Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes
The Forum I Post In Doesn't Have A Moderator Listed - What Now?

The Duggars: In the Media and TLC

Null 302

By Null 302
in Counting On

Guest

As a reminder, the site's Politics Policy remains in effect.  Yes, Jim Bob is apparently running for office again. That does not make it an acceptable topic of conversation in here - unless for some mysterious reason, TLC brings the show back and it is discussed on there. Even then, it would be limited to how it was discussed on the show.

If you have any questions, please PM the mods, @SCARLETT45 and myself.

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 13k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

cmr2014
cmr2014

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 becomi

Churchhoney
Churchhoney

They put themselves on tv and have proclaimed over and over and over and over again that their way of life is the way to ensure that your children are totally safe from every evil of the world, and in

WhitneyWhit
WhitneyWhit

I don't know where to post this but I fucking met Michelle Duggar. Let me set the scene. So my cousin is getting married and we were at a shop looking at dresses here in Kentucky when the Duggars marc

Posted Images

Marigny

Marigny

It's a bit much. It's Gibson Girl, plus dangling curls around her neck plus, plus DIY bleaching. It's like updo über alles.

I must admit, to me, Lawrence Welk means 'Kristen Wiig with doll hands'.

 

That's exactly where my mind went. 

Link to comment
Flowers

Flowers

Yes. TLC is not ending their relationship with this terrible family.

I still advocate for putting a ton of pressure on TLC's advertisers, if that's the case. It can easily be done via social media now, and relentlessly.

  • Love 7
Link to comment
MMLEsq

MMLEsq

(edited)

The linked story seems to suggest that all the family's secrets will be revealed in depositions, etc. in connection with a civil case.  I'm not sure if AR requires mediation, but a lot of states require mediation before actually going to trial.  I'm assuming any civil suit would be seeking monetary damages -- as long as the parties agree to settle, and agree that the settlement is confidential, I doubt many details/secrets will become public.  I can't imagine that the victim actually wants to go through a trial herself.  Who knows though...  

To me it seems like a person jumping at the chance to make some money off of this.  I'm not saying that the victim's not entitled to it (any victim of a crime is entitled to seek restitution), but I would be curious to hear her reasoning as to why she's waited until now to file a claim

Edited by MMLEsq
Link to comment
Happyfatchick

Happyfatchick

So is there no statute of limitations in a civil sui? I guess not, given the suits in the Catholic Church a few years back.

Maybe this person feels like she's been "outed" anyway and she's ready to get all the cards on the table? there was much speculation about it to start with, and people close to her that knew may have been telling her for years to go public. Maybe now that the dust has settled a little, she's just ready to put speculation at rest and move on.

Or maybe she just wants money. Either way, I say good for her.

  • Love 16
Link to comment
galax-arena

galax-arena

To me it seems like a person jumping at the chance to make some money off of this.  I'm not saying that the victim's not entitled to it (any victim of a crime is entitled to seek restitution), but I would be curious to hear her reasoning as to why she's waited until now to file a claim

Maybe. But even if she is being motivated by dollar signs, I say go for it. Take that asshole for all he's worth. Victims shouldn't have to be altruistic saints. Not that you're saying that, but it's a sentiment I've often seen towards molestation/rape victims of famous people. It's like having materialistic concerns makes them somehow less worthy. No. Get money, as far as I'm concerned. 
  • Love 21
Link to comment
CofCinci

CofCinci

(edited)

Is this the reason why Derrick and Jill are going on a mission now so she will not have to testify?

She can still be subpoenaed but the family attorney will most likely respond that it would be a "hardship" for her to travel back for court.

It's not a hardship for them to go somewhere each weekend but of course it will be when it comes to the victim getting Justice.

Edited by CofCinci
  • Love 3
Link to comment
bluebonnet

bluebonnet

I don't know if the victim will necessarily be publicly named.  I think the press still has an ethical obligation to not use her name, unless she reveals herself on her own.

 

The suit may or may not be about the money, which doesn't matter.  The major thing, I would think, is that the Duggars went on tv and said that they knew that Josh was molesting girls and yet did not take steps to protect potential victims in the house.  They then went on national tv (and very surely made money off the interview) and stated that their was a babysitter who was a victim who thought it was no big deal.  If this victim is filing a suit, it makes me wonder exactly what the Duggars told her at the time, what she knew.   If they said that Josh touched her while putting a blanket on her, she may have simply assumed that this was all accidental and that her being called in to speak with the police was weird.  Now there is no doubt that Josh did more than that.

 

Of course, I'm speculating and I really don't like to do that without more facts.  The big thing here, if InTouch's source is correct, is that the Duggars aren't going to be allowed to continue to brush this under the rug and pretend that nothing bad really happened.  

  • Love 17
Link to comment
marleyfan

marleyfan

(edited)

I doubt it will actually happen. It would open up the unnamed victim to more scrutiny, and I really can't see any still fundie woman putting herself out there publicly just to sue Josh. ........................................................................................................................................................................I endured 9 years of incest by the time I was 12. I blocked it out until I turned 40. I was told I could still file a civil suit, not a criminal case against my uncle and that my sisters, brother, and cousins would not be included unless they wanted to. Unfortunately, the bastard died in 1973. The other ones (my family and in this case, the Duggars would not be mentioned).

i

Edited by marleyfan
  • Love 4
Link to comment
JoanArc

JoanArc

(edited)

I'm pretty sure the show is toast, now.

 

The community may well know the victim's identity. She may have had to relive all her trauma, and has decided to go after the Duggars, and I can't blame her. There is no evidence either way this woman is/was a fundie. For all the crying about feeling like failures, it's this, losing MONEY that will make JB, M, and Josh actually FEEL something.

 

Anyway, I'll pop the popcorn. May she take them for every last dime.

Edited by JoanArc
  • Love 19
Link to comment
FakeJoshDuggar

FakeJoshDuggar

Given In Touch's history with accurate reporting on this story, I'm giving them a lot of credence here. The fifth victim may have been (disclaimer: complete speculation) contacted and harassed into signing some sort of declaration nailing her into a narrative that better fits the Duggar's story.

Also, because I'm incredibly lazy, when did the original scandal break? Kate Gosselin's boyfriend/bodyguard was soliciting off duty police officers around May 20th. I'm guessing that the Duggars has some sort of heads up that the story was going to break.

  • Love 2
Link to comment
bluebonnet

bluebonnet

Also, because I'm incredibly lazy, when did the original scandal break? Kate Gosselin's boyfriend/bodyguard was soliciting off duty police officers around May 20th. I'm guessing that the Duggars has some sort of heads up that the story was going to break.

They did.  There is a link somewhere to the statement given by the police department saying that they kept the Duggars informed of the FOIA request.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
NEGirl

NEGirl

Well, I was waiting to see how long this would happen.  If she sues, they do not have to use her name, many law suits use the victims initials. I can not see this going to trial - that would totally  collapse the Duggar empire. I would guess they would settle out of court with a confidential agreement as part of the settlement. I assume since Josh was a juvenile at the time of the offense, the victim will sue JB and J'Chelle. JB must be shitting in his pants about now.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Cherrio

Cherrio

I don't know, there is still a lot of interest in the Duggar Family. We still talk about them a lot.

We can be interested in the Duggars and not watch the show. We can be interested and talk here and be instrumental in bringing this show and others shows to an end.

              Each person who calls, emails and boycotts makes a difference.  TLC might want to continue, but if they have no willing sponsors they are done for.

 I have not watched a single TLC show since the molestation was exposed and have stopped shopping at several stores.  I did the same thing with Jon and Kate.

                 My personal feeling is what has to happen for people to finally say enough is enough?    

                 A murder?     

                 Molestation can murder a young child's spirit and much more.    I have read ALL the posts here from victims and for them to share their own pain and be so brave, that is also another HUGE reason I made the decision to cut TLC out of my life.     

  • Love 21
Link to comment
Missy Vixen

Missy Vixen

 

To me it seems like a person jumping at the chance to make some money off of this.  I'm not saying that the victim's not entitled to it (any victim of a crime is entitled to seek restitution), but I would be curious to hear her reasoning as to why she's waited until now to file a claim

IMHO of course, but Josh needs to face the consequences of his actions. If that means he (or his parents' homeowners insurance) is making a big payout, so be it. The survivor should have had any therapy paid for at the least. I also wonder if she is angry that the only negative so far for Josh has been that he "lost" his job. (I don't believe for a minute that he is still out of work or will be out for long; the think tank types tend to take care of their own.)

 

I also wonder if she would be pursuing a lawsuit if TLC had outright cancelled 19KAC.

Get money, as far as I'm concerned. 

Money is the only thing this family cares about, so hitting them in the wallet may be the only way they will WAKE UP and acknowledge there is a problem that must be addressed in some fashion besides sending Smuggar to "hard labor" for three months and commanding the survivors to "forgive him".

  • Love 9
Link to comment
CofCinci

CofCinci

Also, because I'm incredibly lazy, when did the original scandal break? Kate Gosselin's boyfriend/bodyguard was soliciting off duty police officers around May 20th. I'm guessing that the Duggars has some sort of heads up that the story was going to break.

In Touch broke the story on 5/19/15. If Bodyguard Steve's company was already communicating with local police on 5/20/15, the Duggar family machine and TLC were most likely aware of what was in the works prior to In Touch's publication.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
Missy Vixen

Missy Vixen

The linked story seems to suggest that all the family's secrets will be revealed in depositions, etc. in connection with a civil case. 

There isn't enough popcorn on the planet for depositions of the Duggar family. If the survivor has a good lawyer, the stuff that's already been revealed in the press will look minor compared to the questions that can be asked under oath and must be answered.

 

I've been through a deposition in a civil case. We were the plaintiffs. It remains one of the worst days of my life, and we were not the parties at fault. And it is still on file at the county courthouse...

  • Love 6
Link to comment
anony mouse

anony mouse

There isn't enough popcorn on the planet for depositions of the Duggar family. If the survivor has a good lawyer, the stuff that's already been revealed in the press will look minor compared to the questions that can be asked under oath and must be answered.

I've been through a deposition in a civil case. We were the plaintiffs. It remains one of the worst days of my life, and we were not the parties at fault. And it is still on file at the county courthouse...

And that's why I just can't see this actually happening. Without veering too far into speculating about the victim's identity, she's likely a fundie somewhere in the age range of Josh's sisters. She might be courting or married. Given the time that has elapsed, I'm not sure a victim in that sort of circumstance from that background would want to put herself through the deposition process. It is grueling, even on plaintiffs/victims.

With fundie purity culture, I just can't see a currently anonymous victim outing herself and putting herself through such depositions.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
kokapetl

kokapetl

(edited)

The Arkansas Code gives a statute of limitations 3 years from discovery of injury. When the police investigated sort of properly in 2006, the victim was already an adult. If her injury was compounded by the dissemination of her abuse by InTouch magazine, can the Duggars be liable for that?

If what InTouch says is true, this person is going to be under intense scrutiny by lawyers. I honestly don't think most people who are anti Duggar would subject themselves to this.

Edited by Kokapetl
Link to comment
BetyBee

BetyBee

I'm glad the non-sister victim decided to sue Josh.  Since she was a minor too when the molestation took place, she was subject to the decision of her parents regarding prosecution (non prosecution in this case).  Now she can decide for herself how to handle it and good for her for making him face the consequences of his aberrant actions. 

  • Love 7
Link to comment
galax-arena

galax-arena

she's likely a fundie somewhere

TBH, if she were still in the same fundie circles, I doubt she would have filed a civil suit in the first place. Of course, that's not to disagree that her fundie upbringing (and as you mentioned, purity culture) could still play a role in her decision whether or not to go forward with all of this. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
bluebonnet

bluebonnet

(edited)

An interesting thing about this is that the church elders who knew about the abuse could be named.  I think this is really important as outing the men in these fundie cults who help cover up sex crimes can help in dismantling these cults.  

Edited by bluebonnet
  • Love 22
Link to comment
SoSueMe

SoSueMe

She can still be subpoenaed but the family attorney will most likely respond that it would be a "hardship" for her to travel back for court.

It's not a hardship for them to go somewhere each weekend but of course it will be when it comes to the victim getting Justice.

In these days of Skype and video chatting I would think that she could honor a subpoena even in Nepal. Just speculation on my part, of course.
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Bella

Bella

In these days of Skype and video chatting I would think that she could honor a subpoena even in Nepal. Just speculation on my part, of course.

 

DH conducted a remote video deposition, but there had to be an officer of the court (of some sort, I'm not an attorney!) present in the room with the person being deposed. I don't know what that would entail with Jill, but it might be possible.

 

OTOH, if I were an attorney, I'm not sure I'd want to depose Jill. There's such a thing as an "unreliable witness." That term is usually reserved for small children and individuals with impairments, but I'm not sure Jill would be of much use. There would be plenty of people stateside to depose. Lots of them.

  • Love 9
Link to comment
SoSueMe

SoSueMe

In Touch broke the story on 5/19/15. If Bodyguard Steve's company was already communicating with local police on 5/20/15, the Duggar family machine and TLC were most likely aware of what was in the works prior to In Touch's publication.

Puts that very awkward and tense "Digging in With the Duggars" episode in context. Anna was on the verge of tears and actually weeping through some of Erica Hill's interview. They (the adults) all had to know it was going to blow.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
msblossom

msblossom

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think at least one church elder was/is a local politician. Should be interesting to hear the facts come out on this. The cover up by the adults is just as bad, if not worse, than the molestation itself.

You have a 14/15 year old kid that knew better, but didn't have a healthy outlet for his biological curiosities. And who subsequently, imo, never received proper counseling and behavioral rehabilitation.

The biggest crime is that the adults didn't go far enough to protect or seek proper help for the innocent. I'm glad this grown victim is seeking justice and compensation for this. I don't care what her motive is -- she was victimized by many in this terrible crime and deserves anything she can get from it.

  • Love 6
Link to comment
JoanArc

JoanArc

I guess Jessa was lying when she said all the other victims were fine with it, and totally over everything that happened.

 

I really don't know why people are assuming the victim is a fundie. People DO get out, or get tossed out. She's likely an adult now, and unlike the Duggar kids, actually acting like one.

  • Love 11
Link to comment
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

I doubt it will actually happen. It would open up the unnamed victim to more scrutiny, and I really can't see any still fundie woman putting herself out there publicly just to sue Josh.

 

We don't know for sure that she's fundie any more, though, do we? She could have any developed any manner of belief systems and ideas after this much time has passed. It does seem a little unlikely that this will come to fruition, but it's also possible that this woman can have come to the conclusion that abusers and their enablers have reason to be ashamed when their names are known but former victims don't. Certainly within the realm of possibility -- especially if you were mad enough about the way the Duggars handled it.

  • Love 5
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...