The Duggars' Megyn Kelly Lie-a-Thon Shit Show- Part 2

[mamallama]

regarding the Josh confessing/sister telling: When I first read the police report the picture I got was Josh reading to his sister, him touching her and her running crying to her parents. I think the county report accidentally leaves in the pronoun "he" ran to tell his parents. In looking back at the Springdale report I can see that there is nothing concrete there to suggest otherwise.

When I realized this it just made me hate JB an M more. I agree that this sounds like an impulsive and compulsive disorder and Josh was perhaps more distressed than his victims because he had an appreciation of just what it meant. I think part of the disconnect is that Boob and Co. regard this and treat it as a sin/discipline problem. The reports I read sound very much like a psychiatric problem which was never treated.

[gustava]

On page 15 of the report that reads to me that a girl ran out of the room and told them what Josh had done.

Maybe I am reading it wrong with all the redactions.

As the kids statements are also so redacted and scripted I was never sure if the book reading incident was in fact him telling first or someone yelling for mom and dad and them him confessing.

Either way.tho he was crying out for help and they did nothing.

I also read the redacted report and it seems to me to say one of the girls told JB.

[gustava]

Spot on! They were coached and here's the proof:

"Public records spin. Public records obtained by In Touch of a plane used by the Duggars show that it flew to the location of their crisis public relations specialist prior to giving these interviews in an attempt to save their TLC show. A source confirms to In Touch that the Duggars met with their own PR team to create a strategy for the interviews. All of the Duggars attacked the situation with demonstrably false statements against people and entities involved in the case, including Jim Bob’s strong suggestion that the Springdale police chief took a bribe to release the police report. These false statements were left unchallenged by Fox’s Kelly."

From: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/11-t ... view-60110

InTouch may have gotten the original info from FJ, as we have a thread on the whereabouts of the Duggar plane.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

regarding the Josh confessing/sister telling: When I first read the police report the picture I got was Josh reading to his sister, him touching her and her running crying to her parents. I think the county report accidentally leaves in the pronoun "he" ran to tell his parents. In looking back at the Springdale report I can see that there is nothing concrete there to suggest otherwise.

When I realized this it just made me hate JB an M more. I agree that this sounds like an impulsive and compulsive disorder and Josh was perhaps more distressed than his victims because he had an appreciation of just what it meant. I think part of the disconnect is that Boob and Co. regard this and treat it as a sin/discipline problem. The reports I read sound very much like a psychiatric problem which was never treated.

y

I agree here. I think Josh had an impulse control disorder and realized he was unable to control himself and nothing he djd for over a year seemed to wake up his parents to this fact.

It is sad when parents fail to realize a child is crying out for help.

It makes them even worse parents because josh did so many times and they had an opportunity to help him in the beginning. And with ICD it becomes harder to treat the longer it goes on.

[chelleinchicago]

Josh was the one who came to his parents crying and confessed.

According to the parents.

I don't believe them.

When Josh touched the girls, I can't believe it came out of nowhere. Like he was tuning a guitar, set it down and touched his sister. There was whatever he was doing immediately before it happened that lead up to it, and then possibly what happened after he made contact. Did they say he ran right to them when it happened or just that he confessed? It doesn't make any sense that a girl old enough to help in the laundry room wouldn't have said a word when her older brother reached under her skirt for a feel. She would have known it was wrong but I guess fear might have kept her from speaking out. Still, I just don't believe he touched and ran immediately to his parents. *

There are lots of lies by omission in that report among all the scripted, coordinated accounts that were given.Just like everyone had the same favorite (home)school subject and favorite game to play, they all either didn't know what happened or were sleeping so the parents were never contradicted in saying that Josh had confessed every time. So neat and tidy. Nothing to worry about here, folks.

*(ETA) Not every time, anyway.

[makauflin]

I just watched the interview today. So glad I didn't watch it Friday night, or my anniversary weekend away with the hubster would have been ruined.

Did anyone else notice how Megyn Kelly was slowly shifting her "the release was ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL I SAY!" party line to "if the release was legal, the law should be changed." at the end of the show? Geez, don't these people do their research? Not commenting on whether the law should be changed or not, just on what Fox is doing every time they're caught in making statements that are proven wrong.

But while we're talking about laws... change the freaking statute of limitations, already! Geez!

And I haven't seen it brought up yet, but re: sending Josh out of the house... why couldn't Josh have been sent to a relative's house (people with no kids at home, like his grandparents) right after JB/Michelle found out about it? I understand the dilemma of not wanting to report it to the police right away because you're shocked (though 16 months is way excessive)... but for goodness sake, do SOMETHING to get him out and away from his victims while you're setting up counseling for Josh and the girls. Double geez!

Anyway, those are my two cents. Bonkers situation, all around.

[Lazuli]

In Touch magazine is reporting today that FOX also applied to get copies of the police report under the FOIA, right after the story broke. Megyn Kelly didn't mention that during the interview. :lol:

I wonder how Kelly can look at herself in the mirror. She did a great disservice to survivors everywhere by allowing the Duggars to spin the story and minimize the abuse. I know the girls are brainwashed to a certain extent, but Kelly isn't. She should have asked tougher questions, and taken on a more socially conscious role. I really hate the conservative bias in FOX reporting, if you can call it journalism at all.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

In the Washington county report it does say Josh is the one who ran from the room and told on himself after the book reading incident.

If correct that clears up the redaction ambiguities on page 15 of the Springdale Report.

Interestingly the laundry room girl has no memory?

[ApologistsBeDamned]

In Touch magazine is reporting today that FOX also applied to get copies of the police report under the FOIA, right after the story broke. Megyn Kelly didn't mention that during the interview. :lol:

Playing devil's advocate here but it is possible they were trying to prove the in touch report wasn't obtained by a legit foia if their request was denied.

[singsingsing]

According to the parents.

I don't believe them.

Yeah, that's the point. You don't have to believe the parents, but what Jim Bob said in the police report in 2006 does seem to be consistent with what they're saying now in 2015, with regards to who told, and when. Whether or not he was lying in 2006 is another story (and one I'm not speculating on here).

[Lazuli]

Playing devil's advocate here but it is possible they were trying to prove the in touch report wasn't obtained by a legit foia if their request was denied.

Perhaps, if they really didn't understand that it was a legal transaction. FOX isn't known for its fact checking.

Did Kelly bring it up during the Interview? Because I would think she would have if that was the motive. I didn't watch the interview, but have read accounts of it. I don't remember that being mentioned.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I just watched the interview today. So glad I didn't watch it Friday night, or my anniversary weekend away with the hubster would have been ruined.

Did anyone else notice how Megyn Kelly was slowly shifting her "the release was ILLEGAL... ILLEGAL I SAY!" party line to "if the release was legal, the law should be changed." at the end of the show? Geez, don't these people do their research? Not commenting on whether the law should be changed or not, just on what Fox is doing every time they're caught in making statements that are proven wrong.

But while we're talking about laws... change the freaking statute of limitations, already! Geez!

And I haven't seen it brought up yet, but re: sending Josh out of the house... why couldn't Josh have been sent to a relative's house (people with no kids at home, like his grandparents) right after JB/Michelle found out about it? I understand the dilemma of not wanting to report it to the police right away because you're shocked (though 16 months is way excessive)... but for goodness sake, do SOMETHING to get him out and away from his victims while you're setting up counseling for Josh and the girls. Double geez!

Anyway, those are my two cents. Bonkers situation, all around.

From the beginning Megyn and Kimberly guilfoyl.were the only two saying on Fox news that this was an illegal release. NapolitAno, Ferrer, geraldo and numerous other contributers said it wasnt.

Megyn then tried to sell it hard with that one california lawyer against the bald lawyer. But eventually she had to concede.

I am one of those who would not have turned my son in. But I would have got him out of the house and in to treatment and if possible living with a relative.

But in their case they don't know anyone who doesn't have a thousand kids themself or who is isn't a heathen. Also it would require them to admit they needed help from someone else.

So who knows.

[Pandie5]

I have always wondered what say they actually have over what is blurred. They probably think Josie should have been blurred with her seizure but Tlc didn't agree and tv standards don't require.

Personally if I had kids I couldn't worry too much what others might do with pics of my kid but I also wouldn't put any pics online simply because I am a huge advocate of keeping a low online profile.. I also see no problem with kids being naked or girls being topless.

I know there are sickos out there but no one should have to live their life according to them. That is why Michelle and her no big boys laps or babysitting and no hide and go seek makes me livid.

And I grew up with a mother who was hyper vigilant because she had been sexually abused as a child. And even she, while religious didn't keep us from playing games, going topless as a child etc...

Regardless of their standards, why are they putting the firls on tv period! If they want to keep them pure and preventing them from this defrauding bs. I have always thought it amazing that the Duggar girls are all above average in the looks department. Surprising considering how ho-hum and boring ALL the boys are. I would have NEVER given any Duggar boy a second look in high school. But I would have been jealous of the girls. Lol. They put makeup on the girls at a certain age to focus on their face rather than body. But still! You could tell JB didn't even want to look at Meghyn in that interview, yet he puts his daughters out there for the world to see? Sickos don't need graphic porn. Hell, their eyes and hair showing + their purity, could make them targets for some potential Saudi sheik abduction. They have to have stalkers whether they know it or not. Made worst by all the courting and weddings? How many weirdos out there think they are the next betrothed. Shutter. I was just reminded of Elizabeth Smart.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Perhaps, if they really didn't understand that it was a legal transaction. FOX isn't known for its fact checking.

Did Kelly bring it up during the Interview? Because I would think she would have if that was the motive. I didn't watch the interview, but have read accounts of it. I don't remember that being mentioned.

I watch a lot of Fox News. I knkw I know but I am an atheist libertarian so I think it balances out.

I digress.... I haven't heard anyine mention they attempted tonget the report. But since Megyn js watching the in touch responses and responding accordingly I suspect she will address this soon.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Regardless of their standards, why are they putting the firls on tv period! If they want to keep them pure and preventing them from this defrauding bs. I have always thought it amazing that the Duggar girls are all above average in the looks department. Surprising considering how ho-hum and boring ALL the boys are. I would have NEVER given any Duggar boy a second look in high school. But I would have been jealous of the girls. Lol. They put makeup on the girls at a certain age to focus on their face rather than body. But still! You could tell JB didn't even want to look at Meghyn in that interview, yet he puts his daughters out there for the world to see? Sickos don't need graphic porn. Hell, their eyes and hair showing + their purity, could make them targets for some potential Saudi sheik abduction. They have to have stalkers whether they know it or not. Made worst by all the courting and weddings? How many weirdos out there think they are the next betrothed. Shutter. I was just reminded of Elizabeth Smart.

They know there are stalkers. Jim Bob has said he has gotten many emails asking for courtships. And let's be hinest Ben was a Jessa stalker who happened to be so good at it he was accepted into the fold.

They have those kids on tV because they are pimping them out for Jesus. That is why over time they have allowed makeup and more normal clothing. All so.they are more attractive and can sell jesus to the masses.

[chelleinchicago]

Yeah, that's the point. You don't have to believe the parents, but what Jim Bob said in the police report in 2006 does seem to be consistent with what they're saying now in 2015, with regards to who told, and when. Whether or not he was lying in 2006 is another story (and one I'm not speculating on here).

I won't speculate further, but I feel it's important to point out that we're all basing what happened on what these two parents have claimed both then and now. Specifically in regard to what happened when and who said what. They've established their priority is protecting Josh. I don't know, it's just all so convenient and in many ways, hard to believe. We'll likely never know the truth, but what we do know is pretty bad.

[Dutchdutch]

The touching of the 5 year old is an upgrade to pure predatory behaviour.

A redditor had a very insightfull reply a few weeks ago:

Triggerwarning!

"I worked with sex offenders for a while. Many were your stereotypical middle-aged dudes who rape strangers or run child porn rings. But many did not fit this description. Among those who did not fit those description were older teens and young adults who were responsible for abuse VERY much like what Josh Duggar admitted to.

Because of my job, I wound up interacting with some parents who were in similar boats as the Duggar parents were/are. Do I think they were irresponsible and partly to blame for the situation? Yeah, I do. Their religious practices are pretty much a breeding ground for stuff like this. When I say "religious practices" I mean following another accused child molester (Bill Gothard) who teaches rape apology and slut shames girls in his material. Not mainstream Christians as a whole. Molestation happens in families of all religious sects, and of none at all. It's just more prevalent in sects that emphasize screwed up relationships with sexuality.

That being said, most parents think they know what they would do until this happens to their kids. When it actually happens though, they lose their sense. And there isn't a lot of information for what to do with this happens in your family. I've heard of parents who refused to call the cops for any reason (no matter how bad the abuse), and i've heard of parents who have immediately called the cops and had their child locked up and thrown away as soon as humanly possible (no matter how young the responsible child was).

When one minor sibling sexually abuses another minor sibling, parents are basically left to choose from solutions that range from God-awful to completely heartbreaking. As thoughtless and irresponsible as the Duggar parents have been, they may not have known what in the hell to do. Even parents who clearly had their shit together otherwise make very stupid choices when things like this happen in their families.

The only thing I can say with certainty is that the responsible child and the victim child need to be separated, immediately, until the victim can express (UNPROMPTED) that they feel comfortable being around the abusive child again. That may take a very long time (if ever)

The separation doesn't have to be punitive in nature. It's for the protection and security of the victim, as well as cutting off opportunity for the responsible child to commit the act again. It also gives the parent some space and time to make decisions without worrying about the abuse happening a second time. There is no need for the parent to be cruel or hateful to the child responsible. It can be as simple as sending Billy or Susie to an (informed and supportive) Grandparent's house to stay.

Both the child who was victimized and the child who were abusive need to seek PROFESSIONAL counseling and both need to be examined by a doctor (the victim for obvious reasons, and the child responsible for the assault as well because there is a good chance it's happened to them.)

As for involving the police, I've seen how institutionalizing a child in Juvie or group homes from the outset can create future offenses. Those places have reputations from turning troubled, confused or violent children into lifetime criminals. They often do not help matters. On the other hand, an older teenager who has already offended multiple times may be down that path anyway.

The choice to have a child arrested is one that parents should make after immediately separating the victim from the abuser, and with the help of a professional psychologist. A doctor (not a pastor or "mentor") can give a parent a lot of insight and help before making that call. Parents who are distressed and trying to comfort a victimized child usually need help making that sort of call. Without that help, they may overreact and disown a child that could truly could have changed their behavior with therapy. Or under react, and basically ignore the abuse and trauma of another child.

The Duggars really didn't do either of those things, based upon the police reports. They sent Josh to hang out with another sexual deviant, and sought psychological "help" from clergy rather than doctors."

Somewhat further in the thread :

"I can't tell if you are asking me, or twilightsun. But the answer is "sort of common". There are nuances to sibling experimentation.

As children grow (before they reach puberty) they become (naturally) curious about their bodies; how they function, what they look like, what other people's bodies look like in comparison to their own. Sometimes pre-pubescent children will even discover sexual excitement (totally by accident) and masturbate without any sort of prompting or sexual trauma.

For instance: A friend of mine called me panicked one day, because her toddler was rubbing her crotch and grunting in the car (basically early attempts at masturbation.) After some questioning and observation, it became apparent that the strap of her car seat buckle was vibrating against the toddler during drives, and she liked it and began trying to re-create the feeling. No abuse or sexual dysfunction appeared to have taken place, just a kid who discovered her body early and needed a conversation about keeping her hands to herself when outside of her bedroom. This is totally normal, and completely okay. You may need to have a talk with a curious kid about privacy, but it's not necessarily indicative of victimization or future abuse.

Another scenario I have encountered a million times is the "doctor" scenario. Not every kid engages in it, and most children don't past the age of like 7 or 8 (unless the kid is very socially immature.) Again, there is nothing to worry about provided both children are willing participants. All a parent needs to do is have a conversation about privacy, personal space and keeping you hands to yourself. That also should be a clue to parents that they should explain anatomy to their kids as an open, age-appropriate way to inform them rather than squelch their curiosity or shame them.

Something less common, but still not always a "red flag" for abuse is teenaged or pre-teen siblings experimenting (with consent) on one another sexually. This warrants therapy for sure, because it can signal other areas of emotional immaturity. But it doesn't mean that the two of them are going to wind up predators or victims.

So those are the three most common scenarios I have seen that aren't (usually) abuse-related.

Interaction that says "abuse" to me professionally looks a lot different than the scenarios described above. In order for me to consider sibling-on-sibling sexual interaction "abuse", one or more of a few things have to be happening:

-An extreme age difference between the two children (ex: a teenager fondling 8 year old. An 8 year old folding a baby.) This is abuse regardless of if the younger child "consents".

-An extreme imbalance of maturity. (ex: two 10 year olds, but one is profoundly cognitively disabled.) Again, consent is irrelevant because imbalances of power/maturity make consent too difficult to establish.

-The methodology matters. (Ex: A 6 year old who pokes her 4 year old brother's penis in the bathtub because it looks funny is not predatory. Inappropriate, and needs redirected. But not predatory. If that same six year old penetrated her brother's rectum in the bathtub with an object? That could be predatory in nature, and possibly a learned behavior. A teenager groping his teen sisters breasts while she sleeps? Predatory. The same teenager "snapping" his sister's bra may just be inappropriate and immature, he needs correction.)

-The behavior displayed before, during and after the sexual incidents matter too. Sneaking into your siblings room while they sleep or are otherwise incapacitated to experiment on their bodies is predatory, and concerning. Repeated incidents after correcting an inappropriate behavior is a red flag. Blaming the recipient/victim after being called out is a red flag. Other behavioral issues simultaneously occurring are a red flag (grades dropping, drug use, crappy mood, nightmares, incontinence, etc).

-Any time a child forces another child into a sexual act (pins them down, coerces them verbally, threatens them with secrets) is concerning. No matter what the age of the kids are.

So to answer your question, yes. It's fairly common for minors to experiment with one another. Most of the time, it's completely innocent and just requires that the parents/guardians explain things like privacy, anatomy, personal space and appropriateness.

There are other times though, where it is less innocent (maybe indicative of some sort of mental health issue, or developmental issue). Or where it's even deliberately predatory.

That's why it is so important that parents seek the advice and help of a psychologist when something like the Josh Duggar thing happens. There are a bunch of factors at hand for sibling-on-sibling sexual behavior. A doctor who is removed from the situation, and who has been trained to interview kids about stuff like this, can tell you more about what is developmentally appropriate, and what isn't.

EDIT I have people messaging me asking me about their kids. It needs to be clear that this is NOT an abuse "checklist". If you have concerns about sexual behavior between your children, you need to call a doctor who can observe your kids and talk to them personally. I can't diagnose your kids as sexually maladaptive or deviant over the internet, and anyone who claims they can are nutcases.

The only people who can do that are trained professionals who have developed a relationship with your kids and can see the whole picture. If you can't afford mental health care for your kids and you are worried, seriously, call your doctor or even child protective services and ask what's available for low-income families in crisis. This may start a case with CPS, and that can get messy and upsetting. But it's better than doing nothing at all. CPS doesn't just exist to "take your kids away". They can also provide counseling and evaluations for kids with emotional, behavioral or mental health problems."

reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/36wrme/news_of_the_duggar_family_makes_me_wonder_what_i/

[singsingsing]

I can easily believe that Josh was the one to confess, but I can also just as easily believe that there is a lot more to the story than what they chose to share with the police or anyone else.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I don't believe the touching of the five year old leads directly to him escalating to being a predator. Especially if it happened the way the reports say.

IF AND THIS IS A HUGE SPECULATIVE IF.

IF Josh was crying out for help, realizing he was having some sort of feelings that in his mind were sinful or wrong, AND no matter what he confessed to his parents refused to help and he still had these feelings or thoughts, he may have purposely and for no other reason decided to in public view touch his last remaining sibling and then immediately run and tell on himself.

Because he thought in his mind that this finally would get the results he wanted.

And it did. It is sad it took this act tho. He has horrible parents.

It is possible the laundrynroom incident was his hope this sibling when awake would tell and this would make his parents stop him. But apparently she didn't tell or didn't understand what he was doing.

We just don't know but I won't automatically say a five year means predatory paedophile.

[halcionne]

Spot on! They were coached and here's the proof:

"Public records spin. Public records obtained by In Touch of a plane used by the Duggars show that it flew to the location of their crisis public relations specialist prior to giving these interviews in an attempt to save their TLC show. A source confirms to In Touch that the Duggars met with their own PR team to create a strategy for the interviews. All of the Duggars attacked the situation with demonstrably false statements against people and entities involved in the case, including Jim Bob’s strong suggestion that the Springdale police chief took a bribe to release the police report. These false statements were left unchallenged by Fox’s Kelly."

From: http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/11-t ... view-60110

There are many excellent points in this article; it's worth a read.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

There are many excellent points in this article; it's worth a read.

It amazes me that JB and Michelle had the nerve to lie by ommision and imply they sought licensed therapynfor everyone soon after this all happened when the Dec 2006 police interviews clearly claim that no one had any such therapy yet.

The hubris!

[Dutchdutch]

I don't believe the touching of the five year old leads directly to him escalating to being a predator. Especially if it happened the way the reports say.

IF AND THIS IS A HUGE SPECULATIVE IF.

IF Josh was crying out for help, realizing he was having some sort of feelings that in his mind were sinful or wrong, AND no matter what he confessed to his parents refused to help and he still had these feelings or thoughts, he may have purposely and for no other reason decided to in public view touch his last remaining sibling and then immediately run and tell on himself.

Because he thought in his mind that this finally would get the results he wanted.

And it did. It is sad it took this act tho. He has horrible parents.

It is possible the laundrynroom incident was his hope this sibling when awake would tell and this would make his parents stop him. But apparently she didn't tell or didn't understand what he was doing.

We just don't know but I won't automatically say a five year means predatory paedophile.

It doesnt matter what the thoughtprocess and motives were or if it was an underlying subconsious cry for help. It makes it understandable in a cerebral way, that doesnt mean that it cant be categorized as predatory.

The word paedophile wasnt used by me. I dont know when someone falls under that category.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

The incident outside the house.

This has yet to be addressed by any of them.....

[ApologistsBeDamned]

It doesnt matter what the thoughtprocess and motives were or if it was an underlying subconsious cry for help. It makes it understandable in a cerebral way, that doesnt mean that it cant be categorized as predatory.

The word paedophile wasnt used by me. I dont know when someone falls under that category.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were calling him a paedophile. I was just speaking generally.

You are correct he could have impulsively escalated to predatory. He could have consciously done so as well.

I badly was trying to say so many on the interwebs (not necessarily this thread) keep commenting he is classic predatory paedophile blah blah blah and I just think there could be legit other psychological problems here not related to this.

But then I don't really know since I haven't gotten into his thought process and can only base on limited reports and pure speculation.

[Dutchdutch]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were calling him a paedophile. I was just speaking generally.

You are correct he could have impulsively escalated to predatory. He could have consciously done so as well.

I badly was trying to say so many on the interwebs (not necessarily this thread) keep commenting he is classic predatory paedophile blah blah blah and I just think there could be legit other psychological problems here not related to this.

But then I don't really know since I haven't gotten into his thought process and can only base on limited reports and pure speculation.

I really dont know if you can call someone of that age a paedophile. His sexual preferences might not even be fully cristalized. It seems that from watching porn to touching a five year old were others where present is a very bold move, so I can follow your reasoning.

We just dont know, and probably the family and even him might not know, if it isnt adresssed in a proper manner and in that way his parents failed him, his victims and themselves enormously and in an very disfunctional way.