Josh Duggar alleged sexual abuse - new developments

[Buzzard]

I am not a lawyer, but I read the (B) criteria as an extension of (A). Since it the refers to "the person" rather than "a person" and didn't otherwise specify age, the age limit from (A) is still applicable. I read (B) as a way to allow lesser charges for less egregious contact.

Here's a different sources that outlines the law more clearly: http://www.womenslaw.org/statutes_detai ... tatute-top

The statute is and "or" which means you have to fall into either section (a) or (b). A requires actual sex, b is sexual "contact."

As for the allegations, I dont believe that Boob would call the police on a kid. He would be much more likely to call Gothard.

Officer misconduct would not sink an investigation. The case would be reassigned to another investigator.

Depending on his actual age at the time of the incident, and whether they managed to have the report sealed, an open records request could resolve this once and for all. The fact that a "journalist" didnt reference attempting to get one makes me think it didnt happen. Real journalists are quite familiar with open records.

eta - "Sexual contact" means any act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through

clothing, of the sex organs, or buttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female

[mpheels]

I think what it means is if any person who is old enough to give consent has sex with someone who is not, then it is at least a misdemeanor. If the person is over 20, then it's a felony.

Check out the other link I posted (womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=5886#statute-top)

It makes it pretty clear that the "person" has to be 20 years of age for both (A) and (B). The difference is that (A) is for intercourse, incest, etc... and (B) is for lessor offenses.

[Cheetah]

Is it possible that JB walked in on Josh and Anna, pre-marriage, fooling around more seriously, and thought he'd scare the bejeezus into Josh by taking him to the police (plus, way to keep another 18 kids in line). I don't know if the timing works out for that, though. Like scared straight, for fundies.

[Arrowoftruth]

E news has an email you can send tips to and I'm real tempted to submit this since they have been kissing their butts lately

[texpatriategames]

The statute is and "or" which means you have to fall into either section (a) or (b). A requires actual sex, b is sexual "contact."

As for the allegations, I dont believe that Boob would call the police on a kid. He would be much more likely to call Gothard.

Officer misconduct would not sink an investigation. The case would be reassigned to another investigator.

Depending on his actual age at the time of the incident, and whether they managed to have the report sealed, an open records request could resolve this once and for all. The fact that a "journalist" didnt reference attempting to get one makes me think it didnt happen. Real journalists are quite familiar with open records.

eta - "Sexual contact" means any act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through

clothing, of the sex organs, or buttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female

Not a lawyer, but I am a former journalist (I even worked in Arkansas at one point). You are correct about the open records stuff. If I remember right, Arkansas has halfway decent sunshine laws, but everything changes if the accused is underage. Then it becomes darn near impossible.

If this keeps getting bigger, I hope some journalist in Arkansas tries to make an open records request. Hell, you don't even have to be a journalist to do it. There is a certain format you have to follow and certain phrases you have to say, but you don't have to be a member of the press to make a Freedom of Information Act request. I've known people who just badger cities/agencies constantly with open records request because they think the city/agency is hiding something.

The way InTouch is reporting this seems off. Maybe the case was dropped, but not for the reasons they stated. Or maybe there was never a case to begin with.

If I were a reporter covering this, I'd want to see some actual documentation. Multiple "sources" claiming they saw it wouldn't be enough. I'd say, "OK, you've seen this? Can you get me a copy of something related to it?"

Sorry, going all into reporter mode there. This is a very weird and lingering rumor; I'd like it to be cleared up one way or the other.

[twinmama]

Is it possible that JB walked in on Josh and Anna, pre-marriage, fooling around more seriously, and thought he'd scare the bejeezus into Josh by taking him to the police (plus, way to keep another 18 kids in line). I don't know if the timing works out for that, though. Like scared straight, for fundies.

The Duggars have always struck me as more about their public image than actual goodness. So I highly, highly doubt Jim Bob would call the cops on his kid because it would get out eventually. He would privately shame the shit out of his kid I'm sure, but nothing the public could find out easily.

[mpheels]

I realized my google-fu was not the best way to figure out what the law actually says. So I did a LexisNexis search via the AR General Assembly website. Here's the full text of the fourth degree sexual assault statute:

5-14-127. Sexual assault in the fourth degree.

(a) A person commits sexual assault in the fourth degree if the person:

(1) Being twenty (20) years of age or older:

(A) Engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person who is:

(i) Less than sixteen (16) years of age; and

(ii) Not the person's spouse; or

(B) Engages in sexual contact with another person who is:

(i) Less than sixteen (16) years of age; and

(ii) Not the person's spouse; or

(2) Engages in sexual contact with another person who is not the actor's spouse, and the actor is employed with the Department of Correction, Department of Community Correction, Department of Human Services, or any city or county jail, and the victim is in the custody of the Department of Correction, Department of Community Correction, Department of Human Services, or a city or county jail.

(b) (1) Sexual assault in the fourth degree under subdivisions (a)(1)(A) and (a)(2) of this section is a Class D felony.

(2) Sexual assault in the fourth degree under subdivision (a)(1)(B) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor if the person engages only in sexual contact with another person as described in subdivision (a)(1)(B) of this section.

Notice the order of the outline/indentations. The statute definitely requires the perpetrator to be 20 years old. This is the statute as of today - there were revisions in 2009, but I don't want to do a full legislative history to figure out how substantive those changes were. I can't link directly to the statute, but you can get to it by going to lexisnexis.com/hottopics/arcode/Default.asp and searching for "Sexual assault in the fourth degree" with the "terms and connectors" setting.

[JenniferJuniper]

Check out the other link I posted (womenslaw.org/statutes_detail.php?statute_id=5886#statute-top)

It makes it pretty clear that the "person" has to be 20 years of age for both (A) and (B). The difference is that (A) is for intercourse, incest, etc... and (B) is for lessor offenses.

This appears to be current as of 2014. Some older state laws were changed in recent years when 18 year old boyfriends were being charged with having sex with 16 year old girlfriends. No idea if Arkansas is one of these states.

Jim Bob would have never called the cops on Josh. But that doesn't mean the smoke that has been wafting around for ages now doesn't indicate there was a fire somewhere.

I've always been troubled by Jana's confession (in a Journey to the Heart interview?) that she felt she needed to forgive certain family members for things that happened to her. Maybe it was just a jewelry box and a bratty sister. Maybe things are more complicated than that.

[apandaaries]

The one advantage to this rumor resurfacing is that there could be some resolution. Either it happened, or they were the victims of slander & libel. OR something happened which wouldn't really be a problem except in fundie-land...

[mpheels]

Here's the act with the 2009 revisions - the only revision to take place between the alleged event in 2005 and the current version of the statute: ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts/2009/ ... ACT630.pdf (not breaking b/c it's the AR state code website)

It looks like they edited to clarify that the statute applies only to people over age 20, and added acts by a correctional officer/police/state official with a person in their custody/charge as an offense. So prior to these changes, the statue was confusing, but Josh still couldn't have been charged under this statute. That isn't to say nothing happened, but certainly demonstrates that either the reporters, sources, or both don't know exactly what they're talking about.

If, and that's a huge if, there is anything to this, I highly doubt it was an incest situation. That would be covered by an entirely different statute. I think the most likely situation would be Josh engage in sexual contact with a girl that would be considered 100% normal in any other family/sub-culture, but for the Duggars and friends, it was beyond the pale and someone reported it. Even then, it's all speculation that could be very damaging to many people.

[Cleopatra7]

I agree with others who say that at some point the Duggars will have to address this rumor in some way, especially if Josh is planning to come back to Arkansas for some kind of political career. If it's not true, then Josh needs to sue for libel. However, if it is true, well, I don't know how he could address this and continue to be a public figure. :? I've always thought that the Duggars must have more than a few secrets, but I would prefer for this to not be one of them.

The problem as I see it (other than the rumor itself), is that the Duggars think that any kind of physical contact between two unrelated members of the opposite sex is a sin, whether it's innocent frontal hugging, kissing, or full on intercourse. Consequently, when we hear rumors like this it causes us to wonder if the core issue is innocent teenage fooling around or an actual felony, since JB and Michelle seem to think there is no difference between the two.

[JenniferJuniper]

The one advantage to this rumor resurfacing is that there could be some resolution. Either it happened, or they were the victims of slander & libel. OR something happened which wouldn't really be a problem except in fundie-land...

Seriously doubt Josh will ever file a libel suit. He's a public figure and in the United States this puts a huge hurdle in front of him. And as the truth is a total defense to libel, there would be lots of messiness involved in pursuit of "truth". Messiness neither he nor his family would want any connection to. He'd be much better off ignoring it and hoping it dies a typical internet rumor death. People these days have the attention span of gnats and this is something that would require major digging to truly expose. Assuming there is any "truth" to it at all.

[mpheels]

Seriously doubt Josh will ever file a libel suit. He's a public figure and in the United States this puts a huge hurdle in front of him. And as the truth is a total defense to libel, there would be lots of messiness involved in pursuit of "truth". Messiness neither he nor his family would want any connection to. He'd be much better off ignoring it and hoping it dies a typical internet rumor death. People these days have the attention span of gnats and this is something that would require major digging to truly expose. Assuming there is any "truth" to it at all.

Except that the rumors are taking on so many specific details now. It's difficult to refute the past general claims that something happened ("sin in the camp"), and definitely not worth pursing from Josh's perspective. Now that there are concrete allegations of criminal investigations, there should be records. Josh can easily prove if no such records exist. He doesn't have to prove that the claims about "sin in the camp" are false, just that claims about a criminal investigation are false. It's a nuance that could effectively kill the rumor since the masses will generally accept that no criminal investigation means no wrong doing ever occurred.

[Imagine20]

I've read about all of the rumors, and I'm going to treat this round of reports as rumors too, until there is some sort of proof. This is a pretty big thing to publish, so maybe there is some proof out there.

[ariel9]

I really want to believe that Josh did not do something as awful as this, but it does seems like the Duggars sweep sexual abuse under the rug. I mean their leader Gothard has a ton of sexual assault allegations yet they still flaunt Big Sandy and ATI.There has been countless interviews and magazine covers yet no one asks about this. Not to mention that their legalistic views include awful views about a woman who has experienced sexual assault. Those views imply that it was the woman's fault and that she should forgive the male with none if little repercussions for the male.

[Yoshimi]

Remember back in one of the early Duggar specials when Josh appeared with a shaved head for like a hot second and then you never saw that look on him ever again? And the Duggars never addressed it? I've always thought there was something rather suspicious about it...

Found the special on YT - 'Raising 16 Children'

I haven't had the chance to rewatch the entire thing yet but the first shot of Josh's bald head shows up at 0:47 and then reappears at intermittent moments alongside scenes of Josh when he still had a full head of hair.

It'll be interesting whether the timeline of this special is around the time when the rumored abuse supposedly took place...

[JenniferJuniper]

Except that the rumors are taking on so many specific details now. It's difficult to refute the past general claims that something happened ("sin in the camp"), and definitely not worth pursing from Josh's perspective. Now that there are concrete allegations of criminal investigations, there should be records. Josh can easily prove if no such records exist. He doesn't have to prove that the claims about "sin in the camp" are false, just that claims about a criminal investigation are false. It's a nuance that could effectively kill the rumor since the masses will generally accept that no criminal investigation means no wrong doing ever occurred.

So if Josh does not file a lawsuit, would you then infer that he has something to hide?

[defraudingjezebel]

Except that the rumors are taking on so many specific details now. It's difficult to refute the past general claims that something happened ("sin in the camp"), and definitely not worth pursing from Josh's perspective. Now that there are concrete allegations of criminal investigations, there should be records. Josh can easily prove if no such records exist. He doesn't have to prove that the claims about "sin in the camp" are false, just that claims about a criminal investigation are false. It's a nuance that could effectively kill the rumor since the masses will generally accept that no criminal investigation means no wrong doing ever occurred.

Yep, I agree 100%. I know that InTouch is a sack of shit when it comes to most of its stories, but there have been moments of truth in the history of its publication. Now that the allegations have more details attached, its easy to refute such details. I hope for the sake of everyone involved that it is just InTouch beating a (fake) dead horse but I won't shrug off the story entirely just because of the source.

[Toothfairy]

in touch isn't the best of sources but I don't know what to believe of these rumors. Sex to the Duggars is like a kiss before marriage.

[Walking Cat Bed]

It amazes me that this rumor (which, honestly, I hope is only that -- for the sake of whoever is alleged to have been molested; I'd prefer that the girl, whoever she is, wasn't molested) keeps popping up and getting attention...But the Duggars' connections to Gothard and others who have actually sexually abused women and girls are buried.

Want a real story, tabloids? Go for the Gothard connection.

[Iamthe20thDuggarKid]

Does FOIA apply to juvenile records though? I'm thinking no, but I don't know for sure.

[Jana814]

This kind of thing will get brought into the light of day if he tries to run for office. They'd better deal with it, true or not.

Agree!!

[JenniferJuniper]

Remember back in one of the early Duggar specials when Josh appeared with a shaved head for like a hot second and then you never saw that look on him ever again? And the Duggars never addressed it? I've always thought there was something rather suspicious about it...

Found the special on YT - 'Raising 16 Children'

I haven't had the chance to rewatch the entire thing yet but the first shot of Josh's bald head shows up at 0:47 and then reappears at intermittent moments alongside scenes of Josh when he still had a full head of hair.

It'll be interesting whether the timeline of this special is around the time when the rumored abuse supposedly took place...

His head was definitely shaved, but they shave the boys' heads at ALERT camp. Josiah spent most of 2014 with a shaved head; do we know if Josh went to ALERT around the time of Hannie's birth? (late 2005)

ALERT doesn't necessarily mean he was being punished for anything. Joe and Josiah have both been there. And there doesn't seem to be another reason for a shaved head, unless it was some Gothard badge of shame I've never heard of.

[DaysAgo]

Rumor is most likely based on some sort of fact. If Josh is innocent or guilty, his reputation is ruined.

It would be wise for him to get in front of this story and explain himself before more harm comes to him, his place of employment, his family, and his alleged victim,

[TXGirlInAMaterialWorld]

I can't imagine JB ever turning one of his kids in. The only way I could even fathom that being true is if the other party had threatened legal action and JB thought he could get ahead of it. Go the authorities and get their version on the record first. The best defense is an offense.