The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

[doodlebug]

20 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

 I actually think they can have it both ways.

Their statements minimizing what Josh did come across as total and complete denial. It's not something that is unheard of in abuse survivors, especially ones who never received any kind of treatment. I don't think that interview is going to convince a jury that what they went though was not a painful experience so they shouldn't really care if the whole world found out. More than anything it strikes me is just sad and makes it clear these girls never got any kind of help for what they went through. It makes them all the more pitiable imo, actually. 

 

They didn't.  Their mother implied it in her little Robo-call. It's being mentioned repeatedly as if it has something to do with the sisters' case, the idea being that the public reveal happened because they were bringing negative attention or bad karma or whatever down on themselves - - essentially they invited the hostility with their asshat views and deserved what they got.

The fact that it was their mother who managed to piss off some people who then forwarded the abuse information to the media seems to have been lost and the sisters are being held accountable for it.  It seems terribly unfair to me.

The Duggar girls statements might sound like denial to you, but their attorneys are going to have to prove that once the defense uses them to mitigate the damage they claim was done.  How would they do that?  By having mental health experts with expertise in child molestation interview the girls and come to the conclusion that this is indeed the case and the girls suffered severe and extensive psychological damage at the time of the molestations which they have suppressed.  And, the girls are going to have to back this up by submitting to these evaluations and going along with the conclusions, which are very likely true; but completely contradict their family story.  I can just imagine Jill on the stand acknowledging that she's a basket case emotionally because of the damage inflicted by the molestations and her parents' handling of it.  That should go really well.

BTW, Jill's husband also has repeatedly bashed GBLTQ causes.  While he wasn't the one who triggered the initial tip to the tabloids, it's not exactly a secret how this family sees this issue.  The girls cannot speak out about anything controversial at the moment, their attorneys have warned them to keep their mouths shut.

[kokapetl]

36 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

 I actually think they can have it both ways.

Their statements minimizing what Josh did come across as total and complete denial. It's not something that is unheard of in abuse survivors, especially ones who never received any kind of treatment. I don't think that interview is going to convince a jury that what they went though was not a painful experience so they shouldn't really care if the whole world found out. More than anything it strikes me is just sad and makes it clear these girls never got any kind of help for what they went through. It makes them all the more pitiable imo, actually. 

Add to that the fact that there is even a law in existence which says you can't reveal the identity of an abuse survivor ... that's a pretty strongest suggestion that it's basically a per se, given assumption that a victim will be hurt by such a violation of privacy. If it wasn't, there would not be a law against doing it. 

 Given those two things, I don't think the sisters  will have a difficult time establishing that they were harmed by their identities being revealed.  It's all going to boil down to whether or not the city/county is viewed as having followed the law by reacting only their names while leaving the names of parents and their brother (and if I recall correctly, even their address) all which in context made it completely clear who the victims were. 

It should also be noted that the judge did state that the daughters had reasonable prima facie claims, and that his dismissals were NOT due to any sort of finding that the daughters weren’t harmed by InTouch, the city or the county. 

Edited October 16, 2017 by Kokapetl

[bigskygirl]

The girls do not have to come out and say certain groups are child molesters, but they go along with what their parents beliefs are aka gay, lesbians and certain others are child molesters. They go along with the fact certain people are evil and should rot in hell for not going along with their own religious beliefs.

And if Jill and Jessa came out and said we were two of Josh's victims then how can they say they were harmed. Did anyone on here know Joy Anna and Jinger were victims until the lawsuit news came out. Yes, the address and Josh and JB and Michelle's names as parents came out, but I do not remember the girls' names coming out until Jill and Jessa spoke out. I am not saying the outing of the molestation should have came out, but I still do not remember all four of the girls' names being mentioned. Of course, there was plenty of speculation and Jill and Jessa speaking out, but I would not be surprised if JB had them speak out because he wanted TLC to do a show featuring the two girls aka damage control time.

[bythelake]

2 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

When did Jill, Jessa, Jinger or Joy-Anna ever say certain people were child molestors? 

I think what the girls said  in the Kelly interview was that it ( the molestation)  was no " big deal" and that it happens in a lot of families. They didn't name anyone in particular. 

It seems in the legal case, they are not complaining about the molestation (?) ,but the fact that the info was released. But as Doodlebug said, this opens up a can of worms as they will now be subjected to psych. evaluations and cross examination by the county's lawyers. It's not going to be pretty, and I'm surprised that the Duggar lawyers have not warned them about this aspect. Maybe, Jessa is smart enough, Joyanna dumb enough to think they'll pull it off, but Jill is too fragile. There's a lot going on in that girl's head. I do feel sorry for all of them.

[kokapetl]

7 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

The girls do not have to come out and say certain groups are child molesters, but they go along with what their parents beliefs are aka gay, lesbians and certain others are child molesters. They go along with the fact certain people are evil and should rot in hell for not going along with their own religious beliefs.

And if Jill and Jessa came out and said we were two of Josh's victims then how can they say they were harmed. Did anyone on here know Joy Anna and Jinger were victims until the lawsuit news came out. Yes, the address and Josh and JB and Michelle's names as parents came out, but I do not remember the girls' names coming out until Jill and Jessa spoke out. I am not saying the outing of the molestation should have came out, but I still do not remember all four of the girls' names being mentioned. Of course, there was plenty of speculation and Jill and Jessa speaking out, but I would not be surprised if JB had them speak out because he wanted TLC to do a show featuring the two girls aka damage control time.

I could easily identify each Duggar victim from their interviews they gave (in confidence), that InTouch published. There were 5 daughters at the time, the 1 who wasn’t molested had a 4 letter name and was working towards her GED. At the time, that could only have been Jana. The victim with a 4 letter name was Jill, the victim with a 5 letter name was Jessa, the victim with a 6 letter name was Jinger, and the victim with the 8 letter name (including the -), was Joy-Anna. I think John-David, Joseph and maybe Josiah were also interviewed. I could tell if the child interviewee was a boy or girl because only the girls were presented with illustrations of both female and male anatomy. The boys were only presented with illustrations of male anatomy. 

[madpsych78]

So, related somewhat tangentially to the topic of the child molestations...

Jana was the only older female Duggar who Josh didn't touch. Could she be feeling some sort of survivor's guilt? Is that even the right term to describe Jana's situation? 

I ask because I've been seeing all these #MeToo posts on Facebook, including many from my female friends, as a way to communicate that they had been on the receiving end of sexual harassment and/or assault. I've never been sexually harassed or assaulted, and I am almost 40. Although never having the experience is ultimately a good thing, it still saddens me that I am likely in the minority among women, and if this is so commonplace, why was I spared? Basically, I'm wondering if I am experiencing the same types of feelings that Jana may have had.

Edited October 16, 2017 by madpsych78

[bigskygirl]

13 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

I could easily identify each Duggar victim from their interviews they gave (in confidence), that InTouch published. There were 5 daughters at the time, the 1 who wasn’t molested had a 4 letter name and was working towards her GED. At the time, that could only have been Jana. The victim with a 4 letter name was Jill, the victim with a 5 letter name was Jessa, the victim with a 6 letter name was Jinger, and the victim with the 8 letter name (including the -), was Joy-Anna. I think John-David, Joseph and maybe Josiah were also interviewed. I could tell if the child interviewee was a boy or girl because only the girls were presented with illustrations of both female and male anatomy. The boys were only presented with illustrations of male anatomy. 

One or more people could have figured out who all four victims were, but the proof is on the Duggars and the lawyers that the article listed the names specifically (in otherwords, actual names letter hints.) I do feel bad for Jill because this will be hard on her if they have to have psych consults and in depth questioning.

[Scarlett45]

13 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

So, related somewhat tangentially to the topic of the child molestations...

Jana was the only older female Duggar who Josh didn't touch. Could she be feeling some sort of survivor's guilt? Is that even the right term to describe Jana's situation? 

I ask because I've been seeing all these #MeToo posts on Facebook, including many from my female friends, as a way to communicate that they had been on the receiving end of sexual harassment and/or assault. I've never been sexually harassed or assaulted, and I am almost 40. Although never having the experience is ultimately a good thing, it still saddens me that I am likely in the minority among women, and if this is so commonplace, why was I spared? Basically, I'm wondering if I am experiencing the same types of feelings that Jana may have had.

I am sure that Jana probably feels guilt that she couldn't protect her younger sisters from Josh and his disgusting ways. 

Growing up I was aware that these types of things happened, but I thought they were AWFUL and that they were RARE (they aren't). Do I feel lucky that at 32 the "worst" sexual harrassment I have received has been cat calling on the street/public transportation, and that I've never feared being sexually assaulted or raped by a boyfriend/date/aquantinace or family member- absolutely but I'm so ANGRY that I'm a minority in this. I bet Jana is angry too. 

[kokapetl]

1 minute ago, bigskygirl said:

One or more people could have figured out who all four victims were, but the proof is on the Duggars and the lawyers that the article listed the names specifically (in otherwords, actual names letter hints.) I do feel bad for Jill because this will be hard on her if they have to have psych consults and in depth questioning.

Josh’s name was redacted to the same extent as his sisters. He was easily identified and named by InTouch. We can’t pretend that what InTouch published didn’t also identify the Duggar daughters. 

[Aja]

2 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

When did Jill, Jessa, Jinger or Joy-Anna ever say certain people were child molestors? 

Their mother thinks trans people are a bigger threat to the safety of children than her son, Chester the Molester. They've always made their feelings on homosexuality perfectly clear. None of the kids, including Jill, Jessa and Jinger, have ever disputed their parents' hateful, ignorant assertions. Enthusiastic support for that shit is all I see. 

As a brief personal aside, I was married and in the closet and trapped in a very toxic and abusive situation from the age of 18 years old. It went on for 20 years. So I get being brainwashed and thinking there is no way out and that your "authority figure" (Jim Boob, my ex husband, whomever) is the be-all end-all of almighty rightness at all times no matter what. As an adult, personal agency comes into play whether you want it to or not. I could have made the choice to keep my head up my ass indefinitely and I'd probably still be married to the man and getting called a worthless idiot right now as I type. The Duggar kidults aren't sequestered from the real world any more than I was. It would not take a genius critical thinker, for example, to simply skim over the New Testament and realize the Duggars openly defy the teachings of Jesus Christ with practically everything they do. I know that the SOTDRT ain't Harvard, but those girls can read. 

Insisting you were not a victim and then whining and complaining and filing lawsuits about how victimized you were is very typical of the whole Duggar "my principles totally contradict each other depending on how much money is at stake" philosophy. There are plenty of ways J, J & J could protect themselves both legally and from a PR standpoint if they wanted to. They don't want to. They want to be persecuted Christians forever. Sorry, I don't buy it.

[Natalie68]

1 hour ago, Kokapetl said:

Josh’s name was redacted to the same extent as his sisters. He was easily identified and named by InTouch. We can’t pretend that what InTouch published didn’t also identify the Duggar daughters. 

I think the whole thing is incredibly sad.  It is sad that Josh did this to his sisters and a non related female.  Its sad his sisters have had to deal with this in the public eye (and in private).  It is sad that the parents that enabled this did nothing to help the sisters OR Josh. 

I have zero sympathy for adult Josh and I have zero sympathy for Michelle and Jim Bob.  Its been said time and time again that HAD JB and M followed protocol Josh may have gotten help, the sisters would have gotten meaningful help, and NONE of us would ever had known.  But they didn't and now we do.  It seems to ME that the reports were redacted as the law states.  Yes, anyone following the Duggars could figure out who was who.  Again, the parents fault.  They gave up being private citizens when they signed a contract with TLC and allowed the world full on access to their family including a tribe of minors.  There are several lessons to take away from this.  IF something like this should visit your family, do not protect the abuser, deal with it.  If you want to be on tv, you have to understand you are making a deal with the devil and have to take the good with the bad.  Again, the only people at fault here are Josh, Michelle, Jim Bob.  The sisters are collateral damage as sad as that is.  I would wholeheartedly support them suing their parents and brother for failure to protect them.  To expect more from a profit earning business and gov employee's is misguided.

What really fries me at this point?  Josh is such a loser who most likely cannot support his ever growing family so his parents allow him free access to the TTH, his sisters young and old, and countless other young girls.  They have to see this douchebag constantly and most likely feel like they have no say in that.  If I were abused by my brother (I don't have one nor was I abused) and I couldn't say no, that dickweed is not coming near me, my wedding, my children, and NO I will not babysit for  him, I would lose whatever sanity I had left.  The blame for this whole clusterfuck starts and ends with the parents and Josh.

 

ETA:  Let's say the Duggars got preferential treatment and had their info redacted more than what was required because they were perhaps famous that would be patently unfair to anyone who is NOT famous.  Seriously, had this been regular Joe Blow and it somehow made it to the media, someone somewhere would be able to identify victims had the parents been listed.  Its just the way it is.  Unless we all want there to be no such thing as the Freedom of Information Act.  

Edited October 16, 2017 by Natalie68

[floridamom]

I'm not sure of the timeline here, but I remember some years ago reading the infamus "Alice" post. That post was very specific, and proved to be 100% accurate. It was in this post that the molestation was addressed as out of the 5 older daughters, the eldest one 'wasn't touched', but  the other 4 were. Alice (and Alice doesn't have to be a female) told about how Michelle Duggar hadn't bathed her own children in YEARS and the daughters did all of that work for her, as well as her children 'not seeing the inside of a grocery store in years'...to me, that meant they weren't allowed out of the house much, either, but kept sequestered at the family home. Please, friends, anyone here who hasn't read that article should, indeed find it and read it. If I remembered where it was, I'd direct you to it myself. That's how I learned about the details of this situation. Many online posters on a forum said how that earlier post was so very right about things. IMO, it was written by someone who knows or knew the Duggar clan quite well.

[Natalie68]

4 minutes ago, floridamom said:

I'm not sure of the timeline here, but I remember some years ago reading the infamus "Alice" post. That post was very specific, and proved to be 100% accurate. It was in this post that the molestation was addressed as out of the 5 older daughters, the eldest one 'wasn't touched', but  the other 4 were. Alice (and Alice doesn't have to be a female) told about how Michelle Duggar hadn't bathed her own children in YEARS and the daughters did all of that work for her, as well as her children 'not seeing the inside of a grocery store in years'...to me, that meant they weren't allowed out of the house much, either, but kept sequestered at the family home. Please, friends, anyone here who hasn't read that article should, indeed find it and read it. If I remembered where it was, I'd direct you to it myself. That's how I learned about the details of this situation. Many online posters on a forum said how that earlier post was so very right about things. IMO, it was written by someone who knows or knew the Duggar clan quite well.

I wish I could find that post as well.  I remember reading it EONS ago so when it came out as true I wasn't that shocked.  Actually I was shocked it was sooooo accurate but not the crux of the story.

[mynextmistake]

2 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

Highly unlikely. 

The remaining defendants are being sued solely in their individual capacities. 

If they were acting in their official capacities when they did what they are being sued for, the government likely has a duty to indemnify them for any damages. 

7 hours ago, doodlebug said:

However, the Duggars have repeatedly insisted that the molestations were NOT 'the worst thing that ever happened' to them.  They were no big deal, the girls were asleep, it was over the clothes,  most of them didn't even know it had happened until their parents told them which was only because saintly Josh confessed.  The two survivors who've spoken publicly have repeatedly told us that it NEVER affected them negatively because their perfect parents handled it perfectly and they forgive their brother for simply being sly and curious.  

They cannot have it both ways which is going to be problematic for them in court, I'd wager.  I agree with your second paragraph; this was a unique circumstance, at least partly engineered by their greedy famewhore parents, and they are going to have a tough time proving negligence let alone show how they were damaged by the public revelation of something they claim was never traumatic.

I think that, no matter what the party line is, they're allowed to be mad. Except for the Kelly interview, have Jessa and Jill ever spoken publicly about the molestation? It seems like you might be attributing a lot of the crap we've been hearing from Jim Bob and Michelle to them. Nobody is suggesting that Jim Bob and Michelle have a right to be angry or to recover damages, but I'm not going to dictate the feelings of two abuse survivors to them based on one interview which they were probably coerced into by their parents. And keep in mind that neither Jinger nor Joy have made any public statements in support of their brother. In Joy's case I think that was because of her age at the time the scandal broke, but why wasn't Jinger at the interview? It would have been in the Duggars' best interests to have as many of the adult daughters there as possible. Maybe Jinger wasn't willing to keep sweet. Just a thought. 

[floridamom]

Jinger wasn't at the interview because she was not a married woman.. Remember, single ADULT women have no right to speak out in their society...I believe that is the reason why to this day that Joy and Jinger were not present.

[doodlebug]

7 minutes ago, floridamom said:

Jinger wasn't at the interview because she was not a married woman.. Remember, single ADULT women have no right to speak out in their society...I believe that is the reason why to this day that Joy and Jinger were not present.

There is also the very real possibility that Jinger and Joy didn't do the Megyn Kelly interview because they were not molested while they were sleeping.  Jinger was in the laundry room and Joy was sitting on Josh's lap when he assaulted them.  Having them tell their stories of being molested while wide awake, both of which took place many months after the initial molestations in the bedroom, would've made it a lot tougher to sell the party line that the girls weren't aware of what happened and that their parents managed the situation so well.  I think that, even if they'd both been married, JB and his advisors would've tried to minimize the story of what happened to them at the hands of their brother.  Even though Joy was only 5, something as traumatic as having her brother put his fingers in her vagina would probably be memorable; she will never be speaking about it publicly if only because the story itself shows what a big lie the assertion that Josh' actions were due to a bit of harmless curiosity.  Jinger undoubtedly remembers vividly what happened to her, and, once again, there's no way her patriarch is going to let her speak about it.  The only two who have spoken up are the two that have plausible deniability when it comes to knowledge of just how deeply their were betrayed by their brother and parents.

[lascuba]

1 minute ago, doodlebug said:

There is also the very real possibility that Jinger and Joy didn't do the Megyn Kelly interview because they were not molested while they were sleeping.  Jinger was in the laundry room and Joy was sitting on Josh's lap when he assaulted them.  Having them tell their stories of being molested while wide awake, both of which took place many months after the initial molestations in the bedroom, would've made it a lot tougher to sell the party line that the girls weren't aware of what happened and that their parents managed the situation so well.  I think that, even if they'd both been married, JB and his advisors would've tried to minimize the story of what happened to them at the hands of their brother.  Even though Joy was only 5, something as traumatic as having her brother put his fingers in her vagina would probably be memorable; she will never be speaking about it publicly if only because the story itself shows what a big lie the assertion that Josh' actions were due to a bit of harmless curiosity.  Jinger undoubtedly remembers vividly what happened to her, and, once again, there's no way her patriarch is going to let her speak about it.  The only two who have spoken up are the two that have plausible deniability when it comes to knowledge of just how deeply their were betrayed by their brother and parents.

That's always been my assumption, that the reason it was only Jessa and Jill interviewed was because they were the ones who were asleep when they were molested and had to be told it had happened. There's no way that the audience would buy, "It was no big deal" after Jinger described being held down in the laundry room.

[mynextmistake]

27 minutes ago, floridamom said:

Jinger wasn't at the interview because she was not a married woman.. Remember, single ADULT women have no right to speak out in their society...I believe that is the reason why to this day that Joy and Jinger were not present.

That's your belief, though, not fact. If Jinger had wanted to (or even just been willing to) participate, I don't think the Duggars would have stopped her because she was unmarried. It would have been much more to their benefit to have three victims present to minimize and explain away Josh's actions than it was to have two, if for no other reason than it would have laid to rest any speculation about Jinger's feelings about the abuse. 

17 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

There is also the very real possibility that Jinger and Joy didn't do the Megyn Kelly interview because they were not molested while they were sleeping.  Jinger was in the laundry room and Joy was sitting on Josh's lap when he assaulted them.  Having them tell their stories of being molested while wide awake, both of which took place many months after the initial molestations in the bedroom, would've made it a lot tougher to sell the party line that the girls weren't aware of what happened and that their parents managed the situation so well.  I think that, even if they'd both been married, JB and his advisors would've tried to minimize the story of what happened to them at the hands of their brother.  Even though Joy was only 5, something as traumatic as having her brother put his fingers in her vagina would probably be memorable; she will never be speaking about it publicly if only because the story itself shows what a big lie the assertion that Josh' actions were due to a bit of harmless curiosity.  Jinger undoubtedly remembers vividly what happened to her, and, once again, there's no way her patriarch is going to let her speak about it.  The only two who have spoken up are the two that have plausible deniability when it comes to knowledge of just how deeply their were betrayed by their brother and parents.

Fair point. I could totally buy this scenario. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

51 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

The Duggar girls statements might sound like denial to you but their attorneys are going to have to prove that once the defense uses them to mitigate the damage they claim was done. How would they do that? By having mental health experts with expertise in child molestation interview the girls and come to the conclusion that this is indeed the case and the girl suffered severe and extensive psychological damage at the time of the molestations which they suppressed. And, the girls are going to have to back this up by submitting to these evaluations and going along with the conclusions, which are very likely true but completely contradict their family story.

... I can just imagine Jill on the stand acknowledging that she's a basket case emotionally because of the damage inflicted by the molestations and her parents' handling of it.  That should go really well.

 

You know what will go over even better?

Some smarmy ass defense attorney getting in Jill's face trying to pressure her into saying the expert who examined her and just testified about how harmed she was is full of shit and she really didn't mind her brother fingering her at all.  She was asleep so it didn't count just like she said in the interview her parents pressured her into doing. 

The jury will LOVE that.  

Or maybe not. They might see it as just another attempt by some oppressive asshole to bully Jill into denying how she feels so that the people who have mistreated and disrespected her can avoid being held accountable. 

That might happen, too. And while painful to go through, it would only make Jill appear more sympathetic. I doubt it is a mistake a competent defense attorney would make. 

 

1 hour ago, doodlebug said:

BTW, Jill's husband also has repeatedly bashed GBLTQ causes.  While he wasn't the one who triggered the initial tip to the tabloids, it's not exactly a secret how this family sees this issue.  

 

39 minutes ago, bigskygirl said:

The girls do not have to come out and say certain groups are child molesters, but they go along with what their parents beliefs are aka gay, lesbians and certain others are child molesters. They go along with the fact certain people are evil and should rot in hell for not going along with their own religious beliefs.

I still fail to see what this has to do with the validity of the sisters' cause of action ... aside, that is, from what feels like the implied suggestion that they deserved and/or aren't entitled to complain about what the city and tabloid did to them because they are guilty (purely by association) of holding the same foolish homo/transphobic notions their parents and husband hold.   

I don't know if it is the idea of punishing someone for a thought crime or the notion that karma works in that kind of malignant fashion against sexually abused children that seems most unfair.  Either way, I don't agree with it. The fact that they have family members who harbor homophobic views (and may even share those views themselves) doesn't change what the city did. I guess I just believe everyone deserves justice, regardless of opinions they hold that I find offensive.  

Fortunately the whole issue of what Michelle said in her robo-call or what Derek has tweeted will play absolutely no part in their case - except to the extent that any potential jury member who knows about it and has let it effect their opinion would be barred from serving. Thank goodness!

[kokapetl]

40 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

If they were acting in their official capacities when they did what they are being sued for, the government likely has a duty to indemnify them for any damages. 

The daughters made claims against the remaining defendants in both their official and individual capacities, but the official capacity claims were dismissed. If the government ends up footing the bill for damages on behalf of its employees sued in their individual capacities, I would assume it’s because it’s in the employee’s contracts. And the government buys  insurance to cover it’s obligations. 

[EVS]

FWIW, I can see both sides of this issue. I do think that the documents should have been better redacted to protect the victims. I have no idea, however, if it was due to negligence or if the current laws or policy need to be improved. I am watching with interest to see how this plays out. 

I do have a question. Can Jill and Jessa claim that the reason they went on tv and minimized the molestations was because they were traumatized and embarrassed that the information was released and that they were just trying to minimize press and public reaction to protect themselves? 

From what I can tell, the above statement would not be completely true based on how JB and Michelle handled the whole molestation situation, but it might be partially true and could negate the discrepancy between their interview statements and their statements about being traumatized by both the molestations and the release of the information.

Edited October 16, 2017 by EVS
I’m terrible at proofreading

[doodlebug]

9 minutes ago, Kokapetl said:

The daughters made claims against the remaining defendants in both their official and individual capacities, but the official capacity claims were dismissed. If the government ends up footing the bill for damages on behalf of its employees sued in their individual capacities, I would assume it’s because it’s in the employee’s contracts. And the government buys  insurance to cover it’s obligations. 

Exactly right, and that is exactly how it will go down.  Just as if you got named personally in a lawsuit for something you did as part of your employment, you would expect your employer to foot the bill.  The 'official and individual capacities' stuff was legalspeak and doesn't mean anything in terms of who is paying for the defense of the suit;  I think it is in reference to the fact that the employees named were not the ones who wrote the policy on redaction (an official capacity) but were simply following the guidelines as they understood them as their daily job requires (personal capacity).  The suit tried to say that the employees had a hand in both making the rules and then in carrying them out; the judge, after evaluation, said they had no role in policymaking and therefore couldn't be sued on that basis.  This was not a victory for the Duggar sisters, it narrowed the grounds of their suit considerably.

 

Quote

Some smarmy ass defense attorney getting in Jill's face trying to pressure her into saying the expert who examined her and just testified about how harmed she was is full of shit and she really didn't mind her brother fingering her at all.  She was asleep so it didn't count just like she said in the interview her parents pressured her into doing. 

Maybe you haven't been to many trials, but, let me assure you, the defense and their experts will be more than prepared to present their side of the case and will do it in such a way as to favor their clients.  They aren't being paid to hand the case to the plaintiffs.  There aren't going to attack Jill on the witness stand, nobody does that; they won't have to.  Believe me, by the time the jury gets the case, they will be well aware of what the girls said in the TV interview, and especially aware of any discrepancies with their testimony at trial.  Attorneys don't attack witnesses on the stand, they don't need to; but they aren't going to let facts that might mitigate any damages be ignored, either.

Edited October 16, 2017 by doodlebug

[doodlebug]

4 minutes ago, EVS said:

I do have a question. Can Jill and Jessa claim that the reason they went on tv and minimized the molestations was because they were traumatized and embarrassed that the information was released and that they were just trying to minimize press and public reaction to protect themselves? 

 

Their attorneys are going to prepare them to discuss why they decided to publicly identify themselves and give interviews on the subject.  They will undoubtedly consult a number of experts on jury testimony to develop a response that is most likely to result in a favorable verdict.  It is possible that some variation on the assertion that the girls, as victims of molestation and then of the tabloid press, did the interviews to regain some control over the narrative which was taken from them when the story was published.  They'll gloss it up a bit, but, yeah, there will be some sort of explanation favoring the girls' POV.

[Aja]

7 minutes ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

I still fail to see what this has to do with the validity of the sisters' cause of action ... aside, that is, from what feels like the implied suggestion that they deserved and/or aren't entitled to complain about what the city and tabloid did to them because they are guilty (purely by association) of holding the same foolish homo/transphobic notions their parents and husband hold.   

I don't know if it is the idea of punishing someone for a thought crime or the notion that karma works in that kind of malignant fashion against sexually abused children that seems most unfair.  Either way, I don't agree with it. The fact that they have family members who harbor homophobic views (and may even share those views themselves) doesn't change what the city did. I guess I just believe everyone deserves justice, regardless of opinions they hold that I find offensive.  

Fortunately the whole issue of what Michelle said in her robo-call or what Derek has tweeted will play absolutely no part in their case - except to the extent that any potential jury member who knows about it and has let it effect their opinion would be barred from serving. Thank goodness!

 

From my own side, I was simply responding to a query about when in the world Jessa, Jill and Jinger have EVER stated that they have anything but the purest and holiest love for their homosexual and transsexual brothers and sisters. I would never suggest or imply that any human being "deserved" to be violated and traumatized, no matter how abhorrent and hateful their religious and social views are. I just have a hard time trying to follow if the girls are upset or not, if they consider themselves victims or not, if it was a big deal or not, if it's all TOTALLY in the past and forgotten or not, since that all changes depending on who smells a financial windfall and where. That is where I have a real issue drumming up sympathy, especially when they all scream nonstop about morality and how I, personally, am going to burn in hell unless I model myself after them. No, I don't know what they've been through. I haven't walked in their shoes. Nor have they walked in mine. They're entitled to feel however they feel about it, just as I am about my own life. If they had ever actually spoken out--and not just parroting whatever Jim Boob's Pretty Good PR Company told them to say--if they ever did implore the media to leave them alone without turning right around and courting publicity like sailors on shore leave--I'd feel very differently.

To reiterate: Though the Duggars regularly enjoy reminding me that I'm going to burn in the firey pits of hell for being such a perverted and disgusting sinner, I STILL don't think any human being, especially a child, DESERVES to be violated. If any of them would ever like to have a real discussion about real steps they can take to protect themselves and their futures, and perhaps even get compensated by the state or their parents or whomever, I am right here. Anything I can't answer, I can find a professional who can. But that isn't the goal.

[EVS]

3 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Their attorneys are going to prepare them to discuss why they decided to publicly identify themselves and give interviews on the subject.  They will undoubtedly consult a number of experts on jury testimony to develop a response that is most likely to result in a favorable verdict.  It is possible that some variation on the assertion that the girls, as victims of molestation and then of the tabloid press, did the interviews to regain some control over the narrative which was taken from them when the story was published.  They'll gloss it up a bit, but, yeah, there will be some sort of explanation favoring the girls' POV.

Ok. Thanks for the explanation, Doodlebug. I have no knowledge or experience when it comes to legal matters!

[Celia Rubenstein]

21 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

 The suit tried to say that the employees had a hand in both making the rules and then in carrying them out; the judge, after evaluation, said they had no role in policymaking and therefore couldn't be sued on that basis.  This was not a victory for the Duggar sisters, it narrowed the grounds of their suit considerably.

I think it is actually a good thing the case was honed down.  Now the focus is on the key issue  - how the redaction was carried out and if it was done in accordance with the law - which will be an easier, much more straightforward issue to litigate. 

9 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

They will undoubtedly consult a number of experts on jury testimony to develop a response that is most likely to result in a favorable verdict.  It is possible that some variation on the assertion that the girls, as victims of molestation and then of the tabloid press, did the interviews to regain some control over the narrative which was taken from them when the story was published.

Edited October 16, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[Celia Rubenstein]

oops, sorry ..my response to doodle's point got lost ... what I wanted to say is that (like in every case) the lawyers will of course prepare questions and rehearse answers. There is nothing wrong with that.  To not prepare your witnesses this way can amount to malfeasance. 

However I take issue with the idea that a lawyer is going to test float various answers with a jury consultant in order to see what will earn a winning verdict as was suggested.  A lawyer cannot suborn perjury by encouraging a client to give responses that are not true.  It is fine to refine a client's ability to express themselves, but creating false testimony from whole cloth is against the law and can result in disbarment.  Few lawyers would chance it.  I seriously doubt an attorney of the caliber that is representing the sisters would be so foolish.

That being said, I think the rationale suggested by EVS makes perfect sense to me.   I just hope the fact that it makes perfect sense is not seen as evidence it can't possibly be true and must have been manufactured by a legal team, which I fear happening if it turns out to be offered in court by the Jill and Jessa.  

 

ETA: @Aja I completely understood what you were saying and I wasn't aiming my comments at you at all.  I love your posts and always appreciate the perspective you bring to the discussion!  

Edited October 17, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[ginger90]

Alice refresher, for those who have seen these previously. 2 posts

1)

Alice Says: 

May 22nd, 2007 at 7:03 pm

 

To Ruth,

Let me tell you something about the precious Duggars that you don’t know. First, Michelle hasn’t bathed her younger children in years. It is all left up to the older children. They have children that have never seen the inside of a grocery store. Everything that you have seen on TV is staged. Big Time.

Michelle hasn’t cooked a meal in years. Hasn’t cleaned house in years. All she does is try to look norman for the TV camera’s. Get real. This couple is out for the fame and money that they can get. They receive “Love Offering” from all over the country. They have church services in their home when it is to their advantage. They get paid for that.

He and his mother “Mary” has this all figured out. She is fame hungry and she couldn’t manage this for herself and now she is helping out Jim Bob and Michelle. She calls different TV shows and exploits her grandchildren. This is the Duggar’s way of making a living and providing for the huge family. Fame and Fortune In January, the whole family went to Chicago and taped Oprah Winfrey show. Oprah wined and dined them for one week. You know that had to cost some pretty pennies. As you may have noticed, that show never aired and it never will. Oprah was informed that Josh, the oldest son, had been molesting his sisters. Yes, this is the truth. Oprah turned them over to the Arkansas State Police Child Protection Agency and the Washington County Child Protection Agency. They have been investigated to some length. Jim Bob Duggar told the producers of the show that he built a small church out back for his followers. HIS FOLLOWERS. GET REAL. THE MAN IS A FRAUD. In April, they were in court with their story. They have to report to Arkansas Department of Human Services every six months.. They have lied and lied about their son to protect him at their daughters expense. For some unknown reason the boy is still in the home with the girls. God only know if this is still going on. In my eyes he is a CHILD MOLESTOR. HE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME. What kind of parents cover up for one child and hurt the others. I do not believe that this is what God has in mind for them. Frauding the American people and taking their money and living off of it.

They did not build their home by themselves. They hired it done. The

Discovery Health Channel and the TLC channel wrote them a check for over $200,000. for the to build the house. Everything inside the house was given to them except the kitchen. They did buy that themselves. The rest is all free. Mary and Josh was on the phone day and night asking for donations from soup to Computers. They also received a Baby Grand Piano from Campbell Soup Co. The trip to California was also provided by the TV Stations. It was mapped out. Mile for Mile. They did not spend a penny of their money. All the groceries and gas and lodging and clothing was paid for in advance. For someone who wants to be famous, why lie about the facts. Seems funny to me. They are professional liers, both of them.. They twist their words to make them look good and and look like devoted parents and a great big happy family. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don’t believe me, contact the Arkansas State Police Child Protection Agency in Bentonville, Ar. and the Washington County Child Protection Agency in Fayetteville. It will be worth the time and effort to read all about it. There is a lot more that I could go into but I simply do not have that much time. I think that is time the the Duggar’s are stopped. They are pimping out their family for material things to keep them fed and clothed. If they cannot feed and clothe their children, don’t have them.

2)

Alice Says: 

May 24th, 2007 at 3:05 pm

 

People, trust me or not. I know this for a fact. God’s honest truth that the molestation happened. It happened to four of his 5 sisters. The oldest daughter was not touched. The second daughter is the one who caught him doing this. There was no rape involved, but molested. I could go into detail, but I won’t. Of course, you can find nothing about the charges. The Duggar’s want to keep this hid. Wouldn’t you? They wouldn’t have the things that they do if it had gotten out earlier. That’s the way that they make their living and travel at the expenses of others.

Jim Bob and Michelle are very aware of this happening and have chosen to protect Josh over his sisters. The family is to report to DHS every six months and that the girls are in counciling. This is what the courts ordered. Jim Bob and Michelle both tried to lie their way out of this, but it didn’t happen. Just ask them, but they will just lie about it. They call their son “Precious Josh” and in their eyes he can do nothing wrong. What about the girls? I think that everyone should know about this problem and that the Duggars are frauds. They make the Talk Shows under the impression that they are pure and they receive “Love Offerings” from the viewers. He has got it figured out. How to be famous and make a living for his brood and not have to work to get it.

From

http://www.ibiblio.org/bascha/blog/2006/03/21/gigantic-family-day-on-tlc/

[bigskygirl]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

 

You know what will go over even better?

Some smarmy ass defense attorney getting in Jill's face trying to pressure her into saying the expert who examined her and just testified about how harmed she was is full of shit and she really didn't mind her brother fingering her at all.  She was asleep so it didn't count just like she said in the interview her parents pressured her into doing. 

The jury will LOVE that.  

Or maybe not. They might see it as just another attempt by some oppressive asshole to bully Jill into denying how she feels so that the people who have mistreated and disrespected her can avoid being held accountable. 

That might happen, too. And while painful to go through, it would only make Jill appear more sympathetic. I doubt it is a mistake a competent defense attorney would make. 

 

 

I still fail to see what this has to do with the validity of the sisters' cause of action ... aside, that is, from what feels like the implied suggestion that they deserved and/or aren't entitled to complain about what the city and tabloid did to them because they are guilty (purely by association) of holding the same foolish homo/transphobic notions their parents and husband hold.   

I don't know if it is the idea of punishing someone for a thought crime or the notion that karma works in that kind of malignant fashion against sexually abused children that seems most unfair.  Either way, I don't agree with it. The fact that they have family members who harbor homophobic views (and may even share those views themselves) doesn't change what the city did. I guess I just believe everyone deserves justice, regardless of opinions they hold that I find offensive.  

Fortunately the whole issue of what Michelle said in her robo-call or what Derek has tweeted will play absolutely no part in their case - except to the extent that any potential jury member who knows about it and has let it effect their opinion would be barred from serving. Thank goodness!

 

I am not saying the girls were not victims or they deserve it because they are anti-gay and lesbians. My problem is the fact the family were calling out certain groups by saying they are child molesters while they were hiding the fact Josh molested four of his sisters and another girl. JB, Michelle and Josh are three hypocrites. They did nothing to protect the girls or get Josh the help he needs. Plus the fact, the family seems more upset over the fact Josh cheated on Anna and was looking at porn to get his jollies speaks volume. I am sorry for sounding like a broken record, but suing someone is not going to change the fact those poor girls were violated by their brother and in a way their idiot parents more than once because Josh did nasty sickening things to them more than once. To me what happen to them at the hands of Josh and their parents is way worse than any tacky tabloid story ever did. Parents are suppose to love and protect their children and not sell them out for five minutes of fame or bury under the rug when one of their children violates and harms one or more of their siblings. I am not buying the lawsuit was brought into play in order to bring sexual abuse and molestation victims more rights. I think it was JB and Josh's way to get money and to play the victim cards because *gasp* someone called JB and Michelle out on their crap, and because more Josh was made out to be an evil creepy child molester. I bet dollars to donuts any money the girls win will not go to them because they will have to share it with the whole family and with Josh. Those poor girls need counseling, help, patience, love and understanding, but they will not get it by getting money in a lawsuit or from their own parents.

[Celia Rubenstein]

54 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

 Maybe you haven't been to many trials, but, let me assure you, the defense and their experts will be more than prepared to present their side of the case and will do it in such a way as to favor their clients.  They aren't being paid to hand the case to the plaintiffs.  There aren't going to attack Jill on the witness stand, nobody does that; they won't have to.  Believe me, by the time the jury gets the case, they will be well aware of what the girls said in the TV interview, and especially aware of any discrepancies with their testimony at trial.  Attorneys don't attack witnesses on the stand, they don't need to; but they aren't going to let facts that might mitigate any damages be ignored, either.

Well, actually ... I've been through too many trials to count, lol.  But anyway ... 

.... of course the defense will present a case that favors their side.  I think that goes without saying.  The plaintiff's counsel will certainly do the same.  And part of the plaintiff's case will be a response to what the defense puts on.  The defense does not get to present evidence in a vacuum, unchallenged.  They don't get to just get to throw the interview out there without the plaintiff getting a chance to explain away the supposed "discrepancies" between what Jill said then and what she says now.  That means the jury will be just as aware of Jill's explanation as they will be of anything the defense claims about her statements supposedly mitigating anything.  

It works both ways. 

I do want to add that it has been my experience that juries are often offended by either side of a case presenting theories or twisting evidence in such a way that insults their intelligence.  I would think the defense would not only want to avoid attacking Jill on the stand (for obvious reasons) but also avoid making nonsensical arguments about the significance of her interview statements.  I think most people would smell the denial and the duress a mile away and it would be a major mistake for the defense to rely heavily on its evidentiary value for much of anything.

[GeeGolly]

There are HIPAA laws to keep medical/mental health records private. How a person feels about whatever illnesses/diagnoses they have has no bearing on their right to privacy. A person may be fine with their family and friends knowing they have been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder but might be crushed if the local news shared the information.

Do Jill's and Jessa's feelings about the molestations matter in the pain & suffering part of the case? Because I'm not sure their feelings matter at all as to whether the documents violated their privacy. 

[doodlebug]

1 hour ago, Celia Rubenstein said:

oops, sorry ..my response to doodle's point got lost ... what I wanted to say is that (like in every case) the lawyers will of course prepare questions and rehearse answers. There is nothing wrong with that.  To not prepare your witnesses this way can amount to malfeasance. 

However I take issue with the idea that a lawyer is going to test float various answers with a jury consultant in order to see what will earn a winning verdict as was suggested.  A lawyer cannot suborn perjury by encouraging a client to give responses that are not true.  It is fine to refine a client's ability to express themselves, but creating false testimony from whole cloth is against the law and can result in disbarment.  Few lawyers would chance it.  I seriously doubt an attorney of the caliber that is representing the sisters would be so foolish

 

I never meant to suggest the plaintiff's attorneys would ever expect the sisters to commit perjury.  However, I do believe that they, along with consultants, will assist the girls in framing their testimony in such a way as to be most likely to impress the jury.  They will talk to the girls about possible areas of questioning and discuss possible answers to various queries.  Then, using the girls' responses as guidance, they will discuss with them how to phrase their answers in the way that is most beneficial to their case.  They might even suggest possible answers.  However, they will present them and then ask the plaintiff if she feels this represents her feelings, does it say what she wants to convey?  And, in areas that are problematic in terms of making the Duggars appealing to the jury, including their discussion on national TV of the molestations; the lawyers will make recommendations as to what to say, what not to say, how to phrase things.  Happens every day.  There is no point in hiring attorneys to represent them if they're not going to listen to his advice as to how to best present their case.

[doodlebug]

40 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

There are HIPAA laws to keep medical/mental health records private. How a person feels about whatever illnesses/diagnoses they have has no bearing on their right to privacy. A person may be fine with their family and friends knowing they have been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder but might be crushed if the local news shared the information.

Do Jill's and Jessa's feelings about the molestations matter in the pain & suffering part of the case? Because I'm not sure their feelings matter at all as to whether the documents violated their privacy. 

I think there are two questions here.  First, was the way the file was redacted a violation of their privacy?  Then, if the jury says that it was, exactly what was the value of that both financial (loss of income specifically due to their identification).  The show's cancellation was due to the outing of their parents and brother and has no bearing on this.  Since their financial losses were minimal and actually lead to the Fox interview and a show of their own on TLC; they're going to have to really play up the pain and suffering.  And, since they've minimized the molestations themselves as no big deal, it may be tough to sell a jury on the notion that the revelation of such a small and insignificant event is worth millions to them.  Then, again, maybe a Gothard proponent will be called to explain how the girls were so humiliated because now the whole world knows what brazen hussies they are, tempting their brother into molesting them.  And how it lessened their value on the marriage market, which is clearly obvious when looking at Derick and Bin as headships.  A rural Arkansas jury is going to be pretty conservative, they might buy it.

[Churchhoney]

4 hours ago, Aja said:

Their mother thinks trans people are a bigger threat to the safety of children than her son, Chester the Molester. They've always made their feelings on homosexuality perfectly clear. None of the kids, including Jill, Jessa and Jinger, have ever disputed their parents' hateful, ignorant assertions. Enthusiastic support for that shit is all I see. 

 

And since both Der and Jer preach it very publicly, I'd say that provides a bit of additional evidence that those two wifeys, at least, buy in. They certainly make more worshipful, head-tilting googoo eyes at these preachermen than I would ever make at some guy whose moral pronouncements I disagreed with, in any case. 

4 hours ago, floridamom said:

I'm not sure of the timeline here, but I remember some years ago reading the infamus "Alice" post. That post was very specific, and proved to be 100% accurate. It was in this post that the molestation was addressed as out of the 5 older daughters, the eldest one 'wasn't touched', but  the other 4 were. Alice (and Alice doesn't have to be a female) told about how Michelle Duggar hadn't bathed her own children in YEARS and the daughters did all of that work for her, as well as her children 'not seeing the inside of a grocery store in years'...to me, that meant they weren't allowed out of the house much, either, but kept sequestered at the family home. Please, friends, anyone here who hasn't read that article should, indeed find it and read it. If I remembered where it was, I'd direct you to it myself. That's how I learned about the details of this situation. Many online posters on a forum said how that earlier post was so very right about things. IMO, it was written by someone who knows or knew the Duggar clan quite well.

Search "alice" 

http://www.ibiblio.org/bascha/blog/2006/03/21/gigantic-family-day-on-tlc/

[bigskygirl]

15 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I think there are two questions here.  First, was the way the file was redacted a violation of their privacy?  Then, if the jury says that it was, exactly what was the value of that both financial (loss of income specifically due to their identification).  The show's cancellation was due to the outing of their parents and brother and has no bearing on this.  Since their financial losses were minimal and actually lead to the Fox interview and a show of their own on TLC; they're going to have to really play up the pain and suffering.  And, since they've minimized the molestations themselves as no big deal, it may be tough to sell a jury on the notion that the revelation of such a small and insignificant event is worth millions to them.  Then, again, maybe a Gothard proponent will be called to explain how the girls were so humiliated because now the whole world knows what brazen hussies they are, tempting their brother into molesting them.  And how it lessened their value on the marriage market, which is clearly obvious when looking at Derick and Bin as headships.  A rural Arkansas jury is going to be pretty conservative, they might buy it.

Will...Jill married Derick and Jessa married Ben so there is some pain and suffering because lets face Dwerp and Ben are not great catches. Yes, I know where the Prayer Closet is.

[Temperance]

4 hours ago, floridamom said:

Jinger wasn't at the interview because she was not a married woman.. Remember, single ADULT women have no right to speak out in their society...I believe that is the reason why to this day that Joy and Jinger were not present.

I don't think that's quite it. I did think it was because Jill and Jessa were married. Jill had had a baby, and Jessa was pregnant. I think in JB's mind being married (happily) showed there was no lasting trauma. They were able to take on adult life, relationships, responsibilities, etc.  

[Scarlett45]

43 minutes ago, Temperance said:

I don't think that's quite it. I did think it was because Jill and Jessa were married. Jill had had a baby, and Jessa was pregnant. I think in JB's mind being married (happily) showed there was no lasting trauma. They were able to take on adult life, relationships, responsibilities, etc.  

I think it was more that in JB's mind being married meant the girls were "safe" aka he didn't have to worry about the interview ruining their value on the fundie marriage market. I notice that "fundie royalty" stays far away from the Duggars. Austin is the most like minded husband (comparing family of origin to the Duggars) and they were long time aquantiances. Before the scandals hit NO WAY would Jinger have been allowed to court a mainstream evangelical Christian like Jeremy, but post scandals....

[bythelake]

I wonder if they will be offered a settlement? They would be smart to take one, and avoid going to trial and having to give testimony. At least they would get some money, but if they go to trial, they risk getting nothing.

And if anyone knows the answer, were Jinger and Joy questioned recently? I would guess they would say they didn't remember, but they must have given a statement to be included in the suit. 

[Celia Rubenstein]

6 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

There are HIPAA laws to keep medical/mental health records private. How a person feels about whatever illnesses/diagnoses they have has no bearing on their right to privacy. A person may be fine with their family and friends knowing they have been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder but might be crushed if the local news shared the information.

Do Jill's and Jessa's feelings about the molestations matter in the pain & suffering part of the case? Because I'm not sure their feelings matter at all as to whether the documents violated their privacy. 

Whether the city violated the privacy of the Duggar sisters by failing to follow the redaction law is the threshold issue.  If the city is found to have violated their privacy by failing to follow the law, the issue then becomes to what extent were the sisters damaged by that failure.

There are many who think the sisters will be unable to prove they were damaged, largely based upon the idea that by claiming they weren't really hurt by being molested in that interview, they  could not possibly have suffered any damages when that molestation was revealed.  As if denying the molestation was harmful is (a) believable, and (b)  if they weren't hurt by being molested, then it necessarily follows that they shouldn't care that everyone found out about it.  

But I think you are right, @GeeGolly.  It is entirely possible that a person could be okay with the fact that something happened to them yet still be disturbed by having the whole wide world TOLD that something happened to them.  Your example of being diagnosed with a mental illness is very apt.  It is one thing to be okay with a diagnosis like that, but something else entirely for it to be tabloid fodder for the whole world to peruse.  The experiences are entirely different.  One does not necessarily have any bearing on the other, and the idea that being okay with the first part must mean you are okay with the second part is completely unjustified (imo). 

Hopefully, the sisters will get a jury that is capable of seeing through that interview, or at least capable of understanding the difference between going through something versus having what you've gone through publicized.

Edited October 17, 2017 by Celia Rubenstein

[Genevrier]

On 10/11/2017 at 1:21 PM, Kokapetl said:

Perhaps I don’t know. I’m asking the consultants to consult the relevant consultants and journals.

I would think the right person to ask would be a lawyer. Do we not have any lawyers on the board?

[bigskygirl]

Never mind.

Edited October 17, 2017 by bigskygirl

[cmr2014]

On 10/16/2017 at 6:21 PM, Temperance said:

I don't think that's quite it. I did think it was because Jill and Jessa were married. Jill had had a baby, and Jessa was pregnant. I think in JB's mind being married (happily) showed there was no lasting trauma. They were able to take on adult life, relationships, responsibilities, etc.  

I was thinking about this and the idea that the girls weren't "harmed" and weren't "damaged goods" which led me to realize that ALL of the Duggar children are "damaged goods" and I think that's becoming more and more clear.

These children -- all of them -- were abused. They were physically abused (beating with rods, blanket training). They were mentally abused (no education, no books, no movies, no television). They were spiritually and emotionally abused (no friends, no social activities, and, of course, the endless brow-beating about Jesus). They have all been exploited (early on, they were props for JBs political campaigns, and later, they became a TV family whose privacy has been sold so that we can gawk at them like animals in a zoo).

The older children also dealt with the insane levels of overcrowding before the TTH was built. There are multiple studies showing that chronic overcrowding causes physical stress responses in a matter of a few weeks. I didn't find any studies that track its effects over YEARS, but I'm sure it doesn't get better. The older children also dealt with food scarcity. The family was eating "love offerings" when the specials first aired, and I doubt that the food scarcity was completely resolved before the show was picked up as a series. Jill hid in the bathroom to eat when she was first married. That's not an adorable eccentricity, that is a young woman who has been traumatized by food scarcity.

And, of course, at least four of the girls were sexually abused. **

The worst part, though, is that their parents don't give shit about any of it -- they think they've done a great job. The kids might have made it through okay, with love and support from their parents, but they didn't get any of that either.

Personally, I don't care if they get any money or not. Civil litigation can drag on for years and suck people dry long before there's any settlement -- God knows,  any settlement would all go the JB anyway. He and J'chelle will never take any responsibility for the damage they've caused.

 

** ETA: One more thing that I forgot to add -- these girls didn't feel safe in their own beds. I can't even imagine what that would be like for a child, but I'm pretty sure that the  trauma doesn't just go away because you pray.

Edited October 19, 2017 by cmr2014

[Arwen Evenstar]

@cmr2014—THIS!

[Rabbittron]

http://screenrant.com/duggers-broke-rules-19-kids-counting/?ref=yfp

 

Read number 12 how funny .

[louannems]

I had to quit reading when it said Jeremy admitted to being the biggest hypocrite ever, and going on Ashley Madison.

[Westiepeach]

4 hours ago, louannems said:

I had to quit reading when it said Jeremy admitted to being the biggest hypocrite ever, and going on Ashley Madison.

I know. At least get the damn names right.

[floridamom]

cmr2014: someone needs to copy your stellar post here and send it directly to the Duggar parents Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.  This says it all. Bravo.

[MichaelaRae]

I need The Inquisitor or whomever to go ahead and pick up the "Jessa and Ben Seewald live in filthy, fecal-ridden squalor" story now (we've provided ample posts for them to cite as sources in the Seewald thread. Bring the bleach. No, seriously, you're gonna need it.)

[MsJamieDornan]

5 hours ago, MichaelaRae said:

I need The Inquisitor or whomever to go ahead and pick up the "Jessa and Ben Seewald live in filthy, fecal-ridden squalor" story now (we've provided ample posts for them to cite as sources in the Seewald thread. Bring the bleach. No, seriously, you're gonna need it.)

Send it to them !!

[MamaMax]

On 10/17/2017 at 9:50 PM, cmr2014 said:

I was thinking about this and the idea that the girls weren't "harmed" and weren't "damaged goods" which led me to realize that ALL of the Duggar children are "damaged goods" and I think that's becoming more and more clear.

These children -- all of them -- were abused. They were physically abused (beating with rods, blanket training). They were mentally abused (no education, no books, no movies, no television). They were spiritually and emotionally abused (no friends, no social activities, and, of course, the endless brow-beating about Jesus). They have all been exploited (early on, they were props for JBs political campaigns, and later, they became a TV family whose privacy has been sold so that we can gawk at them like animals in a zoo).

The older children also dealt with the insane levels of overcrowding before the TTH was built. There are multiple studies showing that chronic overcrowding causes physical stress responses in a matter of a few weeks. I didn't find any studies that track its effects over YEARS, but I'm sure it doesn't get better. The older children also dealt with food scarcity. The family was eating "love offerings" when the specials first aired, and I doubt that the food scarcity was completely resolved before the show was picked up as a series.

Quote

Jill hid in the bathroom to eat when she was first married.

That's not an adorable eccentricity, that is a young woman who has been traumatized by food scarcity.

And, of course, at least four of the girls were sexually abused. **

The worst part, though, is that their parents don't give shit about any of it -- they think they've done a great job. The kids might have made it through okay, with love and support from their parents, but they didn't get any of that either.

Personally, I don't care if they get any money or not. Civil litigation can drag on for years and suck people dry long before there's any settlement -- God knows,  any settlement would all go the JB anyway. He and J'chelle will never take any responsibility for the damage they've caused.

 

** ETA: One more thing that I forgot to add -- these girls didn't feel safe in their own beds. I can't even imagine what that would be like for a child, but I'm pretty sure that the  trauma doesn't just go away because you pray.

How do we know this?