The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[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.

[sometimesy]

Did the lawyers and Duggs miscalculate public opinion? Maybe In Touch would be pressured to settle if there had been a public outcry, but if the comments on the fan page and Jill's twitter are any indication, the Duggs are not seen in a sympathetic light.

It will be interesting to see if this spikes the season viewer numbers.  

[Churchhoney]

4 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Did the lawyers and Duggs miscalculate public opinion? Maybe In Touch would be pressured to settle if there had been a public outcry, but if the comments on the fan page and Jill's twitter are any indication, the Duggs are not seen in a sympathetic light.

It will be interesting to see if this spikes the season viewer numbers.  

I'm not convinced the lawyer they have even knew who the Duggars were before he took this case. He seems to have been pretty busy recently writing books and articles about international affairs. And I'm sure Jim Bob has talked a great game -- to the lawyers, to some tv networks, to his daughters -- about how the public sympathy and respect for them will be so great that this whole thing is a slam dunk, a jury will quickly find in favor of the wonderful Duggar family, and they'll all get money and good PR out of it. Why, heck, Michelle, people will even see that Joshie was evilly manhandled by the police and press, and now he'll be able to go back on the show and grift for tv dollars! Not to worry. 

He could very well have convinced everybody of his own delusions, I expect. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Oldernowiser]

As for the interviews...there are a lot of ways to assign the question to third parties while letting the interviewer still look all warm and kind...

"There are those who might ask..."

"How would you respond to people who might say..."

"What has changed for you in the two years since this first became known to the public?"

"As people in the public eye, how have you been able to use your position to help other victims?"

"If you win this lawsuit, what are your plans?"

I'd pay big bucks to have Barbara Walters come out of retirement for this, except that it would give it more attention than it deserves, by far.

[sometimesy]

10 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

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.

Not a fan of ma and pa Dugg, but why would anyone be upset with JD? He has nothing to do with molestations, lawsuits and he has been captive in the cult just like his sisters. 

I detest Jill. At this point she is a perp, because she is inflicting the sick cult on her child and grifting. Just cant tolerate the dimwit. BUT, I think of a child Jill telling police of her experience, and thinking she was safe doing the right thing...then years later, the betrayal. 

[Churchhoney]

2 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

As for the interviews...there are a lot of ways to assign the question to third parties while letting the interviewer still look all warm and kind...

"There are those who might ask..."

"How would you respond to people who might say..."

"What has changed for you in the two years since this first became known to the public?"

"As people in the public eye, how have you been able to use your position to help other victims?"

"If you win this lawsuit, what are your plans?"

I'd pay big bucks to have Barbara Walters come out of retirement for this, except that it would give it more attention than it deserves, by far.

Those are all great questions. But my experience suggests that when you ask those kinds of questions of kinda slow or intimidated people, they tend to just stare at you with big eyes and a dropped jaw. Or just spout some completely irrelevant answer that they memorized. They may say something. But it won't be anything that a tv audience will find interesting or even comprehensible, very often. 

Baba Wawa tended to interview the famous. People who'd already been interviewed numerous times and who usually were famous because they were, in some way, savvy and smart. She didn't interview a lot of plain old people from the street. And, especially, not plain old ignorant, sheltered, stupid, brainwashed people who are very uncomfortable speaking with others and have the equivalent of an eighth grade education or less. And who've had a lot of smoke blown at them by Daddy about how this is all going to be a lovely piece of cake and not to worry. 

For the most part, if you want a good interview with a regular person, you can't do a one-off. You have to know them for a while, get into their lives a bit, get them comfortable with you and, in most cases, tape hours and hours of interview before you get any actual good stuff. And to get to good stuff you also have to convince them not to have lawyers or PR people or their parents sitting right next to them during the conversation. That's why you tend to find those interview only in magazines or in big long-form newspaper articles. to do that in just a few hours in a tv studio would be extremely difficult.

[kokapetl]

Section A is basically the same in the 2010 code. It didn't become A until there was a B.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Kokapetl

[Catfin]

5 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Not a fan of ma and pa Dugg, but why would anyone be upset with JD? He has nothing to do with molestations, lawsuits and he has been captive in the cult just like his sisters. 

I detest Jill. At this point she is a perp, because she is inflicting the sick cult on her child and grifting. Just cant tolerate the dimwit. BUT, I think of a child Jill telling police of her experience, and thinking she was safe doing the right thing...then years later, the betrayal. 

I despise Jill. The betrayal was not by police but her parents lack of protection, lack of education, lack of nurturing etc, from birth to present day. 

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, Kokapetl said:

Section A is basically the same in the 2010 code. 

Interesting. I wonder why their first lawsuit (WAS there a first lawsuit? I'm confused again) didn't go anywhere then? 

[bigskygirl]

12 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

Not a fan of ma and pa Dugg, but why would anyone be upset with JD? He has nothing to do with molestations, lawsuits and he has been captive in the cult just like his sisters. 

I detest Jill. At this point she is a perp, because she is inflicting the sick cult on her child and grifting. Just cant tolerate the dimwit. BUT, I think of a child Jill telling police of her experience, and thinking she was safe doing the right thing...then years later, the betrayal. 

JD is a part of it whether he likes it or not. Yes, he did not have anything to do with what Josh did or how his parents did not handle the whole thing the right way.  His parents are out to make local law enforcement officers the bad guys in all of this instead of taking a long hard look at themselves and Josh. Anything his family does reflects on his volunteer law enforcement career (I want to gag typing that.) I have been told more than once I am a representative of the my hometown police department because I am a volunteer, If I, my husband, or a family member brought this type of lawsuit against another law enforcement department, it could or would bring some bad vibes my way. He goes along with the mentality of gays, lesbians, and certain others being evil, evil child molesters instead of looking at his brother and his parents as the evil ones with some serious problems. In otherwords, Josh and family are making law enforcement officers in the area where he lives look bad by their actions, but the sad cold facts are the Duggars are the ones who are the famewhores judging and putting the blame on JD's fellow officers and others for their problems, actions, and mistakes.

[sometimesy]

They will have to line the girls up on a sofa and interview the like this:

"Jill, if Joy was a type of cheese that was molested by her brother, what type of cheese would she be and how has the release of information impacted that cheese?"

"Jinger, what type of pasta is the redacted information?"

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

They will have to line the girls up on a sofa and interview the like this:

"Jill, if Joy was a type of cheese that was molested by her brother, what type of cheese would she be and how has the release of information impacted that cheese?"

"Jinger, what type of pasta is the redacted information?"

You got it.  

[lascuba]

2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Interesting. I wonder why their first lawsuit (WAS there a first lawsuit? I'm confused again) didn't go anywhere then? 

Could it be this: http://starcasm.net/archives/323482 So far it's the only thing that I can find not about the current suit.  I vaguely recall discussions about a lawsuit between  the Duggars and the police department back then not any details. I want to say it was an attempt to stop the police department from releasing the report, since the Duggars knew about the request before the In Touch article came out, but I'm clearly misremembering since nothing's come up. 

[Churchhoney]

2 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Could it be this: http://starcasm.net/archives/323482 So far it's the only thing that I can find not about the current suit.  I vaguely recall discussions about a lawsuit between  the Duggars and the police department back then not any details. I want to say it was an attempt to stop the police department from releasing the report, since the Duggars knew about the request before the In Touch article came out, but I'm clearly misremembering since nothing's come up. 

Thanks. More that's interesting. I don't think I was paying much attention to the stuff that was flying around between JB and the police back then. I knew they tried some tactics, but that's about it. Wonder what happened to this. 

[kokapetl]

3 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Interesting. I wonder why their first lawsuit (WAS there a first lawsuit? I'm confused again) didn't go anywhere then? 

Joy filed a motion for the offense report to be removed from the public record, and a judge made at least one ruling or order to effect that. 

[Mollie]

14 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Could it be this: http://starcasm.net/archives/323482 So far it's the only thing that I can find not about the current suit.  I vaguely recall discussions about a lawsuit between  the Duggars and the police department back then not any details. I want to say it was an attempt to stop the police department from releasing the report, since the Duggars knew about the request before the In Touch article came out, but I'm clearly misremembering since nothing's come up. 

That was a threat of a lawsuit from Jim Bob against the police for releasing the report.  It doesn't appear that any lawsuit was ever filed.  Here are the emails about that which were published on July 23, 2015, in InTouch:

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-investigation-text-messages-64087

TLC had just announced that it was canceling 19 Kids and Counting on July 16, 2015.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Mollie

[Churchhoney]

6 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Joy filed a motion for the offense report to be removed from the public record, and a judge made at least one ruling or order to effect that. 

Thanks. I do remember that. Wonder if that's what the police are now referring to as the earlier suit or whether there was something else. 

[drafan]

5 minutes ago, sometimesy said:

They will have to line the girls up on a sofa and interview the like this:

"Jill, if Joy was a type of cheese that was molested by her brother, what type of cheese would she be and how has the release of information impacted that cheese?"

"Jinger, what type of pasta is the redacted information?"

Hate to say this, but since JB will have his greasy hands all over the interviews, these questions won't be too far off. The questions will all be concocted by JB, rehearsed over and over....and the same with the answers....they will all be scripted by JB. I think he was sitting out of camera range for the Meghan Kelly interview.....maybe even holding cue cards, and knowing Jill is his go-to girl for starting tears over absolutely anything, was most likely giving her a big thumbs-up.

Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, about this family gets shown without JB's greedy drool all over it. This will be no exception. The "interviews" or the court case. Everything will be rehearsed , and if the girls get thrown for a loop, they will be instructed to cry.

And, for the record, I cannot stand the sight of Jessa.....after she sat at her scripted interview on TV and smiled and bragged that Josh was kinda, you know, SLY about the (non-) molesting.....so, in other words, it doesn't really count, so let's get on with the show!  And is everyone forgetting that stupid trip to the "Safeguard Seminar", which the three maxi-skirted dolts attended "just in case they should ever need this information". Jessa loved her screentime for that one also. The InTouch lawyers should play it all back in court. 

[Mollie]

29 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Thanks. I do remember that. Wonder if that's what the police are now referring to as the earlier suit or whether there was something else. 

It wasn't a suit; it was a motion to have the police files destroyed.  The motion was made on May 21, 2015, the same day that the police reports were published by InTouch.  Later that same day, Judge Stacey Zimmerman ordered that the files be destroyed and they were.  

Edited May 21, 2017 by Mollie

[GeeGolly]

9 minutes ago, Mollie said:

It wasn't a suit it was a motion to have the police files destroyed.  The motion was made on May 21, 2015, the same day that the police reports were published by InTouch.  Later that same day, Judge Stacey Zimmerman ordered that the files be destroyed and they were.  

Day late and a dollar short. Too bad for the girls.

[Mollie]

I realize this is not a murder trial, but how are the Duggars' attorneys going to find an unbiased jury?  Will they actually find people in NW Arkansas who have never heard of the Duggar family, never heard anything about Josh Duggar's sexual molestations of his sisters, jurors who are not LGBT or sympathizers, atheists, feminists, Catholics, pro-choicers, and the list goes on.  The defense isn't going to want Quiverfull people or people with an unusually large number of kids, homeschooling advocates, sexual abuse victims, etc.

I can see jury selection in this trial taking a long, long time.

[Churchhoney]

43 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Day late and a dollar short. Too bad for the girls.

This should eventually be carved onto each Duggar girl's tombstone. 

Seems to apply to pretty much everything that ever happened or will happen. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney
because I do know where to put apostrophes

[Churchhoney]

14 minutes ago, Mollie said:

I realize this is not a murder trial, but how are the Duggars' attorneys going to find an unbiased jury?  Will they actually find people in NW Arkansas who have never heard of the Duggar family, never heard anything about Josh Duggar's sexual molestations of his sisters, jurors who are not LGBT or sympathizers, atheists, feminists, Catholics, pro-choicers, and the list goes on.  The defense isn't going to want Quiverfull people or people with an unusually large number of kids, homeschooling advocates, sexual abuse victims, etc.

I can see jury selection in this trial taking a long, long time.

Not that I know thing one about trial strategy, but I think maybe it would have been smarter not to demand a jury trial.

In a case like this, it seems to me the legal merits are probably relatively clear, when you've parsed through the details, and where, apart from technical legal merits, other evidence doesn't seem to come into it much at all. So, seems to me, a trial with a judge would seem to promise the same ending as a jury trial -- ruling on the merits -- and with a lot more dispatch. I.e., if you're going to get an award, you get it sooner and get out. 

I suppose Jim Bob figures that the heartstrings of a jury will award them a bunch more money than a judge would, because of general hatred of tabloids or something. But I'm skeptical that would be the case. Are the locals going to be thrilled by a big taxpayer-funded award from their police department? They might even risk pissing off a jury, whereas with a judge it's likely to be a cooler-headed decision.  I think they might wait a lot longer and get no more for it. Plus, the judge can always knock the award down anyway. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[LilJen]

On 5/19/2017 at 10:57 PM, hathorlive said:

But see, law enforcement is legally allowed to be duplicitous when interviewing people.  If you watched Law and Order, you'd know this Duggars.  Police can give misleading statements while interviewing you.  The main point is what does AR law say about what information/reports/data is available to FOIA requests and what isn't.  But as a general rule, the police do mislead.  No one pinky swore to the big guy in the sky.  Duggars have such a simplistic view of the world.

Not saying that victims shouldn't be protected.  If anything, which their lawsuit CLEARLY doesn't ask for, is that perhaps laws need to be tightened in the state or new laws enacted to protect data better.

But but but. . . they are too PURE to watch TV. So they can't know about Law & Order and deceitful law enforcement.

On 5/20/2017 at 1:01 AM, SnarkyShark said:

I cannot imagine what it is like to constantly be told that how you feel does not matter.

Amen.

On 5/20/2017 at 7:10 AM, sigmaforce86 said:

This, This, This!  I was going to say the same thing and I wish it was part of the news stories because it's probably the most important point AND it throws the blame for the info becoming public right back where it belongs; on Jim Bob.  As tough as it must be to take your child through the legal system (in "normal" families), if he had followed through and let the court and CPS handle it from start to finish then whole thing would have been official sealed as juvenile court  records.  His choice to sweep it under the rug, not get Josh real help, tell the girls it was no big deal and not allow full follow up left them with an informal report that has no privacy protection for the family especially the girls.  

Yup.

On 5/20/2017 at 0:43 PM, Churchhoney said:

They've made us believe that shame attaches to people who are abused by stronger people

 

On 5/20/2017 at 0:24 PM, Churchhoney said:

I'm still confused by how you can be forced to relive painful memories of something that you claim wasn't painful in the first place. 

 

On 5/20/2017 at 0:43 PM, Churchhoney said:

You know, I think the evil folks who've held power over the millennia have brainwashed all of us into something very very very damaging, but very much to their continued advantage, of course.

They've made us believe that shame attaches to people who are abused by stronger people. That it's being abused in some way because you're younger or physically weaker or less malicious or just in the wrong place in the wrong time is what we have to be so ashamed of and hide and keep private. But in fact this whole stupid mythology is just shit that's been pushed on us by the victimizers to keep their misdeeds and their evil natures "private." Mainly so they can keep getting away with it. 

Everybody buys this idea that the victims of evil crap have "a right" not to be known as victims. But I swear that's just a stinking bill of goods we've been sold over the centuries by the victimizers. When the abused aren't known then neither are the abusers. ... Note that what got the Duggar girls unmasked is the fact that their damn parents -- perpetrators par excellence -- were named in the reports. .... So to "protect the girls" the entire source of the evil had to be "protected" too. Bullshit, I say. 

I'm biased on this because I was always the one who went around telling people exactly what was happening in my house. Everyone else was ashamed of their victimhood and were mad to hush everything up.

But I knew who was to blame, and it wasn't me or any of the other victims. So to me it was a badge of pride to tell everybody I could corner about exactly what happened and who was at fault and who wasn't. Of course back in the olden days nobody did a damn thing about abuse in families. So nothing ever happened. People just looked at me blinking. And I'm sure that it wasn't just my family who thought I was nuts, but everyone.

And I still didn't care. The truth was that people were being treated like shit and I was able to tell everybody I could corner who was doing it and what they were doing. So maybe some people felt just a leetle bit more doubt about the "I'm so great" mask that the particular perpetrators in our case so successfully wore. I'm still proud that I was the person who did, even though in a practical sense not one thing was accomplished except that I got a reputation as a nut.

Internally, though, I won. And I won for life. My damn soul was not entirely in chains with some kind of misguided shame over somebody else mistreating me. We should handle out hero's medals to all mistreated people. And they should prominently feature the faces of the people who mistreated them. And they should read -- "This is the piece of shit who mistreated me. If you see this face somewhere, spit on it. And don't believe a word that comes out of this malicious mouth."

The whole shame thing needs to be turned upside down. 

This whole Duggar thing just throws into high relief the incredible backwards crap of it all. Nothing that any Duggar has ever said about this whole history has every made a lick of sense. And that's because our whole way of looking at such things is completely warped. 

Nevertheless, I hope to heck this never goes to court. 

Hell to the yes, Churchhoney. It is NOT the victims who should be ashamed but the perpetrators. However, the Gothard way has taught these girls the whole time that they SHOULD be ashamed about being abused. Thus, even though the abuse itself was "no big deal," the fact that everyone now knows means the girls get to feel ashamed all over again because they are reminded of how they supposedly "caused" it to happen. They should feel NO shame at all. NONE. It was NOT THEIR FAULT, and I would so, so love for them to understand that.
wrt privacy and the re-traumatization that takes place when a victim has to tell his/her story all over again, my county established an awesome agency years ago after a horrendous death caused by parental abuse. Any child with testimony to share goes to this agency and talks with very well-trained staff about what happened. ONCE. The testimony is recorded, and that is what is used in any court proceedings that follow, so that the child doesn't have to relive the abuse over and over.

Edited May 21, 2017 by LilJen

[Oldernowiser]

Regular people who are working their asses off generally give the side eye to reality television being "work." From the outside, it looks like getting paid to do nothing. Add to that they've been hauled in for jury duty for the princely sum of $18 a day and many won't get paid that day because they're not at work.

So they might take an even dimmer view of what looks like a grab for even more money because a cover-up of child abuse failed in large part because of their fame?

JB must be counting on only getting fundies on the jury. 

[kokapetl]

16 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Regular people who are working their asses off generally give the side eye to reality television being "work." From the outside, it looks like getting paid to do nothing. Add to that they've been hauled in for jury duty for the princely sum of $18 a day and many won't get paid that day because they're not at work.

So they might take an even dimmer view of what looks like a grab for even more money because a cover-up of child abuse failed in large part because of their fame?

JB must be counting on only getting fundies on the jury. 

Do you judge heiress Yvonne Bauer, CEO and owner of 85 percent of tabloid publisher Bauer Media Group, who is personally worth two and a half billion dollars, or her three sisters, who each own a third of the remaining fifteen percent, and who ALL inherited their fortune, by a lesser standard? The plaintiffs are nowhere close to being the sleaziest, greediest money grabbing people in this affair. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Kokapetl

[GeeGolly]

8 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Do you judge heiress Yvonne Bauer, CEO and owner of 85 percent of tabloid publisher Bauer Media Group, who is personally worth two and a half billion dollars, or her three sisters, who each own a third of the remaining fifteen percent, and who ALL inherited their fortune, by a lesser standard? The plaintiffs are nowhere close to being the sleaziest, greediest money grabbing people in this affair. 

Ain't that the truth!

[Mollie]

13 minutes ago, PoshSprinkles said:

I have linked to an old article that touches on why releasing the report wasn't illegal. This was done back in 2015 right after all of this came to light. They interviewed several attorneys from Arkansas who basically said there was no case that could be made against the city. 

JD FOIA

That's a noteworthy article, and from the The Washington Post, no less!  It basicly says that Josh was being investigated and Josh was not a minor in 2006; he was 18.  Besides that, Josh was never identified as the perpetrator anyway.  (Regardless of statements made by Jim Bob on the Fox interview, Josh was not considered a juvenile when the crimes were committed.  A juvenile sex offender in Arkansas is one who is under the age of 14.  Josh was 14 and 15 when the crimes occurred.) The victims' names and genders were blacked out so their privacy was protected.  

Several lawyers cited in that article state that the records had to be released under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. 

[lascuba]

Anyone else think that the claim the the police assured the girls that everything would be kept private was utter bullshit? I don't believe that any of them had the sense at the time to ask-it wouldnt have occurred to them to worry about it. I'm sure Jim Bob did, but any such conversation between the girls and the police never happened. I'd bet on that.

[Churchhoney]

9 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Do you judge heiress Yvonne Bauer, CEO and owner of 85 percent of tabloid publisher Bauer Media Group, who is personally worth two and a half billion dollars, or her three sisters, who each own a third of the remaining fifteen percent, and who ALL inherited their fortune, by a lesser standard? The plaintiffs are nowhere close to being the sleaziest, greediest money grabbing people in this affair. 

Yeah, but they're going to be back in Germany completely out of sight, with little chance for anybody to get sick of seeing them or even to hear about anything that they've done, since this is really about one magazine story, not about the antics, whatever they are, of the family that owns scores of media outlets around the world. 

Meanwhile, the Duggars are going to be sitting right there, with a chance of saying things under questioning that don't necessarily put them in a great light, and  with Jim Bob and possum head possibly sitting there looking all phony baloney (if they had any sense they'd stay out of the courtroom, but I wonder whether they do have that much sense.) And the whole jury will know full well that JB would choose a jury trial because he's hoping for sympathy. It's the people in court that the jury are more likely to get sick of and annoyed with. (When you live in a one-day-or-one-trial jurisdiction and also in the jurisdiction of a very busy federal court, you practically become a professional juror, so I've been on a lot of juries and I've seen this.)  

The jury won't even see or think about the tab's owners, I expect. If JB's lawyers try to talk about the Bauer family owning some porn mags, I doubt that would be admissible in this case. Plus, the suit's against not just the magazine but the local police as well. So if they tar one they're going to have to tar the other, aren't they? And that won't necessarily win them points. 

I don't think the difference between having a judge or a jury will affect the actual decision in the case.

It's just that I expect JB thinks a jury is a slam dunk for him when it comes to getting as big an award as possible because "poor girls." But it may well not work out like that. People may well think "poor girls' and then envision the money going into JB's pockets, too. And that might cancel out whatever they feel about the girls. I think a jury is a way bigger crapshoot than JB imagines it is. 

[Mollie]

37 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Do you judge heiress Yvonne Bauer, CEO and owner of 85 percent of tabloid publisher Bauer Media Group, who is personally worth two and a half billion dollars, or her three sisters, who each own a third of the remaining fifteen percent, and who ALL inherited their fortune, by a lesser standard? The plaintiffs are nowhere close to being the sleaziest, greediest money grabbing people in this affair. 

To be fair, Yvonne Bauer  is a college educated woman who apprenticed at a major publisher before working at her family's firm.  She became active CEO of Bauer Media Group in 2010 and manages more than 600 magazines, over 400 digital products and 50 radio and TV stations around the world. The portfolio includes print shops, postal, distribution and marketing services. Bauer Media Group has a workforce of approximately 11,000 employees in 17 countries.

In short, she works her butt off.  She deserves the money she makes.  No way does she resemble a Duggar.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Mollie

[Churchhoney]

27 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

Do you judge heiress Yvonne Bauer, CEO and owner of 85 percent of tabloid publisher Bauer Media Group, who is personally worth two and a half billion dollars, or her three sisters, who each own a third of the remaining fifteen percent, and who ALL inherited their fortune, by a lesser standard? The plaintiffs are nowhere close to being the sleaziest, greediest money grabbing people in this affair. 

I'll agree that this is quite likely as long as we exempt JB. I don't think he has a lot of superiors when it comes to being sleazy and greedy. I just think he isn't as good at it as a lot of other people are. ;  )

Edited May 21, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Mollie]

11 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Anyone else think that the claim the the police assured the girls that everything would be kept private was utter bullshit? I don't believe that any of them had the sense at the time to ask-it wouldnt have occurred to them to worry about it. I'm sure Jim Bob did, but any such conversation between the girls and the police never happened. I'd bet on that.

Yes, I think that is bullshit regarding the police interview.  I can't imagine the police discussing privacy with the four girls.  And, they can't testify about what was or was not said to their parents.  Maybe the social services therapist assured them of privacy during the counseling sessions, but those records were not the ones released.

Jim Bob may have promised them privacy because he likes to think he knows everything about the law, but he's an idiot.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Mollie

[kokapetl]

9 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Yes, I think that is bullshit regarding the police interview.  I can't imagine the police discussing privacy with the four girls.  And, they can't testify about what was or was not said to their parents.  Maybe the social services therapist assured them of privacy during the counseling sessions, but those records were not the ones released.

The interviews took place at the Children’s Safety Center of Washington County  

"ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION

The primary goal of the CSC is to ensure children are not further victimized by the intervention systems designed to protect them."

"The Children’s Safety Center of Washington County empowers children to overcome abuse and begin to trust, hope and heal."

If the release of the documents was not a mistake, this place should be sued into oblivion.  

[Mollie]

7 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

The interviews took place at the Children’s Safety Center of Washington County  

"ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION

The primary goal of the CSC is to ensure children are not further victimized by the intervention systems designed to protect them."

"The Children’s Safety Center of Washington County empowers children to overcome abuse and begin to trust, hope and heal."

If the release of the documents was not a mistake, this place should be sued into oblivion.  

That's where the interviews took place, but the interviews were conducted by police officers. From the organization's website: "We also offer our interview room to law officers who have been trained in forensic interviewing."

That organization offers free therapy sessions for children who have been abused, etc.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Mollie

[kokapetl]

2 minutes ago, Mollie said:

That's where the interviews took place, but the interviews were conducted by police officers. From the organization's website: "We also offer our interview room to law officers who have been trained in forensic interviewing."

That organization offers free therapy sessions for children who have been abused, etc.

This is what I found on the homepage about forensic interviewing

"Through forensic interviews, each victim embarks on a journey toward hope and healing."

Is releasing those interviews to tabloids compatible with that?

[Mollie]

18 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

This is what I found on the homepage about forensic interviewing

"Through forensic interviews, each victim embarks on a journey toward hope and healing."

Is releasing those interviews to tabloids compatible with that?

Again, you are looking at what the The Children’s Safety Center does.  It is set up as a first-point-of contact for children who are abuse victims. They have a staff that conducts interviews, too, and their purpose is to help children "on a journey toward hope and healing."  The purpose of the police interview, however, was to determine if a crime had taken place and if an arrest or some other action was warranted.

After the interview, police determined that no recent sexual abuse had taken place and that the statute of limitations had passed for making an arrest.  At that point, the police referred the matter to Child Protective Services and CPS ordered counselling for the girls and for Josh.  That counselling might have taken place at The Children’s Safety Center, where the focus would indeed be on hope and healing.

[Churchhoney]

20 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

This is what I found on the homepage about forensic interviewing

"Through forensic interviews, each victim embarks on a journey toward hope and healing."

Is releasing those interviews to tabloids compatible with that?

Isn't it true that if the forensic process had been followed to its conclusion, none of the records would have been released?

And who stopped the process from being followed? Jim Bob, right?

So how were these people supposed to stop that from happening? How could it possibly be their fault that that happened? And now they should be destroyed because he insisted on leaving the system? And their operating money  should be handed over to him as a reward for refusing to let things be done the right way? How is that helpful to anyone? 

It;'s Jim Bob who forcibly stopped his kids from taking any journeys of healing. He stopped the journey and slapped on them tv, and ordered them all to lie about everything had happened because now they were the perfect tv family selling the fantasy. And he gets a reward for this, while this organization that had nothing to do with that cruel error has to hand over all its money and go out of business? While he gets the money, too? 

Sorry, but I'm not understanding that at all. 

[kokapetl]

An overarching theme of the juvenile justice system and to juvenile victims of crime, is that matters will be treated confidentially. That victims should will be safe disclosing what happened to them. That the police are trustworthy enough to confide in. The daughters confided to police, and look how it came back to haunt them  

Jimbob stopped nothing. 

DHS appear to have provided services for the victims, and issued a ruling against Josh. 

Edited May 21, 2017 by Kokapetl

[Absolom]

With all of the usual denials, I am not a lawyer in Arkansas, nor have I consulted with an Arkansas attorney, but perhaps one thing some people may be forgetting is that the alleged perpetrator at the time of the interviews was an adult not a juvenile.  Therefore, we are not talking juvenile records.  The records would be classified based on the age of the alleged offender?  No?

[Sew Sumi]

Right, the police weren't contacted until after Smuggar was 18.

 

Here's another question for AR legal eagles. Can the judge order a change of venue if the is a jury trial? I have seen it happen in CA when police are involved, but since deals with a city, do they have to stay in Washington County?

[kokapetl]

1 minute ago, Absolom said:

With all of the usual denials, I am not a lawyer in Arkansas, nor have I consulted with an Arkansas attorney, but perhaps one thing some people may be forgetting is that the alleged perpetrator at the time of the interviews was an adult not a juvenile.  Therefore, we are not talking juvenile records.  The records would be classified based on the age of the alleged offender?  No?

The age of the alleged offender when the alleged offense was committed seems more logical 

[ms.o]

Any interviews done by an forensic interviews through CPS would be documented as part of the CPS workers case. That is a completely separate thing then a police officers report. The location of interview is separate from who conducted it. 

I do not expect young children to know this and as I said before and All these technicalities SUCKS for victims. Sucks sucks sucks

But, i still don't believe the Duggars have good hearted "protect all victims" mentality on this. If they win anything in this lawsuit and they donate to Advocacy Centers, foster home training places, victim compensation funds, etc? I will gladly eat my words. 

[Mollie]

1 minute ago, Kokapetl said:

The age of the alleged offender when the alleged offense was committed seems more logical 

I'll repeat what I said before.  In Arkansas, a sex offender is only considered a juvenile if under the age of 14.  Josh was 14 and 15 when the abuse occurred.

[Sew Sumi]

2 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

The age of the alleged offender when the alleged offense was committed seems more logical 

Unfortunately, the law doesn't read that way, which is part and parcel of the loophole that was used to release the report.

[Absolom]

It does perhaps seem more logical and might have been true had all of this investigation occurred when the offenses first happened.  Mollie also makes a good point about who is juvenile in what cases.

I have no idea how it would work in Arkansas, but I have seen a case where the offense occurred when the person was a juvenile and wasn't solved until the perpetrator was an adult.  It was tried in adult court since it wasn't possible to sentence the person within the juvenile system any longer.  Adult court proceedings applied.  Again that was not in Arkansas.

Edited May 21, 2017 by Absolom

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, Absolom said:

It does perhaps seem more logical and definitely would have been true had all of this investigation occurred when the offenses first happened.

I have no idea how it would work in Arkansas, but I have seen a case where the offense occurred when the person was a juvenile and wasn't solved until the perpetrator was an adult.  It was tried in adult court since it wasn't possible to sentence the person within the juvenile system any longer.  Adult court proceedings applied.  Again that was not in Arkansas.

In the Skakel - Moxley trial, Skakel was tried as a juvenile @ age 40 because the crime was committed when he was 15.