Duggars by the Dozen 28 - A Mild Inappropriate Lawsuit

[unicorncastle]

1 hour ago, Cleopatra7 said:

This picture perfectly encapsulates the Duggars; young girls doing housework with no shoes, a boy possibly condescending to help but wearing a gun lest his fragile masculinity becomes shattered, a toddler wandering around aimlessly and probably unattended, no parents in sight, and an adult photographer who disinterestedly watches the scene unfold rather than do anything.

I guess I'm not seeing the problem with the picture. My kids do the same exact chores that are being done in this picture. My daughter would probably be in just a t-shirt and underwear. When they were toddler sized I certainly wasn't 2 steps behind him. It's not like Spud is hanging from the 2nd-floor balcony by his neck. The only odd thing in this picture is the knife on his hip, but my 12-year-old brother has a pocket knife too, so I can't say much. 

[Mercer]

11 hours ago, Queen said:

I have to say I wonder why Joshley only went after girls, since a predator chooses their victim(s) according to who is "available" to them, not according to their (the predator's) sexuality, right?

Yes, but who is "available" is a matter of perception, not objective fact. Josh has been raised in a culture with a very low regard for and high objectification of women, plus a huge amount of homophobia, and those things would affect his view of potential victims and which siblings he felt he could target. Predatory behavior is not based on sexual orientation, but that doesn't always mean that the person will victimize both sexes - they may have other reasons for choosing one or the other, and Josh has a lot of potential cultural reasons for victimizing only girls.

I would also add that Josh's known victims are female, and there could always be unknown victims out there. The evangelical subculture the Duggars are part of would be even less able to acknowledge sexual abuse of a male child by a male. 

As a side note, I automatically assumed that Jana was the girl who was not assaulted when I heard that one of them wasn't, because I figured that Josh was basing his decision on the victim's size/strength in comparison to his own, so the younger children would be more likely targets than the girl who was closest to him in age.

[VelociRapture]

8 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

It was process of elimination. We knew from the reports that someone getting their GED wasn't touched. That was Jana or Jill. When Jill and Jessa went on Faux news and said they were the sleeping victims,  they confirmed that jinger was the laundry room victim just by saying that. (Which in turn makes Jinger's speech at Jessa's rehersal dinner even more depressing)

Got it. People were making it sound like no one knew Jinger was even a victim before that interview and Jessa blatantly outed her as a victim.

[nst]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

Got it. People were making it sound like no one knew Jinger was even a victim before that interview and Jessa blatantly outed her as a victim.

which is surprising because Jessa protects her constantly.  Perhaps it was by accident or necessity 

 

[VelociRapture]

40 minutes ago, nst said:

which is surprising because Jessa protects her constantly.  Perhaps it was by accident or necessity 

 

I don't think she (or Jill) did anything with malicious intent. I think that the family all agreed that Jill and Jessa would be interviewed, knowing full well that the pair would likely need to discuss their own assaults. Anyone reading the reports closely who knows enough about the family would have had a good idea about which victim was which, but wouldn't have been positive until the interviews. 

For instance, we knew there were four related victims. Two came forward and initially didn't identify which instances they were assaulted. We already ruled out the story time assault because that victim was obviously too young to be Jill or Jessa - Washington county made it clear Joy was the only possible victim in at assault. Going strictly off the interviews, it was kind of obvious (to me at least) that's Jessa was one of the sleeping victims - the language used in one of the statements sounded very much like things Jessa might say.* Jill was more of a toss up for me, but I figured she was asleep too because, as someone pointed out, Jinger was younger and likely easier to handle while awake.

*I don't know how much more redacting the city could have done on Jessa's statement to be honest. The person redacting the report may not have realized that the language she used was a big hint to her identity - for instance, "moral struggles" and "sought after God and had turned back to God." That screams Jessa to me, while liking "adventure and princess stories" sounds much more like Jill. 

I still think the person redacting the Washington County report really fucked up. They left a ton of information in that could have been used to identify the victims. Yeah, Springdale may not have done a fantastic job either - but it would have been far more difficult to piece it together with just the Springdale information. I really think that if the Duggar women win against anyone it'll be Washington County. And I honestly think that they'd deserve to win in that instance. They didn't even redact out gender specific pronouns or words when talking about the victims. They even left in that he had apologized to "all the girls in the family," which made it clear that all or most of his sisters were victims (before we learned Jana was spared.)

[Pasta]

Can anyone identify the females? Which lost girls are they? ETA: In the picture previously,  sorry. 

[SilverBeach]

1 hour ago, nst said:

which is surprising because Jessa protects her constantly.  Perhaps it was by accident or necessity 

 

It was by stupidity. None of the Duggars think before they speak.

[SilverBeach]

I would like to know how any redaction could eliminate the sisters as their brother's victims. I don't think the sisters deserve to win shit.

The whole premise is false, that they were somehow re-victimized by the redacted reports going out under FOIA. However two of them had to be told they were victims, so how did the release of the reports re-victimize them? Bullshit. Plus, as long as this case goes on, it will remind them of the past events as they are discussed ad nauseum again, like we are doing here. How is that beneficial to victims? Starting a literal Federal case is not for the faint of heart.

Unless the reports were not redacted and released in accordance with the law in that jurisdiction, they don't have a leg to stand on. Moral outrage doesn't count.

Imma leave this topic alone, it's making me a tad stabby. Josh will forever be a sick pig who on multiple occasions sexually abused his sisters. JBoob and Boobchelle are reprehensible parents who totally did nothing in the best interest of their daughters. None of this justifies the cash grab taking place now.

JBoob and Boobchelle should be made to pay for unlimited genuine therapy and psychological support for their daughters, that would be justice.

Lest anyone think I am unsympathetic, I too am an unfortunate and unwilling member of the child sexual abuse club. Had my mom or biodad knew that her new husband was hurting me like that, he may not have lived. He certainly would have been kicked out.

Have a good Memorial Day weekend everyone! 

 

[momofsquid]

I feel the need to restate the obvious and I beg your indulgence. It can't be a coincidence that the married sisters, Jessa and Jill, revealed themselves to be the first two victims on TV while the unmarried girls remained anonymous to most of the world. Jinger and Joy could be revealed as the other two as soon as they were both married or engaged. It is nauseating how JB regards the four of them as damaged goods whom he might not be able to move off the shelf if they were named as defrauders victims. And if they win the lawsuit, I have a suspicion it will somehow be twisted into redemption for Joshie rather than restitution for the girls. This is all about pointing fingers elsewhere to emphasize that the saintly Duggars did nothing wrong

[Swamptribe]

Also, did not Josh have to confess his crimes publicly, in front of the congregation of the home church? 

The ladies who turned on Intouch to the existence of the report were not family members or part of the home church. Yet, they knew what happened.  So, it's not as if this was not public knowledge already.  The truth is, the tried to hide it from the media, because they knew it would tarnish their image and cost them money.

[Coconut Flan]

It was the congregation of the small IFB church that they were attending at the time.  That's really how the stories got around.

[moriah]

13 hours ago, Kittikatz said:

The people in your family are strategic thinkers! I had one (stupid AF) boyfriend hit me when I was in the kitchen cooking dinner. He was gobsmacked when the boiling contents of a pot collided with his chest and a heavy skillet made abrupt and rather forceful contact with his forehead. By the time he shook it off, I was on the phone with 911 and had a filet knife clutched in my hand. He took one look at me, peeled himself off the floor and ran.

Quick thinking!  Seriously, I got pissed when my ex-MIL stayed for a month with us and rearranged my kitchen.  Since she wanted to cook while she was there I didn't complain to her, but after she left I spent a day putting everything back in its place.  Ex asked me why.  "If someone breaks in, I want to know by heart where the cast iron is."  That wasn't it entirely - but it was part of the truth and it made him laugh, which was easier than trying to explain why messing with another woman's kitchen is almost a declaration of war.

[moriah]

13 hours ago, Seahorse Wrangler said:

I'm reminded of the Roald Dahl Tale of the Unexpected .

Heh.  It was my father's mother with a propensity towards violence -- once she threw a brick at a policeman in her younger years.

She would make jokes about it and did show me every item in her kitchen that could be used as a weapon because she believed women should be able to defend themselves.  But with her past when she'd wave that pan, you weren't quite sure if she WAS joking....

[Jess]

50 minutes ago, Swamptribe said:

Also, did not Josh have to confess his crimes publicly, in front of the congregation of the home church? 

The ladies who turned on Intouch to the existence of the report were not family members or part of the home church. Yet, they knew what happened.  So, it's not as if this was not public knowledge already.  The truth is, the tried to hide it from the media, because they knew it would tarnish their image and cost them money.

The general legal standard for if something is a private or public fact is if it's "not generally known". There might be some Arkansas case law that would shed light on how this will be interrupted in this case. I could make arguments either way but the girls probably have a better case for it being not generally known then the defendants and in a civil case the evidence only needs to be 51% in their favor. 

[moriah]

@VelociRapture -- I actually thought talking about "moral struggles" sounded more like Jill because she was two years older and it was a more mature, indoctrinated-sounding thing to say.  Then again, kids who don't know what the phrases mean can still repeat them.  Princess and adventure stories sounded more childlike.

I do think Washington County could have redacted better, but at the same time again... had Josh gotten a position on the Family Research Council and the family had never done a single documentary, it's highly unlikely anyone would have known which of his 18 siblings was which.  I still think even the county has a fairly strong defense to the tort counts on a "we were trying our best to follow the law".  As far as substantive due process, whether the law as written is Constitutional will be a popcorn filled adventure.  

[batuityma]

On 5/25/2017 at 11:03 AM, VelociRapture said:

I've seen multiple people stating that Jessa outed Jinger in the interview. I don't recall Joy or Jinger being mentioned by name. Is there a specific portion I missed? Or are people referring to the fact that everyone knew (or assumed) Jinger was assaulted, but didn't know she was the laundry room victim until Jessa and Jill stated they were asleep during their own assaults?

I remember it as being Megyn Kelly herself who inadvertently outed Jinger as a victim.  She asked Jill and Jessa about the other victims and referred to them as "the younger ones" which ruled out Jana.

Here on FJ, we had already ruled Jana out by scrutinizing the police reports.  But I doubt we represent most of the general public who were even remotely following this story. I can't imagine that the average person just seeing the tabloid stories was delving so deep as to actually find and read all of those legal documents.

The news stories clearly said there were 4 sister victims and many articles even specifically put the youngest at age five. It didn't take in-depth FJ sleuthing to figure out the youngest was Joy. A quick glance at their birth dates on Wikipedia would tell you that. And it would also tell you who the only other possible victims were.  I don't think many people outside of FJ cared enough to put effort into figuring it out any further than that.

Jill and Jessa outed themselves publicly by doing that interview on national TV. By Megyn asking about the '"younger" victims, it was clear that Jana couldn't have been one of them. Jinger and Joy were the only daughters younger than Jill and Jessa.  

[HarryPotterFan]

Since the police reports left in Joy's age, making her easy to figure out, is it possible for her to win money and not her sisters?

[moriah]

14 minutes ago, Jess said:

The general legal standard for if something is a private or public fact is if it's "not generally known". 

But there are *several* cases that make it clear at least for torts against the media, a "public record" cannot by definition be a "private fact" for civil torts.  Even if a higher court with jurisdiction over InTouch determines that the police reports shouldn't have been available via FOIA and therefore weren't public records for the city and county defendants, for the media defendants they were no longer "private facts" the moment they were released.  The fact the Demozette was able to get the same reports before Zimmerman's order adds to the media's defense.

The full background about Cox Communications vs Cohn is interesting.  The SCOTUS had plenty of reasons they could have rejected the case, but spoke both about civil torts and state laws against the media.  They have used that case for precedent in many others where a public record was published and the people sued the media -- the holding is that it's on the state (aka the city and county defendants) to not give identifying information out to be published.

[Jess]

15 minutes ago, HarryPotterFan said:

Since the police reports left in Joy's age, making her easy to figure out, is it possible for her to win money and not her sisters?

Yes each Plaintiff has prove each element of the cause of action to win, Joy has the best case. It's also possible for them to get different amounts of money say if one has been treating with a people with a real doctor and has gotten a real medical diagnosis as a result (for example a anxiety disorder brought on by the revelation).

Honestly, the best thing about this suit for the girls isn't the possibilty of money it's that the lawyers would have told JB to win they need to show damages and that means treatment so it's likely they have put the girls into therapy to get more money. Bad reasoning but good outcome. They won't be allowed to use just pastoral counseling either they need to show real medical records. 

 

22 minutes ago, moriah said:

@VelociRapture

I still think even the county has a fairly strong defense to the tort counts on a "we were trying our best to follow the law".  As far as substantive due process, whether the law as written is Constitutional will be a popcorn filled adventure.  

I couldn't sleep last night and read some Arkansas cases that dealt with the the issue of the right to privacy conflicting with the FOAI law and Arkansas courts have held that they need to weigh a persons right to privacy when deciding to release information even though it's not written into the law. However, in the only public figure case I found the public figure lost even though the information was highly private. These also dealt with people trying to stop release not damages after they were already released.

The best defense is that the girls were public figures. I will say if anything is private enough to weigh in a public figures favor it is being the victim of childhood sexual abuse what could be more private then that.

[nickelodeon]

1 hour ago, Swamptribe said:

Also, did not Josh have to confess his crimes publicly, in front of the congregation of the home church? 

The ladies who turned on Intouch to the existence of the report were not family members or part of the home church. Yet, they knew what happened.  So, it's not as if this was not public knowledge already.  The truth is, the tried to hide it from the media, because they knew it would tarnish their image and cost them money.

 

1 hour ago, Coconut Flan said:

It was the congregation of the small IFB church that they were attending at the time.  That's really how the stories got around.

Do we think that Josh identified the victims during his church confession? The "Alice" comment from years ago knew that "it happened to four of his 5 sisters" and "the oldest daughter was not touched" so knowledge about the identities of the victims had to have gotten around somehow. Sorry if this is an obtuse question, I just have a hard time tracking who knew what when in this case.

[MoonFace]

Question here:   

So, if the girls were molested as they slept, are they are fault?   Were they wearing PJ's (you know with PANTS) or nightgowns that might have hitched up above their (gasp!) knees?    Aren't they required to wear pj bottoms under below the knee nightgowns?    

After all, if it's Anna's fault that Josh 'strayed', isn't it the girls' fault that they might have tempted their brother to sneak   be lured into their room to grope them?  

[moriah]

26 minutes ago, Jess said:

I couldn't sleep last night and read some Arkansas cases that dealt with the the issue of the right to privacy conflicting with the FOAI law and Arkansas courts have held that they need to weigh a persons right to privacy when deciding to release information vent though it's not written into the law. However, in the only public figure case I found the public figure lost even though the information was highly private. These also dealt with people trying to stop release not damages after they were already released.

I couldn't sleep either, was reading up on the law and journalistic standards about victim identification in sexual assault cases, and media revelations of identifying information about minor victims of child abuse that came indirectly.  While in sexual abuse cases minors are less often identified indirectly, in cases where the perpetrator was a public figure or a family member the odds went up greatly that indirectly identifying information would be published.  They got a double whammy with Josh being both a public figure because of his work for the FRC and being related to him, then add in that their own parents were also public figures and made them into public figures too...  and Joy with a quadruple, because the age of a young victim was more likely to be noted.

I really do hope at least Joy received some therapy after 2015, but I also have to say my impression from re-watching Jessa speak about the therapy they received after 2006, it seems like they went but weren't necessarily told how much good it could do them but that they had to go in order to get the FINS petition addressed and "put it all behind them".  There's only so much good light can do if the shutters are closed.

[HarleyQuinn]

Honestly, even if Washington county hadn't flubbed on the age, it was easy to pin Joy down as the story book victim just because she's the only daughter young enough to be sitting on someone's lap. 

@nickelodeonThat's a good point, I wonder if he had to apologize to them personally in front of the congregation? That would be embarrassing. 

[RosyDaisy]

Knives, cast iron skillets, mallets, rolling pins.... no one messed with a woman in the kitchen when I was growing up.  

Daisy women used a rolling pin. Don't bother us while we are cooking.

[elvirajane]

Is it possible that Josh didn't touch Jana because she could be the only one to know about the birds and the bees? We know that Michelle and JB have a ritual for girls that get their period for the first time, including giving them the "talk" and a purity ring?

Maybe Jana already had her period and thus knew that touching genitals isn't exactly an appropriate activity for siblings. She would have been 13-14 or so when the abuse happened? That would sound about right.

I also find the amount of money they asked for interesting. I heard that before the scandal they were making around one million per year from all speaking engagements and show together? If they win, they would have enough money to sustain a similar lifestyle for 10-15 years (assuming they spend less now with less kids at home) which is about enough time for the kids to have enough babies to warrant their own show. I bet Jessa is going to have enough children by then to be interesting and she is much more glamourous than Michelle with her weird hairstyle and prairie dresses.