Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Oldernowiser]

Dont forget, he was a "young" teen when he made the mistake.

If they have someone smart advising them, assuming there is such a person, they won't even say "teen." It will be boy, then young boy...by the tear-filled last scene he'll be a toddler.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Oldernowiser

[midwesthoosier]

AmandaPanda, on 30 May 2015 - 12:15 PM, said:

Deadline had more information about it. It's going to be just JB and Michelle. It will be pre-taped to air during Megyn Kelly's timeslot (9 PM ET). There will also be a one-hour special of The Kelly File on Friday that will be devoted to the Duggars.

http://deadline.com/2015/05/duggar-parents-interview-megyn-kelly-fox-news-channel-19-kids-and-counting-tlc-1201434863/

Edited May 31, 2015 by midwesthoosier

[GEML]

The average household salary in my county (which is better off than the one where Josh and Anna lives) was $125,000. Again, that's per HOUSEHOLD. Yes, it's a very expensive place to live. But it isn't as though people who don't make a quarter of a million dollars can't do it.

[rulesoftravel]

http://megynkelly.org/159400/a-christian-defense-of-josh-duggar/   


In this, she actually compares teenage (premarital) sex with a 14 year old boy molesting sleeping 5 year old girls.   Yup.   

I have always thought she was just a Fox shill, but she's very dangerous if this is the kind of garbage she spews.   This is very similar to when she had an anonymous cop phone in and make up allegations about Freddie Gray.    She's absolutely perfect for the Duggars-tailor made for their goal of presenting their side.   

 

 

PT Barnum was right.

Edited May 31, 2015 by rulesoftravel

[JoanArc]

http://megynkelly.org/159400/a-christian-defense-of-josh-duggar/   

In this, she actually compares teenage (premarital) sex with a 14 year old boy molesting sleeping 5 year old girls.   Yup.   

I have always thought she was just a Fox shill, but she's very dangerous if this is the kind of garbage she spews.   This is very similar to when she had an anonymous cop phone in and make up allegations about Freddie Gray.    She's absolutely perfect for the Duggars-tailor made for their goal of presenting their side.   

 

 

PT Barnum was right.

That's a parody website. Kelly didn't write it.

[Granny58]

I don't hold it against Anna for doing things like obtaining braces to improve her appearance. Most of us in that same finanical position would probably do the same thing.  Also, as the wife of someone in Josh's position, she would be expected to look good and not wear shitty/ugly looking clothes.

100%.  If I had the $$$ I would be scheduling my tummy tuck NOW.

[rulesoftravel]

Thank you for that correction. I did not know that.  But she did do the character assassination of  Freddie Gray, so I stand by my assertion that she's a dangerous hate mongering shill for Fox News.  And it seems like more of a support/tribute site than a parody site.

 

And PT Barnum was still right.  (I was the sucker.)

Edited May 31, 2015 by rulesoftravel

[ChiCricket]

One of the first things that popped into my head upon awakening today was "I wonder if Anna will still name the baby Michelle now?!"

(That was my guess of what it was going to be).

I thought I only hate watched before..so I started thinking, "why do I care?"

I think I'm mourning in advance all the delicious snarky posts that would have been written on this board about it.

I miss being able to lightly snark about how weird they all were..before we knew the reality of how REALLY weird and despicable some of them are.

Edited May 31, 2015 by ChiCricket

[nodorothyparker]

This ran in the Northwest Arkansas edition of the statewide paper this morning from a very former colleague.  Nothing about this really surprises me, from both the scuttlebutt at the time or knowing what we know now about the family.

http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2015/may/30/commentary-the-age-of-accountability-20/

[sshellowe]

This is a fascinating commentary.....and i can't help but wonder if it will take Jim Bob to go to his "great reward" in the sky before Josh doesn't advise anyone asking him questions to go talk to his dad.

[JennyMominFL]

I don't think this interview is for people like us. It's to shore up the support of  people who think like  them. To reassure them that they are right in sticking with the Duggars   

[JoanArc]

This ran in the Northwest Arkansas edition of the statewide paper this morning from a very former colleague.  Nothing about this really surprises me, from both the scuttlebutt at the time or knowing what we know now about the family.

http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2015/may/30/commentary-the-age-of-accountability-20/

From that article:

 

 

I went to see Duggar in 2007. The case name and number for a sealed court file fell into our hands, but that and rumors were all we had. I realized Duggar was 18 by then, so the next day I drove to the car lot where he worked as a partner with his grandfather.

Working with the grandfather is news to me. If it was Michelle's dad, well...those laundering rumors suddenly make sense.

[SopranoKris]

This ran in the Northwest Arkansas edition of the statewide paper this morning from a very former colleague.  Nothing about this really surprises me, from both the scuttlebutt at the time or knowing what we know now about the family.

http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2015/may/30/commentary-the-age-of-accountability-20/

 

Great article!  Thank you for sharing this.

[3 is enough]

Hope the mainstream media picks up this article.  Very interesting.  Maybe Gawker would be interested?  After they ran the piece on Jim Bob's campaign stance on incest it was all over the front page of MSN.

Edited May 31, 2015 by 3 is enough

[Granny58]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

[Joe Jitsu913]

really? I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo. What I want to know is this. Why is it the public's business? If this had happened in my family, with a minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.

When the perp has access to minors, access to the production crew's minor children, access to the public, and preaches on the morality of others, everyone is owed an explanation. Especially when said perp has never received treatment for his crimes. The Duggars carried on like it's business as usual which is appalling considering its still unclear if Josh is a threat to children. They even allowed Josh to get married and have children knowing he was a child molester. They haven't addressed whether or not he's still a threat to others.

[neural-plasticity]

The FRC salaries were posted and the lowest paid executive was over 125k (a female) and the salaries went over 200k. Of course I believe that almost everyone else had at least a college degree if not graduate work. I would find it hard to believe Josh would be paid less. His expenses had to be very high, on top of rent instead of free Grandma Duggar's house, he had 8 vehicles with him. He could no longer grab a dealer plate like he did at the car lot. I can't imagine Maryland having dirt cheap car insurance?

Josh was there because of his last name. He flew around the country and met various supporters and had some photo ops (now I'm sure many people would love to forget they posed with him). He also did some radio shows for FRC. Not to defend his high salary but how many people had heard about FRC or followed what they were doing before Josh? I had heard about the shooting before Josh was employed there but that was it. Josh's 18 months at FRC got more people talking about it then all the other 150k executives with degrees and that is exactly why he was hired. If this scandal didn't happen, Josh & Anna and there 4 kids including a newborn would have been traveling this fall to kick off the 2016 campaigns in the FRC RV pro life tour bus. Josh was to be the face of the young conservative large family. I always thought that it was sure a high pressure job in a way that kind of part of your employment requirements is to keep having kids and traveling with your young kids. I love my kids but I only traveled with a newborn and 1 toddler on a plane 3 times, all out of necessity (funerals & wedding) and I would not want to do it as a living every election season.

It's hard to believe anyone would work there with a college degree, especially graduate work. (not discounting that, it's just hard to believe anyone with an education would feel that was a legitimate organization to work for.....)

[CherryAmes]

If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.

 

If the business of your family is going on television telling everyone else how to live their lives then it's probably a good idea not to have any nasty little secrets lurking in the background.  You'd also be well advised not to have the perp go on to make a living working for an organization that claims to be working for family values but spends an inordinate amount of time hate mongering and accusing innocent people of being molesters simply because of their sexual orientation. 

[3 is enough]

The most telling part of the article, to me, was 18 year old Josh telling the reporter to talk to his dad.  Obviously JB rules with an iron fist.

[wanderwoman]

Wanderwoman - Question please -Since you are familar with the fundy lifestyle, do you think Josh told Anna EVERYTHING?

Anything I say would be almost pure speculation, so if mods want to remove this, remove it.

In my opinion, and based on the things shared in their speeches (where they tend to speak more openly because the audiences are like-minded) and books, Anna has hinted about Josh having had struggles during his "early teens." In one of their speeches for Family Research Action Council and political stumpng, Anna has claimed that she knows "sexual morality is a choice. ", with the implication being that gays can choose not to act on the "immoral impulse". At one rally, she said she knows change is possible because she knows "people who had immoral temptations that chose redemption". So, yeah, she knew. I think she was talking about Josh and I think Josh's crimes resolved the family's passion for opposing any deviation from traditional sex roles. He protests to much and all that jazz. I have very little doubt that Josh told Anna an agreed upon family version of the events that downplayed the acts and highlighted the absolution and forgiveness. As Anna, if I spoke to a victim of abuse who claimed she barely remembered it or was asleep and forgave Josh, then I might reasonably assume it was less criminal than it actually was. My understanding is that these people view forgiveness and family loyalty as blessings. Subsequently, not giving someone within the herd absolution reflects on YOU. The victim takes on a responsibility they shouldn't have. I think Josh could've done anything short of homosexuality and Anna (and the victims) would give him forgiveness and love.

We don't know precisely what happened and what Anna knew or when she knew it all. I suspect she has learned more about it in the last two weeks than she knew before her marriage. I do believe she, and all the Duggars, are more interested in maintaining their fame than knowing or acknowledging truth.

[Celia Rubenstein]

No way are either of them going to use the word "molest." And great point regarding Jim Bob not considering what Josh did to be incest, because it didn't involve penile penetration.

 

I want to hear Jim Bob actually speak the words "penile penetration."  I don't think he will be able to get the words out, lol.  But he has to say it in to in order to draw the necessary distinction between what Josh did and "actual" incest.  Because if he can't, by Jim Bob's own edict, Josh deserves to DIE.  I can't think of a euphemism he could use ... "penile penetration" is already pretty euphemism-y itself.  I am guessing he will come up with one, though.

 

Whatever he comes up with to say, I am picturing Jim Bob clamping his hands over Michelle's ears as he says it.  She is too delicate to hear even veiled references to anything so vulgar, lol.  Although with 19 kids (and she delivered every one!), I would guess she is pretty much an expert on the subject.

 

This reminds me of a clip of an interview I saw with Jim Bob being questioned about the contents of some political speech he had just made (or some such) and he was completely overwhelmed and befuddled.  He was completely at a loss when asked to elaborate on some point he had made, and it was the height of uncomfortableness.  Michelle was standing there at his side, trying to gaze at him with her typical glassy-eyed admiration, but it was obvious she knew he was drowning.  It was AWFUL.

 

I guess there is no chance of a repeat performance with this canned Megyn Kelly interview though.  It's too bad.  I would pay cash money to see Jim Bob have to answer three real questions about what happened off the cuff.  I think he would burst into tears and run and lock himself in his prayer closet before the interviewer got halfway through the first question.  

[Oldernowiser]

Definitely it stopped being "family business" when one of the victims wasn't a family member. IMO, I'm not sure serial molestation is ever "family business," if that means you don't involve outside experts and get professional help for the victims and for the molester.

[Celia Rubenstein]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

 

The police would disagree with you. 

[mbutterfly]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

Not to be overly explicit but the police reports state (as best we can tell with the black-outs) he digitally penetrated a sleeping five-year-old child. That alone, to me, means it isn't just family business. It will cease to be the business of the general public when the person who did this is no longer being paid to professionally define family values for Americans. 

[zenme]

In one of their speeches for Family Research Action Council and political stumpng, Anna has claimed that she knows "sexual morality is a choice. ", with the implication being that gays can choose not to act on the "immoral impulse". At one rally, she said she knows change is possible because she knows "people who had immoral temptations that chose redemption". So, yeah, she knew. I think she was talking about Josh and I think Josh's crimes resolved the family's passion for opposing any deviation from traditional sex roles

 

I wasn't there, and I might be taking this out of context, but just reading this I would think she was talking about her views on homosexuality. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by zenme
David Waller reference that skirted the line

[Oldernowiser]

Any clues as to when this "interview" is being filmed? I'm half expecting it to blow up either because it's not the softball version JB is hoping for or because the Fox crew realizes they're just being used as a vehicle for the Duggar Family infomercial.

[starfire]

When someone commits a felony, it is not legal to keep it as a family secret and becomes the public's business.

[CofCinci]

Any clues as to when this "interview" is being filmed? I'm half expecting it to blow up either because it's not the softball version JB is hoping for or because the Fox crew realizes they're just being used as a vehicle for the Duggar Family infomercial.

Tomorrow they'll probably email back and forth with approved questions and work with this coach on how to answer (how Dr. Phil first came to work for Oprah). Filming and editing on Tuesday. Promotion clips/quotes uploaded to the Internet on Wednesday morning.

[Celia Rubenstein]

The laws provide some privacy (against public disclosure) for sexual crimes against - and by - minors. But those are still crimes, not just "family business." 

 

The attitude that such crimes are "family business" has led to some pretty messed up families with long, painful histories of multi-generation abuse.  The Duggars are a perfect example of this kind of thinking in action.  If Jim Bob and Michelle had handled what Josh did appropriately the first time he was caught, there might not have been a second round of occurrences.  

 

I can only hope it ended there.  

Edited May 31, 2015 by Celia Rubenstein

[Julia]

It's hard to believe anyone would work there with a college degree, especially graduate work. (not discounting that, it's just hard to believe anyone with an education would feel that was a legitimate organization to work for.....)

I don't think that's a very safe assumption. There were 150 Liberty Law (Jerry Falwell's school) grads working for the Bush administration, and that's one school enough younger than I am that I could have babysit it. There are a ton of traditional religious universities out there, and any number of cultural conservative commentators who owe their careers to the notice they got as activists at liberal institutions, all the way from William F Buckley to Michelle Malkin.

Disrespect for education may be encouraged in followers, but not so much in leaders. I'm pretty sure in amongst the figureheads and the legacy hires the FRC is full of people who studied law and government, because that's what they do.

[wanderwoman]

really? Why is it the public's business? If this had happened in my family, with a minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.

It's the public's business in the same way Jaycee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart, Amanda Berry, Columbine, and FLDS sexual/physical abuse cases are telling public's business. We have a responsibility to educate the public about the horrible, unspeakable things that happen to children in the hope that it will bring justice to the victims and highlight the dangers of certain eventualities. If this were your family (and I only suggest this because of your making it a personal analogy), and you allowed one child to molest at least five others, then your victimised children would deserve an advocate and you should welcome the involvement of professionals trained in healing families dealing with these things. Parents rarely have the tools or the experience to deal with this burden. They're conflicted or motivated by shame or ignorance. Comparing the Duggars to your family is Apple's and oranges- would you, with full knowledge of the devastation this caused your family and the consequences that would inevitably result from publication of this issue, sign the dotted line to put your family on tv and claim you knew what was best for other people? Because, that's what the Duggars did. If the Duggars had spoke openly or put forth any if their energies and wealth toward victims rights advocating or education, then this would've had a very different outcome and I daresay people might respect tell Duggars and Josh for bravely trusting the Lord with the truth. Instead, the Duggars openly criticized and accused other people of sexual deviance, with no proof, truth, or backing statistics while they had their very own sexual CRIMINAL in their home. Edited May 31, 2015 by wanderwoman

[Mindymoo]

The attitude that such crimes are "family business" has led to some pretty messed up families with long, painful histories of multi-generation abuse.  The Duggars are a perfect example of this kind of thinking in action.  If Jim Bob and Michelle had handled what Josh did appropriately the first time he was caught, there might not have been a second round of occurrences.  

 

I can only hope it ended there.  

That's how it was in my family. My paternal grandfather sexually abused all three of his daughters. They stayed silent about the abuse, not telling their brothers or anyone about it. Then my cousin, who was the daughter of my uncle, was abused by my grandfather for YEARS. It took her seeing an episode of Oprah until she understood what was going on, and even then, it took her telling four people until someone believed her. The fourth person she told? One of the very aunts our grandfather abused. Still, my cousin's abuse was treated as a family matter, and while both of them got counseling after it came to light and he was not to come into contact with children, my uncle and aunt still brought her around him. I'm very lucky my mom was creeped out by them and never let us spend time alone with my dad's parents, because that very easily could have been me. But yeah, silence and treating it as a family member is just harboring abusers and asking for more and more abuse.

[Aethera]

Let's not pile on folks.  The question has been thoroughly answered.

[Granny58]

The police would disagree with you. 

OK, granted I have NO experience with ANY police matters (phew!)   So what is the protocol when dealing with a minor?  Would it be public knowledge (ie. not neighbors talking) if the kid down the street did the same?  

[bencr]

There is an interesting web site -- sasian.org -- which stands for Sibling Abuse Survivors' Information and Advocacy Network. The focus of the site is specifically on issues of sibling abuse. One page of the web site is especially interesting -- Sibling Sexual Abuse -- A Parents Guide.

 

This page discusses such issues as what is sibling sexual abuse vs. normal sexual curiosity, what are the effects of sibling sexual abuse, and what factors contribute to sibling sexual abuse, among other topics. Many of these are things that have been discussed on this board.

 

One section I found especially interesting in light of this discussion of the Duggars is the section entitled, "How can I best prevent sibling abuse in my family?" Here's what they advise:

 

"How can I best prevent sibling sexual abuse in my family?

.  The best way to prevent sibling sexual abuse is to pay attention to your children
.  Set aside a time each day when your children have a chance to tell you about what they’ve done or felt that day. This might be after school or before bed-time.
.  Ensure that children are well looked after by babysitters, whether the sitter is a family member or not. At breakfast you can ask your children specific questions about the previous evening; for example, did they watch their favourite TV program? did they play video games? did they cooperate with the sitter? was the sitter kind? would they like to have the same sitter again?
.  Be willing to talk about sexuality. Informal sex education could include watching educational videos and reading books with your children. Try to find library materials on sex education that are appropriate to the age of your child.
.  Encourage your children’s school to present sexual abuse prevention films and programs. Most of them do, but it doesn’t hurt to ask. The programs usually carry the message, “If someone is making you do something that doesn’t feel good, tell a trusted adult.”
.  Find out where your children are playing, and who they’re playing with. Be especially concerned if they’re playing with children who are focused on sexual games.
.  Teach your children that they own their bodies and everyone should respect that.
.  Monitor television violence. Movies and television programs that link sex and violence carry a dangerous message to children.

Research shows these messages have a strong negative effect on children.
.  Encourage non-sexist attitudes and behaviour. For example: give power, responsibility and privileges equally to male and female siblings; assign household tasks fairly, and discourage sexist jokes and sexist put-downs.
.  Believe them. Children rarely invent stories of sexual abuse to get a brother or sister into trouble."

 

The Duggars' belief system and their focus on ridiculously large families fails the children on many of these dimensions.

Edited May 31, 2015 by bencr

[Morgalisa]

 

This ran in the Northwest Arkansas edition of the statewide paper this morning from a very former colleague.  Nothing about this really surprises me, from both the scuttlebutt at the time or knowing what we know now about the family.

Good article.  What surprised me was the arrogance of Josh when questioned.  He was his usual smug self.  Evidently Josh and JimBob felt they were above the law.  It didn't sound as if Josh was worried at all.  They didn't think this would ever be verified, so why wouldn't Josh take the FRC job. 20/20 is doing an investigative report on the Duggars.  Can't wait for that.

[3 is enough]

 

20/20 is doing an investigative report on the Duggars.  Can't wait for that.

Really?  Where did you hear that?

[zenme]

Good article.  What surprised me was the arrogance of Josh when questioned.  He was his usual smug self.  Evidently Josh and JimBob felt they were above the law.  It didn't sound as if Josh was worried at all.  They didn't think this would ever be verified, so why wouldn't Josh take the FRC job. 20/20 is doing an investigative report on the Duggars.  Can't wait for that.

 

He was his usual smug self, but what also gets me is "You'll have to ask my dad about that."   Some man he is. 

[neural-plasticity]

I don't think that's a very safe assumption. There were 150 Liberty Law (Jerry Falwell's school) grads working for the Bush administration, and that's one school enough younger than I am that I could have babysit it. There are a ton of traditional religious universities out there, and any number of cultural conservative commentators who owe their careers to the notice they got as activists at liberal institutions, all the way from William F Buckley to Michelle Malkin.

Disrespect for education may be encouraged in followers, but not so much in leaders. I'm pretty sure in amongst the figureheads and the legacy hires the FRC is full of people who studied law and government, because that's what they do.

True. I guess what I mean by that is (and I'm a full time graduate student) -- the name alone is misleading. what legitimate research do they do and why would anyone with a PhD/Master's from an accredited program be okay with the assumptions this organizations make. I do acknowledge that people can get degrees and still have their own personal opinions, I just couldn't see anyone from my field (psychology) being okay with having their name attached to them. It's surprising, but definitely not unlikely is what I meant to say, I guess.

[CofCinci]

I don't see anything about a 20/20 report on the Duggars.

[Morgalisa]

 

Really?  Where did you hear that?

I can't remember.  I thought I heard it at the end of a 20/20 show last week.  Hmmm.

[Kcat1971]

Not to be overly explicit but the police reports state (as best we can tell with the black-outs) he digitally penetrated a sleeping five-year-old child. 

 

I've read the police reports several times and I did not come this conclusion.  Can you point to the narrative # that contains this information?  

[Wellfleet]

He was his usual smug self, but what also gets me is "You'll have to ask my dad about that."   Some man he is. 

 

Not to mention "leave and cleave." What a crock...

[MrsMommy]

Definitely it stopped being "family business" when one of the victims wasn't a family member. IMO, I'm not sure serial molestation is ever "family business," if that means you don't involve outside experts and get professional help for the victims and for the molester.

I have to ask, if all the girls was asleep, how would josh have access to a girl that wasn't a family member?

[cmr2014]

really?  I read the article and didn't think it was particularly revealing and mostly innuendo.  What I want to know is this.  Why is it the public's business?  If this  had happened in my family, with a  minor as the perp, it would be the business of my family and nobody would be owed any explanations.  

I disagree.

 

If this had been handled properly, there would have been a report to the police and to CPS. The appropriate agencies would have provided counseling to the victims and the abuser, and made a determination when or if Josh could be returned to the home. During this time, the family would, of course, have been free to pray, and to obtain additional counseling and advice from their religious community. All of this would have been sealed, and completely beyond reach of any prying eyes.

 

Instead, this only reached the attention of the police because JB wanted to parade his family in front of the nation on the Oprah show. The Duggars covered up a crime and neglected the physical and emotional health of their daughters (and the emotional health of their son), in order to enhance their public image.

[JoanArc]

Not to mention "leave and cleave." What a crock...

At 18, he wasn't married yet. I doubt any Duggar truly understands that an 18 year old can do whatever they want, and go wherever they want. Jim Bob's iron fist sees to that. But yeah, total beta move.

 

I'm still much more interested in 18yo Josh working for Grandpa Ruark, who then got a huge cash 'gift' in the purchase of his house. Hush money? Did more go down? Who knows, but someone will find out. Inevitable.

[Showthyme]

We can thank the Duggars for reminding us of a very important lesson: what one excuses in someone else, they are also willing to excuse in themselves. I understand that the Duggars are hypocritical when it comes to telling others how to live. For me, it is telling that the state police let this slide for the most part,and then was found to be accused of a similar crime. I always pay attention to people when they are making an excuse or minimizing someone's bad behavior. It tells me that they are capable of giving themselves the same leave way.

 

It is also interesting to me when people are as rigid as the Duggars. They have something to prove or something to hide.

[Granny58]

It's the public's business in the same way Jaycee Duggard, Elizabeth Smart, Amanda Berry, Columbine, and FLDS sexual/physical abuse cases are telling public's business. We have a responsibility to educate the public about the horrible, unspeakable things that happen to children in the hope that it will bring justice to the victims and highlight the dangers of certain eventualities. If this were your family (and I only suggest this because of your making it a personal analogy), and you allowed one child to molest at least five others, then your victimised children would deserve an advocate and you should welcome the involvement of professionals trained in healing families dealing with these things. Parents rarely have the tools or the experience to deal with this burden. They're conflicted or motivated by shame or ignorance. Comparing the Duggars to your family is Apple's and oranges- would you, with full knowledge of the devastation this caused your family and the consequences that would inevitably result from publication of this issue, sign the dotted line to put your family on tv and claim you knew what was best for other people? Because, that's what the Duggars did. If the Duggars had spoke openly or put forth any if their energies and wealth toward victims rights advocating or education, then this would've had a very different outcome and I daresay people might respect tell Duggars and Josh for bravely trusting the Lord with the truth. Instead, the Duggars openly criticized and accused other people of sexual deviance, with no proof, truth, or backing statistics while they had their very own sexual CRIMINAL in their home.

Oh, they handled it horribly.  I would ABSOLUTELY have had all the proper therapies and professionals involved.  and NEVER EVER EVER go on TV.  But I think because he was a minor it would be assumed it would remain private as I would have expected privacy for my son (hypothetical).  It really shows their level of naivete to suppose that this was never going to surface.    

[wanderwoman]

Oh, they handled it horribly. I would ABSOLUTELY have had all the proper therapies and professionals involved. and NEVER EVER EVER go on TV. But I think because he was a minor it would be assumed it would remain private as I would have expected privacy for my son (hypothetical). It really shows their level of naivete to suppose that this was never going to surface.

I think I understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that Josh is owed a modicum of anonymity because he was a minor when he perpetrated the molestation. I am torn on whether or not I agree with you on this. I think we have to acknowledge a couple of things. One, this pretty much WAS handled privately when he was a child. Two, we have to decide whether or not Josh, and the culture he lived in, saw him as a child or an adut. Legally, he was a child's in the eyes if the law. But, minority doesn't mean laws aren't applicable. If the incident had been handled legally, the victims AND JOSH would have been entitled to therapy and protection at no cost to Jim Bob and Michelle. Josh's rights to a fair trial and punishment based on his individual needs would have been handled in a closed courtroom. It's ONLY because Jim Bob and Michelle failed their kids and tried covering it up, and a mandated reporter with a penchant for kiddie pork flubbed up, that this was able to go public ten years later. In their fear and need to maintain a spotless public image, they made this ten times worse.

Minors are dealt with publicly often. The law recognizes their needs are different than an adult offender and usually accommodates those needs. But, what I think people misunderstand, is that the only minors who have the right to absolute anonymity are the victims. Josh was protected in the redacted report because he couldn't be charged due to the statute clock running down. Had his parents alerted appropriate authorities, releasing his name would've been up to the discretion of the court in concordance with state law. Ironically, Jim Bob supported a bill to treat minor over the age of as 13 as adults in certain felonies. He supported laws requiring minor children to obtain parental consent for access to birth control (thereby stripping said minors of their right to privacy) and lobbied for mandatory intervention by authorities in cases where minors fraudulently obtained tobacco or alcohol. So, his record was all about holding minors publicly accountable,...except for HIS mini-me.

But, I think you're a compassionate person for wanting to ask the question.

Edited May 31, 2015 by wanderwoman

[Julia]

True. I guess what I mean by that is (and I'm a full time graduate student) -- the name alone is misleading. what legitimate research do they do and why would anyone with a PhD/Master's from an accredited program be okay with the assumptions this organizations make. I do acknowledge that people can get degrees and still have their own personal opinions, I just couldn't see anyone from my field (psychology) being okay with having their name attached to them. It's surprising, but definitely not unlikely is what I meant to say, I guess.

I think there's probably a certain amount of funding for academic studies with foreordained friendly conclusions going on, but I think it's pretty openly a political advocacy organization at this point (and Josh was put at the head of the lobbying arm, not in any role in the main organization, since that seems to be a source of some confusion).

I just love your screen name, btw. That's one of my favorite things about babies and young children

Edited May 31, 2015 by Julia