Duggar Fox News Interviews - Mild, Inappropriate Lying

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Anybody have any connection between Gothard and Youth with a Mission YWAM?

I know a few garthardite whose children are involved with this organization but I can't find anything about it on FJ.

Also YWAM had a campus out west of Springdale back in the 2000's not sure if they still do.

[ShadowyOne]

Actually under Arkansas law they are Public Records.

Act 93 of 1967

25-19-103. Definitions

(1) “Public records†means writings, recorded sounds, films, tapes, or data compilations in any form, required by law to be kept or otherwise kept, and which constitute a record of the performance or lack of performance of official functions which are or should be carried out by a public official or employee, a governmental agency, or any other agency wholly or partially supported by public funds or expending public funds. All records maintained in public offices or by public employees within the scope of their employment shall be presumed to be public records.<<<<<

The police summary clearly states DVDs anx transcripts are available for the various interviews. So it is possible they were obtained. Certainly under AR Fioa the police should have considered sending them and explained why.they did not provide them. That would be recorded to In Touch at least.

I had noticed that DVDs could be considered part of the record, and thus could possibly be obtained through FOIA request BUT (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) how could a video possibly be redacted to conceal a victim's identity? I don't see any way that they could have video of the victims' testimony. Maybe of JB&M's, if they don't mention/edit out specific names.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I had noticed that DVDs could be considered part of the record, and thus could possibly be obtained through FOIA request BUT (someone please correct me if I'm wrong!) how could a video possibly be redacted to conceal a victim's identity? I don't see any way that they could have video of the victims' testimony. Maybe of JB&M's, if they don't mention/edit out specific names.

They would probably respond with prices and an extended response timeframe to release the DVD hoping you would just request the transcript which would then be redacted.

I.imagine the DVD would involve pixilation of the faces and then dubbing audio to cover names etc.... i

[justbecause]

Police interviews, yes.

DHS or CPS or therapists interviews No.

This is why even victims should never ever talk to the police without a lawyer. Becuase a lawyer will protect you from not only saying things that can be used against you but from also saying things that aren't really the police business.

Just because there is a crime and the police are investigating DOES NOT mean you have to testify to police. Lawyers and court appointed therapists etc are the ones you should discuss this with. NOT POLICE.

I DOUBT police even asked for specifics in these cases because they are taught to quickly involve an advocate.from the family court for things like this. And those discussions are always private.

Can someone please explain then why the Duggars said it was illegally released until it was maintained that Josh was over 18?

How does the fact that Josh being over 18 play into this?

[justbecause]

Agree, that he may stay within fundamentalism because his fellow fundies will cut him some slack as opposed to the rest of the world. He can easily say to himself, at least, that he was forgiven and that is all that matters, or something like that.

I can completely see him being hired by Gothard, who certainly knows a thing or two on how to survive in spite of scandal. Or he will work for JB, remaining in NWA because he will always have supporters there.

I don't know about the being hired by Gothard. Two scenarios keep going back in forth in my mind.

I think it could really back fire on Gothard if he did because I think there will always be people who are keeping an eye on Josh and what he does. Especially given that he is the golden child. I think it could be so negative because it would put Gothard under a microscope and prove a connection in beliefs.

In the other respect I think it would bring more attention to Gothard in the fundie world and in respect to homeschooling.

With the Presidential election in 2016, it would be interesting, that's for sure. Especially since Huckabee has hung his hat in that camp.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Can someone please explain then why the Duggars said it was illegally released until it was maintained that Josh was over 18?

How does the fact that Josh being over 18 play into this?

Juvenile records even interviews are usually sealed and not available for records requests.

Josh was 18 when the Dec 2006 police investigation and interviews happened. Therefore as the offender was a legal adult the records were never automatically sealed.

So under Arkansas FIOA laws they were open for the public.

There was no crime in releasing these records. They were not exempt under Arkansas Law.

[Tiny Bubbles]

Is ATI recruiting FJers now?

:popcorn2:

[Ali]

Anybody have any connection between Gothard and Youth with a Mission YWAM?

I know a few garthardite whose children are involved with this organization but I can't find anything about it on FJ.

Also YWAM had a campus out west of Springdale back in the 2000's not sure if they still do.

I really doubt there is a connection between Gothard and YWAM. It seems to draw people from all parts of Christianity and the world.

I have never been involved with YWAM, but I have a few family members that are on staff with YWAM. YWAM seems to have very little rules and oversight.

I think each YWAM base makes up there own rules and they did not seem too strict from what I have heard. For instance, I think the rule about alcohol where my family members were located was you can drink if you are of legal age in the country you are from and no drunkenness.

[formergothardite]

Yes. BG will never give up until he is in the grave.

As for the recent posts on FJ believing the ATI PR... makes me wonder if there is an intentional web presence, including FJ... Or maybe some people just have zero DISCERNMENT. (word use intentional :roll: )

Gothard is probably trying to figure out a way to keep control even after death.

I wonder if some people just don't realize how messed up all of ATI is so that is why they trust the BoD when they say that BG stepped down.

[LittleOleMe]

I said somewhere else here that, though I homeschool one of my two children, I avoid those homeschooling groups like the plague. I don't homeschool because the schools are secular (in fact it's the reason my daughter still attends) so I don't need to be around those people if I can help it. Plus my son has a mouth on him like his momma. We'd be asked to leave, or they'd try to save us...

See, the problem is that it's almost impossible. There are no secular homeschool groups where I live. Someone finally started a secular group about two years ago but it doesn't meet very often. It's more of a support group, which is fine, but it isn't a co-op. I have searched for a co-op and a secular one does not exist. I finally joined a religiously based one only bc I know several members who are not christian and have assured me that it's okay, as long as I avoid the science classes. (Which is a problem in and of itself. I want my children to love science as much as I do, but I can't put them in an astronomy class that teaches kids that the sun - our sun - is the biggest thing god created and that the asteroid belt was formed from an exploding planet.) We just joined so I won't get to really test it out until the fall, but as long as we avoid science and take classes from people I know aren't jesus freaks, I think - I hope - we'll be okay.

That's what really pisses me off about their bullshit "We're being oppressed!" argument. When I - a non christian - cannot find a homeschool group that is not religious based (and most of them require a signed testament of faith to even be allowed to join), cannot find a secular homeschool co-op, cannot tell people I homeschool without the assumption that I'm some backwoods hick who thinks obama is the anti-christ and need to teach my children about Jesus' second coming, cannot find a suitable homeschool curriculum that is not religious based (although I have since found something that I can at least work with), then the christians are not the ones being oppressed. In fact, I am. But I'm not out there shouting from the rooftops about how the world has wronged me. No. Instead, I'm working with other secular homeschoolers to find the best of each subject to create my own curriculum for my children. Bc complaining to the tv and the paper and the internet isn't going to do a damn thing unless I actually get up and do it myself. :pull-hair: :pull-hair:

It makes me completely batty. Every time I hear someone tell me about how the christians are oppressed, I just bring up my homeschool experience and watch them blither.

::rant over::

[justbecause]

Since this is not a news site I'll break the link. Found this interesting though. Is there a CURRENT investigation?

Duggars Under Shocking NEW Investigation After Not Cooperating With Social Worker –– ‘We Have To See The Child To Make Sure The Child Is All Right’ http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/d ... te-agency/

Now that would be interesting if there was a current investigation. I know these types of sites sometimes get things wrong, but many times they get things right.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Since this is not a news site I'll break the link. Found this interesting though. Is there a CURRENT investigation?

Duggars Under Shocking NEW Investigation After Not Cooperating With Social Worker –– ‘We Have To See The Child To Make Sure The Child Is All Right’ http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/d ... te-agency/

Now that would be interesting if there was a current investigation. I know these types of sites sometimes get things wrong, but many times they get things right.

It is true. in touch got the 911 records when the DHS investigator called them for a police assist.

What they are investigating we don't know and may never know as DHS is usually sealed from records request.

[justbecause]

So I have been looking at photos of their house and I have to say I do not understand that upstairs layout at all. It seems like a bunch of metal railings that is open to the downstairs.

What is actually up there besides a boys room, girls room and the parents area? Seems like the weirdest layout I've ever seen. I know that it's some kind of metal house or something, but it is sure misleading to look from the outside.

[justbecause]

It is true. in touch got the 911 records when the DHS investigator called them for a police assist.

What they are investigating we don't know and may never know as DHS is usually sealed from records request.

I am just glad to see that there is a current investigation. To me that is very positive. The parents may be able to spoon feed the older ones on their talking points, but little kids are unpredictable.

I saw on TMZ that Josh and family loaded up a moving truck yesterday and are headed back to Arkansas.

[snarkykitty]

I looked this up yesterday because I'm tired of people BEC'ing the Duggars for their local dialect. It's called "punctual whenever" and it's a real thing, but there's not a lot of literature on it. The Duggars suck and their use of "punctual whenever" is annoying to people who aren't familiar with it, but come on you guys, there are plenty of legitimate complaints to make about them. Here's one I noticed on another thread: Michelle has said she doesn't use the word 'proud.' I expect it's because she's doesn't want to commit the sin of pride. But the sin of pride is more about arrogance and hubris, Michelle, which you and JB have been filled with for many years. Use the brain god gave you and stop being so literal!

Sorry, but what does "BEC'ing" mean?

Again it is simple really. You forfeit some of your rights to privacy when you speak on record to a public official. This is well laid out in our constitution, case law and legislation.

I realize they were children and that is why the court appoints guardian ad litems in such cases and why police shouldn't question children without them.

In general one should never talk to police. Rarely does anything good.come from it.

I think think this would be less.shocking to you if you just remember that in America we expect everyone to invoke their rights at all times starting at birth. People who wave their rights or allow their rights to be violated out of ignorance is seen as foolish and is no excuse.

It is harsh sometimes but it keeps people from misinterpreting who has what rights and when and using that as a legal standing.

We also only have individual rights in America and.not group rights. Even for.children. hence the appointment of a court guardian.

Edit ti add CHILD Abuse investigation records are usually completely sealed in most states. Only the victim, representatives, etc can access them.

In the duggar case it was an offence report only. Not a full abuse investigation and any DHS or CPS records are sealed anyway. If the Records are only of police initial interviews they most likely would nkt be indepth and would be appropriately redacted before release.

I think that it is pretty irresponsible to tell people that they "should never talk to police". Regardless of (not excusing) illegal/coercive/abusive behaviors experienced or witnessed that seem to be "the norm" because so many incidents are now recorded for others to see and made public), it's NOT the norm and the police system is intended to "protect and serve".

I just think that making such blanket statements can be very harmful.

[VelociRapture]

Is ATI recruiting FJers now?

You caught me! I'm secretly infiltrating the ranks of FJ in the hopes of finding fresh victims, I mean sacrifices, err, recruits for the movement!

On a totally unrelated note are there any posters with lovely feet here? I have a friend who needs a foot model for his line of modest footwear. . .

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Sorry, but what does "BEC'ing" mean?

I think that it is pretty irresponsible to tell people that they "should never talk to police". Regardless of (not excusing) illegal/coercive/abusive behaviors experienced or witnessed that seem to be "the norm" because so many incidents are now recorded for others to see and made public), it's NOT the norm and the police system is intended to "protect and serve".

I just think that making such blanket statements can be very harmful.

I think you should familiarize yourself with Warren vs District of Columbia.

The police are not here to protect and serve no matter how often you read it on one of their cruisers.

Sorry but I have no responsibility here. I only tell it like it is.

Talking to the police is never a good idea.

They can legally lie to you but you can't lie to them.

They can easily misinterprete even the most mundane statement and turn it into a crime.

They investigate criminals to prove a case against them. Not help you prove you aren't one.

They have no jurisdiction to offer plea deals.

So yes, I tell everyone not to ever speak to a cop unless you have an attorney present.

[LittleOleMe]

You caught me! I'm secretly infiltrating the ranks of FJ in the hopes of finding fresh victims, I mean sacrifices, err, recruits for the movement!

On a totally unrelated note are there any posters with lovely feet here? I have a friend who needs a foot model for his line of modest footwear. . .

I do! I just got a pedicure and my feet look lovely :D

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Here is a Lawyer's website on the 10 reasons you should not talk to the police.

kirkpiccione.com/10-reasons-not-talk-police/

Snippet:

>>>REASON #1: Talking to the police CANNOT help you.

If the police are talking to you, it’s because they suspect you have committed a crime. If they have detained you, it’s because they already have enough evidence to arrest you and they want to see if you will admit it and thus, give them an even stronger case against you.

If they have evidence to arrest you for a crime, they will. If they don’t, they won’t. It’s as simple as that.

Talking to them or not talking to them won’t make a difference! No one has ever “talked his way out of†an arrest. If the police have enough evidence to arrest, they will. If you deny that you committed the crime, they will not believe you. They already have evidence suggesting that you committed the crime. They’ll assume you’re just doing what every criminal does in denying the offense. It will not prevent you from getting arrested.

This is completely contrary to popular belief. For some reason, many people think that they are savvy enough

or eloquent enough or well educated enough to be able to talk to the police and convince the police not to arrest them. But ask any police officer if because of the eloquence and convincing story of the suspect, they have ever been convinced not to arrest somebody whom they had originally intended to arrest, and they will tell you no. They will tell you that in their experience, no one has ever talked themselves out of getting arrested. Talking to the police cannot help you. It cannot prevent you from getting arrested. It can only hurt.

REASON #2: Even if you’re guilty, and you want to confess and get it off your chest, you still shouldn’t talk to the police.

People plead guilty in America every day. Probably over 90% of defendants in state court plead guilty at some point during their case. There is plenty of time to confess and admit guilt at a later stage of the proceedings. What’s the rush? Get a lawyer first. Let the lawyer set up a deal whereby you get something in exchange for accepting responsibility for the offense. A better plea bargain, or maybe even immunity. If you confess to the police, you get nothing in return. Zero. In fact, you probably get a harsher prosecution because the state’s case is now airtight, now that you have confessed.

REASON #3: Even if you are innocent, it’s easy to tell some little white lie in the course of a statement.

This kind of thing happens all the time. A person who is completely innocent and who is trying to vehemently assert their innocence will go overboard and take it a little bit too far and deny some insignificant fact, tell some little white lie, because they want to sound as innocent as possible. But if the police have evidence of that lie, it makes your entire statement look like a lie. The prosecutor will ask: “Why did he lie to the police? Why indeed would he lie to the police, unless he were guilty?â€

That little white lie could be used to destroy your

credibility at trial.<<<<<

I spend my days fighting for people who innocently spoke to the police and then found themselves in trouble with the law.

Do yourself a favor and invoke your right to remain silent and then ask for your lawyer. :angry-banghead:

[Four is Enough]

In general one should never talk to police. Rarely does anything good.come from it.

I think you should familiarize yourself with Warren vs District of Columbia.

The police are not here to protect and serve no matter how often you read it on one of their cruisers.

Sorry but I have no responsibility here. I only tell it like it is.

Talking to the police is never a good idea.

They can legally lie to you but you can't lie to them.

They can easily misinterprete even the most mundane statement and turn it into a crime.

They investigate criminals to prove a case against them. Not help you prove you aren't one.

They have no jurisdiction to offer plea deals.

So yes, I tell everyone not to ever speak to a cop unless you have an attorney present.

I messed up these quotes. Sorry, just wanted to delete.

As a mother of two kids who've been in extensive trouble with the law, I categorically and unequivocally agree with the above statements. NEVER, EVER talk to the police without an attorney present. The smallest offhand remark or gesture, even an exclamation, can be used against you.

The police can and do lie in the course of investigating their cases.

[SassyPants]

You caught me! I'm secretly infiltrating the ranks of FJ in the hopes of finding fresh victims, I mean sacrifices, err, recruits for the movement!

On a totally unrelated note are there any posters with lovely feet here? I have a friend who needs a foot model for his line of modest footwear. . .

I lost my L great toe nail last weekend...too much hiking. In sandal season :(...My hubs said that I'd need to pain my toe-

[VelociRapture]

I lost my L great toe nail last weekend...too much hiking. In sandal season :(...My hubs said that I'd need to pain my toe-

If you pray hard enough, Jesus was make it appear again overnight!

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I messed up these quotes. Sorry, just wanted to delete.

As a mother of two kids who've been in extensive trouble with the law, I categorically and unequivocally agree with the above statements. NEVER, EVER talk to the police without an attorney present. The smallest offhand remark or gesture, even an exclamation, can be used against you.

The police can and do lie in the course of investigating their cases.

Thank you for your real life knowledge.

I know of cases where people went in for a witness interview and then were eventually charged as accomplices or for unrelated crimes they inadvertently admitted to during a witness statement.

Crazy!

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

Can someone please explain then why the Duggars said it was illegally released until it was maintained that Josh was over 18?

How does the fact that Josh being over 18 play into this?

Not directly, at least as far as I know. I think they assumed that since the offenses happened when he was a minor, the record would be sealed.

[mebeforee]

I'm reading up on that Warren vs. DC case and I am confused about the outcome. The initial trial came out on the side of the police, but did the appeal overturn that? The beginning of the wiki page seems to indicate that they came to the conclusion that the police were at fault, but at the end it says the appeal found that they owed no 'special duty' toward the people.

But I don't understand how that can possibly be. They called 911 twice about the intruders in the home and the police didn't do anything but knock on the door and leave? Which resulted in them all being beaten and raped. How is the fact that the women called twice not probable cause for them to enter the home and stop the intruders? WTF is the point of the 911 service if the police don't bother to follow through and ensure that the people who made the call are safe? And what exactly do they mean by 'special duty of care'? Isn't following through on 911 calls part of the job? It doesn't seem like a special service, it's not like they were expecting the police to psychically know they were in trouble. They called them twice.

I'm not someone who knows much about law so I find this whole case very confusing. I can understand the police not being held accountable for preventing the rape of the first woman, because the call wasn't made until after the intruders were in the house and the police couldn't possibly have known or prevented that attack. But once they made the emergency calls, it's reasonable to expect the police WOULD be held accountable for failing to enter the home and confront the intruders when they were repeatedly told this was happening... and wouldn't the officer who received the second call be held accountable for NOT dispatching officers to investigate?