they are? And has anybody at those networks listened to them talk? Ever? Like, to a talking head on the show?   .... Because what are they expecting from people who literally say nothing but the same euphemistic and completely unclear cliches over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? For years on end?

Just WTF?

They're probably hedging their bets that if the revelations are scandalous enough they'll become a big TV draw, and maybe squeeze out some tears or something along the way.  To a TV executive I bet that's worth a few thousand dollars on spec.

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, queenanne said:

They're probably hedging their bets that if the revelations are scandalous enough they'll become a big TV draw, and maybe squeeze out some tears or something along the way.  To a TV executive I bet that's worth a few thousand dollars on spec.

Well, the execs are in for quite a surprise then when the only words they hear from them are "season of life," "blessed," "forgiven," "curious," "sly," and "heart for the Lord." ;  )

[lascuba]

I was just thinking that this whole thing was giving me strong Thiel/Hogan v Gawker vibes when I saw that others beat me to it. That's enough to send a chill down my spine. If big money is bankrolling this, they can win. Big. Above and beyond what they're asking for, with the added bonus of a chilling effect on the press. They're in Arkansas, a place full of conservative judges and "good Christian" potential jurors. Fuck.

16 hours ago, EarlGreyTea said:

Exactly. All this does is dredge up all the drama once again. JB is so bad at PR, my God. The general public seems to have forgotten about the scandal, and they have their show (well, a version of it) back. They're back to getting positive publicity from all the weddings/births/courtships. Josh has been lying low for months now. They should have filed soon after the first show ended.

Not that I know jack shit about the legal system (although I do watch a lot of People's Court lol), but can't it be argued that the leaking of the files didn't affect their livelihood as much as they claim, since they once again have steady income from the new show?

Thanks to you all who pointed out the statute of limitations is up soon. I didn't know that.

Maybe that's exactly the reason they're suing now. They think they'll have a more sympathetic audience than they did 2 years ago. They always have the worst responses to public reactions about them, and this is totally in line with their PR stupidity. 

Ok, what I'm about to say is going to sound nuts and it's not something I'd be ok with but I've been wondering about this.  Please tell all the reasons I'm wrong...wouldn't it make more sense for Josh to sue? Not morally or even strategically considering the public's perception, but legally. He was a minor at the time he molested his sisters, for one thing, and as heinous is that was, as a juvenile those records are sealed. And I think we can definitively say that the release of those records had a greater impact as his financial earning potential than that of his victims. I just wonder if a savvy enough lawyer could convince a jury...weirder lawsuits have been won by as unsympathetic plaintiffs. 

20 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, the execs are in for quite a surprise then when the only words they hear from them are "season of life," "blessed," "forgiven," "curious," "sly," and "heart for the Lord." ;  )

I'm preemptively angry because I KNOW that no matter who interviews them, they won't be called out or challenged on their non-answers. 

[toodles]

I would like to start this by saying I have the utmost respect for all the posters here that have similar life experiences as the duggar children.  Their insight is enlighting to say the least.  But this lawsuit will be a disaster for all involved.

The Duggars chose to ignore what happened with Josh in that house.  That teeny, tiny, overcrowded house.  But to take it to court, every bit of their dirty laundry will be shined under a light.  Everyone involved will be deposed in a court of law.  No one will come out of this experience unscathed.  Boob and boobette will not be able to yuck it up and awe shucks their way out of this.  Jill yapping about this happening in most families won't go unchallenged.  No one will care what they were brought up to believe.  The law deals in facts.  There are hundred of hours of TV to use as evidence.  There is the fox interview where they state it was no big deal.  This is not about changing the law.  This is pure and simple cash grab.

Where is their lawyer to stop them from doing interviews now?  Any lawyer worth their salt would tell them to keep to shut it until this goes to court.  But they won't listen when there is a buck to be made.  This is a cold, cruel world and their belief system will be challenged in every way possible.  If the duggars aren't prepared to deal with that, they better get ready.  Now.  Daddy said so won't work in this reality.  I am absolutely sure no one prepared them for what's to come.  There is no happy ending to this and their world will change forever.

Every bit of this is on boob. Not the devil.  Boob.  Greed isn't one of the seven deadly sins for nothing.

[Tabbygirl521]

On 5/19/2017 at 6:07 PM, Oldernowiser said:

Can anyone think of a credible reason that isn't just a naked money grab that JimBlob would wait two years before filing, other than he might view the victims as being somehow compromised as marriage material, because that one makes me want to projectile vomit. The idea that a father, any father, would view the molestation of his daughters as somehow being their burden??? I can't with that.

So...why go after this now?

They lost their TV show after the news came out. Their family income is surely much less from "Counting On," and also who knows how much longer it will run since all it is now is one girl after another getting married and pregnant, and boring boring boring. The boys don't add a thing. I think this is JB trying to be compensated for lost income, period. IMO and all that jazz but it makes sense to me. 

Thank God it didn't happen but I wonder how he would have handled it if one of the girls had become pregnant as a result of molestations (I know "that" didn't happen, but what if?). With the girls being in the public eye and all, how could their privacy have been respected then? Or would he have temporarily become pro-choice? 

[toodles]

Maybe we need a new thread for the lawsuit?  Just sayin......

[Churchhoney]

26 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Ok, what I'm about to say is going to sound nuts and it's not something I'd be ok with but I've been wondering about this.  Please tell all the reasons I'm wrong...wouldn't it make more sense for Josh to sue? Not morally or even strategically considering the public's perception, but legally. He was a minor at the time he molested his sisters, for one thing, and as heinous is that was, as a juvenile those records are sealed.

Well, isn't the loophole here the fact that he didn't get a juvenile record from this since JB kept him out of the legal system? Had it gone through the legal system, then he would have had a juvenile record and the record would have been sealed and nobody would have been able to release any of it to anybody.  But that didn't happen. And all they have are "reports" that by law don't get sealed and by law are releasable. Ergo, what the police have was releasable. And it got released.

This would always be a trial about whether the people who released the stuff followed the law or didn't, I think. And there doesn't seem to be any question (does there?) that the police not only could release the documents they did release but were in fact under legal obligation to release them under Arkansas' FOIA law. (that's what I thought, anyway ... IANAL)

I don't think Joshley could sue about this.

 

On their being challenged in an interview: Well, on both a human level and an interviewing-skill level, it would be incredibly difficult as an interviewer to challenge these girls, especially in an on-camera interview. They're ignorant, they've been pawns of people their entire lives, they would almost certainly just break down in confusion if you did challenge them, and they probably wouldn't even understand what you were asking. You'd feel like shit doing it and you wouldn't even succeed at getting any answers. If you were a timid interviewer, as most are, you'd just be terrified to do it. But even if you were a tough interviewer, your soul would recoil, in my opinion. And in neither case would you have the persuasive skill to get anything useful out of them, also in my opinion, of course.

Plus, your only motivation would really be "gotcha" because pushing them to say something they don't want to say doesn't serve the public interest in this case. It would if there were nobody else in the world who could testify to the harms of the stuff that JB, M, Josh and Gothard and Gothard types and people brainwashed by Gothard types have pulled. But in fact there are plenty of other people who tell us all that. We don't need the Duggar girls to do it. So all you'd be doing would be trying to punish them for being who they are, really. And there's no point to that. Nor would doing it make you a good journalist, in my opinion. It'd just make you a jerk.

For all these reasons, I think it's very very very bad journalistic practice to interview them at all. ......But then a helluva a lot of journalistic practice, especially currently and especially by tv networks, is very very very bad, in my opinion. So what else is new?

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[queenanne]

19 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

On their being challenged in an interview: Well, on both a human level and an interviewing-skill level, it would be incredibly difficult as an interviewer to challenge these girls, especially in an on-camera interview. They're ignorant, they've been pawns of people their entire lives, they would almost certainly just break down in confusion if you did challenge them, and they probably wouldn't even understand what you were asking. You'd feel like shit doing it and you wouldn't even succeed at getting any answers. If you were a timid interviewer, as most are, you'd just be terrified to do it. But even if you were a tough interviewer, your soul would recoil, in my opinion. And in neither case would you have the persuasive skill to get anything useful out of them, also in my opinion, of course.

But, all that just/also means, there's no point in having any of them show up as witnesses in court. A breakdown into a steaming pile of confusion, in the hands of someone trained to question, will simply read to a judge/jury as:  "Yup, that attorney got them good.  Clearly there's zero truth in whatever statement they were just trying to put forward as truth, because you ask them one logical question about the thing that just nagged at the back of *my* head when I heard their response, and they don't know how to answer in any way that implies their previous answer was the truth.  Case closed!  InTouch wins!"

[lascuba]

5 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, isn't the loophole here the fact that he didn't get a juvenile record from this since JB kept him out of the legal system? Had it gone through the legal system, then he would have had a juvenile record and the record would have been sealed and nobody would have been able to release any of it to anybody.  But that didn't happen. And all they have are "reports" that by law don't get sealed and by law are releasable. Ergo, what the police have was releasable. And it got released.

This would always be a trial about whether the people who released the stuff followed the law or didn't, I think. And there doesn't seem to be any question (does there?) that the police not only could release the documents they did release but were in fact under legal obligation to release them under Arkansas' FOIA law. (that's what I thought, anyway ... IANAL)

I don't think Joshley could sue about this.

 

On their being challenged in an interview: Well, on both a human level and an interviewing-skill level, it would be incredibly difficult as an interviewer to challenge these girls, especially in an on-camera interview. They're ignorant, they've been pawns of people their entire lives, they would almost certainly just break down in confusion if you did challenge them, and they probably wouldn't even understand what you were asking. You'd feel like shit doing it and you wouldn't even succeed at getting any answers. If you were a timid interviewer, as most are, you'd just be terrified to do it. But even if you were a tough interviewer, your soul would recoil, in my opinion. And in neither case would you have the persuasive skill to get anything useful out of them, also in my opinion, of course.

Plus, your only motivation would really be "gotcha" because pushing them to say something they don't want to say doesn't serve the public interest in this case. It would if there were nobody else in the world who could testify to the harms of the stuff that JB, M, Josh and Gothard and Gothard types have pulled. But in fact there are plenty of other people who tell us all that. We don't need the Duggar girls to do it. So all you'd be doing would be trying to punish them for being who they are, really. And there's no point to that. Nor would doing it make you a good journalist, in my opinion. It'd just make you a jerk.

For all these reason, I think it's very very very bad journalistic practice to interview them at all. ......But then a helluva a lot of journalistic practice, especially currently and especially by tv networks, is very very very bad, in my opinion. So what else is new?

True about the police having the right to release regardless of anything else. I guess I was thinking more about having a reason to sue that isn't some bullshit "We're doing it to help others!" If the argument is not only that the police were wrong to release those documents--specious as that is--but also that that release caused financial damages, then I would think that Josh has more concrete reasons. I mean, on a scale of 0-10 on the reason scale, the sisters are in the negative 500s while Josh in the negative 400s, so I'm not saying he'd be right, but maybe slightly less wrong than the girls? 

My issue with weak interviewers is that...what's the point? I don't expect them to badger the Duggar girls (though they'd consider any pushback badgering), but letting obvious lies and contradictions stand is unforgivable. A simple "But when the news first broke and for two years after you said the complete opposite of what you're saying now. What's changed since then?" would suffice, for starters. Or even a more basic, "The actual law says this is regards to release of records and police reports from a case that never went to trial don't apply" and then see them try to respond would be nice. 

[Churchhoney]

4 minutes ago, queenanne said:

But, all that just/also means, there's no point in having any of them show up as witnesses in court. A breakdown into a steaming pile of confusion, in the hands of someone trained to question, will simply read to a judge/jury as:  "Yup, that attorney got them good.  Clearly there's zero truth in whatever statement they were just trying to put forward as truth, because you ask them one logical question about the thing that just nagged at the back of *my* head when I heard their response, and they don't know how to answer in any way that implies their previous answer was the truth.  Case closed!  InTouch wins!"

Yeah, that's what I'm expecting. I notice they're JB is asking for a jury trial. So obviously he's expecting their fame and charms to help them with their public. But I've been on a bunch of juries, and it strikes me that juries are probably a lot more likely than judges to be swayed against plaintiffs by stuff like this. The judge will just keep saying -- I need to just look at the law here; I need to just look at the law.       The jury will say exactly what you're saying. 

[Churchhoney]

38 minutes ago, lascuba said:

True about the police having the right to release regardless of anything else. I guess I was thinking more about having a reason to sue that isn't some bullshit "We're doing it to help others!" If the argument is not only that the police were wrong to release those documents--specious as that is--but also that that release caused financial damages, then I would think that Josh has more concrete reasons. I mean, on a scale of 0-10 on the reason scale, the sisters are in the negative 500s while Josh in the negative 400s, so I'm not saying he'd be right, but maybe slightly less wrong than the girls? 

My issue with weak interviewers is that...what's the point? I don't expect them to badger the Duggar girls (though they'd consider any pushback badgering), but letting obvious lies and contradictions stand is unforgivable. A simple "But when the news first broke and for two years after you said the complete opposite of what you're saying now. What's changed since then?" would suffice, for starters. Or even a more basic, "The actual law says this is regards to release of records and police reports from a case that never went to trial don't apply" and then see them try to respond would be nice. 

Yeah, good point about Josh having more financial losses.

Although he muddied the waters by getting into even more trouble after this came up -- so did he lose his pretty lucrative livelihood permanently because of the In Touch story or did he lose it permanently because soon after the In Touch story he proved to everybody that a decade and a half later he still had no intention of keeping it in his pants? (and was lousy at concealing his intentions as well).... If he'd actually been a choir boy -- or at least a successful slick hypocrite -- as an adult, he might have a case. But under the circumstances, I don't know...

 

Yeah, I completely agree about the kind of questions you could ask. But I still think that getting anything approaching coherent answers to those questions out of them would be prohibitively difficult for any interviewer.

To start with most interviewers are really really weenies. Look at the slim number of follow-up questions the top journalists in the world ever ask. And for the most part, those people are the top journalists because they've worked their way up. Most of the people on the lower rungs are even worse. Partly that's because, frankly, when you actually do it, interviewing goes against a whole lot of our natural behavior. It's really not polite. At all. And, strangely, most of us fear being aggressively impolite (even though it doesn't look that way a lot of the time). Plus, you really really have to think on your feet, in what feels like a pretty unnatural situation, to ask those questions. And that is hard hard hard hard to do. (at least in my experience -- and what I've surmised from watching others; there are probably some people out there for whom it's easy, but I haven't seen many)

But more conclusively, to me, in this case, is that the Duggar girls would't produce anything like coherent answers to those questions. There are about a million ways an interviewee can fail to answer questions usefully -- both deliberate and completely accidental -- and the Duggar girls would do all the accidental ones and possibly some of the deliberate ones, too. They aren't bright. They aren't good with language -- either understanding it or producing it. They live in such a bubble that all of those questions would blindside them. They aren't comfortable with people. Those questions require them to leave behind their programming and improvise, something that they've all proven to be absolutely terrible at. And they don't believe in doing it, either. And the questions would enrage at least some of them (Jessa, I'm looking at you.).

Again, in my experience and in what I've seen, you can't even begin to enumerate in advance all the ways an interviewee is likely to go off script in a difficult-to-rein-in manner when you ask questions they aren't expecting or don't want or whatever. It's just very very very hard for most of us to corral somebody effectively.  (Pro tip: If you're interviewing a reporter-savvy person, you can tell you're on the right track if they fix you with a steely look, say "I'm so glad you asked that question," and then pause for about 20 seconds before producing their evasive answer.)

And, as I said, in this case I don't think there's any actual reason to try other than to hurt them. And while there are certainly interviewees that deserve to be hurt in such a way (lots of them, actually, and in that case, I'd say Go for it), I don't think these four dumb young women are among them. YMMV, obviously! 

ETA: I would love to get JB or Josh in front of a camera or on a witness stand and grill the ever-loving shit out of him. But I don't think they'd give us the opportunity. Better to throw the girls to the wolves. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[queenanne]

26 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, good point about Josh having more financial losses.

Although he muddied the waters by getting into even more trouble after this came up -- so did he lose his pretty lucrative livelihood permanently because of the In Touch story or did he lose it permanently because soon after the In Touch story he proved to everybody that a decade and a half later he still had no intention of keeping it in his pants? .... If he'd actually been a choir boy as an adult, he might have a case. But under the circumstances, I don't know...

 

Yeah, I completely agree about the kind of questions you could ask. But I still think that getting anything approaching coherent answers to those questions out of them would be prohibitively difficult for any interviewer.

To start with most interviewers are really really weenies. Look at the slim number of follow-up questions the top journalists in the world ever ask. And for the most part, those people are the top journalists because they've worked their way up. Most of the people on the lower rungs are even worse. Partly that's because, frankly, when you actually do it, interviewing goes against a whole lot of our natural behavior. It's really not polite. At all. And, strangely, most of us fear being aggressively impolite (even though it doesn't look that way a lot of the time). Plus, you really really have to think on your feet, in what feels like a pretty unnatural situation, to ask those questions. And that is hard hard hard hard to do. (at least in my experience -- and what I've surmised from watching others; there are probably some people out there for whom it's easy, but I haven't seen many)

But more conclusively, to me, in this case, is that the Duggar girls would't produce anything like coherent answers to those questions. There are about a million ways an interviewee can fail to answer questions usefully -- both deliberate and completely accidental -- and the Duggar girls would do all the accidental ones and possibly some of the deliberate ones, too. They aren't bright. They aren't good with language -- either understanding it or producing it. They live in such a bubble that all of those questions would blindside them. They aren't comfortable with people. Those questions require them to leave behind their programming and improvise, something that they've all proven to be absolutely terrible at. And they don't believe in doing it, either. And the questions would enrage at least some of them (Jessa, I'm looking at you.).

Again, in my experience and in what I've seen, you can't even begin to enumerate in advance all the ways an interviewee is likely to go off script in a difficult-to-rein-in manner when you ask questions they aren't expecting or don't want or whatever. It's just very very very hard for most of us to corral somebody effectively.  (Pro tip: If you're interviewing a reporter-savvy person, you can tell you're on the right track if they fix you with a steely look, say "I'm so glad you asked that question," and then pause for about 20 seconds before producing their evasive answer.)

And, as I said, in this case I don't think there's any actual reason to try other than to hurt them. And while there are certainly interviewees that deserve to be hurt in such a way (lots of them, actually, and in that case, I'd say Go for it), I don't think these four dumb young women are among them. YMMV, obviously! 

ETA: I would love to get JB or Josh in front of a camera or on a witness stand and grill the ever-loving shit out of him. But I don't think they'd give us the opportunity. Better to throw the girls to the wolves. 

I think you could corral someone effectively as a reporter, but I'm sure you've got someone in charge simultaneously preaching to you the mantra of Access Access Access.  Never Cut Off Our Future Access, In Case We Need Them or They Do Something Interesting in Future; which I think speaks to your earlier question of "Why would CNN and NBC continue to offer money to interview them?"  They're working and grooming sources to bring in eyeballs and boost ratings.  To get to the kind of journalistic result we want out of killer jugular reporter types, it'd basically have to be someone for which there's no future use and/or whom you intend to destroy to the point where nobody ever cares about what they say again (cf. a Richard Nixon type); or someone for whom it is more profitable for you to destroy them because of the feeling of universal disgust on the part of almost all right-thinking members of society (cf. Ted Bundy; Charles Manson).

Edited May 21, 2017 by queenanne

[Churchhoney]

9 minutes ago, queenanne said:

I think you could corral someone effectively as a reporter, but I'm sure you've got someone in charge simultaneously preaching to you the mantra of Access Access Access.  Never Cut Off Our Future Access, In Case We Need Them or They Do Something Interesting in Future; which I think speaks to your earlier question of "Why would CNN and NBC continue to offer money to interview them?"  They're working and grooming sources to bring in eyeballs and boost ratings.  To get to the kind of journalistic result we want out of killer jugular reporter types, it'd basically have to be someone for which there's no future use and/or whom you intend to destroy to the point where nobody ever cares about what they say again (cf. a Richard Nixon type); or someone for whom it is more profitable for you to destroy them because of the feeling of universal disgust on the part of almost all right-thinking members of society (cf. Ted Bundy; Charles Manson).

Well, I'm less sure about whether you could actually corral anyone! .... There are more ways to evade than there are to ask questions, i'm pretty sure!

But you're certainly right about the access thing. That's one of those lousy journalistic practices that we're saddled with.....

I can see both sides of that, though, too, since if you don't have "access" then everybody else gets the supposed scoops while you're being all Izzy Stone and combing through document piles and talking to the little behind-the-scenes guys ....It takes you weeks or months to get a story, and while it's absolutely certain to be a much much much better and more significant story than the access people get, in today's world most people (and advertisers, certainly) are obsessed by the "news" that flickers out this minute, and tend not even to have the patience to wait for the good stuff that you get by slow and patient work.

(Oh, and after you've done all the work to get the real story? NBC and the NYT just flat-out steal it, get a couple "comment" quotes from one of their usual suspects, and run it on page one without giving you one iota of credit. ..... So they get the best of both worlds and the non-access-seeking or non-access-getting real reporter gets pretty much nothing................Except the better judgment of history, I suppose.)

There are a lot of Catch-22s to the news business. And more all the time in our it's-all-about-the-Benjamins, fly's-attention-span world

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[sometimesy]

If they do an interview, I suspect it will be with pre-arranged questions. There would probably be a lawyer sitting beside them to keep them from going off the plot.   

[Churchhoney]

3 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

If they do an interview, I suspect it will be with pre-arranged questions. There would probably be a lawyer sitting beside them to keep them from going off the plot.   

In other words, it would not be an interview at all. And so no network with integrity should ever run it on anything that was remotely identified as a news or even news-ish show. 

But of course that's never going to happen.

It will also be boring and non-informative as all get-out, of course. But people won't know that until they've already watched it and seen the commercials. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

They can say the say the same thing they said two years ago. The case isn't about what happened, it's about the records being released to the public. When I said they're not protecting Josh now I meant that, just by filing the lawsuit Josh's crap will be headlined again. Even the Duggar 4 know enough about the internet to know Josh will be slammed.

Maybe it's passive-aggressive payback.

Edited May 21, 2017 by GeeGolly

[kokapetl]

Josh didn't make a statement to law enforcement that was unlawfully released to a tabloid, he wasn't identified as a child sexual assault victim, and he didn't have the lurid details of any sexual assault he suffered as a child published in a supermarket checkout rag. He may or may not have a cause of action to sue, but he's not suing.

Anyway...

AR Code § 12-18-104 (2015) 

(a) Any data, records, reports, or documents that are created, collected, or compiled by or on behalf of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or other entity authorized under this chapter to perform investigations or provide services to children, individuals, or families shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.

(b) Any data, records, reports, or documents released under this chapter to law enforcement, a prosecuting attorney, or a court by the Department of Human Services and the Department of Arkansas State Police are confidential and shall be sealed and not re-disclosed without a protective order to ensure the items of evidence for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy are not distributed to a person or institution without a legitimate interest in the evidence, provided that nothing in this chapter is deemed to abrogate the right of discovery in a criminal case under the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure or the law.

I sincerely doubt that the plaintiffs' highly competent lawyer(s) don't have a solid case, or that the case that will fall apart at the slightest examination. 

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

They can say the say the same thing they said two years ago. The case isn't about what happened, it's about the records being released to the public. When I said they're not protecting Josh now I meant that, just by filing the lawsuit Josh's crap will be headlined again. Even the Duggar 4 know enough about the internet to know Josh will be slammed.

Maybe it's passive-aggressive payback.

I sure hope it is. I wonder if Jim Bob knows this? What do you think he expects (except a big check, I mean)? I'm don't know what to think about his understanding of the various potential consequences here. 

[EVS]

3 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

If they do an interview, I suspect it will be with pre-arranged questions. There would probably be a lawyer sitting beside them to keep them from going off the plot.   

I agree that this will probably be the case. 

I also think that asking the girls tough questions could backfire if the girls then get flustered, upset or breakdown.   Many people watching may not know as much as we do. They would just see 4 young women who were molested as children being "attacked" by the interviewer. 

[Churchhoney]

9 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Josh didn't make a statement to law enforcement that was unlawfully released to a tabloid, he wasn't identified as a child sexual assault victim, and he didn't have the lurid details of any sexual assault he suffered as a child published in a supermarket checkout rag. He may or may not have a cause of action to sue, but he's not suing.

Anyway...

AR Code § 12-18-104 (2015) 

(a) Any data, records, reports, or documents that are created, collected, or compiled by or on behalf of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or other entity authorized under this chapter to perform investigations or provide services to children, individuals, or families shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq.

(b) Any data, records, reports, or documents released under this chapter to law enforcement, a prosecuting attorney, or a court by the Department of Human Services and the Department of Arkansas State Police are confidential and shall be sealed and not re-disclosed without a protective order to ensure the items of evidence for which there is a reasonable expectation of privacy are not distributed to a person or institution without a legitimate interest in the evidence, provided that nothing in this chapter is deemed to abrogate the right of discovery in a criminal case under the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure or the law.

I sincerely doubt that the plaintiffs' highly competent lawyer(s) don't have a solid case, or that the case that will fall apart at the slightest examination. 

Yeah, but this is the law as it was amended AFTER the whole Duggar thing came out, right? So what I don't know is whether you can effectively sue people for obeying an old law but not obeying a law that was passed after they did what they did. ...................That's the question, seems to me. Now, you may be right that JB"s lawyer knows that you can successfully sue on this grounds. And he appears to be a lawyer with a very good resume. 

But it does seem odd to me, though. I mean, this law you're quoting was, as I understand it, passed in response to what happened in the Duggar case. But am I understanding this wrong? And if it was passed in response to the Duggar case, then can you really sue people for not obeying it when it didn't yet exist? 

One more thing I'm confused about. 

Because if you can, it suggests that you can be arrested for driving 60 miles an hour in a 50-mile-an-hour zone when the speed limit was only lowered to 50 a month after you drove by. 

Can somebody clear up what the case is with this law? Kokapetl, when was it passed? Because I thought it was passed after all this stuff had already happened. But was it? 

Or maybe Jim Bob and his lawyer know that they can't successfully sue under a law that didn't exist when the act was committed, but they also know they can get publicity out of filing a case so that's what all this is about? 

I'm baffled once again. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[sometimesy]

2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

In other words, it would not be an interview at all. And so no network with integrity should ever run it on anything that was remotely identified as a news or even news-ish show. 

But of course that's never going to happen.

It will also be boring and non-informative as all get-out, of course. But people won't know that until they've already watched it and seen the commercials. 

It's really unlikely that any network is going to play hard-ball with 4 women who are victims of incestuous molestation. 

Just now, GeeGolly said:

They can say the say the same thing they said two years ago. The case isn't about what happened, it's about the records being released to the public. When I said they're not protecting Josh now I meant that, just by filing the lawsuit Josh's crap will be headlined again. Even the Duggar 4 no enough about the internet to know Josh will be slammed.

Maybe it's passive-aggressive payback.

Something tells me, they really didn't think beyond the $. 

Even if they lose this case, the best outcome is that Arkansas review their policy on redactions. It's sickening to think of children being reassured that it's ok to tell authorities what happened to them, and then be betrayed later. With that said, I don't think anyone should be compensated unless a law has been broken. 

[Churchhoney]

4 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

 

Even if they lose this case, the best outcome is that Arkansas review their policy on redactions. It's sickening to think of children being reassured that it's ok to tell authorities what happened to them, and then be betrayed later. With that said, I don't think anyone should be compensated unless a law has been broken. 

We need to clear this up. Because I thought that Arkansas had already reviewed the redaction policy and had a new rule that would have kept any of the stuff from getting out (as Kokapetl) quoted above. But that -- naturally -- that didn't happen until after the Duggar stuff went down. 

So if that happened, then can the Duggars still sue? Can I break a law that doesn't exist but that, unbeknownst to me, will exist six months from now? 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

Many of you know that I'm a licensed therapist. How folks feel about having a mental health diagnosis varies form meh to OMG my life is over. One thing that most have in common is that don't want other folks knowing about their diagnosis. The Duggar 4 aren't trying to have it both ways - it's 2 totally different things.

[Mollie]

11 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, but this is the law as it was amended AFTER the whole Duggar thing came out, right? So what I don't know is whether you can effectively sue people for obeying an old law but not obeying a law that was passed after they did what they did. ...................That's the question, seems to me. Now, you may be right that JB"s lawyer knows that you can successfully sue on this grounds. And he appears to be a lawyer with a very good resume. 

But it does seem odd to me, though. I mean, this law you're quoting was, as I understand it, passed in response to what happened in the Duggar case. But am I understanding this wrong? And if it was passed in response to the Duggar case, then can you really sue people for not obeying it when it didn't yet exist? 

One more thing I'm confused about. 

Because if you can, it suggests that you can be arrested for driving 60 miles an hour in a 50-mile-an-hour zone when the speed limit was only lowered to 50 a month after you drove by. 

Can somebody clear up what the case is with this law? Kokapetl, when was it passed? Because I thought it was passed after all this stuff had already happened. But was it? 

Or maybe Jim Bob and his lawyer know that they can't successfully sue under a law that didn't exist when the act was committed, but they also know they can get publicity out of filing a case so that's what all this is about? 

I'm baffled once again. 

The new version was passed on April 2, 2015, and the files were released in May, 2015.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j6TPufOxWIUJ:ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts/2015/Public/ACT1004.rtf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=il

Edited May 21, 2017 by Mollie

[sometimesy]

5 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

We need to clear this up. Because I thought that Arkansas had already reviewed the redaction policy and had a new rule that would have kept any of the stuff from getting out (as Kokapetl) quoted above. But that -- naturally -- that didn't happen until after the Duggar stuff went down. 

So if that happened, then can the Duggars still sue? Can I break a law that doesn't exist but that, unbeknownst to me, will exist six months from now? 

I wouldn't think so. Retroactive compensation? They should only be compensated if the rules on the books at the time have been violated, but I'm just using common sense as I know nothing about law. :)

@Mollie well, there ya go. That document may not have been properly redacted before release. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by sometimesy

[Churchhoney]

3 minutes ago, Mollie said:

The new version was passed in April, 2015, and the files were released in May, 2015.

Oh, okay. Thank you. But somehow the lawyer the city talked to didn't realize this? Huh? 

Could this be any more of a mess?

If JB wins and they actually get a big reward, I don't think his neighbors will be thrilled to see him getting millions of their tax dollars. Maybe he'll have to start to watch his back. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

11 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

We need to clear this up. Because I thought that Arkansas had already reviewed the redaction policy and had a new rule that would have kept any of the stuff from getting out (as Kokapetl) quoted above. But that -- naturally -- that didn't happen until after the Duggar stuff went down. 

So if that happened, then can the Duggars still sue? Can I break a law that doesn't exist but that, unbeknownst to me, will exist six months from now? 

That's assuming they interpreted the first law correctly and executed it correctly too.

They mentioned the redacted documents went through a fine tooth comb too, multiple people reviewing them before they went out. I just took a quick glance and noticed at least one pronoun not redacted and there's probably more.

 

Edited to add - hmm the law was changed prior to. Nice work @Kokapetl & @Mollie.

Edited May 21, 2017 by GeeGolly

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

That's assuming they interpreted the first law correctly and executed it correctly too.

They mentioned the redacted documents went through a fine tooth comb too, multiple people reviewing them before they went out. I just took a quick glance and noticed at least one pronoun not redacted and there's probably more.

Good point. I'm still confused, though. Because I thought they'd already sued under the first law and lost? Or something? Is that what happened? 

So now would they be suing under just the second law? Or under both laws, somehow? .... 

I'm not sure how a lawyer specializing in international affairs is going to be very good at dealing with this, either. And it's certainly going to drive a jury nuts -- all about tiny tiny little details you'd need to scrutinize according to the exact language of not one but two rules (that even professionals have trouble interpreting and carrying out). Yikes. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

Who knows what is what - there's a lot of armchair lawyering going on here.

[sometimesy]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

Who knows what is what - there's a lot of armchair lawyering going on here.

The hours are great, but the salary sucks.

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

Who knows what is what - there's a lot of armchair lawyering going on here.

And I take it you don't like armchair lawyering? lol

[Nysha]

13 minutes ago, Mollie said:

The new version was passed on April 2, 2015, and the files were released in May, 2015.

But when was the FOIA for the files made? It may be that they were required to release them because the files were requested before the law was changed.

[lascuba]

11 minutes ago, Mollie said:

The new version was passed on April 2, 2015, and the files were released in May, 2015.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j6TPufOxWIUJ:ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts/2015/Public/ACT1004.rtf+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=il

So then the question is when did In Touch request the reports and when did they get them...if it was before the new law, then wouldn't the date the article came out be irrelevant and the police department in the clear? 

[Churchhoney]

37 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

They can say the say the same thing they said two years ago. The case isn't about what happened, it's about the records being released to the public. When I said they're not protecting Josh now I meant that, just by filing the lawsuit Josh's crap will be headlined again. Even the Duggar 4 know enough about the internet to know Josh will be slammed.

Maybe it's passive-aggressive payback.

Meanwhile, Michelle, at least, seems to be trying to resurrect him. They really aren't on the same page at all, are they? Doubt they realize that, though. They couldn't let themselves realize it. Because umbrellas. 

5 minutes ago, Nysha said:

But when was the FOIA for the files made? It may be that they were required to release them because the files were requested before the law was changed.

FOIA requests do take a while. Nobody can be expected to staff up to deal with them quickly. 

4 minutes ago, lascuba said:

So then the question is when did In Touch request the reports and when did they get them...if it was before the new law, then wouldn't the date the article came out be irrelevant and the police department in the clear? 

That seems to be the police department's contention, I think. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

5 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

And I take it you don't like armchair lawyering? lol

LOL

Nah, it's just fine when presented as an opinion. Other perspectives are great food for thought.

[queenanne]

9 minutes ago, Nysha said:

But when was the FOIA for the files made? It may be that they were required to release them because the files were requested before the law was changed.

Yes, at this point, the quality of the redaction doesn't matter if the request was made after the new law was passed; no third party was supposed to be receiving the records at all, regardless of their condition or status.  Also potentially important is how much of a lag time InTouch has in its information-gathering vis-a-vis its writing and publishing.

I'm also interested in passing in clause (b)'s "without a legitimate interest in the evidence", because I wonder if this exempts TLC Networks, who would seem to have a legitimate pecuniary interest in the evidence.  

Edited May 21, 2017 by queenanne

[GeeGolly]

Shit guys, we got it ALL wrong. The court case is to let the public know that Jana was not molested. Suitors will be lining up now.

[bigskygirl]

If JB does win some money from the city and police department, JD could pay the price for it since he is a volunteer constable. I find it interesting JB is willing to bring a lawsuit again the one police department, but he is fine with his one son being a volunteer in the law enforcement field. JD's fellow law enforcement coworkers may not like the fact daddy is suing one of their departments over something like this. Plus the fact JD is allowed to do this type of volunteer work because daddy and Gothard said it was fine. If JB and Michelle were not so greedy when it came to being a couple of famewhores, said certain groups of people are molesters while hiding the fact their number one son molested four of his sisters, and marrying off the four daughters faster than all of us can say "boo!", I have absolutely no sympathy for them. I still have no use for Josh either since he thought he could run around the country spreading his hatred of certain groups and lying through his teeth when it came to talking about the evilness of certain others when he is guilty of violating four of his sisters emotionally and physically. Yes, I know he had a crappy childhood, but he still pisses me off.

I was diagnosed with PTSD due to emotional and physical abuse, and some things I rather not talk about on here from a bad childhood. I did not tell either one of my parents about things that happened to me by a certain immediate family member because I know I would have been called a liar and was trying to get said family member in trouble. I was told I deserved the abuse and was blamed for my immediate family members' problems. I do feel bad for the four sisters, but I still do not agree with their message of gays, lesbians and other groups of people being evil monsters who will molest and rape innocent children while they were pretending to be Godly people while hiding a terrible secret, plus blaming others aka the media and the devil himself for what happened behind close doors. Two generations of famewhores with a possibility of a third generation coming down the turnpike.