The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

 

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...

Well, this is a pretty unusual case, wouldn't you agree?

Who else in their town would be well enough known to have a tabloid FOIA request made for their records? Who else in their town would have had the kids involved in a situation like this stand up in front of a church group and describe it to people so that not just one but several neighbors knew all about it for years? Who else in their town would be well enough known to people in general so that they could be identified through those somewhat redacted reports when published? How many other people in the town would have had a situation of this kind that would not have gone through the juvenile court system and thus even been open to release?

Very very very few people would fall into any of those groups, seems to me. How could they have predicted that all the crazy things that came together to make this case what it was would happen? It probably never even crossed their minds because it wasn't a situation they'd ever seen or contemplated. What happened with the Duggars was such an unusual situation in numerous ways that it was almost certainly a one-off or close to it..............I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise.

And that being the case, I'd say that these people based their assurances of safety on the cases they knew -- about 99 percent of which most likely pose little to no risk of these things happening.  They wouldn't have been "routinely lying to children." They would just have been failing to anticipate the appearance of a green, blue, orange and purple swan, seems to me. 

 

And, I say again, and I don't care who doesn't like it. The parents here are to blame for most of these unusual circumstances. They sought fame aggressively and put their kids on tv after they already had this festering and utterly unresolved situation in the family. They enthusiastically support the sick cult that demands that kids stand up in front of rooms full of adults and tell them about such events, thus essentially making them public in their crowd. And they refused to allow the case to go through the juvenile justice system, thus depriving any of the kids of having those documents sealed. 

I'm not saying that Jim Bob's and Michelle's culpability should get anyone off the hook. If people did bad redacting or were too eager to print a story that involved vulnerable kids, yeah, that's on them. But to keep discussing it without acknowledging that a whole lot of what made the thing so leakable was caused by the 100 percent voluntary -- and utterly self-serving and greed-based -- behavior of the Duggar parents is just a lie. And, worse, it's a lie that plays into the myth that pieces of shit Jim Bob and Meeeechelle hope we'll all keep perpetrating -- that they're entirely right and that it's everybody else involved who's entirely in the wrong. They want us to believe this and, especially, they want their idiot brainwashed children to believe it. Unfortunately, they've succeeded with the latter. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Oldernowiser]

I don't really remember the sequence of events as well as lots of people here and I can't recall exactly (and don't care enough to look it up), but wasn't the revelation that Josh had been a customer on the Ashley Madison infidelity hookup site the big factor in finally canceling the show?

So if that was the straw...plus then the girls got their own show...where's their loss of income again?

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

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 ... 

Once again, not a lawyer, but I have some experience in civil litigation.  At least in my jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have to state fairly specifically all of the damages that they feel they have suffered right when the suit is filed.  Unless something materially changes and they suffer an additional loss after the filing; nothing can be added to their list of grievances.  So, the lawyers have to put in the loss of income from the get-go because they cannot add it later once they figure out how to spin it.  I suppose it is also possible that they were in negotiations or contracted for various speaking engagements or to 'write' another book and that the deals fell apart after the show was cancelled and this will come out at trial as part of their economic losses.  We don't know how much they have made from those things but, presumably, it's substantial.  They can also claim damages if they are getting less for personal appearances or books than they were prior to the scandal.

  It is also quite possible, if not probable, that their new show doesn't pay as well as the old show and that the girls took a pay cut for the new show and they deserve the difference between their old pay and the new as well as for the time they weren't on the air.  Of course, had the girls themselves been unable to appear on TV due to the stress and pain of the revelation, causing them to suffer loss of income, economic damages would be easier to justify.  Instead, they did the tell-all interview on Fox.  Or, if they'd had real jobs but had to quit them due to people at work making inappropriate remarks or people stopping by to get a look at them or just because of the stress; then had to take lower paying jobs because their old positions had been filled; then economic damages would be easier to show. However, I do agree with those who think they're going to have a tough time claiming economic damages from loss of the show since TLC undoubtedly had a cancellation for any reason clause and at no time did anyone ever say that the Duggar girls were the reason for the show being canned. The fact that shortly thereafter, all 4 of the girls were given a brand new show of their very own makes it apparent that TLC didn't have a problem with them appearing on the network.

It also seems to me that the girls' lawyers are going to have to find expert witnesses (psychologist, therapists, etc) to assess them and testify on their behalf.  I don't know how they're going to find an expert who would be willing to mitigate the harm caused by the molestations and their parents' response to it while also asserting that they all suffered serious emotional complications from the news reports.  It's going to be a very tough sell, IMO.  Seems like a good defense attorney would be able to argue that the root cause of all of their suffering was their brother's behavior and their parents cover up and attitudes about it and that this was the reason they coped so poorly with the records' release.  I can hear the defense experts now pointing the finger at Jim Bob and Michelle and telling the world that bad parenting was the main reason the Duggar girls are scarred emotionally.

Edited May 22, 2017 by doodlebug

[Sew Sumi]

7 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

I don't really remember the sequence of events as well as lots of people here and I can't recall exactly (and don't care enough to look it up), but wasn't the revelation that Josh had been a customer on the Ashley Madison infidelity hookup site the big factor in finally canceling the show?

So if that was the straw...plus then the girls got their own show...where's their loss of income again?

No. The show was canceled in mid July (the day Meredith was born). Ashley Madison broke in mid/late August. So, the cancellation was based solely on the molestations. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

5 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

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.

Oh, I understood that Churchhoney.  And I agree with you about it being unlikely the CSC has any culpability.  I just quoted you because your post was the last one in a long line of posts which mentioned Jim Bob, sorry!  

It's just that I was reading here during gardening breaks yesterday and it literally took me all day to wade through the half dozen pages of posts made here since the news of the suit broke.  And it just kept leaping out at me that so many people feel that Jim Bob's actions have any bearing or relevance to the issue of the girls suing the city & county. Whether is was his choice to put his family "out there" publicly, projecting a false image and forfeiting their privacy, or his failure to protect his daughters or get them help being the greater wrong, or the subsequent interviews he was behind during which the abuse was minimized, or the idea of him being financially enriched by the suit being unbearable ... I just don't see the relevance of ANY of that to the girls suing the police or city of Springdale for doing a SHITTY job of redacting those records.  And in my opinion they did do a shitty job of it.  Their identities were not shielded at all, not really.  You didn't have to have a Master's Degree in Duggar-ology to know who they were talking about.  And there is just something wrong with that in my opinion.

The problem may be that there are some conflicts in the laws of Arkansas ... on the one hand, Arkansas crime victim protection laws prohibit naming the victim of a sexual assault or making their address public.  That information is exempt from FOIA requests. On the other hand, the police are allowed to reveal the address where a sexual assault took place. And that is what happened here - the Duggar family home address was released in the police report as the scene of the molestations.

This address was blacked out when it was listed next to the (blacked-out) names of the girls in "victim information" section.  But a few pages later the report includes the information that the victims live with Jim Bob at (blacked out address).  This after they had just listed Jim Bob's full address at the scene of the assaults.  

How does this not amount to providing the address of a sexual assault victim?  The address may not have been specifically listed next to the victims's names, but taking the whole report IN CONTEXT it is 100% clear where the victims live.  And from there it is a hop, skip and a jump to determining their identities. And that is a - arguably -a violation of the law.  I mean, they listed Jim Bob and Michelle's names, for cryin' out loud.  Their names, their address, the fact that victims live there with them ... the whole redaction effort was a JOKE in my opinion.  I don't feel like the city really tried to protect those girls at all. 

One of the most damning things about the whole situation is that there was this rush to get these documents prepared for the FOIA request, and only afterwards did city officials seek out additional opinions about what needed to be turned over.  Turns out the good folks at the Arkansas Municipal League thought the information was exempt from release.  Oops.  The Department of Health Services had to formally request a chance to look things over after having been left out.  They were interested in the case because the report was generated as a "Family In Need of Services" investigation - you know - their turf.  City officials had not felt the need to inform them or involve them in any way when making their decision about the FOIA request.  Then, after they got this bad feedback, the people who handled the FOIA request rushed to contact In Touch Magazine and ask them to not use Michelle and Jim Bob's names, apparently acknowledging that their efforts at redaction were wholly inadequate.  That looks quite bad to me.  They knew they had messed up and tried to fix it.  Of course In Touch didn't give a rat's ass and took the story and ran with it, classy outfit they are.  

Also the ruling of the judge who handled Joy's request for the information to be destroyed does not bode well for the city AT ALL.  The lawsuit (where I am getting my information, admittedly just one side of the case) contains some strongly worded passages from her opinion regarding the law and the privacy rights of sexual assault victims.  The Arkansas courts appear to take the matter quite seriously, much more so than the Springdale police seem to, thank goodness.

I really think Springdale needs to get out their checkbook.  And I don't think it is going to be too hard for the girls to prove they were actually damaged by this, either, despite their family's famewhorish tendencies, revisionist proclivities and their public efforts to minimize the harm they experienced.  The law says they have the right to privacy, they didn't get it, and to me that basically amounts to damage per se.  The law would not require privacy in such cases if it were not important and if I was on their jury, I would basically presume they were harmed by the violation.  Any benefit to Jim Bob is irrelevant.  The fact that he and Michelle did far worse things to their children is of no consequence.  

Would l like to see the girls sue the hell out of their parents and Josh?  Certainly.  But we all know that will never happen. And just because Josh, Jim Bob and Michelle are more deserving targets yet are going relatively unscathed doesn't mean the Springfield officials who did a half-assed job should be allowed to get away with what they did to four innocent young women who had already been quite victimized enough in my opinion.

All that being said, it would be awesome if the girls donated any money they may receive to a worthy cause, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that to happen.  It would go a long way toward proving their case is really about the principle involved and not just a money grab, but either way ... what happened to them was wrong and I am on their side in this case. 

[JoanArc]

FWIW the city protected victim 5s identity well, indicating an error with some of the redaction - but not necessarily malice.

[BitterApple]

3 hours ago, Lunera said:

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. 

This past weekend I was watching an old 20/20 episode on YouTube about poverty in Appalachia. They featured a family who personified pretty much every stereotype of white rural poor. Tooth counts in the single digits, multi-generational welfare dependency, questionable use of prescription drugs, high school dropout rate of 100%, you name it. There was an incident where a family member discovered the 17 year-old son having sex with his 15 year-old half sister. The parents called the cops immediately and the stepfather told the camera crew that if the kid ever set foot on the property again, he'd blow his face off. The girl ended up being removed by CPS but the parents were visiting her and working with social services. So if people from the lowest rung of society know this sort of shit is wrong, and did the right thing knowing it would bring the law onto their doorstep, JimBob and Michelle really have no excuse for their "aw, shucks, but it was just some over-the-clothes touching" attitudes. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by BitterApple

[kokapetl]

I don't think the plaintiffs are claiming the city acted with malice, only InTouch/Bauer Media. 

[Churchhoney]

38 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

This past weekend I was watching an old 20/20 episode on YouTube about poverty in Appalachia. They featured a family who personified pretty much every stereotype of white rural poor. Tooth counts in the single digits, multi-generational welfare dependency, questionable use of prescription drugs, high school dropout rate of 100%, you name it. There was an incident where a family member discovered the 17 year-old son having sex with his 15 year-old half sister. The parents called the cops immediately and the stepfather told the camera crew that if the kid ever set foot on the property again, he'd blow his face off. The girl ended up being removed by CPS but the parents were visiting her and working with social services. So if people from the lowest rung of society know this sort of shit is wrong, and did the right thing knowing it would bring the law onto their doorstep, JimBob and Michelle really have no excuse for their "aw, shucks, but it was just some over-the-clothes touching" attitudes. 

The difference between parents who care about someone other than themselves and.... Jim Bob and Meeeechelle. 

[ariel]

41 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

I don't think the plaintiffs are claiming the city acted with malice, only InTouch/Bauer Media. 

If InTouch obtained the info via the FOIA,  what are they guilty of?

[toodles]

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

 

It also seems to me that the girls' lawyers are going to have to find expert witnesses (psychologist, therapists, etc) to assess them and testify on their behalf.  I don't know how they're going to find an expert who would be willing to mitigate the harm caused by the molestations and their parents' response to it while also asserting that they all suffered serious emotional complications from the news reports.  It's going to be a very tough sell, IMO.  Seems like a good defense attorney would be able to argue that the root cause of all of their suffering was their brother's behavior and their parents cover up and attitudes about it and that this was the reason they coped so poorly with the records' release.  I can hear the defense experts now pointing the finger at Jim Bob and Michelle and telling the world that bad parenting was the main reason the Duggar girls are scarred emotionally.

If nothing else comes from the suit, THIS.  Dump the blame right where it belongs.  

[Churchhoney]

32 minutes ago, ariel said:

If InTouch obtained the info via the FOIA,  what are they guilty of?

Well, I'm pretty sure some people would say that you would only publish such a thing that had juveniles involved if you had malice toward the family (or conservatives, no doubt Jim Bob would add). ...............But I have a hard time seeing how it requires malice to publish a story showing that a high-profile family in both the entertainment world and the Christian-ministry world (by their accounts, anyway) has in it a serial child molester and failed to do much about that except to industriously sweep it under the rug. That seems kind of like the public's right to know, to me. .... (potentially inadequate redaction aside, of course)

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[hathorlive]

29 minutes ago, ariel said:

If InTouch obtained the info via the FOIA,  what are they guilty of?

Nothing.  If you go to city hall and ask them for a list of information, of back taxes owed or traffic tickets and they give you a list, do you then go seek another list to see if they match?  In Touch's lawyers went over that with a fine tooth comb.  If you want to say the city was negligent in redacting, fine.  But you can't blame In Touch for asking, receiving and printing information given to them from the source.

And I will reiterate, coming from a law enforcement background (currently federal, past rural southern state LE), not all police departments/cities are experienced in redacting.  It's not something you do on a regular basis and while we know what information screams out the victim's names, normal people probably couldn't name two Duggar children if you gave them money.

On the Appalachian thing, my sister is a social worker a few counties over from the one featured in the show.  She spends a good amount of her time with reports of sexual abuse within families.  So yes, the Duggars are freaks of nature on the "it's not a big deal" point.

[Churchhoney]

4 hours ago, Lunera said:

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. 

 

 

 

You know, if I were Jill in that picture, even if the molestation had never happened, I don't know if I could've restrained myself from shoving that can into his smug fat mouth so hard it would've popped out the back of his damned disgusting head. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[queenanne]

6 hours ago, toodles said:

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?

This is long but I promise, pertinent:  I had difficulty picking out a portion to quote.  There's some interesting emendations, including the pastor pointing out that a confession to the church body, is not the first step unless you're dealing with a particularly recalcitrant sinner.  I didn't do so hot at finding the obligation of the members of the body of church members to keep confidentiality, but I imagine that's probably umbrellaed underneath the speaking minister's reminder that gossip is a sin:

https://churchexecutive.com/archives/church-confidential

Quote

In Matthew 18:15-18, Jesus gives us a four-step approach to dealing with these confidential and sensitive matters in the church. The first step is to confront the individual alone. Steps two through four escalate the discipline, particularly for the non-repentant.

“If a fellow believer hurts you, go and tell him-work it out between the two of you. If he listens, you’ve made a friend. If he won’t listen, take one or two others along so that the presence of witnesses will keep things honest, and try again. If he still won’t listen, tell the church. If he won’t listen to the church, you’ll have to start over from scratch, confront him with the need for repentance, and offer again God’s forgiving love. (Matt 18:15-18)

Edited May 22, 2017 by queenanne

[Celia Rubenstein]

13 minutes ago, ariel said:

If InTouch obtained the info via the FOIA,  what are they guilty of?

Prior to publication, In Touch was contacted by the Springfield Chief of Police and informed that some of the information they received from their FOIA request should not be published because revealing the information would be a violation of Arkansas law which bars identifying victims of sexual assault (specifically, Jim Bob and Michelle's names). They were offered a different copy of the FOIA response that was presumably acceptable, but In Touch went ahead and published the first response anyway, including Jim Bob and Michelle's names even though they were warned it was illegal.

The allegation is that this behavior on the part of In Touch constitutes the tort of "intrusion upon seclusion" which is basically a highly offensive invasion of an aspect of life that is typically considered private.  In legalese:

Quote

To establish a prima facie case for intrusion upon seclusion, the plaintiff must prove a highly offensive intrusion by the defendant that was either intentional or negligent and that this act both caused the plaintiff’s privacy to be violated and caused the plaintiff some measure of harm.

And you get money for it.  Sometimes a lot. 

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

Once again, not a lawyer, but I have some experience in civil litigation.  At least in my jurisdiction, the plaintiffs have to state fairly specifically all of the damages that they feel they have suffered right when the suit is filed.  Unless something materially changes and they suffer an additional loss after the filing; nothing can be added to their list of grievances.  So, the lawyers have to put in the loss of income from the get-go because they cannot add it later once they figure out how to spin it.  I suppose it is also possible that they were in negotiations or contracted for various speaking engagements or to 'write' another book and that the deals fell apart after the show was cancelled and this will come out at trial as part of their economic losses.  We don't know how much they have made from those things but, presumably, it's substantial.  They can also claim damages if they are getting less for personal appearances or books than they were prior to the scandal.

  It is also quite possible, if not probable, that their new show doesn't pay as well as the old show and that the girls took a pay cut for the new show and they deserve the difference between their old pay and the new as well as for the time they weren't on the air.  Of course, had the girls themselves been unable to appear on TV due to the stress and pain of the revelation, causing them to suffer loss of income, economic damages would be easier to justify.  Instead, they did the tell-all interview on Fox.  Or, if they'd had real jobs but had to quit them due to people at work making inappropriate remarks or people stopping by to get a look at them or just because of the stress; then had to take lower paying jobs because their old positions had been filled; then economic damages would be easier to show. However, I do agree with those who think they're going to have a tough time claiming economic damages from loss of the show since TLC undoubtedly had a cancellation for any reason clause and at no time did anyone ever say that the Duggar girls were the reason for the show being canned. The fact that shortly thereafter, all 4 of the girls were given a brand new show of their very own makes it apparent that TLC didn't have a problem with them appearing on the network.

It also seems to me that the girls' lawyers are going to have to find expert witnesses (psychologist, therapists, etc) to assess them and testify on their behalf.  I don't know how they're going to find an expert who would be willing to mitigate the harm caused by the molestations and their parents' response to it while also asserting that they all suffered serious emotional complications from the news reports.  It's going to be a very tough sell, IMO.  Seems like a good defense attorney would be able to argue that the root cause of all of their suffering was their brother's behavior and their parents cover up and attitudes about it and that this was the reason they coped so poorly with the records' release.  I can hear the defense experts now pointing the finger at Jim Bob and Michelle and telling the world that bad parenting was the main reason the Duggar girls are scarred emotionally.

I don't think this is how it will play out at all.  I don't believe a lot of experts will have to testify on the girls' behalf.  They just have to testify about being publicly humiliated by having the details of what they went through made public.  You don't need a crew of psychiatrists to explain that to a jury.

I think it would be useless to argue that the real source of their pain is the initial molestation and how it was handled. Sure the molestations hurt emotionally, but that does not cancel out the pain they suffered as a result of the disclosure.  To the extent the defendants might try to claim such a thing, I would think a good argument could be made that the girls were indeed hurt by the molestation but had come to be at peace over it and moved on, something that is very difficult to do, only to have that progress destroyed by the invasion of privacy they suffered.  Characterize it as Springfield officials and In Touch magazine ripping open an old wound out of carelessness and the desire to make a buck.  That's a very sympathetic argument and I think it would more than overcome the idea the girls were already so scarred emotionally they weren't really hurt by the violation of their privacy.

Nor do I believe it will get into a financial analysis of how much money they lost by the story coming out.  The money to be made (to be quite blunt) rests in the emotional pain they endured.  Not pecuniary loss.  I don't think those kind of damages were even asserted in the lawsuit.  It's all about psychological pain, humiliation, anguish, etc.  I personally think it's a slam-dunk.

[ariel]

17 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

(potentially inadequate redaction aside, of course)

This is what I'm not getting.  "If" the redactions were inadequate, how is that InTouch's fault?  They obtained the document(s) in a legal way.  They didn't do the redaction.  The fault would be with the redactor.

[Missy Vixen]

On 5/21/2017 at 7:53 AM, Churchhoney said:

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. 

If that trial happens in Arkansas, they're not getting much. If they sashay into court with iPhones and Uggs and Coach purses (in a fairly impoverished area full of people who can't understand why suddenly "it wasn't that big of a deal" is worth $15 million..) Uh, no.

[Churchhoney]

10 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

 It's all about psychological pain, humiliation, anguish, etc.  I personally think it's a slam-dunk.

I don't know. I think the amount of the award might vary a lot depending on just who was on the jury. As I mentioned a day or so ago, the two juries I've been on that had to award damages were -- surprisingly to me -- very uniformly reluctant to offer much for the pain and suffering and mental anguish stuff. People were very sympathetic to the plaintiffs -- nobody questioned at all that they deserved compensation for that stuff. But only quite conservative amounts were really discussed. The word "million," in particular -- nobody wanted to hear it. And these were awards against big rich organizations, too. Not quite as big as the In Touch publisher. But big and wealthy nevertheless. And the organizations truly had been malicious and discriminatory. The juries agreed fully about that, too. Nobody questioned -- 'Did they just hurt this person by accident?" Nope. Everybody agreed that they knew what they were doing. 

That's not to say that I think all juries would be that way. But I've seen it happen twice, so I have the feeling it's not at all uncommon. I think they're likely to get money. But I think it may well disappoint their hopes quite a bit. ..........And then of course the lawyers will take their cut -- What's that? a quarter? a third? something like that. I'll be surprised if anybody feels rich when it's over. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Celia Rubenstein]

I think it is safe to say that they can forget getting ten or fifteen million dollars. That's crazy talk! 

[lascuba]

I think if they do win, they'll win a substantial amount. I have nothing to back this up except innate pessimism and memories of the Gawker trial, and I'll spit nails when/if it happens, but yeah, if the PD doesn't win, they'll lose big. I still don't think there's any case against In Touch--and they'll have access to much better lawyers, regardless. So much depends on the judge, and if they're in the same political sphere as the Duggar, all bets are off. The judge in the Gawker trail refused to allow a lot of relevant evidence that would have helped Gawker.

[Oldernowiser]

I keep going back to the fact that they're on record and more than once saying the molestation was no big deal and that it happens all the time. How are they then credible two years later saying that is caused millions' worth of pain and suffering to have it made public? 

[Churchhoney]

10 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

I keep going back to the fact that they're on record and more than once saying the molestation was no big deal and that it happens all the time. How are they then credible two years later saying that is caused millions' worth of pain and suffering to have it made public? 

They changed their minds. Women are so weak and fickle, you know. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[birkenstock]

25 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

Prior to publication, In Touch was contacted by the Springfield Chief of Police and informed that some of the information they received from their FOIA request should not be published because revealing the information would be a violation of Arkansas law which bars identifying victims of sexual assault (specifically, Jim Bob and Michelle's names). They were offered a different copy of the FOIA response that was presumably acceptable, but In Touch went ahead and published the first response anyway, including Jim Bob and Michelle's names even though they were warned it was illegal.

Was this in the lawsuit or was it part of the Fox interview?  I hadn't heard that In Touch was contacted about the redacted material being illegal.  I'm surprised it isn't emphasized more. 

I don't know if the law was broken in regards to the Duggars, but I do agree with the Duggar girls that victims' statements and experiences need to be better protected.  I think that news agencies reveal too much about what happened to child sexual assault victims, whether they are famous or made famous because of their cases, like Shawn Hornbeck, Elizabeth Smart, and Jaycee Dugard.  I know that the previous three's circumstances are different because they were abducted, but it still has the same result.

 I'm with others in hoping that the Duggars will work as child privacy advocates and not stop when/if they get a monetary settlement.    

[Churchhoney]

1 minute ago, birkenstock said:

 

 I'm with others in hoping that the Duggars will work as child privacy advocates and not stop when/if they get a monetary settlement.    

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 

Seriously. I will eat every hat I own including the fuzzy wool ones if this happens. 

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Celia Rubenstein]

30 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I think if they do win, they'll win a substantial amount. I have nothing to back this up except innate pessimism and memories of the Gawker trial, and I'll spit nails when/if it happens, but yeah, if the PD doesn't win, they'll lose big. I still don't think there's any case against In Touch--and they'll have access to much better lawyers, regardless. So much depends on the judge, and if they're in the same political sphere as the Duggar, all bets are off. The judge in the Gawker trail refused to allow a lot of relevant evidence that would have helped Gawker.

That makes sense, but there is also the chance that locals on a jury may be more forgiving of people from their own hometown who they feel just made an honest mistake due to being inexperienced with redaction and then tried to fix it. But then the big nasty ugly media tabloid foreign company who initiated the whole thing and made a ton of money off it ignored their request to not publish the private information.  They may find it easier to sock it to In Touch who is the deep pocket in this case, not their own little town with limited resources.

I agree the judge will set the tone for the trial and be the one who decides what evidence comes in ... and that will be a huge factor in the case. 

 

9 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

Was this in the lawsuit or was it part of the Fox interview?  I hadn't heard that In Touch was contacted about the redacted material being illegal.  I'm surprised it isn't emphasized more. 

It's in the lawsuit, pages 18-19, paragraphs 65 & 66.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[Albanyguy]

6 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Jim Bob and Michelle: Girls, stand up in front of a group of people and tell your brother that you forgive him.

I'm surprised they didn't make the girls apologize to Josh and beg his forgiveness for defrauding him.

Edited May 22, 2017 by Albanyguy

[birkenstock]

1 minute ago, Churchhoney said:

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 

Seriously. I will eat every hat I own including the fuzzy wool ones if this happens. 

I'm not holding my breath, but they have such a big platform to do it.  Hopefully, their spite will move them to action.   

[Celia Rubenstein]

Quote

I'm surprised they didn't make the girls apologize to Josh and beg his forgiveness for defrauding him.

...  who says they didn't?

Edited May 22, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[Churchhoney]

7 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

That makes sense, but there is also the chance that locals on a jury may be more forgiving of people from their own hometown who they feel just made an honest mistake due to being inexperienced with redaction and then tried to fix it.

Plus the locals will know that, one way or another, any big award the police have to fork over will come out of local taxpayers' pockets. I think that would quell their enthusiasm for big-dollar amounts.

4 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

I'm not holding my breath, but they have such a big platform to do it.  Hopefully, their spite will move them to action.   

Yeah, I do agree with you in hoping. But then I hoped that Jill would turn into a decent missionary with a little practice, too! .... They keep disappointing me. :  )

Edited May 22, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Absolom]

Just as news articles aren't to be relied upon as 100% truth or actual fact, so too, with law suits.  Events may or may not be exactly as presented.  I wasn't there so I take no stand on this one, but sometimes the claims made in plaintiffs' filings do not pan out to be quite like stated. 

[lascuba]

11 minutes ago, birkenstock said:

I'm not holding my breath, but they have such a big platform to do it.  Hopefully, their spite will move them to action.   

If they donate money (hahahahahahaha!), it will be to the pregnancy crisis center equivalent of sex abuse counseling--dishonest, created to lure people away from real help, and ultimately more damaging to the people who seek it's services. If they get a big payout, I'd rather they keep it. (Or better yet, make bad investments and lose it all).

Edited May 23, 2017 by lascuba

[Celia Rubenstein]

5 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Just as news articles aren't to be relied upon as 100% truth or actual fact, so too, with law suits.  Events may or may not be exactly as presented.  I wasn't there so I take no stand on this one, but sometimes the claims made in plaintiffs' filings do not pan out to be quite like stated. 

That's totally true and all the stuff I've been posting comes only from the plaintiff's filing as I stated in my first post today.  It's only one side. I look forward to reading the response from the city and In Touch.  I am sure they will have more legal substance than what's been put out so far, which is nothing but the assertion that the suit is "misguided" and a money grab for public tax dollars, lol.  

Here is the Springdale response for those who are interested:

Quote

 

May 19, 2017
Statement by Legal Counsel for the City of Springdale:

The City of Springdale has learned that a lawsuit was filed against the city and two of its public servants by Plaintiffs Jill Dillard, Jessa Seewald, Jinger Vuolo and Joy Duggar. The lawsuit details events that date back to a multi-agency investigation into allegations of molestation of the four named plaintiffs and one other person by Josh Duggar, and claims that that the release of a heavily redactedpolice report pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act Request was somehow unlawful. The claims and allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and are false, and we are confident that the Federal Court will take the time to carefully hear the facts and arguments in this matter.

The City of Springdale was pleased to prevail in a previous legal action regarding the release of information related to this matter. As we stated nearly two years ago, the city takes seriously its responsibilities to the public under the FOIA as well as its obligations to protect the privacy of victims. With this obligation, the city made the family aware of the Freedom of Information Act Request for thepolice report and kept the family regularly informed of the status of the request prior to the production of the redacted report.

It is unfortunate that now, at this late date, the Plaintiffs have chosen to file a misguided lawsuit against dedicated public servants and seeking damages from public tax dollars.

 

Yeah, why file at this late date?  That show the case is BOGUS! Except it doesn't.  Nor does the fact that dedicated public servants are involved mean much.  Dedicated public servants kill and maim and do unspeakable harm to the citizens of their towns everyday.  And what lawsuit against a city doesn't seek damages that ultimately come from public tax dollars?   Whatever, Springdale, whatever.

 

15 minutes ago, lascuba said:

If they donate money (hahahahahahaha!), it will be to the pregnancy crisis center equivalent of sex abuse counseling--dishonest, created to lure people away from real help, and ultimately more damaging to the people who seek it's services.

 Now we know what they are planning to do with that commercial building "Jana bought."

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

I think it would be useless to argue that the real source of their pain is the initial molestation and how it was handled. Sure the molestations hurt emotionally, but that does not cancel out the pain they suffered as a result of the disclosure.  To the extent the defendants might try to claim such a thing, I would think a good argument could be made that the girls were indeed hurt by the molestation but had come to be at peace over it and moved on, something that is very difficult to do, only to have that progress destroyed by the invasion of privacy they suffered.  Characterize it as Springfield officials and In Touch magazine ripping open an old wound out of carelessness and the desire to make a buck.  That's a very sympathetic argument and I think it would more than overcome the idea the girls were already so scarred emotionally they weren't really hurt by the violation of their privacy.

But then all the defense has to do is play the clips about how this wasn't abuse, it wasn't molestation, it was reported all wrong, they weren't touched under the clothes....and then the jury will have to ask how badly were they hurt when they went on national TV, outed themselves and then talked about how common sexual abuse among siblings is and how they forgave their brother?

It cuts both ways.

And as for the jury...I grew up in a county that had 15,000 ish people, most of whom were first cousins.  There is nothing more harsh than a religious person judging another religious person.  Seeing a Southern Baptist smack down a Baptist as a heathen is fine Friday night entertainment.   For every person who feels sorry for the girls, there will be another person who feels that they were upity going on TV and being hypocritical about their faith and what faith is that strange Gothard stuff.  I think there will be enough people who don't want to see city services cut and see these grifters rewarded as there are small town folk upset about foreign city folk publishing articles.   It's a gamble both ways.

 

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

It's in the lawsuit, pages 18-19, paragraphs 65 & 66.

As Kathy Griffin would say, "allegedly".  The lawsuit is a carefully written, one sided account using carefully culled bits of information into a narrative.

It will be interesting to see what comes out at court.  Not saying it's not true, but it's definitely not established as a fact yet.  EDITED:  just to say that I saw the other responses, so sorry to beat a dead horse all!

Edited May 23, 2017 by hathorlive
dead horse beating

[GeeGolly]

11 hours ago, lascuba said:

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.

Have you read the report? It clearly states the parents names (and address) and that the 4 (redacted) minor children lived with them and one was a babysitter. It also alludes to the fact that the offender lived with them because the report include comments from the parents and children about -redacted- being sent away for 6 months and being changed when -redacted- returned home, closer to God etc.  What was glaringly clear from the report was that Michelle & Jim Bob had 4 children who were molested by a person who lived with them and returned to live with them. So even local town folk would have known that 4 Duggar children were molested most likely by a sibling or a relative of some sort.

But they are quasi famous, so a lot more people know about this than folks from NWA. Which is why In Touch requested the reports, they wanted hits on their website. It feels like a mean spirited money grab by In Touch, to me.

[Sew Sumi]

I think we need a reminder of "inappropriate touching" vs. what is now officially sexual molestation in the complaint. So here's the Megyn Kelly interview with the girls. Jessa flat out lies and of course Jill spits out unsubstantiated "statistics" at 24:35. Also listen for buzzwords. At least Jessa learned her script well enough not to need notes like her sister and parents? 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Have you read the report? It clearly states the parents names (and address) and that the 4 (redacted) minor children lived with them and one was a babysitter. It also alludes to the fact that the offender lived with them because the report include comments from the parents and children about -redacted- being sent away for 6 months and being changed when -redacted- returned home, closer to God etc.  What was glaringly clear from the report was that Michelle & Jim Bob had 4 children who were molested by a person who lived with them and returned to live with them. So even local town folk would have known that 4 Duggar children were molested most likely by a sibling or a relative of some sort.

To be fair, it says James Robert and Michelle.  Not Xanderapple and Souixbell trixiface.  I would think most people wouldn't think of Jim Bob as James Robert, so you have two of the most common names in the country listed.   And I think we are all negating the fact that this molestation (or some sex act) has been rumored about for years on the Internet.  People in town knew about this.  People in their church probably told others and it spread around town.  That's what happens when people don't have cable TV and the internets.   It could have been a better redaction but to say that everyone in the police department, attorney's office and whoever wanted to hurt the Duggars is saying that there was a hell of a conspiracy going on in that town.  And good luck proving that, says our president.

[lascuba]

3 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Have you read the report? It clearly states the parents names (and address) and that the 4 (redacted) minor children lived with them and one was a babysitter. It also alludes to the fact that the offender lived with them because the report include comments from the parents and children about -redacted- being sent away for 6 months and being changed when -redacted- returned home, closer to God etc.  What was glaringly clear from the report was that Michelle & Jim Bob had 4 children who were molested by a person who lived with them and returned to live with them. So even local town folk would have known that 4 Duggar children were molested most likely by a sibling or a relative of some sort.

But they are quasi famous, so a lot more people know about this than folks from NWA. Which is why In Touch requested the reports, they wanted hits on their website. It feels like a mean spirited money grab by In Touch, to me.

Yes, I read the report. The girls weren't identified by name or age and no one would have known which ones had been abused if they hadn't hadn't 1)let their private info out for years so that internet randoms could guess and 2)officially confirmed those guessed by first the Megyn Kelly interview and now this lawsuit. If you're saying that the issue is that the police reports lets us know that 4 of the victims were Duggar children, then we've been having two different discussions.   

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

That makes sense, but there is also the chance that locals on a jury may be more forgiving of people from their own hometown who they feel just made an honest mistake due to being inexperienced with redaction and then tried to fix it. But then the big nasty ugly media tabloid foreign company who initiated the whole thing and made a ton of money off it ignored their request to not publish the private information.  They may find it easier to sock it to In Touch who is the deep pocket in this case, not their own little town with limited resources.

I agree the judge will set the tone for the trial and be the one who decides what evidence comes in ... and that will be a huge factor in the case. 

 

It's in the lawsuit, pages 18-19, paragraphs 65 & 66.

And, as we all know, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit will always use the 'facts' in a way that favors their version of the 'truth'.  Just because the lawsuit says that In Touch was notified by the authorities in plenty of time to avoid using the initial redacted documents doesn't mean that it actually happened that way.  First of all, clearly the Duggars weren't present at that moment and so are relying on someone who was there to testify to it.  I expect In Touch will have a very different version of events. The issue was already printed and distributed by the time they were informed of the new redactions, their lawyers had already looked at the original documents and felt that they were in compliance with Arkansas law at the time. 

As we all know, there are as many versions of a story as people who tell it; just because the Duggars' suit alleges that In Touch heartlessly published the damaging story even after being informed that it was not properly redacted doesn't mean that it is true.  When it goes to court, I would expect that In Touch will have a very reasonable explanation as to what happened that will directly contradict the plaintiff's version and it will be up to a jury to decide who is telling the truth.

After all, they need to get In Touch involved in the suit because the publishing empire has a lot more cash than a small town in Arkansas and jurors may be more willing to award damages to be paid by a nameless, faceless multinational corporation than from the local government staffed by their neighbors, friends and families.  In Touch had to be named in order to get into their 'deep pockets'

Edited May 23, 2017 by doodlebug

[Sew Sumi]

32 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Have you read the report? It clearly states the parents names (and address) and that the 4 (redacted) minor children lived with them and one was a babysitter. It also alludes to the fact that the offender lived with them because the report include comments from the parents and children about -redacted- being sent away for 6 months and being changed when -redacted- returned home, closer to God etc.  What was glaringly clear from the report was that Michelle & Jim Bob had 4 children who were molested by a person who lived with them and returned to live with them. So even local town folk would have known that 4 Duggar children were molested most likely by a sibling or a relative of some sort.

But they are quasi famous, so a lot more people know about this than folks from NWA. Which is why In Touch requested the reports, they wanted hits on their website. It feels like a mean spirited money grab by In Touch, to me.

In Touch already had a contact. I don't know how closely you read here, but that viral picture of the lesbian couple kissing at the gates of the TTH? InTouch wanted their story. Her sister, who has a gay son, was the tipster to InTouch. So yeah, not all of the locals genuflect at the feet of Duggars.  

I've checked out the very public FB page of the tipster. It all fits. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by Sew Sumi

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, lascuba said:

Yes, I read the report. The girls weren't identified by name or age and no one would have known which ones had been abused if they hadn't hadn't 1)let their private info out for years so that internet randoms could guess and 2)officially confirmed those guessed by first the Megyn Kelly interview and now this lawsuit. If you're saying that the issue is that the police reports lets us know that 4 of the victims were Duggar children, then we've been having two different discussions.   

Four minor children of the Duggars were molested, the report reveals. They had 8 children at the time; Josh, JD, Jana, Jill, Jessa, Jinger, Joe, Josiah and Joy. If you read the report and knew of the Duggars locally or through TV, you know they raise their children with outdated stereotypical roles. That narrows the victims down to girls by their answers that included princesses and cooking, etc., that weren't redacted. They had 5 girls at the time, 4 of those 5 girls were molested.  Or 4 of 8 children were. Either way, information about 4 Duggar minors were released to the public.

 

25 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

To be fair, it says James Robert and Michelle.  Not Xanderapple and Souixbell trixiface.  I would think most people wouldn't think of Jim Bob as James Robert, so you have two of the most common names in the country listed.   And I think we are all negating the fact that this molestation (or some sex act) has been rumored about for years on the Internet.  People in town knew about this.  People in their church probably told others and it spread around town.  That's what happens when people don't have cable TV and the internets.   It could have been a better redaction but to say that everyone in the police department, attorney's office and whoever wanted to hurt the Duggars is saying that there was a hell of a conspiracy going on in that town.  And good luck proving that, says our president.

I think many folks know that Jim Bob is short for James Robert and anyone who has watched the Waltons certainly would know. And I'm not thinking conspiracy at all, more like bumbling fools from the town officials and website hits/money from In Touch.

[GeeGolly]

Just now, Sew Sumi said:

In Touch already had a contact. I don't know how closely you read here, but that viral picture of the lesbian couple kissing at the gates of the TTH? Well, her sister, who has a gay son, was the tipster to InTouch. So yeah, not all of the locals genuflect at the feet of Duggars. 

Yup, I'm aware of how In Touch got the heads up. I'm guessing many of the Duggar neighbors feel like we do. Still doesn't mean they couldn't figure out who they are. Or that they aren't bothered that the info was made public.

Shit The Duggars are obviously not at the top of my list of a family to admire, they don't even make the list, but I still don't think the info being made public is cool.

[hathorlive]

6 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I think many folks know that Jim Bob is short for James Robert and anyone who has watched the Waltons certainly would know. And I'm not thinking conspiracy at all, more like bumbling fools from the town officials and website hits/money from In Touch.

But bumbling fools at the local PD means that they didn't do a great job but that doesn't rise to the level of maleficence.   That just plays into the PD's story of we did our best and the lawyers approved it. 

 

I sincerely hope that lessons were learned and this doesn't happen again.  It sucks that the information got out but again, had justice taken the normal course, it would have been a sealed record.  Jim Bob loves that local PD when a friend is helping him out with his molester son but not so much when they don't protect him enough.  Many shades of grey here.  Mistakes do mean intent to harm.

 

It might also help if the victims weren't dismissing the crime and showing they are more upset about their image and the truth than any abuse.

[Sew Sumi]

It seems like it was the worst kept secret in Springdale. It was really just a matter of time. The person reporting it had no idea what was in that report. They just knew that there was abuse. For all they knew, they could have come up with a dead end HAD SMUGGAR'S PARENTS DONE THE RIGHT THING. 

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

It seems like it was the worst kept secret in Springdale. It was really just a matter of time. The person reporting it had no idea what was in that report. They just knew that there was abuse. For all they knew, they could have come up with a dead end HAD SMUGGAR'S PARENTS DONE THE RIGHT THING. 

In my state, if the Duggars had contacted the police about Josh, they most likely would have taken a report and turned the case over to DCF. DCF would most likely have had Josh removed and placed into treatment. The biggest unknown for me is if DCF would have allowed Josh to return home. Probably not.

So the info would still have been there - a non-arrest report - which some have argued is why it was released. The likelihood in my area of Josh being arrested for this, is between slim and none.

[duggarshow]

4 hours ago, JoanArc said:

FWIW the city protected victim 5s identity well, indicating an error with some of the redaction - but not necessarily malice.

I think if I were a Duggar daughter, it would make me more, not less, angry that they so thoroughly protected the non-famous party's privacy but not mine.

[Celia Rubenstein]

11 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

But then all the defense has to do is play the clips about how this wasn't abuse, it wasn't molestation, it was reported all wrong, they weren't touched under the clothes....and then the jury will have to ask how badly were they hurt when they went on national TV, outed themselves and then talked about how common sexual abuse among siblings is and how they forgave their brother?

It cuts both ways.

So is it boiling down to believing the girls were already so damaged from the molestation that it doesn't really matter if their privacy was violated later, they can't really show any new damages because they were already such a mess? Versus the idea that they were not hurt by the molestation at all because that's what they said in interviews?  And under both scenarios, they lose?   Well, I can't say I agree with either proposition.

I can only speak for how I would view their case if I were on the jury .... I think being molested molested is painful and causes great harm but not so much that what happens to you later is of no consequence since you were already so damaged because of how your parents mishandled it.  And just because you say you weren't really damaged or hurt or upset doesn't mean you weren't, especially when you have TV cameras pointed in your face demanding a reaction in an attempt to save the family TV show.  

Basically, I guess what I am saying is I would just use my (version of ) common sense.  And at this stage of the game it appears to me that the girls were molested, it was dealt with horribly by their parents, they were forced to stifle their feelings for years and then claim it was no big deal after their victimization was carelessly revealed in violation of the law so that a tabloid could profit from it, all in an attempt to save their family's reality show.  It's how I've always viewed it and so far no one has said anything that makes me think differently.  It's not a complicated scenario and not hard to believe.   I just don't think they have that hard of a case to make.  YMMV

 

Quote

And as for the jury...I grew up in a county that had 15,000 ish people, most of whom were first cousins.  There is nothing more harsh than a religious person judging another religious person.  Seeing a Southern Baptist smack down a Baptist as a heathen is fine Friday night entertainment.   For every person who feels sorry for the girls, there will be another person who feels that they were upity going on TV and being hypocritical about their faith and what faith is that strange Gothard stuff.  I think there will be enough people who don't want to see city services cut and see these grifters rewarded as there are small town folk upset about foreign city folk publishing articles.   It's a gamble both ways.

Well, like in every trial, the jury is always a gamble.  Both sides will do their best to pick one that favors their side. That's nothing new. It's why people hire jury consultants. 

 

22 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

And, as we all know, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit will always use the 'facts' in a way that favors their version of the 'truth'.  Just because the lawsuit says that In Touch was notified by the authorities in plenty of time to avoid using the initial redacted documents doesn't mean that it actually happened that way.  First of all, clearly the Duggars weren't present at that moment and so are relying on someone who was there to testify to it.  I expect In Touch will have a very different version of events. The issue was already printed and distributed by the time they were informed of the new redactions, their lawyers had already looked at the original documents and felt that they were in compliance with Arkansas law at the time. 

As we all know, there are as many versions of a story as people who tell it; just because the Duggars' suit alleges that In Touch heartlessly published the damaging story even after being informed that it was not properly redacted doesn't mean that it is true.  When it goes to court, I would expect that In Touch will have a very reasonable explanation as to what happened that will directly contradict the plaintiff's version and it will be up to a jury to decide who is telling the truth.

After all, they need to get In Touch involved in the suit because the publishing empire has a lot more cash than a small town in Arkansas and jurors may be more willing to award damages to be paid by a nameless, faceless multinational corporation than from the local government staffed by their neighbors, friends and families.  In Touch had to be named in order to get into their 'deep pockets'

Yes, I have stated more than once that I am only describing the plaintiff's filings which of course presents only their version of events which favors their case.  And acknowledged the fact that In Touch is the "deep pocket" in the case and the chance that a local jury may be more happy to present them with the bill as opposed to their own city.  All good points that need making. Maybe not over and over, lol, but important to be made nonetheless.  

 

6 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

But bumbling fools at the local PD means that they didn't do a great job but that doesn't rise to the level of maleficence.   That just plays into the PD's story of we did our best and the lawyers approved it. 

Bumbling can indeed rise to the level of malfeasance. And it won't do the police any good to try and hide behind the city attorney who approved the redaction.  They both work for the city of Springdale and it's the city that is responsible for their actions.  Asserting that "we're just bumbling cops and the lawyers said it was okay" doesn't mean anything in terms of the city's being off the hook.

[Marigold]

So, what happens to John David and his job with the PD or the volunteer ambulance "work" that the Duggars do/did?   The Duggars love that publicity for being good members of the community. This is gonna take the shine of the apple, if it isn't completely off already. 

I'm sure Springdale people are talking about this case with the same thoughts that we are.  No one is impressed with Jim Bob and Michelle and there is varying degrees of sympathy for the Duggar 4.  

Michelle and Jim Bob might get egged on their next trip to Walmart!!! 

[mythoughtis]

You can see minors parents or older siblings named in police reports in the local paper everyday. Anyone who knows them can even extrapolate the minor involved. I've figured out my children's classmates that were involved thisway. Yes, it seems ridiculous in terms of actually keeping a minors identity secret, but it's the letter of the law. They were not required to redact James Robert and Michelles names, just the names of the minors. 

Edited May 23, 2017 by mythoughtis

[JoanArc]

Quote

And I will reiterate, coming from a law enforcement background (currently federal, past rural southern state LE), not all police departments/cities are experienced in redacting.  It's not something you do on a regular basis and while we know what information screams out the victim's names, normal people probably couldn't name two Duggar children if you gave them money.

Thanks. Incompetence in how something legal is handled is not the same as intentionally breaking the law (violating privacy).

I think about victim 5 a lot, someone who's not completely in Jim Bob's thrall. I never want her identity out there - but damn, I bet here honest story would be a lot different than Jill and Jessa.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2017 by JoanArc