Everything Josh Duggar, Child Molester - Part 7

[SassyPants]

[nausicaa]

Are you telling me you haven't been exposed to the delights of Jill Rodrigues? :pink-shock:

Allow me to enlighten you: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25888

And the infamous baby cage: rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=1248

nst, you gotta head over to the Jill Rodrigues thread! The crazy cannot be explained second hand.

[Buzzard]

I believe that this was the statute of limitations in effect in 2003

§ 5-1-109. Statute of limitations

(a) A prosecution for murder may be commenced at any time.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, prosecutions for other offenses must be commenced within the following periods of limitation after their commission:

(1) Class Y and Class A felonies, six (6) years, except rape, § 5-14-103, for which the period of limitation may be extended to fifteen (15) years during which extended time a prosecution for rape may be commenced if based upon forensic deoxyribonucleic acid testing or other tests which may become available through advances in technology;

(2) Class B, C, or D, or unclassified felonies, three (3) years; and

(3) Misdemeanors or violations, one (1) year.

© If the period prescribed in subsection (b) has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for:

(1) Any offense involving either fraud or breach of a fiduciary obligation, within one (1) year after the offense is discovered or should reasonably have been discovered by an aggrieved party or by a person who has a legal duty to represent an aggrieved party and who is himself not a party to the offense; and

(2) Any offense that is concealed involving felonious conduct in office by a public servant at any time within five (5) years after he leaves public office or employment, or within five (5) years after the offense is discovered or should reasonably have been discovered, whichever is sooner, but in no event shall this provision extend the period of limitation by more than ten (10) years after the commission of the offense.

(d) A defendant may be convicted of any offense included in the offense charged, notwithstanding that the period of limitation has expired for the included offense, if as to the offense charged the period of limitation has not expired or there is no such period, and there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense charged.

(e) For the purposes of this section, an offense is committed either when every element occurs or, if a legislative purpose to prohibit a continuing course of conduct plainly appears, at the time the course of conduct or the defendant's complicity therein is terminated. Time starts to run on the day after the offense is committed.

(f) A prosecution is commenced when an arrest warrant or other process is issued based on an indictment, information, or other charging instrument, provided that such warrant or process is sought to be executed without unreasonable delay.

(g) The period of limitation does not run:

(1) During any time when the accused is continually absent from the state or has no reasonably ascertainable place of abode or work within the state, but in no event shall this provision extend the period of limitation otherwise applicable by more than three (3) years; or

(2) During any period when a prosecution against the accused for the same conduct is pending in this state.

(h) If the period prescribed in subsection (b) of this section has expired, a prosecution may nevertheless be commenced for violations of the following offenses if, when the alleged violation occurred, the offense was committed against a minor, the violation has not previously been reported to a law enforcement agency or prosecuting attorney, and the period prescribed in subsection (b) of this section has not expired since the victim has reached the age of eighteen (18):

(1) Battery in the first and second degrees as prohibited in §§ 5-13-201 and 5-13-202;

(2) Aggravated assault as prohibited in § 5-13-204;

(3) Terroristic threatening in the first degree as prohibited in § 5-13-301;

(4) Kidnapping as prohibited in § 5-11-102;

(5) False imprisonment in the first degree as prohibited in § 5-11-103;

(6) Permanent detention or restraint as prohibited in § 5-11-106;

(7) Rape and carnal abuse in the first and second degrees as prohibited in §§ 5-14-103 -- 5-14-105;

(8) Sexual abuse in the first degree as prohibited in § 5-14-108;

(9) Violation of a minor in the first and second degrees as prohibited in §§ 5-14-120 and 5-14-121;

(10) Incest as prohibited in § 5-26-202;

(11) Endangering the welfare of a minor in the first degree as prohibited in § 5-27-203;

(12) Permitting child abuse as prohibited in § 5-27-221(a)(1) and (3);

(13) Engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium, transportation of minors for prohibited sexual conduct, use of a child or consent to use of a child in sexual performance, and producing, directing, or promoting sexual performance by a child, as prohibited in §§ 5-27-303, 5-27-305, 5-27-402, and 5-27-403; and

(14) Criminal attempt, criminal solicitation, or criminal conspiracy as prohibited in §§ 5-3-201, 5-3-202, 5-3-301, and 5-3-401 to commit any of the offenses listed in this subsection.

(i) If there is biological evidence connecting a person with the commission of an offense and that person's identity is unknown, the prosecution is commenced if an indictment or information is filed against the unknown person and the indictment contains the genetic information of the unknown person, which is accepted to be likely to be applicable only to the unknown person.

As you can see, this statute is different than the one that has been previously posted. Sexual Assault in the third degree, the likely charge is NOT included in the list of offenses that toll the statute due to a child's age. That was changed in 2003, effective 2004 by H.B. 1909.

The statute of limitations was three years. There is nothing to toll the statute.

[Buzzard]

And just to get in front of the question:

§ 5-14-120. Violation of a minor in the first degree

(a) A person commits the offense of violation of a minor in the first degree if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person not his spouse, who is more than thirteen (13) years of age and less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the actor is the minor's guardian, an employee in the minor's school or school district, a temporary caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority of the minor.

(b) Violation of a minor in the first degree is a Class C felony.

§ 5-14-121. Violation of a minor in the second degree

(a) A person commits the offense of violation of a minor in the second degree if he engages in sexual contact with another person not his spouse, who is more than thirteen (13) years of age and less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the actor is the minor's guardian, an employee in the minor's school or school district, a temporary caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority of the minor.

(b) Violation of a minor in the second degree is a Class D felony.

Both of these statutes have been repealed.

[TrisPrior]

Thanks for the links so that more people can learn about the insanity that is Jill Rodrigues. And yes, the woman really put her baby in a cage in an RV closet.

What have you done?!? LOL! I just clicked on that and started reading. Already realizing why I hadn't ventured off the Duggar/Bates threads too often - these others are just as nuts (or worse...as I shall find out) - and I don't have the time to read all 5 threads on Jill R, yet I'm sure I will now that I started. I may have read about some of the other families a few years ago but clearly have some catching up to do. I think I may pour myself some wine and dig in later tonight...down the rabbit hole I go! :redwine:

[skulduggery]

It's a forum. I brought up a point interesting to me that was relevant to the general discussion. Posters introduce new topics constantly. I don't see an issue with that.

Yeah, you introduce new topics by starting a new post, not quoting someone else and talking about it as if they said it.

Also, accusing someone of being angry by saying "calm down" is actually pretty condescending. Saying something like 'I don't see how it's a problem to bring up new topics' is also condescending and accuses me of topic policing when that wasn't even the issue I had. You don't like being accused of things? Great - neither do I.

Did I misinterpret the comment you brought over? Yeah, I probably did.

This is something you could have said before trying to make me feel unreasonable for establishing boundaries and making myself absolutely clear about what I did say and didn't say. A simple "oh, I didn't mean to say you said that" would have been fine. I would have said "thank you for clarifying" and it would have been done with.

I'm human and we make mistakes.

Yeah, but don't we all? People have a right to speak up when what they're saying has been misconstrued. As per the rules, we own what we say here, and if that's the case, then I will own it to the point of being absolutely 150% clear.

Hopefully this is the last post I will have to make about this.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

A Quiverfull author has spoken his peace:

rawstory.com/2015/05/quiverfull-author-delivers-melodramatic-defense-of-duggars-against-pagans-and-gullible-christians/

Oh. my. god. :wtf:

From the article:

“Is Bill a sinner? Yes. Did he ever claim to be anything else? No,†Boyer wrote. “The Apostle Paul was a sinner too but he was surely one of the most godly men in the New Testament age. I firmly believe that Bill Gothard is one of the most godly men in this age. Perfect? No. Just about a hundred times closer to God than I am (And I make an effort).â€

I knew Gothardism followers held the female of the species in very low regard but ever since this story broke I feel like I've been hammered over the head with their contempt. Truly women are dirt and molesting them can be shrugged off as easily as the crime of swatting a fly. Bill is the most godly of men....let that sink in. Sexually harassing and touching dozens of young women is nothing.

He was honest enough to admit that these things were inappropriate and resign. But good grief, how does that compare with what most people are guilty of

And again with the moral relativism. I don't know what they think the average person is doing in their spare time but apparently we (non-fundies) must be hell on wheels!

[BravaAmica]

Um, I'm not calling Josh Duggar a sinner. I'm calling him a CRIMINAL. Those are different. FFS, Duggar Apologists, learn the difference between the spiritual and the legal.

(ETA: ^That's a rant directed at any Duggar defenders that may read here, not any of our regular posters.)

[Snarkle Motion]

I'm sorry I pissed you off. I'm a little pissed off too. I have members of your forum jumping down my back for things that have more to do with how this forum is set up then anything. Don't take the criticism personally. People are basically calling me a jerk because I didn't read through 5000 pre-existing posts, I was defending myself because I'm new here and the welcome I've received so far in asking for help has been really rude and condescending. I don't understand why you are acting this way towards me

I'm sorry people have been mean. Everyone has been on edge with the influx of newbies! Its weird for me because I've basically been lurking here daily for the past year and it feels like I know the community and people here. But once I started actually posting it felt super hostile! But I know these people aren't actually like that because I've seen the community before all hell was unleashed with the Josh scandal. Just hoping you'll stick around.

[Handmaiden of Dog]

Also on the topic of JB taking the kids out for free dinners: I remember this discussion coming up on TWOP and it isn't as bad as at sounds. They would go somewhere that had a policy of "Kids under 12 eat free with one paid adult" and so they would divy up the kids between all of the over 12's. It isn't like JB would walk into a restaurant and demand that all 15 kids under 21 got free food. Nobody thinks it is wrong if a mom and dad walk in with 2 kids and expect 2 free meals, the restaurants plan for that. JB just did that on a bigger scale, maybe 8 "adults" and 8 kids or something along those lines.

[singsingsing]

This is getting fucking ridiculous. "Joe accepted Christ at the age of eight. He then went on to rape and murder 12 teenage girls and bury them behind the church that he pastored. But he was exonerated of these crimes because, gosh darn it, aside from those rapes and murders he was such a swell pastor and he really helped a lot of people grow closer to God. And hey! He never claimed he wasn't a sinner!"

[notaduggarlover]

Are you telling me you haven't been exposed to the delights of Jill Rodrigues? :pink-shock:

Allow me to enlighten you: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25888

And the infamous baby cage: rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=1248

Wow.....oh my word. Thanks for this. I needed a new family to learn about. She is just nuts!!!!! :pink-shock:

[VelociRapture]

Yeah, you introduce new topics by starting a new post, not quoting someone else and talking about it as if they said it.

Also, accusing someone of being angry by saying "calm down" is actually pretty condescending. Saying something like 'I don't see how it's a problem to bring up new topics' is also condescending and accuses me of topic policing when that wasn't even the issue I had. You don't like being accused of things? Great - neither do I.

This is something you could have said before trying to make me feel unreasonable for establishing boundaries and making myself absolutely clear about what I did say and didn't say. A simple "oh, I didn't mean to say you said that" would have been fine. I would have said "thank you for clarifying" and it would have been done with.

Yeah, but don't we all? People have a right to speak up when what they're saying has been misconstrued. As per the rules, we own what we say here, and if that's the case, then I will own it to the point of being absolutely 150% clear.

Hopefully this is the last post I will have to make about this.

You know what else would have been helpful? You not immediately jumping to conclusions and assuming people were accusing you of stuff. Had you asked politely I would have been more than happy to explain my mistake and wouldn't have felt attacked.

I told you to calm down due to the way I interpreted your tone in your initial response - not the most mature response, but I was getting frustrated (not just with this discussion, but in general). Your tone came across as rather hostile and uncalled for - and to be honest it left me confused because I didn't understand why you were talking that way. I do now and I apologize for that (I'm sure that you didn't intend to come across that way).

For the record, I quoted your post because it contained the post I was responding to - I didn't want my comment to just float along without a reference point because things move so fast here. As I said, I accused you of nothing and I'm sorry you felt like I did.

Please note that I was defending myself as much as you were. It appears there was a miscommunication between us. Shall we return to the topic at hand?

[Marissap]

Thanks for the links so that more people can learn about the insanity that is Jill Rodrigues. And yes, the woman really put her baby in a cage in an RV closet.

I was sure (hoping anyways)this was some sort of parody site when I first saw it. Ick. Poor children. Especially the babes that have to live in a cage :(

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Also on the topic of JB taking the kids out for free dinners: I remember this discussion coming up on TWOP and it isn't as bad as at sounds. They would go somewhere that had a policy of "Kids under 12 eat free with one paid adult" and so they would divy up the kids between all of the over 12's. It isn't like JB would walk into a restaurant and demand that all 15 kids under 21 got free food. Nobody thinks it is wrong if a mom and dad walk in with 2 kids and expect 2 free meals, the restaurants plan for that. JB just did that on a bigger scale, maybe 8 "adults" and 8 kids or something along those lines.

Not true tho. I lived in NWA back before Jim Bob was famous and I knew people who witnessed him doing this. Sure if they had a kids limit or a "with two adults" limit then that wss known.

But if I recall AQ chicken had to spell that crap out because of abuse and thisnwas a Duggar hotspot.

Also even suggesting 12 year oldnsiblings qualify as "with paying adult" is morally corrupt.

Quiverfull.com/articles.php/id20/

2001 article above:

"When the Duggars dine out as a family--and they can tell you exactly which restaurants have children's specials on which nights of the week in the Springdale area--heads turn when they walk in. Waiters literally stop and stare. "

[skulduggery]

And the infamous baby cage: rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=1248

Okay this is horrible.

I dream one day of living in an RV. I won't have small children with me, though. Maybe my grown girls, and that would depend on if we had enough room.

But this... this is just :wtf:

The baby cage. It is literally a cage, with bars, and the bars aren't just playpen bars, they cover the TOP of the cage not just the sides.

[servants-heart]

:wtf: Did I just read?

:pink-shock:

[happy atheist]

agreed I made a mistake, which I admitted to. So why is a mod still following around everything I post just so they can post a nasty response? I made a mistake but must I be vilified by a mod of all people??? Why is HappyAtheist still sh*tting on me, the rule that I broke happened HOURS ago. I get it. Does not explain the behaviour of the mod now though, it's just petty and personal now. I will move on when the MOD stops responding nasty things to everything I post

!	{TEXT1}:
	I'm not a mod. I'm an admin. That's why my name is red. I'm not following you around. I'm doing my job, reading the threads and enforcing the rules.

[happy atheist]

Admittedly off topic.

I wouldn't want to be a mod on this board right now. No way, no how. AFAIK, they don't receive any remuneration, either. (?) But for sure, it's a no-win job right now.

!	{TEXT1}:
	No money. Just the shining appreciation of users like armedandlazy.

[skulduggery]

From the article:

I knew Gothardism followers held the female of the species in very low regard but ever since this story broke I feel like I've been hammered over the head with their contempt. Truly women are dirt and molesting them can be shrugged off as easily as the crime of swatting a fly. Bill is the most godly of men....let that sink in. Sexually harassing and touching dozens of young women is nothing.

And again with the moral relativism. I don't know what they think the average person is doing in their spare time but apparently we (non-fundies) must be hell on wheels!

I am honest to god flabbergasted by the page. I was going to do a lengthly analysis but it's mind bending to even have to point out why it's so wrong. People still think like this? They really do? What year is this again??

[TheSassyOne]

From the article:

I knew Gothardism followers held the female of the species in very low regard but ever since this story broke I feel like I've been hammered over the head with their contempt. Truly women are dirt and molesting them can be shrugged off as easily as the crime of swatting a fly. Bill is the most godly of men....let that sink in. Sexually harassing and touching dozens of young women is nothing.

And again with the moral relativism. I don't know what they think the average person is doing in their spare time but apparently we (non-fundies) must be hell on wheels!

~chuckles~ I kept checking the banner of the Raw Story waiting for it to change to The Onion w/ a gotcha sign. Also, "Abuse’ is the new ‘racism". Really? I thought racism was already abusive, so what's new about it? After reading fundie responses to Josh's molestation of his sisters and his parents' and other adults pitiful responses, I don't think I can get shocked any more by these "godly" people. :pray:

[VelociRapture]

No. I have opinions about People beyond this story, and my post was unclear. I'm suggesting that People tends to report only what they can verify, which is fine. I'm suggesting that People prefers to stay on their sources' good sides so they will cooperate with future articles. With the Josh story reported they way they apparently did it (I haven't read it), they have left a door open for future good relations with TLC and the Duggars in case, for instance, the show continues or there's a spinoff.

I completely agree. People isn't stupid - they know there's some chance that TLC will continue to have some sort of relationship with the Duggars. Not publishing all the details means they keep the door open.

If TLC announces the show is ending it'll be interesting to see what People does. Will they stay the course or will they start publishing more details?

[mebeforee]

I'm not sure I believe story number 4. It rings false to me. Boys Don't Cry isn't a movie Jim Bob Duggar would watch. The whole story just seems wrong.

This was my thought, exactly. I can not imagine any scenario in which JimBob would watch Boys Don't Cry. The subject matter would already be abhorrent to him, but he also wouldn't view a movie so well-known for its graphic rape scene. Honestly, in spite of JimBob claiming that certain 'perversions' should result in execution, I think he would lose his lunch faced with any real violence. I can't imagine him watching anything with realistic depictions of violence or rape.

Related to some other posts about the InTouch issue coming out, I really doubt the claims it has the victims' stories is anything more than reprints of the redacted police report. I can't see any of the victims reaching out to any magazine at this point, but the Duggars seem to also have exclusive press with People magazine, so if anyone were to hear the daughters' side of the story it would be through People, not InTouch. The Duggars probably vehemently hate InTouch right now, the magazine almost single-handedly destroyed their empire (obviously the true fault lies with the Duggars themselves, but I doubt they see it that way). I just don't buy that they would cooperate with them on any level.

[FlamingFundie]

Jeebus on a cracker. Between Baby Dizzy and DuggarGate, if anything else comes out now poor FJ will implode. :shock:

"Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya..."

And kudos to the helpmeets, mods, admins, basically anyone with any goddamn sense about them lol. Thank you!!!

Back to our regularly scheduled programming.

I commend those of you who have composed and/or sent letters to sponsors and advertisers. I really agree they are the ones we need to target. I wonder what will come on Monday: more details, more advertisers pulling out, perhaps a long-awaited announcement from TLC regarding the fate of the show? Im actually quite surprised we heard almost nothing today.

[VelociRapture]