Josh Duggar, Admitted Child Molester - Part 9

[DeFrauder]

The InTouch story suggests that hiring off-duty cops on May 20-21 might have been a conflict of interest, since there was an open investigation on May 27. That's enough time between the two events that I'm not clutching my pearls yet; I mean, I don't see concrete evidence (maybe it's there and I'm missing it) that off-duty cops provided security on the same day there was an open investigation. It could be that officers working on May 21 saw something and reported it, opening the investigation. :think:

cross-posted with grandmadugger

I would call it a conflict of interest because the same agency that is investigating also takes payment from the people they are investigating.

It doesn't matter if it was on the same day or a month apart. There is an incentive to avoid finding any wrongdoing.

It is like being on trial for something. You think you have a great lawyer, but it turns out that this lawyers is on the payroll of the guy that is suing you. Or that the judge owns the company that you are suing. Or a politician that is deciding what company to hand a govt contract to decides to give it to the company owned by her brother.

[DeFrauder]

Money. The Duggars must have a cache if she is willing to lose her anonymity.

Not necessarily.

If I were in her position I might come forward to ensure that justice is sought and that there is less of a chance that Josh will have access to further victims.

I also believe that she has a claim against the police (who failed to report) and the elders of the church (who also failed to report). In addition to non reporting she may have a claim that she was pressured into silence for many years AND counselled that she was at fault for enticing her abuser. As a block, these issues show a pattern of systemic corruption plaguing the town police force and the church. A case could even be made that there was a conspiracy between the church and the police to cover up child abuse.

[JenniferJuniper]

Not necessarily.

If I were in her position I might come forward to ensure that justice is sought and that there is less of a chance that Josh will have access to further victims.

I also believe that she has a claim against the police (who failed to report) and the elders of the church (who also failed to report). In addition to non reporting she may have a claim that she was pressured into silence for many years AND counselled that she was at fault for enticing her abuser. As a block, these issues show a pattern of systemic corruption plaguing the town police force and the church. A case could even be made that there was a conspiracy between the church and the police to cover up child abuse.

Only if she was assaulted after the police and elders knew about Josh and didn't report him. Since we really don't know who she is, it's hard to know the timeline for sure.

Still, this "lawsuit to be filed" thing bothers me. Either it's filed with the court or it isn't. If it isn't, unless an attorney who has drafted a Complaint is waving it around somewhere, it's simply a rumor.

[halcionne]

I would call it a conflict of interest because the same agency that is investigating also takes payment from the people they are investigating.

It doesn't matter if it was on the same day or a month apart. There is an incentive to avoid finding any wrongdoing.

It is like being on trial for something. You think you have a great lawyer, but it turns out that this lawyers is on the payroll of the guy that is suing you. Or that the judge owns the company that you are suing. Or a politician that is deciding what company to hand a govt contract to decides to give it to the company owned by her brother.

But according to the article, the police worked the side job (if only shortly) before the open report. The FOIA request was for May 26-28, iirc, and the cops moonlighted on May 20-21. I maintain that it's possible a cop could be the reason a case was opened at all, seeing as how they're mandated reporters and they were on the scene in the days before. I guess I'm just uncomfortable making assumptions that there was any actual overlap, hence conflict of interest, based on what little information we have at this time. It's more likely, imo, that an officer working on Josh's move who saw something questionable and reported it is the reason why there's an open investigation at all. I hope this is coherent, it's 1:30 in the morning for me. :?

[mrs]

Sorry wrong thread!! :?

[DeFrauder]

But according to the article, the police worked the side job (if only shortly) before the open report. The FOIA request was for May 26-28, iirc, and the cops moonlighted on May 20-21. I maintain that it's possible a cop could be the reason a case was opened at all, seeing as how they're mandated reporters and they were on the scene in the days before. I guess I'm just uncomfortable making assumptions that there was any actual overlap, hence conflict of interest, based on what little information we have at this time. It's more likely, imo, that an officer working on Josh's move who saw something questionable and reported it is the reason why there's an open investigation at all. I hope this is coherent, it's 1:30 in the morning for me. :?

The conflict of interest isn't about when the cops were moonlighting or if there is overlap. It has to do with them having a prior relationship with the Duggars. It is almost like allowing the Duggars to investigate themselves.

All the cops may very well be on the up and up and they are properly investigating. The problem is that there is an appearance of a conflict (that should be avoided) and the probability of a conflict in that members of the police force are also employees of the Duggars. It means that the allegiance of the cops toward the Duggars or the police department are in question.

How many police are in this town? How many of them regularly moonlight for the Duggars?

If the Duggars need to be investigated, it should be by a police force that has no connections to them.

[Ethdyl]

Those videos of Jill and Derick by the Donaldson guy are definitely at Josh and Anna's new house. The wardrobe with no door on it in the trulia link is the same as the one Derick is standing in in the video.

[tapdancer493]

But according to the article, the police worked the side job (if only shortly) before the open report. The FOIA request was for May 26-28, iirc, and the cops moonlighted on May 20-21. I maintain that it's possible a cop could be the reason a case was opened at all, seeing as how they're mandated reporters and they were on the scene in the days before. I guess I'm just uncomfortable making assumptions that there was any actual overlap, hence conflict of interest, based on what little information we have at this time. It's more likely, imo, that an officer working on Josh's move who saw something questionable and reported it is the reason why there's an open investigation at all. I hope this is coherent, it's 1:30 in the morning for me. :?

I think I missed something. What did they hire off-duty cops for?

[Grace]

Well, I guess I won't be buying any new furniture at Sam's Furniture, just because EWWW. Also, he has a commercial series with a sidekick who, as far as I know from people who know him, is DECIDEDLY NOT fundie-approved. So weird.

[NoShoesSuze]

I think I missed something. What did they hire off-duty cops for?

Security for the family's and Josh's houses right after the story came out ~5/21.

In touch found out through FOIA request:

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/dugg ... ting-62082

[DeFrauder]

Remember all those Fathers Day pics that did not include Josh? I see that Josh posted a pic on Instagram with him and his Dad. So they were together.

instagram.com/p/4NijgJOWBV/?taken-by=joshduggar

I have noticed that all the Duggar produced media has Josh conspicuously absent. Yet Josh goes and posts pics proving they were together.

I am also noticing that Josh and Anna have not posted anything at all since Father's Day.

[MatthewDuggar]

I am also noticing that Josh and Anna have not posted anything at all since Father's Day.

Praise the Lord! I'm sure there will be a flood when the baby comes. It will be a huge deflection. I am sure there will be people who make nasty comments even on a pic of a newborn, but the majority will be of the sugary sweet variety.

[GeoBQn]

When news broke yesterday that Jared from Subway was being investigated for child porn, people on my Facebook feed were joking that the Duggars had already forgiven him. Whenever a black teen is brutalized by the police, people post articles asking why black teens are automatically presumed guilty while a white Josh Duggar got off scott free for a "mistake." If TLC is hoping that the general public is going to forget this, they have another thing coming.

[FundieFarmer]

Well, so much for Jill and Jessa trying to act like everything was forgiven on the part of the victims. Clearly not.

Although I do imagine whoever the victim is is probably very embarassed to have this be national news, and I really don't blame her in the slightest. I hope she can get whatever she needs out of boob, mullet, and turd. And he truly is a turd.

I think that while we can see that there was clearly a "forgive and forget" enforced mentality at the Duggar household, I am hesitant to assume the same for the 5th victim. She doesn't live with the Duggars, so who knows what her family was saying to her or what outside messages she got? Though I have no doubt she has just as limited a worldview as Jill and Jessa, "I forgive him" could look very different to her than it does to the Duggars. She could've said, "Yes, I forgive him..." and they took it by their interpretation of moving on like nothing happened, without realizing that perhaps she would still seek to bring him to justice, or not bring herself back around him.

[Kylolo]

Has anyone posted this yet? Admittedly I've skimmed quickly but didn't see it. Very interesting if Gothard is really speaking to the media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... esses.html

(link not broken because it's a "news" site - in quotes because it's not the NYTimes equivalent but still.)

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Has anyone posted this yet? Admittedly I've skimmed quickly but didn't see it. Very interesting if Gothard is really speaking to the media.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... esses.html

(link not broken because it's a "news" site - in quotes because it's not the NYTimes equivalent but still.)

This article highlights one of the discrepancies that has really bothered me. The Mail says (quoting Gothard):

'Joshua traces his salvation to his time at the IBLP training center in Little Rock. '

'Once he became a Christian his conscience became more delicate and he wanted to follow and please the Lord. It was a turning point in his life.'

I think I've read something similar from at least one other source.

But Josh's website says:

"He accepted Christ at the age of seven,"

Seems like another "mistake" - one which highlights the weaknesses in their belief system.

Has anyone else noticed this?

[Alicja]

This article highlights one of the discrepancies that has really bothered me. The Mail says (quoting Gothard):

'Joshua traces his salvation to his time at the IBLP training center in Little Rock. '

'Once he became a Christian his conscience became more delicate and he wanted to follow and please the Lord. It was a turning point in his life.'

I think I've read something similar from at least one other source.

But Josh's website says:

"He accepted Christ at the age of seven,"

Seems like another "mistake" - one which highlights the weaknesses in their belief system.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Quick question: when fundies talk about "accepting Christ", are they referring to baptism?

[wotdancer]

Quick question: when fundies talk about "accepting Christ", are they referring to baptism?

I'm not sure re: baptism, but a lot of conservative Christians I've met have "accepted Christ" many times ("when I was a little kid", "at church camp", "at the high school church retreat", etc)

[SpoonfulOSugar]

Quick question: when fundies talk about "accepting Christ", are they referring to baptism?

Not necessarily. Usually, there's a "seminal event" where the individual confesses they are a sinner and "asks Jesus into their heart." (It's often an altar call at the end of a church service, although I'd bet most Duggars would say their first step was talking to their Mom or Dad about it.) Once he's (Jesus) there, he's there, afaik. After that, a baptism might be the visible token of said affirmation. Further, a person might later renew that commitment, but I am confused by two significantly different dates for "conversion."

Of course, part of the problem with that is the question of whether, if Jesus were really in Josh's heart, he could have made said "mistakes."

[Catholic and NOT 'ebil']

New article on Radar Online re: Josh watching pornography and the 'sin in the camp' situation. Nothing new that we haven't discussed here though.

http:/ /radaronline.com/celebrity-news/josh-duggar-sex-scandal-caught-watching-porn-work-computer

*Hope I broke the link correctly*

[DeFrauder]

Quick question: when fundies talk about "accepting Christ", are they referring to baptism?

Both scenarios could be true. Josh may have "asked Jesus into his heart" at seven years old. Then he "backslid" and started looking at porn and molesting children. Then he got right with God again and asked Jesus into his heart again, "rededicating" his life to Jesus. He might have been baptized after that as well.

Step 1: ask Jesus into your heart. Admit you are a sinner and that you need to be saved through forgiveness of your sins by Jesus. It is sort of a status symbol to be really young and have come forward to receive salvation, but no one talks about it that way. It is more like "everyone, let us thank Jesus that Brother JB's precious young son has accepted Christ at the tender age of 7! This is great evidence of how God is working in the lives of the Duggar family!!" Actually, when people are asked when they were saved, the most common answer that I heard was "5". 7 is kind of late haha. Some people believe that asking Jesus into your heart doesn't work if God does not want you. People that believe this think that God has already chosen who he wants and that people are predestined to go to heaven or hell before they are even born. (Thank the lord for abortion then).

Step 2: study the bible and lead a Christian life. You are a new creature--this is where the term "born again" comes from, and the rebirth happened at the moment you asked Jesus into your heart. Whatever evil you did in the past has been erased and forgiven by God. If you sin again you must repent and ask forgiveness of God. Some groups believe that if you die in a state of unconfessed sin that you will go to hell. Some denominations believe that is possible to lose your salvation if you keep sinning. Others follow the "once saved, always saved" rule.

Step 3: Get Baptized. This involves full immersion in a body of water with appropriate prayers said. In general, the Pastor dunks the person while saying "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". It is like a super cleanse of sin and a commitment to living a Christian life. Only people who understand what they are doing are permitted to take this step. In general, you have to be an adult. Teenagers are allowed. Often there is a "test" or a class that the person takes beforehand. Babies are never baptized. It must be a free will choice. Instead, babies are "dedicated" to God. They do not recognize infant baptism as valid.

Step 4 (optional depending on denomination): Baptism by the Holy Spirit. In general, this means being given the gift of "tongues". It is sort of like being super saved (although a person who speaks in tongues is no more saved than a person who has only just asked Jesus into their heart today. However, some people believe that a person is not saved unless they have been filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. Other groups believe that speaking in tongues is not of God but of the Devil. It is controversial.

Step 5: walking with God. There is no ritual associated with this, and it is not a step in salvation. It is a status that every Christian aspires to. It is just something that happens when a Christian becomes so close to God/Jesus that they have an actual relationship. You would hear about this in terms of a compliment. Something like "Brother JB is such a faithful Christian. He truly walks with God". When people say something like this they are giving respect to the person they describe as walking with God and they are under the impression that God speaks directly to this person. Men like Noah "walked with God" because they were so righteous.

There you go. A primer on what these people are talking about. :-D

[JenniferJuniper]

Both scenarios could be true. Josh may have "asked Jesus into his heart" at seven years old. Then he "backslid" and started looking at porn and molesting children. Then he got right with God again and asked Jesus into his heart again, "rededicating" his life to Jesus. He might have been baptized after that as well.

So he "backslid" away from Christ at age 14 when he touched two of his older sisters and a babysitter. Got right with God. Then backslid at 15 when he rubbed his two youngest sisters. Got some Gothard treatment. Good with God again. Backslid again at age 16 by watching porn when he was supposed to be working on the campaign (Sin in the Camp!). Got right with God again.

Seems to me this getting right with God thing is a bit of a racket and hardly a deterrent to future child molestation. So I really don't get the Smuggar Duggar defenders who say everything is okay because Jesus is okay with Josh. Because all Josh has to do if we he wants to molest some more kids is get right with God afterwards and all is cool again. (As long as he can avoid the law again.)

[Alicja]

Both scenarios could be true. Josh may have "asked Jesus into his heart" at seven years old. Then he "backslid" and started looking at porn and molesting children. Then he got right with God again and asked Jesus into his heart again, "rededicating" his life to Jesus. He might have been baptized after that as well.

Step 1: ask Jesus into your heart. Admit you are a sinner and that you need to be saved through forgiveness of your sins by Jesus. It is sort of a status symbol to be really young and have come forward to receive salvation, but no one talks about it that way. It is more like "everyone, let us thank Jesus that Brother JB's precious young son has accepted Christ at the tender age of 7! This is great evidence of how God is working in the lives of the Duggar family!!" Actually, when people are asked when they were saved, the most common answer that I heard was "5". 7 is kind of late haha. Some people believe that asking Jesus into your heart doesn't work if God does not want you. People that believe this think that God has already chosen who he wants and that people are predestined to go to heaven or hell before they are even born. (Thank the lord for abortion then).

Step 2: study the bible and lead a Christian life. You are a new creature--this is where the term "born again" comes from, and the rebirth happened at the moment you asked Jesus into your heart. Whatever evil you did in the past has been erased and forgiven by God. If you sin again you must repent and ask forgiveness of God. Some groups believe that if you die in a state of unconfessed sin that you will go to hell. Some denominations believe that is possible to lose your salvation if you keep sinning. Others follow the "once saved, always saved" rule.

Step 3: Get Baptized. This involves full immersion in a body of water with appropriate prayers said. In general, the Pastor dunks the person while saying "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit". It is like a super cleanse of sin and a commitment to living a Christian life. Only people who understand what they are doing are permitted to take this step. In general, you have to be an adult. Teenagers are allowed. Often there is a "test" or a class that the person takes beforehand. Babies are never baptized. It must be a free will choice. Instead, babies are "dedicated" to God. They do not recognize infant baptism as valid.

Step 4 (optional depending on denomination): Baptism by the Holy Spirit. In general, this means being given the gift of "tongues". It is sort of like being super saved (although a person who speaks in tongues is no more saved than a person who has only just asked Jesus into their heart today. However, some people believe that a person is not saved unless they have been filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. Other groups believe that speaking in tongues is not of God but of the Devil. It is controversial.

Step 5: walking with God. There is no ritual associated with this, and it is not a step in salvation. It is a status that every Christian aspires to. It is just something that happens when a Christian becomes so close to God/Jesus that they have an actual relationship. You would hear about this in terms of a compliment. Something like "Brother JB is such a faithful Christian. He truly walks with God". When people say something like this they are giving respect to the person they describe as walking with God and they are under the impression that God speaks directly to this person. Men like Noah "walked with God" because they were so righteous.

There you go. A primer on what these people are talking about. :-D

Wow, that's a whole lot of information! Thanks so much for typing all that out. I'm Catholic and we really never talked about accepting Christ outside of baptism, so that phrase is super unfamiliar to me (which I suppose is a good thing, given the context :lol:)

It must be awful being discouraged from questioning your faith and always being told that one step out of line gives you a one-way ticket to hell. I was always taught that questioning your faith was a part of faith and spiritual development. In my case at least, being a skeptic has only strengthened my spirituality and has brought me closer to God. And then there's the whole works and faith being required for salvation, but I digress.

[DGayle]

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/j ... -computer/

Sounds like the "sin in the camp" might refer to Josh watching porn.

If this it is, I'm not even blaming Josh. Better to look at (hopefully legal) porn than to touch kids. Do fundy kids even get to look at drawings of anatomy?

While working on a campaign for an Arkansas politician in 2004, Jim Bob and Michelle‘s disgraced eldest son, now 27, was accused of watching porn on company computers, In Touch reports.

“The politician lost the election— and full blame was put on Josh,†a church insider tells the magazine.

Though Josh’s shocking behavior did not go public, the source explains, the politician assumed he lost due to “sins in the camp,†or deviance within his own team.

“That’s when Josh’s activities were discovered,†the source reveals.

According to insiders, Josh, who was 16 at the time, was reprimanded with a “very serious punishment†from church elders.

As RadarOnline.com readers know, just two years before this scandal, police claim Josh fondled five minor females in the 19 Kids And Counting clan’s home.

In a recent TV interview, Josh’s younger sisters Jessa, 22, and Jill, 23, came forward as two of his innocent victims.

In the aftermath of the police report revelations, the father of three resigned from his position at a conservative lobbying organization the Family Research Council, and moved from Washington, D.C., back to his home state of Arkansas in shame.

[goldfishgoddess]

Josh just can't keep it in his pants.