The record has been destroyed

[MotherOfDragons]

I'd like to know too.

Ditto for me as well.

[Edhelfin]

Too bad the report has been saved to numerous hard drives.

Duggar supporters may be stupid enough to forget all of this in time but there will always be someone that will stir the waters from time to time.

:nenner:

[JHeathen]

Ditto for me as well.

Damn it, go back and read all the posts in the damn thread before you post, people! :pull-hair:

[littlesparklingflame]

No, I am NOT a Josh Duggar apologist! But how is it in the victims' best interests to have their identities plus the details of their molestations made public over a decade after the fact? It would be different if one or all of them decided to come forward and tell their story to the media. But they did NOT ask for this. Not the molestation. Not the public exposure. None of it! Those girls are being violated all over again.

On the other hand, keeping it under silence would only mean that the girls would keep living with this burden without being allowed the right to process this experience.

Maybe this public exposure will help them get in touch with external people who will help them find a new perspective on this.

They have fakely been exposed all their lives. Maybe this public exposure of the truth will help them break the indoctrination and find their own voice.

[treemom]

That record never should have been on the Internet. It violates the victims' privacy. Those girls have all been "outed" against their will. Only the fifth, non-related victim remains anonymous.

Thank you. This is one of the most appalling parts of this. It isn't just that they were outed, it's such a big deal there are thousands of posts about it. People on the Internet trying to decide if it influenced the color of dress they wore at the wedding.

I really, really hate that part of the discovery of this also involved them being outed. I am not sure which is worse (assuming Josh has not and does not reoffend) it never being discovered by the public or four women who we molested being outed in an extremely public way and having all their actions not disssected

[treemom]

I don't see the situation the way you do. IF Jim Bob hadn't lied and covered up so much, his daughters wouldn't be exposed in the media now.

And, apparently not many people have read the report that the Admin. of FJ got and has posted. It takes reading the addresses and names of parents to realize that these were his sisters, not playmates of the family, etc.

Of course Jim BoB is responsible. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to out victims of molestation and deconstruct everything they do in light of it

[treemom]

The officer is in jail on child porn charges. I think federal prison. He can still be investigated even with this being expunged, but it isn't like he can ever do anything like this again.

[nelliebelle1197]

Could there be a lawsuit against In Touch if they posted the documents.. AFTER it was expunged?

It has not been expunged as it was not a criminal record. Expungement is a legal process whereby a criminal record of a first time offender is sealed.

This was a police report destroyed at the request of a minor victim. Different animal altogether.

[nelliebelle1197]

Of course Jim BoB is responsible. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to out victims of molestation and deconstruct everything they do in light of it

What maltesebaby really means is that J'Duggar girl's right to keep her abuse to herself does not trump the public's right to know every little detail that happened to her. Formergothardite often points out that the Duggars are held to a much higher standard than, say, the Bateseseses. If Alyssa "I am wearing jeans and it fools you into thinking I am not a Gothard drone" Bates wanted the record of her childhood groping by Zach destroyed, people here would take up a collection for her legal fees if needed. It's DuggarDerangementSyndrome.

[Trynn]

If there were a way of prosecuting this I would totally donate to the Duggar legal fee fund.

[anon710]

Holy crap. I didn't expect my one little comment to gain this much traction. I wouldn't have posted if I had thought that.

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=18941&hilit=fmj+Springdale&start=300

That is where you will find what I was talking about. I realize now what my mistake was, although it still wasn't illegal. I had a court appointed lawyer and he said I should plead guilty because Jim Bob Duggar has too much power and I will never win.

That is what I meant by my comment.

I do have someone on the inside who will get all of the letters to give to the Duggar girls but I will not name that person.

I remember this now, I was lurking even way back when.

[halcionne]

Something that hasn't been discussed in this thread (maybe elsewhere--I'm still reading chunks of the main thread from Friday and Saturday--I'm too sick about all of this to read other threads that seemed even more speculative--personally I don't think it's much fun to try and predict how the next three months are going to unfold) that I don't quite understand.

From http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... h-council/:

An Arkansas State Police public information officer referred FOX411 to Arkansas code §12-18-104 which states “any data, records, reports, or documents that are created, collected, or compiled by or on behalf of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or other entity authorized under this chapter to perform investigations or provide services to children, individuals, or families shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, 25-19-101 et seq.â€

However, In Touch claims they got the records from the Springdale Police Department through the same Freedom of Information Act.

And from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts ... ?tid=sm_fb:

May 21: In Touch Weekly publishes a follow-up to its original article, this time with a police report online that, it says, details the allegations against Josh Duggar. In Touch reports that it obtained the police report through a Freedom of Information request. The Democrat-Gazette is also able to obtain the document through an FOI request, but a Thursday FOI request from The Washington Post was answered on the same day with a court order, dated May 21, ordering that the police report in question be destroyed. The order was a result of a “motion to expunge†from one of the alleged victims.

So, was the police report issued to In Touch and the Democrat-Gazette in error, or were later requests denied after the petition to expunge?

Duggar cronies are bawwing about impropriety on a couple different fronts, I think, and I'm not on their side at all; I'm just trying to work this out in my own head.

[gustava]

Something that hasn't been discussed in this thread (maybe elsewhere--I'm still reading chunks of the main thread from Friday and Saturday--I'm too sick about all of this to read other threads that seemed even more speculative--personally I don't think it's much fun to try and predict how the next three months are going to unfold) that I don't quite understand.

From http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... h-council/:

And from http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts ... ?tid=sm_fb:

So, was the police report issued to In Touch and the Democrat-Gazette in error, or were later requests denied after the petition to expunge?

Duggar cronies are bawwing about impropriety on a couple different fronts, I think, and I'm not on their side at all; I'm just trying to work this out in my own head.

Thanks for asking this. I'd also wondered, as the report involves people who were minors at the time the police report was written. It seemed odd to me that it was accessible through FOIA. I've had this sneaking suspicion that InTouch lied. Has anyone seen the FOIA?

[JenniferJuniper]

I'd also wondered, as the report involves people who were minors at the time the police report was written. It seemed odd to me that it was accessible through FOIA. I've had this sneaking suspicion that InTouch lied. Has anyone seen the FOIA?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure we know it was InTouch who ordered the report via the Freedom of Information Act. I think it's probably likely that it was ordered from another party and shared with them.

As for the report, we know it came from the police department at some point. We don't know for sure, but can guess they redacted all of the minor's names before complying with the request. It could be whoever replied to the request thought this was sufficient. Accidentally or accidentally on purpose.

The police say the criminal statute of limitations was up by the time they heard the news in 2006. Whether this is true or not, there is no question that the civil statute of limitations for the youngest victim IS NOT up yet. She is still a minor and has until 3 years past her 18th birthday to file a civil suit against her abuser or her parents for allowing the abuse. So there's a long time left yet. This is probably why they went to pains to say the minor wanted the record destroyed.

My question is, can someone under 18 who has legal standing to file her own civil suit at age 18 make such a request on her own? If it has to be done through her parents, can her parents request that the evidence that would support her civil claim be destroyed, even though she can't yet make that claim on her own?

I'm not suggesting this minor would sue her brother and/or parents but the report and file that would support her claim have now been destroyed before she legally even has the right to sue on her own.

[halcionne]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure we know it was InTouch who ordered the report via the Freedom of Information Act. I think it's probably likely that it was ordered from another party and shared with them.

As for the report, we know it came from the police department at some point. We don't know for sure, but can guess they redacted all of the minor's names before complying with the request. It could be whoever replied to the request thought this was sufficient. Accidentally or accidentally on purpose.

The police say the criminal statute of limitations was up by the time they heard the news in 2006. Whether this is true or not, there is no question that the civil statute of limitations for the youngest victim IS NOT up yet. She is still a minor and has until 3 years past her 18th birthday to file a civil suit against her abuser or her parents for allowing the abuse. So there's a long time left yet. This is probably why they went to pains to say the minor wanted the record destroyed.

My question is, can someone under 18 who has legal standing to file her own civil suit at age 18 make such a request on her own? If it has to be done through her parents, can her parents request that the evidence that would support her civil claim be destroyed, even though she can't yet make that claim on her own?

I'm not suggesting this minor would sue her brother and/or parents but the report and file that would support her claim have now been destroyed before she legally even has the right to sue on her own.

Good point about In Touch. However, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette clearly says they were able to get a copy with a FOI request, here: http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2015 ... to-wrongd/

Details in a 2006 Springdale police investigation report match with the statements given to People by Duggar and his parents. The Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette acquired a copy of the report late Wednesday through the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. The report is heavily redacted and doesn't include identifying information regarding the children involved.

Late Wednesday would've been May 20, so I'm guessing the motion to expunge is what put the kibosh on other reporters' requests. But I keep going back to the bit Fox News cited about Arkansas code §12-18-104 prohibiting release of info pertaining to DHS cases. So I still don't understand why the report would have been released.

[lexiloumarie]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure we know it was InTouch who ordered the report via the Freedom of Information Act. I think it's probably likely that it was ordered from another party and shared with them.

As for the report, we know it came from the police department at some point. We don't know for sure, but can guess they redacted all of the minor's names before complying with the request. It could be whoever replied to the request thought this was sufficient. Accidentally or accidentally on purpose.

The police say the criminal statute of limitations was up by the time they heard the news in 2006. Whether this is true or not, there is no question that the civil statute of limitations for the youngest victim IS NOT up yet. She is still a minor and has until 3 years past her 18th birthday to file a civil suit against her abuser or her parents for allowing the abuse. So there's a long time left yet. This is probably why they went to pains to say the minor wanted the record destroyed.

My question is, can someone under 18 who has legal standing to file her own civil suit at age 18 make such a request on her own? If it has to be done through her parents, can her parents request that the evidence that would support her civil claim be destroyed, even though she can't yet make that claim on her own?

I'm not suggesting this minor would sue her brother and/or parents but the report and file that would support her claim have now been destroyed before she legally even has the right to sue on her own.

This was something I thought about when I heard of the destruction of the report versus the sealing of it - that by having it destroyed they no longer have to worry about it being used as evidence in any other court proceeding. I wondered if they knew of other victims who may be more willing to sue in the future.

[Mama Mia]

Thank you. This is one of the most appalling parts of this. It isn't just that they were outed, it's such a big deal there are thousands of posts about it. People on the Internet trying to decide if it influenced the color of dress they wore at the wedding.

I really, really hate that part of the discovery of this also involved them being outed. I am not sure which is worse (assuming Josh has not and does not reoffend) it never being discovered by the public or four women who we molested being outed in an extremely public way and having all their actions not disssected

That's the only think that has shown up on my Facebook feed -- a couple of people debating whether the girls are just being re- victimized - possibly more severely - by the news coming out at all.

It's so bizarre because you have the hyper leg humpers and and a few professionally persecuted extremist Christians who are railing about Jesus forgives, so it's all okay. Everyone makes mistakes. It's no worse than playing doctor. While completely ignoring the fact that they are generally the first to say that any sexual contact outside of marriage is a horrible sin and a symptom of the downfall of society and on and on. Plus ignoring that " playing doctor" involves much younger kids of the same age range , who are both interested - and awake. So you have that set who want to act like its no big thing, despite their cultural mindset of any sort of sexual non- conformity being a VERY big deal.

But on the other side you have these people who are going on and on about how damaged the girls are ( but it's not their fault ) and how they must be living in fear and terror 24/7 ( but it's not their fault) and how every damn action they have taken in their lives is the result of this one event( but it's not their fault ) and how , basically, they as individual human beings are now completely defined by being molested.

Someone on one of these threads said something that jumped out at me ( sorry can't link, way too many posts ) , and I'm sure she didn't mean it negatively --- but, paraphrasing - the idea was that " how could the show go on if they refocused on just the married girls - that kind of show would generally be all sweetness and rainbows and newlywed / new parent goofy dilemmas - and now they wouldn't fit that mold. Because people would always see them and think of the molestation" . Well, what the actual fuck :shock: .

They are still the same people. They have more dimensions than being molested. They can be all sweetness and rainbows if they want. They should never have been assaulted, they should never have been made to go on TV and act like they never had a bigger problem than a damn jewelry box. Or made to repeat over, and over and over how sheltered and protected they were. But they also don't have to live like this is the only thing in their life that matters to them.

The records being destroyed instead of sealed is very strange. But I could swear I've heard of that happening before when it's a police report with no further action taken -- but for the life of me I can't remember the context. It would seem that whoever was giving out the police reports was clearly in error. I'm wondering if it's an error they made out of ignorance, or for financial gain. Certainly more likely they just weren't aware of the law, or didn't research the case before giving the information.

[Furbabies]

Edited because annoying, my bad.

I did skim thru that old thread and some of the posts/comments where chillingly prophetic.

[singsingsing]

Me three, or five, or whatever.

You guys really need to read the previous pages. FJismyheadship has already linked to the original story, and the people who keep asking for it have been redirected back to it several times.

[Janus]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure we know it was InTouch who ordered the report via the Freedom of Information Act. I think it's probably likely that it was ordered from another party and shared with them.

Interview with InTouch editor here:

[meep]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how can the report be destroyed when one of the victims is still a minor? I would think you could only do that after they're all 18, in case they wanted to use it in some sort of suing case? (I know nothing of legalities, that's just what's flowing through my brain.) What if the minor needed it for something when she's of age but now it's *legally* gone forever?

[Hera]

Maybe this is a stupid question, but how can the report be destroyed when one of the victims is still a minor? I would think you could only do that after they're all 18, in case they wanted to use it in some sort of suing case? (I know nothing of legalities, that's just what's flowing through my brain.) What if the minor needed it for something when she's of age but now it's *legally* gone forever?

This is a good point, especially since two of the people the minor in this case would theoretically be suing would likely be her parents, who would have to bring the petition to destroy the record on her behalf, since she is a minor. Seems like a pretty significant conflict of interest, but I'm sure if there's a way to work they system to his advantage, Jim Bob can find and exploit it.