Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!

[ozziemom]

49 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

I'm still puzzled by the fact that Izzy is out there in his shirt sleeves while mom and dad are wearing down filled winter coats.

Looks like Sam has a coat on, maybe Iz is one of those kids who gets hot running around. My son took his coat off constantly, he’s 35 now and still hardly wears a jacket.

[lookeyloo]

1 hour ago, Rootbeer said:

I'm still puzzled by the fact that Izzy is out there in his shirt sleeves while mom and dad are wearing down filled winter coats.

Well, Sweet Son's older brother never wanted a coat, since a small child.  His school insisted I take him to the doctor.  Doctor ran blood work and said "he is normal - if he gets cold he will want a coat".  He is now mid-50s and lives in the PNW and rarely wears a coat.  Sweet Son and I were always wrapped in layers.

[P2C2E]

Also the temp can be cold but the sun is hot. So sitting down versus running around in direct sun will feel very different.

[emmawoodhouse]

He's wearing a coat here. I wonder if Jill is not going to show their faces going forward?

https://www.instagram.com/p/CZZ5zkzJGix/?utm_medium=copy_link

[ginger90]

 

2 pictures:

 

https://www.instagram.com/p/CZiFfsXrtm_/

[emmawoodhouse]

I'm assuming these are the snow day pics. Note you can't see the kid's face. Looks too small to be Izzy. 

[GeeGolly]

I'm not sure I understand leaving 5 years of SM posts/videos up and then not showing the kids faces. Wouldn't it make sense to take the previous posts down? I get that the internet is forever, but I doubt every post the Dillards have made have been copied and saved.

[JoanArc]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure I understand leaving 5 years of SM posts/videos up and then not showing the kids faces. Wouldn't it make sense to take the previous posts down? I get that the internet is forever, but I doubt every post the Dillards have made have been copied and saved.

 These aren’t, um, deep thinkers. 

[Scarlett45]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm not sure I understand leaving 5 years of SM posts/videos up and then not showing the kids faces. Wouldn't it make sense to take the previous posts down? I get that the internet is forever, but I doubt every post the Dillards have made have been copied and saved.

I kind of understand it. Kids grow and change looks so quickly- I also think it’s very different sharing baby/early childhood images than video etc from when a child is old enough to show their personality etc. 

[madpsych78]

15 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I'm assuming these are the snow day pics. Note you can't see the kid's face. Looks too small to be Izzy. 

Could be Sam then.

I will say, if they are purposely hiding the boys' faces, I think that is telling in and of itself in light of the Josh stuff. It shows a recognition that boys can also be victims of CSAM.

Edited February 4, 2022 by madpsych78

[iwantcookies]

Jill says yay !

[Cinnabon]

I loved making snow ice cream! Glad the boys got to enjoy it.

[Albanyguy]

The beans and cornbread look quite unremarkable, which is a big step up from the disgusting messes she used to prepare and proudly show off. Her cooking skills have improved.

[jcbrown]

13 hours ago, Albanyguy said:

The beans and cornbread look quite unremarkable, which is a big step up from the disgusting messes she used to prepare and proudly show off. Her cooking skills have improved.

It makes me laugh that we all see it as progress that she has moved from "disgusting" to "unremarkable" but of course you are right. In Jill's parlance: yay!

[sagittarius sue]

Now if Jill had made calico beans with cornbread that would be marked improvement.  I would go for that meal myself.

[Nysha]

18 hours ago, jcbrown said:

It makes me laugh that we all see it as progress that she has moved from "disgusting" to "unremarkable" but of course you are right. In Jill's parlance: yay!

At least her cooking started out as just disgusting instead inedible like JillRod's. But yes, we have remarkably low culinary expectations for Jilly Bean (and none for JillRod).

[auntieminem]

Jill posting more food. 3 pictures. https://www.instagram.com/p/CZrzKOOOYkQ/ She did show one side of Israel's face this time. I am not sure if she is trying to not show her kids or what is going on. It would be nice if she didn't make their lives so public. I am not sure she totally gets giving her kids privacy since she was one of the kids that really seemed to enjoy doing the show. She was always more outgoing and talkative. I think her life became a lot more fun and interesting when the cameras showed up. 

[Absolom]

Fresh fruit!!  

[madpsych78]

I'm not understanding Izzy's hair in the third pic. It almost looks like there is a patch missing. It could also just be the light. But I don't think it's just a split because it goes pretty far back beyond the natural hairline.

The boys do seem to be enjoying the food. (I suspect Sam is the first pic - different outfit than the third pic)

[iwantcookies]

[Nysha]

Wow, no one gave me a special ice cream when I learned to read! I'm now jealous of little Sam Dillard. 😁

[GeeGolly]

If Jill is now going the let my kids have privacy and I will no longer exploit them route - she's doing it wrong. And as mentioned before, their entire lives, thus far, still live on her IG.

[BetyBee]

Jill is definitely choosing to hide the boys' faces. Her boys are really cute and it's too bad we will only see them henceforth from the back or with ice cream or whatever in front of their faces. I actually think it's a wise choice, especially since Smuggar's trial and conviction. But it does seem a little weird. Why post photos of them at all? 

[Rootbeer]

41 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

Jill is definitely choosing to hide the boys' faces. Her boys are really cute and it's too bad we will only see them henceforth from the back or with ice cream or whatever in front of their faces. I actually think it's a wise choice, especially since Smuggar's trial and conviction. But it does seem a little weird. Why post photos of them at all? 

Better yet, why leave a zillion other photos of them with their faces uncovered online?  It doesn't mean much that she isn't posting their faces now when anyone can look back and see dozens of photos of them taken within the past year.  Kids don't change that quickly.

[SMama]

5 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Better yet, why leave a zillion other photos of them with their faces uncovered online?  It doesn't mean much that she isn't posting their faces now when anyone can look back and see dozens of photos of them taken within the past year.  Kids don't change that quickly.

Hopefully Josiah and Lauren will point that out to the Dillards.

[Madtown]

I agree, I think she should be off SM altogether. Most people follow her to see the kids. Clearly, she isn’t going to show them anymore(understandable), then either be done or just give updates without showing them at all. 

[Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, Madtown said:

I agree, I think she should be off SM altogether. Most people follow her to see the kids. Clearly, she isn’t going to show them anymore(understandable), then either be done or just give updates without showing them at all. 

Maybe she’ll evolve to not showing them at all, who knows? Joy and Jessa are the new reigning queens of child exploitation in this bunch. 

[GeeGolly]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Maybe she’ll evolve to not showing them at all, who knows? Joy and Jessa are the new reigning queens of child exploitation in this bunch. 

Jill better figure something out before their next vacation because she'll have a hard time coming up with 10 hours of YouTube content showing the backs of their heads.

Jill is near the top of my list of Duggar kidults that believes they are true celebrities. Not that its her fault because she's been told this by her parents and by the leg humpers out there. IMO, the Felon, Jed, Jason and actually Joy seem to feel that way too. And of course, cousin Amy.

I actually think part of Jessa knows she's not special in the celebrity sense and fights with every post and video to keep her family relevant, all the while indirectly defending her parents and childhood.

I think the Felon, Jed and Jason are arrogant like JB, I think Joy feels low key important and Jill feels like she is part of an significant Godly mission to save others, much like Michelle.

And IMO, Amy is just a straight up fame whore.

[Zella]

My thoughts on the face-hiding is the same for Jill as it is for Jeremy and Jinger. It actually is drawing more attention to the kid by jumping through hoops to cover their face and highlighting that than to not feature them on social media at all. (Kind of like how they spend so much time crowing about how modest they are it doubles back around into being spectacularly immodest.) It is no more respectful of their privacy than just posting pictures of them. I really wish all of these people would stop exploiting their children for social media clicks. In addition to being invasive, it is simply not safe. 

Edited February 9, 2022 by Zella

[Girl in a Cardigan]

This one also makes me sad because of how long it must have taken to get the sundae held perfectly in front of his face in the right light with the portrait mode activated. I love Instagram and love taking photos (you'll definitely find me taking photos of my food at brunch, etc - and my friends are doing the same!) and it's not a quick snap for all of those elements to line up.

The photos of the kids playing in the yard or whatever, it's pretty easy to snap photos of the back of their heads without interrupting their playing, but how sad and frustrating for Sam to stand in the ice cream store holding his "reward" while Jill finds the right lighting to show off the food, but not his face. If you're not wanting to show off your kids or whatever, there are better/easier ways to show off that sundae without denying your kid his treat while mommy creates content.

[ginger90]

Jill and Derick’s statement on the ruling:

 

https://www.dillardfamily.com/2022/02/the-ruling-on-our-case-what-it-means-going-forward/

Edited February 10, 2022 by ginger90

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, ginger90 said:

Jill’s statement on the ruling:

 

https://www.dillardfamily.com/2022/02/the-ruling-on-our-case-what-it-means-going-forward/

I think you mean Derick's statement.  

[lascuba]

20 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Jill and Derick’s statement on the ruling:

 

https://www.dillardfamily.com/2022/02/the-ruling-on-our-case-what-it-means-going-forward/

I rolled my eyes so hard at the "intentional harm" bit.

[SnapHappy]

I doubt either of them wrote that.  "Bad Actor"?  Seriously?  They wouldn't use those words. 

Jeremy would.  He hangs around folks that know those trendy phrases. 

If it was Derrick, he missed the question mark at the end of the second to last sentence.  

And that image they used?  So ridiculous.

Edited February 10, 2022 by SnapHappy

[crazy8s]

"This should have never happened, and we hope this never happens again to anyone.  It is what compelled Derick to change careers and pursue law school in the first place, and we will continue to fight for victims’ rights."

What career did he leave? Walmart accountant was years and years ago and several "career changes" have happened since then.

Edited February 10, 2022 by crazy8s

[lascuba]

6 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

This should have never happened, and we hope this never happens again to anyone.  It is what compelled Derick to change careers and pursue law school in the first place, and we will continue to fight for victims’ rights.

What career did he leave? Walmart accountant was years and years ago and several "career changes" have happened since then.

Professional Mission-cationer? Expert God-botherer? Qualified Duggar Vague-booking?

The list is endless, really.

[Zella]

What I find interesting about all this is I remember when it happened Arkansas legal experts at the time concurring that the release was legal. I'm talking about U of A law professors being interviewed on local news. So, if the judge is saying it was unequivocally illegal, I'd tend to agree with his conclusion as well that there was some pretty genuine ignorance about the details of the laws regarding the case that went beyond just the office doing the redacting. 

33 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

What career did he leave? Walmart accountant was years and years ago and several "career changes" have happened since then.

Just as we can always count on Jeremy to be a superficial buffoon, we can always count on Derick to rewrite history to best suit his current narrative. Stay tuned. I'm sure in a few years, he'll have a different story to keep up with the latest fiction he's settled on. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by Zella

[Absolom]

Way over the top response attributing vindictive motives to people trying to do their jobs.  I always thought the odds were at least 75% in favor of the officials having immunity due to their positions.  If there was animus, then it was up to the Duggars to show it and not just believe the fundie view of the world is out to get them.  

The police chief and sheriff did their due diligence by sending it for legal review.  They aren't trained lawyers so why they weren't removed sooner, I can't guess.

[Ohiopirate02]

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

What I find interesting about all this is I remember when it happened Arkansas legal experts and concurring that the release was legal. I'm talking about U of A law professors being interviewed on local news. So, if the judge is saying it was unequivocally illegal, I'd tend to agree with his conclusion as well that there was some pretty genuine ignorance about the details of the laws regarding the case that went beyond just the office doing the redacting. 

I was under the impression that the FOIA request was legal.  I can't imagine a judge would say it was not when the lawsuit against In Touch was dismissed.  The civil servants were negligent in their redacting of the report, but it's a stretch to say they acted with intent to harm.  Is there any proof of this?  

[SnapHappy]

48 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Professional Mission-cationer? Expert God-botherer? Qualified Duggar Vague-booking?

The list is endless, really.

Don't forget Trans Teen Harasser.  

[auntieminem]

Here is the ruling, 20 pgs.    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21201824-duggar-memo-of-dismissal-3?responsive=1&title=1

Not sure if this in another thread but thought if might be of interest here. I feel bad  for the sisters that this information was released and should not have been and would not have been had the parents handled right in the first place. I also understand why they are upset with the public servants that released  the information. Don't know the local politics but it does not seem the police, etc.were intentionally trying to harm but maybe did not have a complete understanding of the FOIA.  I am ok with the Dillards making a strong statement but they also need to address the failing of the parents and the church.  The ruling has lots of interesting information including the mystery letter's author. 

[sagittarius sue]

There's one comment to the statement on their blog, and it's an excellent one.

[lascuba]

5 minutes ago, auntieminem said:

Here is the ruling, 20 pgs.    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21201824-duggar-memo-of-dismissal-3?responsive=1&title=1

Not sure if this in another thread but thought if might be of interest here. I feel bad  for the sisters that this information was released and should not have been and would not have been had the parents handled right in the first place. I also understand why they are upset with the public servants that released  the information. Don't know the local politics but it does not seem the police, etc.were intentionally trying to harm but maybe did not have a complete understanding of the FOIA.  I am ok with the Dillards making a strong statement but they also need to address the failing of the parents and the church.  The ruling has lots of interesting information including the mystery letter's author. 

I was just going to post the link. It's actually an interesting read--I usually have a hard time staying interested in legal documents.

@Ohiopirate02, the explanation on why the request was illegal starts on page 14.

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I was just going to post the link. It's actually an interesting read--I usually have a hard time staying interested in legal documents.

@Ohiopirate02, the explanation on why the request was illegal starts on page 14.

The link is blocked on my work computer.

[lascuba]

7 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The link is blocked on my work computer.

It's not letting my copy/paste, but in a nutshell, Arkansas has other laws that provide for exceptions to the FIOA. Also, because the Duggars were part of a Family in Need of Services cases, all police report were explicitly exempted from FIOA requests.

[lascuba]

23 minutes ago, sagittarius sue said:

There's one comment to the statement on their blog, and it's an excellent one.

That really is an excellent comment. I wonder how long before it gets deleted.

[lilwhitelion]

Here is the comment:

H on February 10, 2022 at 12:10 pm 

Sorry…
Again your public admonishment of strangers is stronger than your public admonishment of the perpetrator and those who kept him in a cycle of sickening behaviour (until his incarceration). I appreciate what you are saying here, but it does not hold the weight you think it does – considering the big picture of the whole fiasco. 

The karma of the situation is that your father chased money at all costs and you all got caught up in people doing the exact same thing. People profiting off your family’s name. Ironic.

If you want to make your mark on society, pick your battles wisely. Go after the people who commit sexual interference and then you eliminate any potential revictimization. 

(If we’re criticizing hiring practices, your own family should have been better vetted before receiving a national platform. Discovery Health should have conducted better due diligence surrounding the problematic beliefs, practices & culture of your parent’s beloved IBLP/Bill Gothard cult. As well as any past criminal behaviour of your family members. If they’d have known, your whole family would be living in obscurity. What is done in the dark… blah, blah, blah. Be more upset about that. Please.)

[BetyBee]

9 minutes ago, lilwhitelion said:

Here is the comment:

H on February 10, 2022 at 12:10 pm 

Sorry…
Again your public admonishment of strangers is stronger than your public admonishment of the perpetrator and those who kept him in a cycle of sickening behaviour (until his incarceration). I appreciate what you are saying here, but it does not hold the weight you think it does – considering the big picture of the whole fiasco. 

The karma of the situation is that your father chased money at all costs and you all got caught up in people doing the exact same thing. People profiting off your family’s name. Ironic.

If you want to make your mark on society, pick your battles wisely. Go after the people who commit sexual interference and then you eliminate any potential revictimization. 

(If we’re criticizing hiring practices, your own family should have been better vetted before receiving a national platform. Discovery Health should have conducted better due diligence surrounding the problematic beliefs, practices & culture of your parent’s beloved IBLP/Bill Gothard cult. As well as any past criminal behaviour of your family members. If they’d have known, your whole family would be living in obscurity. What is done in the dark… blah, blah, blah. Be more upset about that. Please.)

Wow! That is a good comment! Thank you for sharing it, @lilwhitelion

[auntieminem]

Several people (esp on Derick's) instagram are talking about they should be blaming JB & M.  

Quote

Had JB & M handled Josh’s actions properly in the first place, the records would have been sealed and this would have never occurred. While your anger is correct, they are ultimately to blame for this happening and that can’t be forgotten. They failed to protect their daughters over and over again.

Derick's response? 

Quote

I agree, but the records were “sealed”

 

[Ohiopirate02]

29 minutes ago, lascuba said:

It's not letting my copy/paste, but in a nutshell, Arkansas has other laws that provide for exceptions to the FIOA. Also, because the Duggars were part of a Family in Need of Services cases, all police report were explicitly exempted from FIOA requests.

Thank you.  I will say that I am heartbroken that Jill and her sisters were outed back in 2015.  I have always felt that way.  I also see why they are upset about the improperly redacted documents. In Touch could have broken this story without letting that information out.  The story should have been Josh is a predator and JB and Michelle covered it up full stop.  There is a way to balance the public's right to know about JB and Michelle and the girls' privacy.