Josh Duggar Admits Molestation of 5 Juveniles - Part 6

[meep]

Which inexcusable behavior? I can't imagine that the FRC would apologize for anything Josh said against people who aren't straight and/or gender-normative. So what do they have to apologize for?

I had guessed that they were just embarrassed having Josh THE HYPOCRITE pontificate for them. Not that they were sorry for their stance or what was said.

[tapdancer493]

Question for people who know about the workings of court records: did the (still) minor victim have to give permissions/be the one to file the request to destroy the records, or could her parents do it whether or not she consented? Though I guess her parents would have to tell her that's something that's possible and potentially coerce her. Anyway, does the minor victim have to actually do something or can the parents just act on her behalf?

[princessmahina]

I do wonder about how the house was run in the earlier years vs what has been shown since 2005. I would not say that the younger children are instantly obedient or overly disciplined. Running, jumping, pogo sticking in the house, walking on counters are behaviors I would not have tolerated, particularly when you know the Duggars live on a large parcel of land. It seems like there was lots of idle time in that home.

I think things were a lot stricter when Michelle was really involved in running the home. The older girls don't seem to be strict disciplinarians. I also don't think they wanted to do anything like that in front of the camera crew.

I do remember in one of the first actual seasons where Anna was dusting off a doll and one of the little girls (Jennifer, I think?) cried, thinking she was spanking it. So, it seems that in the first seasons they were still maintaining some semblance of physical discipline.

[VelociRapture]

All true.

I am concerned for the 3rd generation of Duggars.

We often talk about breaking cycles- this cult needs to be broken. When you know better, you tend, particularly as parents, to do better. The Duggars do not know better. Their collective ignorance needs to be neutralized.

The best shot at that is by working the TLC angle; ending their media platform.

I think you have a good point. I do find myself concerned for the younger children in the family though. It's possible that with TLC gone they'll be subjected to the stricter rules that their siblings likely faced before the show appeared. Not to mention, they may struggle with confusion over why they suddenly have to stop going on trips and the cameras have gone away.

At the end of the day though, I think its more important that the show does end. With TLC gone there is a possibility that some of the older kids will start to consider why things turned out the way they did, which could lead to the adult kids making small changes to how their kids are raised. Even something as simple as a better Home Schooling curriculum could make a difference.

[halcionne]

Which inexcusable behavior? I can't imagine that the FRC would apologize for anything Josh said against people who aren't straight and/or gender-normative. So what do they have to apologize for?

Right?!

"We're sorry that one of our fellow homophobes turned out to be a child molester."

:?

[HarleyQuinn]

Four is Enough - Thank you for sharing that thoughtful, eloquent post. I worked (briefly) in a home for boys who were in therapy for sexual crimes. The minimum amount they had to stay in treatment was about 18 months. Seeing Boob say "he would just learn from other offenders" really made me angry, because residential treatment isn't about that. Yes, there's always going to be a few that are trouble makers at the start, but most really do work through their issues and they are always in staff's sight, so where they are going to give each other tips is beyond me.

JB is an idiot.

[SassyPants]

I think you have a good point. I do find myself concerned for the younger children in the family though. It's possible that with TLC gone they'll be subjected to the stricter rules that their siblings likely faced before the show appeared. Not to mention, they may struggle with confusion over why they suddenly have to stop going on trips and the cameras have gone away.

At the end of the day though, I think its more important that the show does end. With TLC gone there is a possibility that some of the older kids will start to consider why things turned out the way they did, which could lead to the adult kids making small changes to how their kids are raised. Even something as simple as a better Home Schooling curriculum could make a difference.

I agree.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Right?!

"We're sorry that one of our fellow homophobes turned out to be a child molester."

:?

"We are sorry that we have given you information to use against us."

[bunnybunz]

Is it true that the Arkansas CPS are going to investigate the whole family?

http://bluenationreview.com/child-prote ... for-abuse/

[meep]

Is it true that the Arkansas CPS are going to investigate the whole family?

http://bluenationreview.com/child-prote ... for-abuse/

Nope, not true.

[Buzzard]

Is it true that the Arkansas CPS are going to investigate the whole family?

http://bluenationreview.com/child-prote ... for-abuse/

Not that we know of (and that information would be private unless the family released it). There's no way that quote is real.

[halcionne]

Four is Enough - Thank you for sharing that thoughtful, eloquent post. I worked (briefly) in a home for boys who were in therapy for sexual crimes. The minimum amount they had to stay in treatment was about 18 months. Seeing Boob say "he would just learn from other offenders" really made me angry, because residential treatment isn't about that. Yes, there's always going to be a few that are trouble makers at the start, but most really do work through their issues and they are always in staff's sight, so where they are going to give each other tips is beyond me.

JB is an idiot.

This is one of many places where his church really screwed up. From the report: "James said that one of the elders was a chaplain at the Piney Ridge program at Vista Hospital." So JB and the elders were hashing out their options and they decided that real treatment programs would cause more harm than good. Shame on that chaplain.

[nelliebelle1197]

snip

I understand this and should clarify that I in know way support gratuitous speculation about the victims or anyone under 18. I really appreciate all the moderators do here to support the forum and know it can't be easy dealing with the onslaught of new posts/commenters.

My fear is that there more to this story but that FOIA requests are not going to uncover it, particularly if there is political corruption or favors called in. I think the police report and the family's general friendship with prominent politicians suggests that is not widely out of the range of possibility. In light of that, it feels frustrating to be told wait for the proper channels but don't talk about it or speculate in the meantime. Which I'm not being told, just reacting to some of the personal attacks against others I saw in the last thread. I also think its unfair to say "Josh molested that cat and mailman" - which is obviously made up and no evidence for - should be treated as the same as wondering if the connection to the cop family friend with repeat pornography offenses could indicate more serious crimes.

I guess I feel that if speculating about this is so powerful that the media might run with it (which I obviously don't want them to do since there is no hard evidence) can it be argued that speculating may get media attention for them to pursue an important investigation possibly using means not at our disposal? Its so frustrating to be told be patient and trust in the system when by all accounts its the system that failed and the media that actually outed this by improper means. But I also understand that I'm not entirely rational when it comes to this topic.

But the extreme, baseless speculation is not helpful or rational. Saying as someone did in a previous thread that they just had a feeling Josh molested boys was not a inch different than HA's cat reference. It is just as likely, based on the evidence at hand, that Josh groped a cat and licked a mailman. In addition, I said this in another thread, but JimBob Duggar is not the King of Arkansas. He was low level politician that Huckabee glommed onto when he started running for president right around the time the Duggar juggarnaut, as it is was, hit. He does not have the power to cover this up.

I get thoroughly annoyed, as Heretic Hick knows quite well, in the Bates threads when someone goes off on a tangent about how Alyssa wearing pants means she has fled ATI. But there is evidence there- she is wearing pants. We can see the pants. I don't agree with the evidence, see other evidence this is not true, and speculate in the other direction. That is normal speculation.

There is no more evidence of a lot of this stuff than there is of Josh licking the mailman.

[lascuba]

As for as speculation goes, I'm just going to say that the media picking up on rumors posted here and running with it is a an asinine reason for not speculating. Saying that certain speculations are silly, stupid, what have you--that's legitimate, because there's some off-the-wall shit that gets posted. Holding this board responsible for the actions of supposed professional writers who should goddamn know better...THAT is stupid. That's giving FJ way too much importance (like the, "we should't say mean things about them because if they read here that would discourage them leaving fundamentalism" argument. Come on, now.) Oh, and since apparently people can't let shit go, I stand by my comments about Jill. But I rank homebirthers pretty closely to anti-vaxxers, so...

I can understand The Duggars being protective of a 14 Josh, IF they had also been equally protective of their daughters and the 5th person involved. The seeking out of media fame and fortune in a quest to spread their Christian ministry- Nope, I do not get it. That flies in the face of logic and borders on less than healthy mental faculties (yep, speculation).

So I have been letting the fact that the abused might not feel victimized at all sink in.

Based on the above consideration, I am having trouble processing how I should feel in terms of the abused and the conversation at hand.

Is it worse if we considered them abused, if they have moved past those feelings, vs if we just stop talking about that element of JB's shitty decisions?

If the Duggars have all reconciled the incident, should that be enough and should the focus now turn to JB's fraudulent behaviors in terms of TLC and the public; his political ploys and interference?

It's really the seeking of fame after it happened that really bothers me. Don't get wrong, the abuse was abhorrent, and 95% of my sympathy is reserved for the victims, but as someone who can't begin to imagine what it must be like to have one child abuse your other children, I can sympathize with parents in that situation as well as the 14 year old abuser who should have received comprehensive help and, frankly, shouldn't have even grown up in such an environment where real help isn't considered a viable option because of their religious beliefs. If there had never been a tv show or involvement in politics, I would be of the mind that the media should tone it down and that people shouldn't harp on the family so much since Josh was only 14. The fame and the politics change everything.

As for the bolded, I think it's important to talk about all aspects of this while acknowledging that victims aren't a monolith and that their feelings for their abusers are often very complicated. What people should NOT do is contact them to tell them what they think, and I'm appalled at the people who commented on Jill's and Jessa's instagrams and really uncomfortable with any plans people here have to write to them.

[GeoBQn]

New In Touch article--former State Trooper Hutchens (the one in jail for child pornography) refutes Jim Bob's version of events.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/dugg ... tory-59235

[nokidsmom]

After taking in days and days of media coverage and FJ thoughts and opinions, these are mine, -the ones that currently settle with me (and will likely morph as I continue to read what others have to say)...

1) Was there a "heads up" for Josh and Anna, and thus their families?

No. I don't think they knew it was coming, at least not any sooner than perhaps 24-27 hours of the news break.

2) Did TLC know?

I don't think so. If they had, the whole Honey Boo Boo would have been MUCH more difficult for TLC to address than to just dismiss the show.

3) Did the Kellers and Anna really know what Josh had done, when Pa Keller hand-picked him for Anna?

No way. I'm sticking with my gut on this. They were told something, I believe, but it was a Duggar's bill of goods they were sold, not the whole ugly truth.

4) Are the Kellers and/or the Seewalds truly supportive?

I think the Kellers are conflicted. Mike has got to emotionally torn between the realities of sex offenders he's encountered in prison ministry, and his draw to the First Family of Fundie-world. Michael Seewald, OTOH,...while I didn't think he could shock me, did. I mean I didn't expect him to be willing to publicly condemn Josh or his actions. But given his past posts that hinted at the Duggars' rigid ways, I did expect that he would at least keep silent (in an "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all," kind of way.) To support the Duggars and Josh in this, -his DIL likely abused by her own brother in a home of "absolute purity"? Yes, Michael Seewald, it shocks me that you would presume to know that this whole issue has been safely laid to rest, and that "all is well that ends well." :angry-banghead:

5) Will the "show go on" in some form or another?

Nope. No 19KC, no spin-off. I think TLC is done with wagering on the Duggars. The gig had to end, eventually, anyway. I don't think even TLC will be willing to risk a spin-off at this point.

Sorry, Duggars. Your money train has come to a screeching halt. And as a born-again, conseravative, homeschooling, non-skirt-wearing, hair cutting, "able to think for myself" Christian wife and mother, I have to say, the premise on which you built your financial empire proved to be a deception, a manipulation of trust, and a lie. Count your fortune and lay it to rest now, yes?

Okay, FJ's, your turn. Current answers???

Ok, here's mine based on reading here and other sources, plus having to think it over so far.

1. Don't think they saw it coming just before the news broke. This took them by surprise. There would have been serious measures taken to head things off at the pass. Josh might have found a more graceful way to leave the FRC.

2. Not sure if TLC knew or not, jury is still out for me on that one. Didn't keep up on the HBB saga really.

3. I agree that Pa Keller and Anna were told something but it was Duggar-spin to make it less um, distasteful, than it was.

4. Given his prison work, I actually hope Pa Keller is conflicted (he should, he bought in and give Josh the OK) but he might still support Josh strictly for Anna's sake. Mr. Seewald should have not run off his mouth publicly. He can show support privately if that's what he wants because Jebus but publicly he was showing himself as supporting someone who may have abused his DIL. Yes, this situation truly puts him in a tough position so really the smart thing here was have kept his essay to himself.

5. No future for show. No spinoffs. It's over. They have shown they are FUBAR behind their "wholesome Christian family" facade.

[Nowyn]

I listened to that podcast too, and actually found it really interesting. The young man discussed how he didn't allow people who had harmed children in the past to join his support group unless they had reported the crime to the authorities, much less anyone who might still be molesting children. He also stated very clearly that he had never been sexually abused himself.

There does often seem to be a correlation between being a victim of sexual abuse and becoming an abuser and I've seen a lot of suggestions that Josh may have been abused before he assaulted his sisters and the other young woman. If he were a victim (which there's no evidence of) it wouldn't remove his culpability or responsibility for the molestations he committed, himself, but people really seem to be looking for the root of the problem and that's one of the first things that gets thrown out there. I've been reading the Abel and Harlow Child Molestation Prevention study that was linked somewhere that the Duggar situation was being discussed (I think the link was probably here but I don't recall who originally posted it) and it seems to indicate that there is a connection between the two. Something like 47 percent of abusers were found to have been victimized as children, which is a hugely significant statistic. It's not a majority, though, and it's clearly not the only factor that determines whether a person will become an abuser. It isn't necessary that Josh himself be victimized for him to victimize others. Even if it was the case I would be hugely surprised if Josh ever claimed that, although it might actually improve his image if he did, because I have a feeling that being a male victim of a male adult in their culture would be seen as more shameful somehow, because of their gender roles and attitudes about homosexual behavior (and the implication of most people wondering about it seems to be that it would have been an adult male offender, in that scenario, rather than a woman).

I knew the source, someone else linked it. I need to point out that some statistics in that study differ from other studies. For instance, it lists that 93% of offenders are pedophiles while more commonly found figures are between 7% and 43%. That's why I think it's not so reliable when used as the only source.

IIRC there is information vacuum among non-offending pedophiles. Almost all of studies about child molesting are criminally based.

[lascuba]

Since there are people here are are experienced in this type of this: how common is it for parents to report their own children? Are there numbers on this?

[OkToBeTakei]

New In Touch article--former State Trooper Hutchens (the one in jail for child pornography) refutes Jim Bob's version of events.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/dugg ... tory-59235

That's disturbing on many levels. Not least of which the last sentence regarding him being a Christian!!

Oooookay!

[SnazzyNazzy]

New In Touch article--former State Trooper Hutchens (the one in jail for child pornography) refutes Jim Bob's version of events.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/dugg ... tory-59235

Looks like someone needed commissary money...

In all seriousness, I'm taking what he says with a grain of salt. He is in prison for 56 years, because of kiddie porn for goodness sakes. I have a hard time believing that someone into THAT, loses sleep over not reporting child molestation.

[DuggarCurls]

Now that Hutchens is brought up, I found the article regarding his sentencing etc:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/jun/ ... -56-years/

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Never mind.

I got confused.

Thank you.

[Arrowoftruth]

New In Touch article--former State Trooper Hutchens (the one in jail for child pornography) refutes Jim Bob's version of events.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/dugg ... tory-59235

Wait so Josh was interviewed seperately from his parents and that's why Jim Bob didn't correspond with his story? That's messed up. Also I thought under 18 you had to have a legal guardian to be interviewed? So does this change anything? Can JB be charged with obstructing Justice or something?

ETA: If what he is saying is true?

[lascuba]

Looks like someone needed commissary money...

In all seriousness, I'm taking what he says with a grain of salt. He is in prison for 56 years, because of kiddie porn for goodness sakes. I have a hard time believing that someone into THAT, loses sleep over not reporting child molestation.

In Touch claims he wasn't compensated for the interview. But yeah, I'm with you on the grain of salt. This is one of those things I find very easy to believe while knowing that it might well be bullshit.

Edited because "was" and "wasn't" are two entirely different things.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Now that Hutchens is brought up, I found the article regarding his sentencing etc:

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2012/jun/ ... -56-years/

Here is his Court Case Events:

https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/cconn ... &end_date=

And per court docs his wife divorced him in 2011.