The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Mollie]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

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

That was a murder trial!  

On March 14, Skakel was arraigned for murder in a juvenile court as he was 15 years old at the time of Moxley's murder. On January 31, a judge ruled that Skakel would be tried as an adult. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Martha_Moxley

[Obsidian]

For this trial, we will just have to hope that Jill has legal things as well as medical things.

[JoanArc]

19 minutes ago, Obsidian said:

For this trial, we will just have to hope that Jill has legal things as well as medical things.

 

 Seriously, at this point I don't care if they win or lose the lawsuit.  Say they win, what is a reasonable dollar figure for their award?  Honestly I'd love for them to win and be awarded one dollar. Because this isn't about money!

Edited May 21, 2017 by JoanArc

[bigskygirl]

JB is not the smartest crayon in the box since he probably thought no one would find out about Josh molesting his sisters because he handled everything right. Hmmm... Going on national television by promoting his family as the bestest and most Godly people ever while lying through their teeth. He had to know it would hit the fan one day. Of course, all the victims are or will be married off, and he can make a buck off of it by blaming others for their devil type actions because they did not buy their religious and political crap. I hope someone points out he brought this all on himself, and he has no one else to blame.

[Mollie]

"This case is solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse."

 

[JoanArc]

Quote

"This case is solely about protecting children who are victims of abuse."

A few mil would buy them a new grifting ministry to help abused children. They could be set for generations of DONATIONS with it, and not have to work.

 

Im sure 5 mil would ensure Michelle gets pregnant again too. After a CA ministrycation.

[Pinke]

6 hours 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?"

This thread has been rather depressing lately (understandably so) and I've been lying in bed post-surgery feeling down (please DONATE!)... so, thanks for the laugh lol.

[LilJen]

10 hours 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?

 

9 hours ago, toodles said:

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.

I was wondering about the lawyer thing. Isn't it fairly typical for an ongoing lawsuit to NOT be discussed in public? It seems to me that this would be the wisest approach--let the wheels of justice do their thing and not comment publicly while things are being decided. (Okay, "wise" and "Duggar" don't go together--but *legally* speaking, aren't claimants usually advised to zip it while a lawsuit is underway?)

8 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

JAR 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. 

I was wondering if this did not apply because the lawsuit is against the *city* in which they live, not the state. Did they make their original report to city, or to state police?

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, JoanArc said:

A few mil would buy them a new grifting ministry to help abused children. They could be set for generations of DONATIONS with it, and not have to work.

 

 

*SHUDDER* Any organization for abused children that they start or donate (HA!) to would be horribly abusive itself.

[ariel]

10 hours ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

 

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? 

The Duggars would have temporarily become pro-choice.  For the Duggars, but not for anyone else.  They are the special snowflakes.

[JoanArc]

25 minutes ago, lascuba said:

*SHUDDER* Any organization for abused children that they start or donate (HA!) to would be horribly abusive itself.

The Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar Center for The Promotion of Slyness reminds you:

You were asking for it, slut.

Now pay the man at the door. We don't validate your feelings, or parking.

[Sew Sumi]

Back in March, this woman posted to Pickles, claiming she was the whistleblower who went to InTouch with the Duggar molestation information. Her whole name IS out there. If she's telling the truth, I'm surprised the Duggars didn't get wind of this and sue her as well. 

http://www.mommypage.com/2017/03/whistleblower-in-josh-duggar-sex-scandal-speaks-out-for-the-first-time-in-nearly-two-years/

eta: I checked her out on her very PUBLIC FB page (she best lock it down and fast), and comments made to her, along with residence ID check out (pro-gay, can't stand the Duggars, lives in Springdale). 

Interesting that she just came out with this a couple months ago. I guess she preferred to not be in the eye of that storm back then. I only know about this because a real friend of mine was trying to dig up some more Duggar information. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[lascuba]

39 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

Back in March, this woman posted to Pickles, claiming she was the whistleblower who went to InTouch with the Duggar molestation information. Her whole name IS out there. If she's telling the truth, I'm surprised the Duggars didn't get wind of this and sue her as well. 

 

Unless she worked in a capacity that would require her keeping her mouth shut, is there anything to sue over?  She's a private citizen who called a tabloid and repeated a town rumor, a rumor that existed because a member of JB's church blabbed, and that church member knew because JB made his daughters get up on stage and publicly forgive their molester. Since the rumor turned out to be true, she can't be accused of slander or libel.  

God, I love how JB's hubris came back to bite him. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by lascuba

[queenanne]

6 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

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. 

I think that's absolutely the point (again, based largely on my vast experience of being a consumer of legal-themed TV shows, I grant; though I have been a paraprofessional in a boring non-trial law field, and a juror); that juries are supposed to be open to being increased by sympathy points.  That they'll vote their emotions and not the law.  

Which, again, assumes that people in Arkansas overwhelmingly like the Duggars, instead of finding them smug and/or weird. Strangers may very well like the girls when they first see their young shining faces and hear them speak, but I don't think even the softest will like them 10-15MM-worth.  I can see a jury liking them 10% of that, maybe.

[Sew Sumi]

I'm sure that if they desired, Boob's high-falutin' lawyers could say that the whistleblower is ultimately responsible for there being an FOIA inquiry at all. Otherwise, how would InTouch have learned about this? They're not a local rag. 

But yeah, it sounds like it was the worst kept secret in Springdale. 

Oh, this woman's sister and her now-wife are the women in the famous Kissing at the Compound picture. I'd say that family is not very enamored with the Duggars. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[Oldernowiser]

If in fact JB made all of them stand up in church and discuss it (OMG, what an asshole) didn't the Duggars effectively make the information public as to what happened and to whom?

[queenanne]

10 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

If in fact JB made all of them stand up in church and discuss it (OMG, what an asshole) didn't the Duggars effectively make the information public as to what happened and to whom?

It and similar confessions are supposed to be in confidence amongst the members of the church body.  One of those "outsiders don't understand Church Business of the Godly" moments.

[doodlebug]

12 minutes ago, queenanne said:

It and similar confessions are supposed to be in confidence amongst the members of the church body.  One of those "outsiders don't understand Church Business of the Godly" moments.

So, maybe the Duggar sisters need to name the church member(s) who spilled the beans, too, since they were apparently promised confidentiality amongst their fellow believers and didn't get it.  After all, if the rumors were all over the internet for a couple of years and ultimately led to the whistle blower getting enough information on the situation to let In Touch know about it.  Had JB not hauled Josh and the girls into the church to put on a show of forgiveness, the whole thing would've probably never come to light.

[Sew Sumi]

More on the whistleblower and her sister. InTouch contacted the sister after that pic went viral and Jessa went on a banning spree on her honeymoon (of which I was a victim). So now we know why Sherri contacted InTouch rather than another tabloid; they already had an "in" there. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/to-get-the-josh-duggar-story-intouch-utilized-solid-investigative-journalism/2015/06/07/f4dabc4a-0bbe-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html?utm_term=.e1283e0e8a77

[queenanne]

2 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

So, maybe the Duggar sisters need to name the church member(s) who spilled the beans, too, since they were apparently promised confidentiality amongst their fellow believers and didn't get it.  After all, if the rumors were all over the internet for a couple of years and ultimately led to the whistle blower getting enough information on the situation to let In Touch know about it.  Had JB not hauled Josh and the girls into the church to put on a show of forgiveness, the whole thing would've probably never come to light.

I'd support this no problem.  I actually wondered in retrospect if this is the reason why the Duggars started home-churching, feeling like they'd been "burned" by their fellow believers...

[Sew Sumi]

They were shown homechurching in the very first special, but it was not made known how long that arrangement had been going on. I don't think we have any information about where the Duggars attended church between (now) Cross Church - where they were married - and the homechurching arrangement we saw in late '03/early '04. They obviously went off the SBC rails when they joined IBLP/ATI, so I suspect they were IFB until the molestations probably forced them out of the church. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

9 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

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. 

What I don't understand is why Jim Bob's actions matter at all when it comes to determining if Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy were wronged by the Springdale Police Department.

This case is between the four of them and the police officials who they claim failed to carry out their legal obligation to protect the privacy of victims of sexual assault. This case is a referendum on the behavior  of the Springdale Police, not the behavior of Jim Bob Duggar.  

I realize that Jim Bob may in fact be the driving force behind the suit and he might benefit financially from any award the girls may receive. But to me that is irrelevant. As sexual assault victims, those four girls have a right to privacy.  There is a good argument to be made that their rights were violated.  

To dismiss the validity of their right to litigate the matter just because their sorry excuse for a father might make money off their case is unfair and in my opinion amounts to an extension of the victimization they have already endured living under his roof. 

[Churchhoney]

5 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

What I don't understand is why Jim Bob's actions matter at all when it comes to determining if Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy were wronged by the Springdale Police Department.

This case is between the four of them and the police officials who they claim failed to carry out their legal obligation to protect the privacy of victims of sexual assault. This case is a referendum on the behavior  of the Springdale Police, not the behavior of Jim Bob Duggar.  

I realize that Jim Bob may in fact be the driving force behind the suit and he might benefit financially from any award the girls may receive. But to me that is irrelevant. As sexual assault victims, those four girls have a right to privacy.  There is a good argument to be made that their rights were violated.  

To dismiss the validity of their right to litigate the matter just because their sorry excuse for a father might make money off their case is unfair and in my opinion amounts to an extension of the victimization they have already endured living under his roof. 

I agree. But in this case, I was responding to Kokapetl's argument that the Children's Safety Center should pay a monetary penalty to the Duggars that would destroy their ability to continue operating because they say that they help children heal.

And I may well be misunderstanding their role in this, but I didn't have the impression that that specific organization was responsible for the redaction (and I know they weren't responsible for the publication) or had the power to stop either one.

If they weren't responsible for those things, I don't see why they should in effect pay a fine that would destroy their ability to continue operating, as he contends they should. Why should they be penalized for what they didn't have power over, on the grounds that they are responsible for the girls not going on a healing journey?

(And, yeah, this one is my bias. But for me it would be even worse to actually have their operating money turned over to JIm Bob .And, yeah,  I believe this whole thing was Jim Bob's idea. And I know that any money the family gets is to his benefit, since unless they get the money he goes on letting a bunch of them live rent free, which costs him. But if that organization gets so severely penalized that it's destroyed over something that I don't think they really had control over, I think it would be at the very least ironic for the Duggar parents to get that money as a reward, since they're the ones who determinedly, all the way through, kept the kids from getting any serious help with anything, because they declared that none of them needed it. 

Now if, in fact the Children's Safety Center was responsible for the inadequate redaction or for handing over records that shouldn't have been handed over or whatever, then I take it back. They can be sued as well, although I don't agree that whatever mistakes were made warrant suing either them or the police into the ground. But if they weren't responsible for the redaction or the handover, I don't see that this is their fault, just because they're part of the same system. That was my point. 

(And I admit that I mention JIm Bob because, since everything that happened wsa his fault, it pisses me off that he's likely to make money off of it. While other people get blamed for their parts and have to pay, as usual he skates and comes out smelling like a rose to his stupid children, even though he's the one that maliciously screwed up the whole situation in the first place for his own personal benefit.)

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[lascuba]

5 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

What I don't understand is why Jim Bob's actions matter at all when it comes to determining if Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy were wronged by the Springdale Police Department.

 

True, but for me, it comes down to me not believing that the police department wronged them. To take it down to the basics...who started it? Who was the one responsible for releasing so much personal information that people familiar with the show would so easily be able to guess who was who? Because while reality tv and internet shenanigans aren't all that new, I think that for the average person who doesn't spend much time online--especially to dissect the lives of D-list celebrities--it is 100% reasonable to assume the redactions were enough to protect the girls' privacy.

Bottom line, neither the police nor In Touch released the names of the victims. Random people on the internet guessed and the the victims themselves confirmed.

[toodles]

11 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

If in fact JB made all of them stand up in church and discuss it (OMG, what an asshole) didn't the Duggars effectively make the information public as to what happened and to whom?

So did they use the Fox news bulshit line?  They didn't know what happened because they were sleeping?  If the whole congregation knew it, what difference does it make that in touch published it too?  I don't get it.

[toodles]

10 hours ago, doodlebug said:

So, maybe the Duggar sisters need to name the church member(s) who spilled the beans, too, since they were apparently promised confidentiality amongst their fellow believers and didn't get it.  After all, if the rumors were all over the internet for a couple of years and ultimately led to the whistle blower getting enough information on the situation to let In Touch know about it.  Had JB not hauled Josh and the girls into the church to put on a show of forgiveness, the whole thing would've probably never come to light.

And maybe if Boob hadn't sold his family to TLC it wouldn't have come to light either.  If you think every single person in church that day was going to keep this a secret because of some sort of omerta, well that's just crazy talk.

This is karma at its finest.  Boob forced those little girls to confess to something they weren't responsible for and it came back to bite him in the ass.  Big time.

[Absolom]

Yes, the entire episode is one big Gothard fail.  It revolves around his teachings in so many ways and bottom line it was following that where most of the failures on the Duggar side came into play.  Going on Faux news was probably all Jim Bob.  I don't think Gothard covered that. 

[JoanArc]

2 hours ago, toodles said:

So did they use the Fox news bulshit line?  They didn't know what happened because they were sleeping?  If the whole congregation knew it, what difference does it make that in touch published it too?  I don't get it.

Good point...the community knew for years and years before the report was public...that's why it was requested to be released in the first place.

 

[Sew Sumi]

Janis Ian, voice of reason. ?

[toodles]

14 hours ago, queenanne said:

It and similar confessions are supposed to be in confidence amongst the members of the church body.  One of those "outsiders don't understand Church Business of the Godly" moments.

I know I'm beating this to death, but did everyone do a pinky swear?  I guess someone in the church didn't get the memo.  Maybe God laid it upon their hearts to blab to their neighbors.  I'm sure God laid it upon Boob's heart to file this suit.  God has been too busy with the heart laying the past couple of years, getting those girls married off and making sure the TLC gravy train keeps roling to get around to this before now.  

Only an idiot could possibly think this would stay secret.   Oh wait.  It's boob.  I almost forgot, but not really?

[Churchhoney]

51 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

Good point...the community knew for years and years before the report was public...that's why it was requested to be released in the first place.

 

Jim Bob: A couple of seconds of being unwillingly touched in intimate areas under your clothes is horrible and can feel like about an hour. And I can't even imagine what it feels like to a five-year-old. And then most people get flashbacks of that feeling later. Even as stupid as he is, it's unbelievable to me that he'd say that on television. He sure as hell wanted his show back.

Jessa: Teenage brothers generally know that it's incredibly inappropriate to experience a "quick feel" with their little sisters. Many of them, maybe even most of them, find just the thought of that not only inappropriate -- and mean to their little sisters -- but incredibly icky. Stupid as she is, it's unbelievable to me that she'd say that on television. She sure as hell wanted her show back. 

Jim Bob and Michelle: Girls, stand up in front of a group of people and tell your brother that you forgive him. Because why? Because according to Mr. Gothard -- 

"Defrauding is not the only way a victim can be at fault. Gothard also teaches that if a victim fails to “cry out” or be alert (one of the 49 required character traits everyone should have) enough to have anticipated the assault, then the victim bears responsibility. The story of Tamar, daughter of King David, is used to illustrate this point. It is easy to see how these teaching have set up a system where the victim bears the blame. Anyone raised with these beliefs is set up to struggle with a lifetime of shame and guilt while still bearing the scars of their abuse.

"Before the victim has a chance to make sense of what has happened to them or deal with the chaos of emotions, they will also be reminded of another one of Gothard’s 7 Basic Principles-Suffering. This principle emphasizes the necessity of forgiveness and has dire warnings about the consequences of unforgiveness. If a victim fails to forgive, bitterness will take root in their heart, and bitterness causes pieces of your soul to be given to Satan. Satan will then build strongholds on this piece of your soul."

https://homeschoolersanonymous.org/2015/05/23/gothards-ati-and-the-duggar-familys-secrets/

This is why it drives me crazy that other people -- including taxpayers who support, you know, schools and juvenile justice systems and not cults -- could have to pay tens of millions of dollars for the -- at least partly inadvertent -- harms they've done this family over these incidents. 

While the people who've said and done all the above shit -- repeatedly and insistently -- fully expect that they should just pirouette away with the tens of millions in their pockets while they continue to claim that not only have they done absolutely nothing to cause any problems or pain in this situation but that they continue to deserve a TeeVee show so they can expose the masses to the perfect example of "godly" living they provide. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Absolom]

They should have known.  Churches are one of the biggest hubs of gossip around.  I just got yesterday's church gossip from my neighbor.  It's like that every week.  It may get couched as prayer requests, but the stories flow fleely. 

[Churchhoney]

12 minutes ago, Absolom said:

They should have known.  Churches are one of the biggest hubs of gossip around.  I just got yesterday's church gossip from my neighbor.  It's like that every week.  It may get couched as prayer requests, but the stories flow fleely. 

Yeah, my mom was head of a church prayer chain for decades. She said the stuff that people called up to report was jaw-dropping and often way inappropriate -- she thought -- for a prayer request, especially a request made by someone who wasn't one of the principals in the reported situation. She often said she thought that the reporting had nothing to do with prayer and everything to do with gossip. A lot of time she'd just pretend she'd passed something on but didn't or pretend she couldn't get hold of the next members of the chain. But sometimes the requesters would just bypass her and call the next people themselves. She held onto her post for a long time partly because she didn't want to turn the thing over to some of the next people down, who she also thought might be in it mainly for the gossip. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[kokapetl]

6 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I agree. But in this case, I was responding to Kokapetl's argument that the Children's Safety Center should pay a monetary penalty to the Duggars that would destroy their ability to continue operating because they say that they help children heal.

And I may well be misunderstanding their role in this, but I didn't have the impression that that specific organization was responsible for the redaction (and I know they weren't responsible for the publication) or had the power to stop either one.

If they weren't responsible for those things, I don't see why they should in effect pay a fine that would destroy their ability to continue operating, as he contends they should. Why should they be penalized for what they didn't have power over, on the grounds that they are responsible for the girls not going on a healing journey?

(And, yeah, this one is my bias. But for me it would be even worse to actually have their operating money turned over to JIm Bob .And, yeah,  I believe this whole thing was Jim Bob's idea. And I know that any money the family gets is to his benefit, since unless they get the money he goes on letting a bunch of them live rent free, which costs him. But if that organization gets so severely penalized that it's destroyed over something that I don't think they really had control over, I think it would be at the very least ironic for the Duggar parents to get that money as a reward, since they're the ones who determinedly, all the way through, kept the kids from getting any serious help with anything, because they declared that none of them needed it. 

Now if, in fact the Children's Safety Center was responsible for the inadequate redaction or for handing over records that shouldn't have been handed over or whatever, then I take it back. They can be sued as well, although I don't agree that whatever mistakes were made warrant suing either them or the police into the ground. But if they weren't responsible for the redaction or the handover, I don't see that this is their fault, just because they're part of the same system. That was my point. 

(And I admit that I mention JIm Bob because, since everything that happened wsa his fault, it pisses me off that he's likely to make money off of it. While other people get blamed for their parts and have to pay, as usual he skates and comes out smelling like a rose to his stupid children, even though he's the one that maliciously screwed up the whole situation in the first place for his own personal benefit.)

My point about the Children's Safety Centre is that the plaintiffs would have very reasonably expected their interviews to be to be handled in a manner consistent with the stated purpose of the centre's existence. The Children's Safety Centre isn't being sued, and I don't think they should be sued. 

I believe the insufficient redaction was the city's mistake, and that the Centre operates in good faith. However, if they were routinely lying to children...

Edited May 22, 2017 by Kokapetl

[Oldernowiser]

That gif of Michelle makes her look stone-cold crazy. Is that supposed to be her super-sincere face?

[Lunera]

Whenever I see clips of that interview I wanna pull my hair out at the stupidity of it. Whoever watched the interview and thought "it's ok it was just a quick feel, not a big deal" make me sick. 

Incestuous molestation is not normal especially among siblings. I grew up in a 9 person household (5 sisters 1 brother) in a 2 bedroom tiny house and never did it cross my mind that my brother would try something and if he did I would never forgive anything like that EVER! I would also never go on television excusing that disgusting behavior. 

 

 

[Churchhoney]

7 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

My point about the Children's Safety Centre is that the plaintiffs would have very reasonably expected their interviews to be to be handled in a manner consistent with the stated purpose of the centre's existence. The Children's Safety Centre isn't being sued, and I don't think they should be sued. 

Okay! Point taken. And thanks for clarifying. Our miscommunication comes from my misunderstanding this post of yours from the previous page:

 

'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.'

 

Can't say that I know now what you did mean by it, but now at least I know what you didn't mean, You didn't mean that they should be sued into oblivion. Me neither!

[xwordfanatik]

9 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

That gif of Michelle makes her look stone-cold crazy. Is that supposed to be her super-sincere face?

It is scary as hell!  Her eyeballs look like they're going to pop out.  I wonder what she was saying?

[Churchhoney]

3 minutes ago, xwordfanatik said:

It is scary as hell!  Her eyeballs look like they're going to pop out.  I wonder what she was saying?

Time for a Starbucks run?

[Oldernowiser]

Part of it is, "What's wrong?"

What isn't...

[xwordfanatik]

2 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Time for a Starbucks run?

LOL, if coffee made me look that batshit crazy, I'd have to give it up.

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

Part of it is, "What's wrong?"

What isn't...

So true.  

[duggarshow]

12 hours ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

What I don't understand is why Jim Bob's actions matter at all when it comes to determining if Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy were wronged by the Springdale Police Department.

This case is between the four of them and the police officials who they claim failed to carry out their legal obligation to protect the privacy of victims of sexual assault. This case is a referendum on the behavior  of the Springdale Police, not the behavior of Jim Bob Duggar.  

I realize that Jim Bob may in fact be the driving force behind the suit and he might benefit financially from any award the girls may receive. But to me that is irrelevant. As sexual assault victims, those four girls have a right to privacy.  There is a good argument to be made that their rights were violated.  

To dismiss the validity of their right to litigate the matter just because their sorry excuse for a father might make money off their case is unfair and in my opinion amounts to an extension of the victimization they have already endured living under his roof. 

^^^^^This!

[Oldernowiser]

It's a conundrum, for sure...but there's another aspect to this. Not only would JimBob benefit...but Josh would, as well. You can't tell me he's making enough money by himself these days to support a wife, four kids and a hospital bill for poor kid number 5...so he's no doubt tapping the National Bank of JimBob.

So...here we not only have the guy who perpetrated the cover up, victim blamed, and exploited their privacy for money getting a chunk of change, we also have the guy who actually molested his sisters getting a share of it. 

That's some messed up.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Oldernowiser

[mimionthebeach]

I'm a few pages behind in this thread, but here's my take, with the usual proviso that IANAL. Apologies if these points have already been articulated.

The records that were released were investigative reports/interviews that did not lead to charges and were therefore not sealed. My understanding is that the city was thus compelled to release them in accordance with the FOIA request. The resulting media explosion led to Josh resigning/losing his job and being outed as a complete and utter hypocrite with respect to his family values positions. Mr. and Mrs. Perfect Parents were also revealed to have consumed large dishes of hypocrisy, especially Jim Boob, given his campaign stance that rape and incest should be a capital crimes. The outrage seemed to me to be about harboring a sexual predator, never getting him or his victims adequate help and proceeding to invite cameras into their home to hold themselves up as paragons of godly virtue. I, myself, also had tremendous issues with the breeders going on to have so many more children, once it was obvious they were failing the ones they already had.

These were the reasons TLC, after "much consideration", cancelled the show. Not because the girls involved were his sisters.

So, had the police reports been redacted to the point that the public only knew Josh assaulted 5 very young girls, but not that 4 of them were his sisters, and that efforts had been made to protect him from legal consequences, would that have materially altered public response and the pressure TLC felt to cancel the show?

The girls are suing for damages, alleging loss of income. But they're the ones who got the new show; they get the magazine covers, exclusive contracts for their weddings and breeding; they have the social media following. I'm not unsympathetic to the pain the outing of their victimhood would have caused them (despite the fact that 2 of them outed themselves and denied they were victims), but it doesn't seem to have hurt the plaintiffs materially. (If the kidults have chosen to hand over all proceeds to a Duggar trust, managed by their umbrella, that's on them.) The reputational and material backlash from the release of the police reports has hit their parents and, mostly, Josh. 

I'm struggling to see the merits of their case.

If I seem naive, I must acknowledge that I'm Canadian and therefore not as well-versed as some of my southern neighbours may be with a culture of apparently frivolous litigation. No offense intended.

[Mollie]

41 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Okay! Point taken. And thanks for clarifying. Our miscommunication comes from my misunderstanding this post of yours from the previous page:

 

'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.'

 

Can't say that I know now what you did mean by it, but now at least I know what you didn't mean, You didn't mean that they should be sued into oblivion. Me neither!

The Children's Safety Center did NOT conduct the interviews in the released reports.  The interviews were conducted by State Police Investigator Taylor and Detective D. Hignite.    

The Children's Safety Center: "We also offer our interview room to law officers who have been trained in forensic interviewing."  The Center was just the place where the interviews were conducted and the Center's staff was not involved. 

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, Mollie said:

The Children's Safety Center did NOT conduct the interviews in the released reports.  The interviews were conducted by State Police Investigator Taylor and Detective D. Hignite.    

The Children's Safety Center: "We also offer our interview room to law officers who have been trained in forensic interviewing."  The Center was just the place where the interviews were conducted and the Center's staff was not involved. 

Right. But you and Kokapetl cleared that up yesterday. I caused confusion now by copying his older post. But I was just trying to make clear what I had misunderstood. I think everybody got the point you made yesterday. Sorry to have confused things further. 

[Churchhoney]

24 minutes ago, mimionthebeach said:

I'm a few pages behind in this thread, but here's my take, with the usual proviso that IANAL. Apologies if these points have already been articulated.

The records that were released were investigative reports/interviews that did not lead to charges and were therefore not sealed. My understanding is that the city was thus compelled to release them in accordance with the FOIA request. The resulting media explosion led to Josh resigning/losing his job and being outed as a complete and utter hypocrite with respect to his family values positions. Mr. and Mrs. Perfect Parents were also revealed to have consumed large dishes of hypocrisy, especially Jim Boob, given his campaign stance that rape and incest should be a capital crimes. The outrage seemed to me to be about harboring a sexual predator, never getting him or his victims adequate help and proceeding to invite cameras into their home to hold themselves up as paragons of godly virtue. I, myself, also had tremendous issues with the breeders going on to have so many more children, once it was obvious they were failing the ones they already had.

These were the reasons TLC, after "much consideration", cancelled the show. Not because the girls involved were his sisters.

So, had the police reports been redacted to the point that the public only knew Josh assaulted 5 very young girls, but not that 4 of them were his sisters, and that efforts had been made to protect him from legal consequences, would that have materially altered public response and the pressure TLC felt to cancel the show?

The girls are suing for damages, alleging loss of income. But they're the ones who got the new show; they get the magazine covers, exclusive contracts for their weddings and breeding; they have the social media following. I'm not unsympathetic to the pain the outing of their victimhood would have caused them (despite the fact that 2 of them outed themselves and denied they were victims), but it doesn't seem to have hurt the plaintiffs materially. (If the kidults have chosen to hand over all proceeds to a Duggar trust, managed by their umbrella, that's on them.) The reputational and material backlash from the release of the police reports has hit their parents and, mostly, Josh. 

I'm struggling to see the merits of their case.

If I seem naive, I must acknowledge that I'm Canadian and therefore not as well-versed as some of my southern neighbours may be with a culture of apparently frivolous litigation. No offense intended.

I think they're suing on several grounds, though, right? One of them being the material damages from loss of the show thing? I think you're completely right that that one is a loser for the reason you state -- the show went off because of Josh not because of anything else, such as having their names revealed. The facts just don't bear it out.

But I guess the suit was drafted to include several -- six or seven? -- possible grounds on which the defendants' may owe damages? So -- something else in there may be a winner .... I haven't had the energy to read the whole thing ... 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Mollie]

4 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Right. But you and Kokapetl cleared that up yesterday. I caused confusion now by copying his older post. But I was just trying to make clear what I had misunderstood. I think everybody got the point you made yesterday. Sorry to have confused things further. 

In this post I added the names of the people who conducted the interview to make it even clearer.  

Wouldn't the Four Sisters have more credibility for their supposed motives in fiing this suit if any proceeds that might win were pledged to be donated to The Children's Safety Center?

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, Mollie said:

In this post I added the names of the people who conducted the interview to make it even clearer.  

Wouldn't the Four Sisters have more credibility for their supposed motives in fiing this suit if any proceeds that might win were pledged to be donated to The Children's Safety Center?

They would to me. ;  )                Probably not to Michelle, though. 

[Rabbittron]

If they get any money it will go to the Duggar Family Foundation.