Duggars by the Dozen 28 - A Mild Inappropriate Lawsuit

[Dutchie]

On 25-5-2017 at 7:26 AM, JMO said:

If you ask any child abuse expert they will tell you this a 1000 times. I heard about a case with a 4 yr old girl that took a long time to come to light because she had been told to call it her cookie. She was telling adults that her uncle touched her cookie and they thought she was being funny/cute. Same with other kids told to call it their "pocket book" or " flower". 

Additionally, there have been studies that people (kids) who where taught the proper names will say no or cry out sooner when mistreated. 

[OyToTheVey]

2 things:

1) I cook so I have sharp knives, heavy pans, and pretty much anything else that can be a weapon. Don't piss off someone in the kitchen. It's the most dangerous room in the house.

 

2) I read the redacted report a long time ago, I don't remember the specifics. Can someone tell me if the report specified that Josh molested girls or was it just assumed? Idk if the specific wording was towards a female child. 

[moriah]

4 minutes ago, OyToTheVey said:

2) I read the redacted report a long time ago, I don't remember the specifics. Can someone tell me if the report specified that Josh molested girls or was it just assumed? Idk if the specific wording was towards a female child. 

They mostly redacted pronouns but from interests and context of the interviews, and each gender being expected to have certain interests in the household...  it was clear.  

[OyToTheVey]

2 minutes ago, moriah said:

They mostly redacted pronouns but from interests and context of the interviews, and each gender being expected to have certain interests in the household...  it was clear.  

If I could find the choirs chart from the first specials that would be great. I know the household expectations and what the family is about, I'm just reaching 

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, moriah said:

@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.  

Take a look through their old Instagram posts or interviews. Which sister posted a ton about religion, theology, and morality? And which one posted about adventures in another country or took a fairytale view of her courtship? 

Keep in mind, Jill and Jessa were 15 and 14 when they gave those statements. Not a big difference in maturity at that point. Either of them could have given the moral struggles statement, but at the time the scandals broke my gut said it was Jessa. By all accounts, Jessa has always been devout and very interested in religion - the language fits her style more than Jill's in my opinion.

The Washington County report pretty much confirmed that suspicion when I thought to look at it the other day - the victim who likes adventure stories remembers waking up once as Josh removed her blanket and the name redacted in the Washington County report regarding that assault is too short to be Jessa's name.

[Lurky]

What I also don't understand is that knowing Josh abused 4 of his sisters, when he only had 5, means that even without any "clues" given, anyone guessing would be right about 3/5 of them with every guess, and then would have really good chance of guessing all 3.  So whatever was redacted, people would know for sure about 3 of the girls.  

What I'm thinking is maybe their case won't be about the GED, or storytime, or those details, but the fact it was sisters wasn't redacted - and I'm wondering if this is an argument that would carry weight - and whether what they will argue is that 1. the fact the redactions should have shown they were family members without the exact relationships, OR 2. that the report shouldn't have been released at all (in which case it should be Josh as plaintiff, no?).

I dunno - I still find it utterly bizarre that they can interview that their molestation was no big deal, as it's so super-common in their community, and anyway,it wasn't that bad, AND say confirming that they were molested is $15 million worth of harm.

[VelociRapture]

2 hours ago, OyToTheVey said:

2 things:

1) I cook so I have sharp knives, heavy pans, and pretty much anything else that can be a weapon. Don't piss off someone in the kitchen. It's the most dangerous room in the house.

 

2) I read the redacted report a long time ago, I don't remember the specifics. Can someone tell me if the report specified that Josh molested girls or was it just assumed? Idk if the specific wording was towards a female child. 

I read through both reports and did summaries earlier this week. It really depends on which report you're asking about.

Springdale (longer one) did a better job. They still listed the interests of the children interviewed, which is how a lot of us pieced together which sisters were assaulted (other than Jill - that victim was a toss up until Jill came forward.) But I don't recall there being any gender specific pronouns or ages or anything mentioned. 

Washington County failed to redact gender specific pronouns or terms (such as "daughter") when speaking of the victims. They also failed to redact the age of one of the victims, which was how many people knew for sure that Joy had been assaulted.

As for the kitchen discussion - I married into an Italian family originally from New York. The kitchen is absolutely the most dangerous room. 

[Lyle Lanley]

4 hours ago, nickelodeon said:

 

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.

If you go back to the police report Jim Bob "consulted" with all the elders on how to handle the situation and what would be the proper place to send him. There was a letter written by a "family friend" about the situation and it was put into a book and the book was lent to someone outside of the Duggar compound.

So even if Josh didn't have to name who was molested, someone else 'fessed up. Either accidentally or on purpose knowing that the letter would be found.

[MoonFace]

On 5/24/2017 at 11:26 PM, JMO said:

If you ask any child abuse expert they will tell you this a 1000 times. I heard about a case with a 4 yr old girl that took a long time to come to light because she had been told to call it her cookie. She was telling adults that her uncle touched her cookie and they thought she was being funny/cute. Same with other kids told to call it their "pocket book" or " flower". 

Wasn't the girl called Honey Boo (or something like that) taught to call her private parts a 'biscuit'?   

I need brain bleach for what through my mind on that .

[Carm_88]

27 minutes ago, MoonFace said:

Wasn't the girl called Honey Boo (or something like that) taught to call her private parts a 'biscuit'?   

I need brain bleach for what through my mind on that .

Yep. Honey Boo Boo called hers a biscuit. I hate cutesy names. 

[Jess]

27 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

Yep. Honey Boo Boo called hers a biscuit. I hate cutesy names. 

Especially, given their family history that's extra horrible.

[Honeysuckle]

I hate cutesy names too. I remember reading once that few child molesters are going to want to blatantly come out and say the proper names, so if you teach your kids the proper names, you know to ask what's going on if they suddenly start referring to their vulva as their cookie or whatever.

[Flippp]

I don't know if this is post worthy but someone in this thread sparked an interest about how Jessa and Jinger have always been so close, so I went back to Jessa's rehearsal dinner to see exactly what Jinger said during her speech. It wasn't much other than thanks for being there for my lowest times (with lots of tears). This doesn't necessarily mean it's regarding the scandal, BUT I did catch Anna saying that Smuggar was working in DC and she was worried about him not making it. One can only assume what he was working on...

[Carm_88]

27 minutes ago, Flippp said:

 BUT I did catch Anna saying that Smuggar was working in DC and she was worried about him not making it. One can only assume what he was working on...

His Ashley Madison profile or another woman? 

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

I'm torn on this I did tell my kids the proper names for their penis and vagina, and was fine with it until they were about 3 and 5 and we were grocery shopping one morning during the week ( I was a SAHM) and they were bickering about something and I hear my daughter say "well your a PENIS" my son replied "you're a VAGINA" then they started screaming PENIS VAGINA PENIS VAGINA. We horrified some old ladies.  

when they were very young we did call them a winky and a business, but they learned both names so they knew but around certain people the cute names were used.  

[treehugger]

My girls learned "penis" and "vulva" for the general private parts. They also learned "anus", "urethra, and "vagina". But they mostly use "vulva" for the front area and "bum" for the back. They are 2 and 4. It kind of bothers me that people use the word "vagina" interchangeably with "vulva". A girl has a lot of stuff going on down there. And, unless they want to give themselves yeast infections, no girl should be washing her vagina. If they are going to learn the correct terminology, it should be anatomically correct as well. 

[Percy]

I have always used to correct term for body parts with my girls.

Nurse here,  and correct terminology is a must, in my opinion.  My girls use their own common terminology amongst their friends, but know to use correct terminology with medical staff.

I do understand that others may get embarrassed by correct terms and use family terminology.

[Mercer]

I'm not sure that redacting the family relationships would have made the girls that much less identifiable.

I mean, where else would Josh have unsupervised contact with children? The Duggar kids are home schooled, home churched with seemingly no extra religious activities like a youth group etc., no community activities or teams, no part-time jobs outside the family, no summer camp, no visits with friends without a chaperone, no solo shopping trips or going to the movies... and on and on, they were isolated.

It's obviously not impossible that Josh would molest outside the family (he did at least once) but it's far more probable that his victims were family members regardless of what was reported, just because the Duggars didn't really have contact with other children with the frequency that most kids do. The Duggar parents made clear that their children were each other's primary similar-aged companions,  and people aren't going to just magically forget that when it came to children Josh might have had contact with.

[Bad Wolf]

I've never heard "pee pee holder" before. It's almost as if they'd never been given any word, and came up with this, by themselves.

[mlsgregg]

I am not a lawyer nor do I know much about the law in this case. Learning a lot here. What I find myself pondering is if this suit is appropriate from a theological perspective (that is my degreed area). As the Duggars have marketed themselves as being "on mission" with the shows/books/speaking/circus, this can only make that claim seem even more hollow, thus further damaging their ability to speak on matters of faith (for the record, I never thought they had any authority or understanding necessary to do so in the first place). This seems like a "score one for hypocrosy" thing to me. I wonder if their fans will see that.

[Pasta]

I almost think that the only "fans" they have are people who either believe everything they hear or people that just love you because you're on tv. 

[Toothfairy]

1 hour ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I'm torn on this I did tell my kids the proper names for their penis and vagina, and was fine with it until they were about 3 and 5 and we were grocery shopping one morning during the week ( I was a SAHM) and they were bickering about something and I hear my daughter say "well your a PENIS" my son replied "you're a VAGINA" then they started screaming PENIS VAGINA PENIS VAGINA. We horrified some old ladies.  

when they were very young we did call them a winky and a business, but they learned both names so they knew but around certain people the cute names were used.  

Omg. I'm sorry but kids are funny. My daughter said mommy look a man. He has a penis like daddy. 

[mlsgregg]

@Pasta - one can only hope. I just can't see how any rational person would cling to them at this point.

[Mercer]

On 5/25/2017 at 1:41 PM, Queen said:

I've also always wondered if he got molested himself by some adult he knew, because it's common that many predators have themselves been victims once (which of course doesn't make their crime right). Is this a topic that is off limits here on FJ or not?

I just wanted to address this because I recently attended a workshop about it. The old conventional wisdom was that children with problem sexual behaviors must have themselves been molested (on the assumption that children would not spontaneously develop sexualized conduct,) but current evidence-based research has not borne out that link as strongly as previously assumed, particularly when it comes to adolescents instead of small children.

 Josh is known to have two other major risk factors for problem sexual behavior - physical abuse (being beaten with a rod) and uninvolved parents. It is entirely possible for those factors alone to have led to this behavior even without any sexual maltreatment. When you factor in the family emphasis on control and obedience versus empathy, the lack of instruction about appropriate touch and consent boundaries, the deliberate mystification of sex, cultivation of odd and self-conscious relationships between opposite sex siblings, lack of normal peer group, and the focus on females as primarily sexual and reproductive objects... the Duggar kids were in my opinion put at high risk right off the bat.

Josh's crimes are not sufficient evidence to assume that he was himself sexually victimized. He was obviously behaving in a way that was highly disordered, but there are multiple causes for that besides molestation.

[allthegoodnamesrgone]

2 hours ago, mlsgregg said:

@Pasta - one can only hope. I just can't see how any rational person would cling to them at this point.

I find that a lot of conservative and fundy/fundy lite stick together. They will support any and all other Christians because they see any negative comments about another Christian as persecution. So anyone professing faith and is hateful, exclusive, vocal and loudly "faithful". This is why Tim Teabow was the greatest football player to ever live. Why horrific televangelists who are smarmy are so well loved, and why the Duggar's are still on TV.  Why they don't care that Josh did what he did.  Jesus forgave him and will forgive anything and everything except if he came out as gay.