Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[anna0852]

Even if Josh wasn't convicted of the molestation and there is no official record of it, there is still the media coverage where it was confirmed that it happened. 2 of his victims went on national TV and discussed the crimes. I'm not a lawyer but if this guy's case is that his image is now linked to Josh Duggar's bad publicity, then I would think the details of that publicity would be aired in court. Wouldn't they be needed to establish extent of the damage done?

[doodlebug]

56 minutes ago, anna0852 said:

Even if Josh wasn't convicted of the molestation and there is no official record of it, there is still the media coverage where it was confirmed that it happened. 2 of his victims went on national TV and discussed the crimes. I'm not a lawyer but if this guy's case is that his image is now linked to Josh Duggar's bad publicity, then I would think the details of that publicity would be aired in court. Wouldn't they be needed to establish extent of the damage done?

True, but there are those here speculating that JB or Michelle might be forced to testify and reveal far more details of the molestation and their part in the cover up.  Since the point is that the guy was harmed by the information already out in the media, I don't see how his lawyers could cross examine JB and Michelle except on what has already been said.  I just don't think we're going to learn anything new and I don't think JB and Michelle are going to be called as witnesses.  More likely, the reporters who broke the story will be called to testify about it and the widespread media coverage it generated.  Then, some media expert will testify about how damaging it is to be linked to a scandal.

Edited April 25, 2017 by doodlebug

[kokapetl]

JimBob and Michelle didn't know about the okcupid and Ashley Madison shit, so I don't know why anyone would bother involving them. 

2 hours ago, anna0852 said:

Even if Josh wasn't convicted of the molestation and there is no official record of it, there is still the media coverage where it was confirmed that it happened. 2 of his victims went on national TV and discussed the crimes. I'm not a lawyer but if this guy's case is that his image is now linked to Josh Duggar's bad publicity, then I would think the details of that publicity would be aired in court. Wouldn't they be needed to establish extent of the damage done?

Josh, the former Duggar crown prince and Arkansan used car dealer with dashed republican tea party political dreams, and McCarthy, the (aspiring) WeHo DJ, could never reasonably be confused. Did McCarthy lose work because people though he was Josh Duggar in disguise or something?

[Sew Sumi]

Boob's going to pay the guy off to go away. 

[queenanne]

4 hours ago, Kokapetl said:

JimBob and Michelle didn't know about the okcupid and Ashley Madison shit, so I don't know why anyone would bother involving them. 

Josh, the former Duggar crown prince and Arkansan used car dealer with dashed republican tea party political dreams, and McCarthy, the (aspiring) WeHo DJ, could never reasonably be confused. Did McCarthy lose work because people though he was Josh Duggar in disguise or something?

Yeah, I too have been unclear as to what, other than "feelings of general ickiness", the plaintiff can use as a basis for complaint.  (I mean, I understand the ickiness, having had criminal rings steal my credit card numbers, entire wallets, etc., you do feel unclean - at one point i even insisted the NYPL cancel my library card.)  If the U.S. would enact "Right to Be Forgotten" laws like the EU have, I feel like his lawyer's office would probably just have someone search and submit requests to delete the OKCupid stuff off of Google Images or similar on the regular; because to some extent I feel everyone knows what happened and the facts aren't circulating independently of the images.  I guess maybe someone could argue that Josh "profited" off of using McCarthy's image; except the usage didn't really make him money, so...?

[JoanArc]

 I'm on my phone all right have a link. I see where the plaintiff is now asking for a list of all the women that Josh spoke to using his picture on okcpuid and he wants to know what they discussed.  I think that's totally fair, and a pretty transparent attempt to get a payoff from Jim Bob. Since money is the only consequence they seem to understand I'm fine with it.

[RazzleberryPie]

Unless this guy can prove he lost income or potential income from the damage of association, he doesn't have much of a chance. Even tacking on emotional distress to loss of reputation and income, this guy can't be asking for much money. 

Josh is vile. I'm not mad that his activities were exposed. However, this DJ is getting more out of publicity than any income he lost.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, RazzleberryPie said:

Unless this guy can prove he lost income or potential income from the damage of association, he doesn't have much of a chance. Even tacking on emotional distress to loss of reputation and income, this guy can't be asking for much money. 

Josh is vile. I'm not mad that his activities were exposed. However, this DJ is getting more out of publicity than any income he lost.

I agree with this. But identity theft makes me so mad that I don't mind the guy getting some extra compensation out of it in the form of likely job-prospect-enhancing publicity. I kind of like it that the virtually unemployable Josh has to watch some other guy get extra work out of Josh's misdeeds, actually. Although sometimes I think that Josh is so lazy that he may actually be quite glad he's unemployable.

[lascuba]

9 hours ago, Sew Sumi said:

Boob's going to pay the guy off to go away. 

I hope the guy's as spiteful as I am because I would refuse a settlement for the sheer joy of humiliating Josh by forcing him to trial. 

Realistically I know he likely wouldn't risk a jury not awarding him anything if offered a settlement, but I'm gonna enjoy that lititle fantasy ad long as I can.

[GeeGolly]

I'm not sure what Josh did qualifies as identity theft. Josh didn't try and pretend to be the DJ, take out loans/credit cards in his name, use medical services with his name, apply for school or a job with his name, etc. Josh stole his picture, probably because he thought it resembled him enough if he ever hooked up, but obviously wasn't him, to let anyone who would recognize Josh, out him.

I'd be pissed if someone used my image, and especially someone like Josh, but I'm not sure this DJ guy will have a successful outcome.

[queenanne]

49 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure what Josh did qualifies as identity theft. Josh didn't try and pretend to be the DJ, take out loans/credit cards in his name, use medical services with his name, apply for school or a job with his name, etc. Josh stole his picture, probably because he thought it resembled him enough if he ever hooked up, but obviously wasn't him, to let anyone who would recognize Josh, out him.

I'd be pissed if someone used my image, and especially someone like Josh, but I'm not sure this DJ guy will have a successful outcome.

Agreed - plus, I feel pretty sure there are thousands of cases of people putting up photographs of someone more physically pulchritudinous than they on dating sites.  I agree said people generally aren't caught up in big-time name-and-shame circumstances, but if all the DJ has to say is that Josh talked to women pretending to be him... like if the women wired Josh money under the belief he was as good-looking as that guy, or Josh met them in person and did something shady like the porn star he was accused of attacking, that's one thing; but if the majority of women only interacted with him online and can barely remember him, I can easily see a judge calling it a nuisance suit and kicking it out.  I'd love to be wrong!  It is morally wrong behavior, that's for sure.

Edited April 25, 2017 by queenanne

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure what Josh did qualifies as identity theft. Josh didn't try and pretend to be the DJ, take out loans/credit cards in his name, use medical services with his name, apply for school or a job with his name, etc. Josh stole his picture, probably because he thought it resembled him enough if he ever hooked up, but obviously wasn't him, to let anyone who would recognize Josh, out him.

I'd be pissed if someone used my image, and especially someone like Josh, but I'm not sure this DJ guy will have a successful outcome.

I don't think what he does qualifies legally as identity theft, but to me it's just like plagiarism -- it qualifies morally and psychologically as identity theft. Not as a matter of law. But if somebody takes your face and sticks their name on it or takes your words or your art and sticks their name on it, they've taken your identity too, just in a different way. That's all I mean. ....

And since the wonderful Duggars are all so ding-dang spiritual, they ought to understand that you can morally, spiritually, psychologically steal from someone too and impersonate them and harm them, just as surely as if you took their wallet and used their (evil) credit cards. But of course they aren't really spiritual a bit. They're just a bunch of money-grubbing grifting weasels with no souls whatsoever, so of course they don't understand that -- and never could, I expect. Soulless dunderheads! lol

Edited April 25, 2017 by Churchhoney

[latetotheparty]

14 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't think what he does qualifies legally as identity theft, but to me it's just like plagiarism -- it qualifies morally and psychologically as identity theft. Not as a matter of law. But if somebody takes your face and sticks their name on it or takes your words or your art and sticks their name on it, they've taken your identity too, just in a different way. That's all I mean. ....

And since the wonderful Duggars are all so ding-dang spiritual, they ought to understand that you can morally, spiritually, psychologically steal from someone too and impersonate them and harm them, just as surely as if you took their wallet and used their (evil) credit cards. But of course they aren't really spiritual a bit. They're just a bunch of money-grubbing grifting weasels with no souls whatsoever, so of course they don't understand that -- and never could, I expect. Soulless dunderheads! lol

I agree.  I think loss of reputation should be worth something and anything that makes Jim Bob sweat is A-Okay with me.

[JoanArc]

I just really hope some poor woman met up with Josh to sleep with him, realized the picture was fake, and flat out rejected him. It'd teach him more about character than a million wisdom booklets.

[toodles]

http://www.inquisitr.com/4167172/josh-duggar-scandals-to-be-featured-in-talks-at-upcoming-family-conference-event/

And so it begins.

[Aja]

19 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't think what he does qualifies legally as identity theft, but to me it's just like plagiarism -- it qualifies morally and psychologically as identity theft. Not as a matter of law. But if somebody takes your face and sticks their name on it or takes your words or your art and sticks their name on it, they've taken your identity too, just in a different way. That's all I mean. ....

And since the wonderful Duggars are all so ding-dang spiritual, they ought to understand that you can morally, spiritually, psychologically steal from someone too and impersonate them and harm them, just as surely as if you took their wallet and used their (evil) credit cards. But of course they aren't really spiritual a bit. They're just a bunch of money-grubbing grifting weasels with no souls whatsoever, so of course they don't understand that -- and never could, I expect. Soulless dunderheads! lol

I agree. And I also think there needs to be serious consequences for Mr. Family Values, whose hypocrisy and deceitful nature is so thorough and complete that he even felt compelled to use an image that is not his own to try to secure more pussy because he (rightfully) assumed he wasn't goodlooking enough to do it on his own. If a publicly well-known child molester and morally bankrupt "family values" hypocrite used MY picture to try to get laid, you can bet I'd be screaming about it to the courts--if for no other reason than to make a point.

[SMama]

Why can't they just go away? Seriously talking about Joshley's affair is ridiculous.

[Aja]

1 minute ago, SMama said:

Why can't they just go away? Seriously talking about Joshley's affair is ridiculous.

I really think they are still genuinely, sincerely waiting for us to get over ourselves so this whole thing can blow over and they can get back to being America's $ymbol of wholesome family values, like they were before we, the viewing public, turned into such sensitive little judgmental snowflakes because of some little minor mistake that was handled exceptionally well.

[SMama]

No boundaries whatsoever.

[doodlebug]

4 minutes ago, SMama said:

Why can't they just go away? Seriously talking about Joshley's affair is ridiculous.

They are talking about it because it is marketable amongst the fundy masses.  Anything for a buck.  Of course, it will be the same old story about how they did everything just right, handled Josh' problems in the best, most godly, way and how their family is now perfect because of it.  Because telling the truth isn't going to make them any money with their peers.

[Aja]

My mind drifts back to just after Joshley Madison scandal broke. I believe Josh was jowling up Jesus Jail for jerking his jockstrap at the time. Boob and Mechelle posted some typically tone-deaf, cutsie photo of them sharing a drippy sundae or something with the caption: Share in the comments if you'd like to see more moments like this on TV! It was a bizarre moment that showcased how absolutely, profoundly desperate they were to keep the TV train rolling--getting themselves back on TV was their ONLY priority, resulting in the PR disaster we are all so familiar with. He was just curious, over the clothes, they were sleeping, etc. AND "he might be a philandering fundy Garbage Pail Kid, but at least his marriage is REAL and also everything we do is because JESUS which makes us WHOLESOME, dammit!" The health and safety of their children has always been way down on the priority list, if it even makes the list at all. The kids are only there to reinforce how awesome Boob and Mechelle are, a line they continue to frantically toe despite the massive, irreparable failures of their pride and joy.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Aja

[Missy Vixen]

34 minutes ago, toodles said:

http://www.inquisitr.com/4167172/josh-duggar-scandals-to-be-featured-in-talks-at-upcoming-family-conference-event/

And so it begins.

 

If they blame Anna publicly and there is a transcript available, I will print it off and send it via overnight mail to Nance. With a letter she won't forget for awhile.

If Nancy and her network wants to participate in victim shaming by continuing to give the Duggars a platform, let's see if she has the balls to publicly tie herself and TLC's advertisers to it. Anna did nothing wrong (besides marry that SOB). I noted the glaring omission of Counting On in TLC's "upcoming season" announcement, BTW.

[Missy Vixen]

17 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

 Because telling the truth isn't going to make them any money with their peers.

 

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar wouldn't know the truth if it bit them in the face. If they knew what truth was, they would recognize their son needed help, they failed him, and especially failed the four daughters he victimized by blaming them for what happened. They also do not acknowledge the truth of why they will do anything to stay on TLC: They are famewhores of the highest order and refuse to admit their "ministry" is a money-making scheme so they will not have to work to support the family they couldn't afford under any other circumstances.

It is my every hope that the man who had his photo misused by Joshley Madison has a meat eater of an attorney. I hope he or she has asked for as broad of a discovery process as the court would allow, up to and including who administers the money received from TLC and other sources, who the checks are made out to, and any other facts that will bring down the Duggar house of cards when aired in open court.

[Heathen]

7 hours ago, JoanArc said:

I just really hope some poor woman met up with Josh to sleep with him, realized the picture was fake, and flat out rejected him. It'd teach him more about character than a million wisdom booklets.

I have a hard time believing that Smuggar got any woman to meet up to have sex with him. 

[Churchhoney]

27 minutes ago, Anonymousie said:

I have a hard time believing that Smuggar got any woman to meet up to have sex with him. 

Well, I admit I didn't follow this very closely because I found it too icky, but I've thought that all we really know for a fact is that he got one.  (I guess I've heard rumors around here of others -- but do we really know that the others existed in real life? dunno....)

Anyway, given the one that I know about, it seems clear that he only got her because a) he paid her; b) she's an approaching-middle-age worker in the sex entertainment industry who really really wanted a PR gimmick to keep her career going and figured a creepy high-profile conservative Christian politico and reality-tv personality would work for that; c) he stalked her to her workplace; and d) she very clearly did it only for the money and because she intended to sell her story -- well embroidered, such as by saying he was some kind of strong guy that she found the scariest man she'd ever encountered; to a person experienced in the sex trade? Mr. pudding? uh, no ... -- to the media as a career boost, which she did.

So I don't know that that actually qualifies as getting a woman to meet up to have sex with you!

Edited April 26, 2017 by Churchhoney
paragraphs are good

[Heathen]

12 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, I admit I didn't follow this very closely because I found it too icky, but I've thought that all we really know for a fact is that he got one.  (I guess I've heard rumors around here of others -- but do we really know that the others existed in real life? dunno....)

Anyway, given the one that I know about, it seems clear that he only got her because a) he paid her; b) she's an approaching-middle-age worker in the sex entertainment industry who really really wanted a PR gimmick to keep her career going and figured a creepy high-profile conservative Christian politico and reality-tv personality would work for that; c) he stalked her to her workplace; and d) she very clearly did it only for the money and because she intended to sell her story -- well embroidered, such as by saying he was some kind of strong guy that she found the scariest man she'd ever encountered; to a person experienced in the sex trade? Mr. pudding? uh, no ... -- to the media as a career boost, which she did.

So I don't know that that actually qualifies as getting a woman to meet up to have sex with you!

I forgot about that one. Yeah, I'm not sure that qualifies either. I was thinking non-professionals. 

[SMama]

They already blamed Anna, Mullet reposted the be joyfully available even when big pregnan posts.  It wasn't long after Joshley went to Jesus jail that she had the audacity to post such garbage.

Edited April 26, 2017 by SMama

[Churchhoney]

21 minutes ago, Anonymousie said:

I forgot about that one. Yeah, I'm not sure that qualifies either. I was thinking non-professionals. 

I think we have the same question. Have there been any non-professionals? 

I know I've seen passing rumors around here saying that there have been, and I think I remember reading some folks saying they're quite sure there have been. But I don't remember any specifics at all. And as with you, it seems highly unlikely to me! 

He actually seemed to have some trouble landing a professional who not only would be paid but had an ulterior motive....

Can anybody contribute the facts on this? 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Churchhoney

[Natalie68]

23 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't think what he does qualifies legally as identity theft, but to me it's just like plagiarism -- it qualifies morally and psychologically as identity theft. Not as a matter of law. But if somebody takes your face and sticks their name on it or takes your words or your art and sticks their name on it, they've taken your identity too, just in a different way. That's all I mean. ....

And since the wonderful Duggars are all so ding-dang spiritual, they ought to understand that you can morally, spiritually, psychologically steal from someone too and impersonate them and harm them, just as surely as if you took their wallet and used their (evil) credit cards. But of course they aren't really spiritual a bit. They're just a bunch of money-grubbing grifting weasels with no souls whatsoever, so of course they don't understand that -- and never could, I expect. Soulless dunderheads! lol

I am not sure what this is either but I am looking at it as I do when advertising an event.  I cannot use a celebrities likeness to advertise something that they are not a part of without possibly getting sued.  It seems like this protection should be extended to regular people.

I hope they all have to be deposed.  Should be interesting.  Wonder if it will make next seasons Counting On?  HA!

[Missy Vixen]

2 hours ago, SMama said:

They already blamed Anna, Mullet reposted the be joyfully available even when big pregnan posts.  It wasn't long after Joshley went to Jesus jail that she had the audacity to post such garbage.

 

They did it again recently. I'm hoping for even more overt blame and a transcript.

It takes a while (and maximum professional embarrassment) for Nancy to decide to do the right thing.

[SMama]

They reposted the spread them and smile post again?!!!!!!! What is wrong with these people? Josh made a choice, he's a BIG boy and chose to cheat on his devoted wife. I'm sorry he had religious zealots as parents, but at some point we must be responsible for our actions. Stand up and admit wthat an enormous POS you are, and have your mommy stop posting nonsense. 

[lascuba]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I think we have the same question. Have there been any non-professionals? 

I know I've seen passing rumors around here saying that there have been, and I think I remember reading some folks saying they're quite sure there have been. But I don't remember any specifics at all. And as with you, it seems highly unlikely to me! 

He actually seemed to have some trouble landing a professional who not only would be paid but had an ulterior motive....

Can anybody contribute the facts on this? 

I have zero facts or even rumors, but considering the track record of high-ish profile Christian conservative men (hell, most men with any amount of money and/or status, if we're being real), I think chances are decent that he had sex with a non-professional or two. Likely someone working for the FRC. Looks really don't matter when to sex; personality doesn't matter all that much either. Not when there's any level of fame involved. 

[Churchhoney]

20 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I have zero facts or even rumors, but considering the track record of high-ish profile Christian conservative men (hell, most men with any amount of money and/or status, if we're being real), I think chances are decent that he had sex with a non-professional or two. Likely someone working for the FRC. Looks really don't matter when to sex; personality doesn't matter all that much either. Not when there's any level of fame involved. 

Well, you're certainly right about fame.  I expect that a fellow Arkansan or some woman he met at a rally or something while on the road for FRC is more likely than anybody on the actual FRC staff, though.

Those women have access to people with fame and power in DC as well as any other big-time Christian pols or organization leaders who showed up from across the country.  Those other options on their menus would have way outshined the little Arkansas boy for them, I expect, reality show or no reality show. Especially since they worked with him and knew how stupid and ignorant, inarticulate and cloddish he is, not to mention probably poorer than most. If you have a shot at a senator or a megachurch pastor, and they would, you're probably going to pass Josh by, I think. (That's not just me, right? lol)

Edited April 26, 2017 by Churchhoney

[drafan]

On 4/25/2017 at 6:41 PM, Churchhoney said:

And since the wonderful Duggars are all so ding-dang spiritual, they ought to understand that you can morally, spiritually, psychologically steal from someone too and impersonate them and harm them, just as surely as if you took their wallet and used their (evil) credit cards. But of course they aren't really spiritual a bit. They're just a bunch of money-grubbing grifting weasels with no souls whatsoever, so of course they don't understand that -- and never could, I expect. Soulless dunderheads! lol

 

I think this guy should claim that Josh stole pieces of his heart and gave them away, never to be returned. Then he should quote their stupid book on the subject.

[JoanArc]

I'm not convinced that Josh ever slept with Danica. After the trial I'm just not seeing evidence. That said, I'm sure he banged some other woman, likely a prostitute, stripper, or fundie fangirl. Probably more than one woman. I'm sure he's substance abused at some point too. When you have a binary good/bad view of the world, it's easy to go very bad.

If they incorporate Josh's cheating into the brand it'll just do more damage 5 years down the line when he fucks up again. It's just a matter of time. You can catch the devil, but you can't keep him long.

[Churchhoney]

17 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

I'm not convinced that Josh ever slept with Danica. After the trial I'm just not seeing evidence. That said, I'm sure he banged some other woman, likely a prostitute, stripper, or fundie fangirl. Probably more than one woman. I'm sure he's substance abused at some point too. When you have a binary good/bad view of the world, it's easy to go very bad.

If they incorporate Josh's cheating into the brand it'll just do more damage 5 years down the line when he fucks up again. It's just a matter of time. You can catch the devil, but you can't keep him long.

Oh, please don't make me think about the possibility that they'll still be on tv five years from now. Argh. (I realize that they probably will, but it sickens me. Not just because they'll be on tv but because that'll make things even harder on the young families when they finally go off tv and lose that cash ...) Argh. 

[SMama]

After a nuclear holocaust there will only be cockroaches and Duggars inhabiting the planet. So yes they will somehow be on TV. These creatures just won't go away. 

[Natalie68]

I did a little googling since there has been a lot of talk about what the Josh did and what case the DJ may have against him on this site as well as the other Duggar site.  I found a site that gave info:

Here is a blurb:

In most states, you can be sued for using someone else's name, likeness, or other personal attributes without permission for an exploitative purpose. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone's name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person's identity for the user's own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. There are two distinct legal claims that potentially apply to these kinds of unauthorized uses: (1) invasion of privacy through misappropriation of name or likeness ("misappropriation"); and (2) violation of the right of publicity. (The "right of publicity" is the right of a person to control and make money from the commercial use of his or her identity.) Because of the similarities between misappropriation and right of publicity claims, courts and legal commentators often confuse them. We will not try to exhaustively explain the differences between these two legal claims here. It is mostly important for you to understand the legal principles that are common to both claims; we will point out relevant differences below and on the state pages when appropriate. <this is from a Digital Media Law site and there is more info if you are interested>

I personally hope Josh has to pay big.  Would serve that asshat right.  Yes there will be collateral damage via Anna and the kids but that's on Josh.  So I am a cheerleader for the DJ.

I also would like this talked about on the show but there is a better chance of pigs flying.

[xwordfanatik]

8 hours ago, SMama said:

After a nuclear holocaust there will only be cockroaches and Duggars inhabiting the planet. So yes they will somehow be on TV. These creatures just won't go away. 

I will only add dandelions and rats to the list.  The Duggars will somehow survive anything that would wipe the rest of us out.

[Mollie]

A new report claims that Josh is still receiving counseling for his sexual behavior and that he is a bad father to his children.  

http://radaronline.com/videos/josh-duggar-therapy-wait-period-for-sex-rule-anna-pregnancy/

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/04/josh-and-anna-duggar-following-strict-rules-about-their-sex-life/

[Churchhoney]

10 minutes ago, Mollie said:

A new report claims that Josh is still receiving counseling for his sexual behavior and that he is a bad father to his children.  

http://radaronline.com/videos/josh-duggar-therapy-wait-period-for-sex-rule-anna-pregnancy/

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/04/josh-and-anna-duggar-following-strict-rules-about-their-sex-life/

Why do I think that Amy "Tabs-on-speed-dial" Not-a-Duggar is making shit up again? 

Edited April 27, 2017 by Churchhoney

[HoboClayton]

10 hours ago, SMama said:

After a nuclear holocaust there will only be cockroaches and Duggars inhabiting the planet. So yes they will somehow be on TV. These creatures just won't go away. 

That sucks. I was hoping Jana would get married some day. 

[lascuba]

Oh, Amy is definitely the source "close to the family."

I like how the second article stresses that the second sex scandal is much less egregious than that first, because I'm really sick of the "sex addiction" angle. He needs all sorts of therapy after molesting young girls as a teenager. For watching porn and cheating on his wife, as if it's a sign of some deep emotional problem and not him just being an asshole cheater? Nah. I've always been really uncomfortable with how the molestations and the cheating are treated as related.

[JoanArc]

I'm sure the religious counseling is coming from his parents. They are the wisest counselors anywhere, just ask them! I'm sure Michelle has removed a splinter with tweezers too. She's a fantastic surgeon!

Josh is a ticking time bomb. Sure you could call in a professional bomb squad to disarm him, but why do that when you can just pray the bomb never goes off? Works just as well.

I think Anna will need to keep appearing for the pay checks, and they need little kids to film for the brand. Josh can stay off screen.

[Mollie]

12 hours ago, lascuba said:

Oh, Amy is definitely the source "close to the family."

Amy is persona non grata to the Duggars now.  I don't think she has the slightest idea what is going on with them.  Remember, she didn't even go (or, wasn't invited?) to Jinger's wedding and has never met Jeremy. I don't think any of the Duggars talk to her anymore.

I think the snitch could be grandma Mary, who is known to be a conniving, money-grubber. 

[lascuba]

14 minutes ago, Mollie said:

Amy is persona non grata to the Duggars now.  I don't think she has the slightest idea what is going on with them.  Remember, she didn't even go (or, wasn't invited?) to Jinger's wedding and has never met Jeremy. I don't think any of the Duggars talk to her anymore.

I think the snitch could be grandma Mary, who is known to be a conniving, money-grubber. 

I agree, I just don't think that would stop her from selling info to the tabloids. I think she either exaggerates stuff she hears from her mother and grandmother, or she simply makes shit up. 

[RazzleberryPie]

I don't think 'a source close to the family' means much. That could definitely be Amy. That could also be anybody who has social media, watches the show, speculates from a message board, etc. (*SHAMELESS PLUG = InTouch, PEOPLE etc., call us over here at PTV, might as well pay us to give you Duggar 'insight'* 

I've seen NOTHING that was specific enough to be pinpointed to Amy or be anything that wasn't a really good guess from these magazines. Nothing.

However, I do hope Jenny and Jordyn are the master minds behind this, and they're banking money to plan an escape. Maybe they'll kidnap Jana and take her with them.

[ariel]

12 hours ago, lascuba said:

I agree, I just don't think that would stop her from selling info to the tabloids. I think she either exaggerates stuff she hears from her mother and grandmother, or she simply makes shit up. 

If she is, I may start to like her.  ;)

[drafan]

23 hours ago, Mollie said:

 

I think the snitch could be grandma Mary, who is known to be a conniving, money-grubber. 

Or JB himself...making a little side cash. And keeping their name in the news.

[Sew Sumi]

Posted to correct thread.

@Mollie, my apologies; you were right. @Fuzzysox made the first reference to the scandal on p. 43 of this thread, although she quoted Radar. I even posted that same day from vacation, noting that In Touch broke the story first. I just recalled the police report and two years in hindsight, blended the two incidents. My bad.