Guess who is on the cover of people

[Mandysue]

I couldn't find these posted. If they are admins you can delete this.

 

I tried to put them in order. I'm sorry if it's bungled.

[Mandysue]

2nd post

[Quivertool]

Ugh. People, what are you doing?

No mention of the victims' ages. Nothing about the fact that they were his sisters. Also, allegedly? There's no allegedly about it! And what's with the "majestic" picture of JB and M "standing by their son?"

"Now, the family is rallying around each other and stressing two key tenets of their faith: repentance and forgiveness." Sorry, I just... :pull-hair:

Really? THIS is how you choose to frame the story now? Because you were singing a different tune yesterday!

[Coldwinterskies]

No mention of the victims' ages. Nothing about the fact that they were his sisters. Also, allegedly? There's no allegedly about it!

I think they are probably being very cautious about this kind of stuff because they don't want to end up getting sued.

[MisUndrstd]

Ugh. People, what are you doing?

No mention of the victims' ages. Nothing about the fact that they were his sisters. Also, allegedly? There's no allegedly about it! And what's with the "majestic" picture of JB and M "standing by their son?"

"Now, the family is rallying around each other and stressing two key tenets of their faith: repentance and forgiveness." Sorry, I just... :pull-hair:

Really? THIS is how you choose to frame the story now? Because you were singing a different tune yesterday!

Actually, I think the media has to be very careful about any identifying information in regards to the victims, especially since one is a minor they can be sued if they identify the victims, even though we all know. But legally if they identify the girls' as Josh's sisters and their ages at the time of the molestation it is crossing the line and inadvertently making it obvious who the victims are. I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer and say that I know this without a shadow of a doubt but for the most part I believe that is why they are tip toeing around the idenity of the girls. Hopefully someone will come along who knows the legality of it and can address your concerns in an more accurate manner.

And technically it is allegedly because he was never convicted of the crime. Remember that these magazines and talk shows have legal counsel they know what they can or can not publish.

[grandmadugger]

Actually, I think the media has to be very careful about any identifying information in regards to the victims, especially since one is a minor they can be sued if they identify the victims, even though we all know. But legally if they identify the girls' as Josh's sisters and their ages at the time of the molestation it is crossing the line and inadvertently making it obvious who the victims are. I'm not going to pretend I'm a lawyer and say that I know this without a shadow of a doubt but for the most part I believe that is why they are tip toeing around the idenity of the girls. Hopefully someone will come along who knows the legality of it and can address your concerns in an more accurate manner.

And technically it is allegedly because he was never convicted of the crime. Remember that these magazines and talk shows have legal counsel they know what they can or can not publish.

I'm wondering how InTouch will handle this. The released cover says his victims tell their story.

[Arete]

Where is the evidence of repentance? Repentance means to turn away, choose another path, and be transformed. His entire apology was about how his actions affected him, not the victims. You also cannot be truly repentant without making restitution to your victim/s. Where is the restitution?

No repentance, no restitution? Without those he has no right to ask for forgiveness. These so called Christians don't even understand how a basic tenet like seeking forgiveness works. Their son is a deviant who victimized their daughters, and instead of seeking help for all of them, they decided to sweep it out the door. They aren't role models, they are trash.

[OodOnTheLoo]

1. I wonder if with the police report destroyed they may have to say alleged? Hmmm?

Also, People is angling for the family interviews. Duggars have sympathizers or contracts or something keeping them "buddied up" with People.

2. I suspect InTouch means to the police all those years ago. No way they are sitting on interviews from victims.

[skulduggery]

Yeah this is soft coverage at it's finest. Thanks for scanning it in.

People magazine should have devoted more page space to the story. If you're going to report it, report it right and report it fully. Include the bit about the record being destroyed by a judge with ties to Huckabee. Be sure to make people aware that Josh's "treatment" involved a remodeling project and Christian counseling not certified by the state of Arkansas. Talk about Gothard and Hobby Lobby. Report. it. all.

Yes, isolation contributed to Josh's behavior, and you know what else did? His own mother teaching the kids that women should be sexually available to men at all times. Report that, too.

Yes, Josh apologized. But he kind of had to but then he ended up making a joke about incest on the tv show. Report that, too.

People magazine, you disappoint me with this fluff piece. I'm going to save my money for In Touch Weekly.

[Toothfairy]

I swear this shit is like a soap opera. Duggars dark secrets. I wonder how the family feels seeing covers like this. Usually it's about babies and marriage.

part of me kinda feels bad for Jessa; beyond the whole she was a victim part...

She dates Ben longer, Jill gets married first and gets the bigger spotlight

Gets married, Jill gets pregnant and the spotlight goes away

Jill is due with Israel, has to put off announcing her own pregnancy until after Israel is born

Finally announces and Josh's scandal comes out

Girl can't get the front page of People or a spot on the Today show to save her life

[coffeebean7]

That pic of Jim Bob & Michelle looks like a separate picture of each of them was copied/pasted to form one picture.

[TrisPrior]

I'm wondering how InTouch will handle this. The released cover says his victims tell their story.

I'm wondering how InTouch will handle this. The released cover says his victims tell their story.

I got the In Touch magazine (I know, I know - couldn't help myself!) - I can scan it in tomorrow after work if no one gets to it first.

Their version of the "victims tell their story" is by highlighting parts of the police report. Nothing new from any of them.

There is a page about an interview with the police officer JimBoob spoke too. It says in it that "The interview was conducted and recorded by a representative from a local law firm for In Touch. Hutchens was unaware that he was speaking to In Touch and was promised nothing in return for his cooperation. He was told only that he was being questioned as part of an investigation." I was wondering legally how that is allowed, to interview someone for a magazine, calling it an "investigation" - not a lawyer here, can anyone explain this to me?

In Touch titled the article "Inside the Duggars' Twisted World: House of Horrors

[grannysandy]

Really...are you kidding me ...we cant seem to get these folks out of our lives...I am truly disgusted with People magazine that they would flaunt this on the cover almost glamourizing the incident. Such a bad decision IMO. I have nothing but disgust for JB, michelle and Josh and certainly will not be buying this rag.. I always thought it was wierd that People would give any of them a cover. I am so over this scandal and the Duggars and hope they crawl into a hole not to be seen again. I believe Duggars are really taking a risk putting this on the line hoping it will instill forgiveness by the public which is obviously the angle they are hoping for. This show and these people need to just go away.

[nelliebelle1197]

How about we not scan and post copyrighted material?

[Duggadict]

I think they are probably being very cautious about this kind of stuff because they don't want to end up getting sued.

allegedly because with the records being destroyed there are no public records! Also if you did see the police report if you are speaking in an official way you need to forget that it even existed.

Also all of them in the "confessions" have avoided telling what really happened (words like mistakes, terrible times mean nothing)

[PegBundyOfFundies]

How about we not scan and post copyrighted material?

Real question, are you a mod? Ive come across several of your posts, and more often than not theyve come across as snarky and belittling of other posters here while hiding behind the rules. From your join date and post number, i'm sure youve seen full articles posted and shared here many times: if you were that concerned about them being posted, you would flag the post and contact the mods about a possible TOS violation.

TL;DR We don't need a constable John David here in these FJ streets, so you can stop tone/post policing. Thanks! :cracking-up:

[treemom]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[AlwaysExcited]

I'm totally lost in all threads about Josh, so I don't know if somebody had said this already....

... but I just love JimBob's "we pray that other people see that we are not perfect family."

Freejinger is basically a response to his prayers.

[nelliebelle1197]

Real question, are you a mod? Ive come across several of your posts, and more often than not theyve come across as snarky and belittling of other posters here while hiding behind the rules. From your join date and post number, i'm sure youve seen full articles posted and shared here many times: if you were that concerned about them being posted, you would flag the post and contact the mods about a possible TOS violation.

TL;DR We don't need a constable John David here in these FJ streets, so you can stop tone/post policing. Thanks! :cracking-up:

This is a self-policing site. The helpmeets only step in when it is deemed necessary. Members often point out when something is against rules.If you knew the rules, you'd know that. So you can stop telling what to do and what to post, m'kay?

I do flag posts. This one has already been flagged multiple times.

[Sniffysnarf]

Does anyone know if that's a new picture of Boob and J'Chelle? I can't imagine People came to take their picture in the past week, but maybe they did? Just curious when it was taken.

[Rescinded and Mended]

Thanks for posting, Mandysue. I'm glad to have read the article, I just wish it had been more in-depth. I feel like I've gotten the most correct version of events from posters here on Free Jinger, compared to what has been revealed on any media outlet.

If I had to guess, this is a new picture of Michelle and Jim Bob. She's wearing a very pretty green blouse (with a black undershirt for modesty, of course) that doesn't look like one of the dozens of button-ups she's always seen wearing, and she doesn't look like she's been photoshopped, as in the previous People magazine spread.

I think it's interesting that she's looking away while Jim Bob is almost glaring at the camera.

Edited to complete a thought.

[veron1que]

allegedly because with the records being destroyed there are no public records! Also if you did see the police report if you are speaking in an official way you need to forget that it even existed.

Also all of them in the "confessions" have avoided telling what really happened (words like mistakes, terrible times mean nothing)

Even if the police record still existed, allegedly would still be the proper legal classification. In the US, due to "innocent until proven guilty" criminals have allegedly committed a crime until they are convicted at trial or if they have plead guilty.

[MisUndrstd]

You know because of the sensitivity of the subject and who the victims are could it be that PEOPLE printed a soft piece to help the victims? In all of this the real tragedy is that the victims involved in this have had to relive their pain so publicly. PEOPLE had a relationship with the Duggars including the victims, they had several spreads that involved the girls, most notably was the recent one about how beautiful the girls (and even Michelle) are. Could this be PEOPLE's way of saying: we stand with or for the girls'? I would like to think that is the reason why they took it upon themselves to be so soft relates to the victims. Anything about the Duggar scandal is going to sell a gazillion copies right now, especially a soft piece because they have so many supporters still. So in my opinion the soft piece PEOPLE did was for a purpose and I would like to think it was to help the victims while still lining their own pocketbooks.

[halcionne]

Thanks for posting, Mandysue. I'm glad to have read the article, I just wish it had been more in-depth. I feel like I've gotten the most correct version of events from posters here on Free Jinger, compared to what has been revealed on any media outlet.

If I had to guess, this is a new picture of Michelle and Jim Bob. She's wearing a very pretty green blouse (with a black undershirt for modesty, of course) that doesn't look like one of the dozens of button-ups she's always seen wearing, and she doesn't look like she's been photoshopped, as in the previous People magazine spread.

I think it's interesting that she's looking away while Jim Bob is almost glaring at the camera.

Edited to complete a thought.

That's Michelle's old hair, so it's an old pic.

As far as scans and copyright go, it's my understanding that parody and/or critique are fair game, and we do both here.

[nelliebelle1197]

That's Michelle's old hair, so it's an old pic.

As far as scans and copyright go, it's my understanding that parody and/or critique are fair game, and we do both here.

Fair use is copying short excerpts and should not damage the commercial value of the original. Posting the whole thing here would prevent people from purchasing the magazine, so it is a copyright violation.