Possible Lawsuit for Josh

[umbrellaella]

Realistically, they have basically no culpability here. all they say is that an anonymous source has told them the NFV is suing. They don't claim to have spoken to the victim, witnessed anything, or anything of the sort.

I could call up In Touch and say, hey, I don't want to give you my name but I shared a piece of gum with Jessa Duggar once and she told me she had terrible nightmares about monsters touching her inappropriately, and they could run a story "Person who knows Jessa Duggar says Josh caused nightmares!" and they'd be fine, because they clearly told the readers it was gossip and hearsay. (The body of the story would include 'person who says she knows Jessa' to be completely accurate, since they don't know I do -- and I certainly don't.)

The culpability they do have is from the readers. If you keep buying Weekly World News when they keep failing to produce the Bat Boy and the pregnant 2-year-old keeps failing to surface on any legit news, they can keep printing it every week. If they fear the readers not shelling out anymore once they're caught in a lie, they won't lie (much).

Legal culpability? I suppose at an extreme stretch, after a lot of fighting and a lot of freedom-of-the-press defenses, they could possibly be forced to produce their source (possibly only to the judge and not the public) but they couldn't be held responsible for saying "so-and-so said this was the thing going to happen" like if they just said "this thing is going to happen."

They very well could have received the information about the upcoming suit from the victim herself, however they are calling it "a source" to protect her, as she most likely does not want it known she is speaking to a tabloid for obvious legal reasons. "Sources" are VERY often the celebrity/person in question, but not labeled as such. There was a great article written recently about the inner workings of tabloids. Whenever you hear/see "from a source..." keep in mind it very well could be the person/celeb themselves.

Also, tabloids generally will not run a story if they cannot confirm accuracy, or if the source isn't trusted (if it's not the celeb). They want proof, text messages, emails, etc. to verify your relationship with the person so they *aren't* running bogus stories that could open up to a suit or lose reader credibility.

[carebaer]

I do understand where you are coming from. Plus, the Duggars are a powerful clan. It would be very intimidating to report them. But I will say that if anyone is facing this choice now, don't err on the side of the caution. Take the risk, because once a child is injured in this way, they carry it for the rest of their lives. It's worth the personal discomfort if you can save even one child from this fate.

From what hennypenny has stated (referencing DHS, police, etc) it sounds like the "open secret" was more after the police and courts were involved. So it wasn't so much a matter of whether to report the family as whether to blow it up in the media or try to legitimize online rumors.

In that case it would only be if there were additional non-family victims after the police report whose parents somehow were unaware of the previous incidents that any victimization would have been prevented. Since hennypenny stated she has known since 2008, it's not like anyone in her circle would have been able to prevent any abuse that is currently on record.

So basically they would have been more likely to re-victimize the sisters than to save any potential victims.

[Palimpsest]

As to the "Harry" info, I would like to remind everyone that the Josh molestation rumors have been on the internet for years, but were always dismissed. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss "Harry" or his info entirely.

RosyDaisy isn't the only person to be saying this, I just happened to quote her.

How many internet rumors have you read that weren't true? Thousands I should think. Everyone should look at "Harry" with cynicism until proof is demonstrated. Just because one rumor was true doesn't mean that everything you read should be believed.

Second, consider why "Concerned Mom", "Alice" and the rumors and leaks from the Oprah show were not believed. I get CM and Alice confused (and they may be the same person) but a few reasons I can come up with immediately are:

1. They had reason to believe in 2004 that Josh Duggar molested his sisters and another girl, and they posted rumors on an internet forum instead of going straight to the authorities with evidence? That would have been within the SOL.:roll:

2. The style and content of Concerned Mom and Alice's posts sounded more malicious about the Duggars than factual. One of them bitched about Mary Duggar at length, which was irrelevant to the story and did not make her sound credible. :roll:

3. Even the leaks coming out of the Oprah camp after 2006 were highly inconsistent and there were several. And that was when the molestation was actually reported.

HennyPenny says that this was an open secret locally when she heard about it in 2008, years after the events in question. Well, if some people at DHS breached confidentiality they should have lost their jobs. Law enforcement does not have the same standard of confidentiality, and obviously some locals and church members gossiped away quite happily. Rather distasteful.

It is quite amazing that the story didn't hit the headlines sooner. Apparently the justification for keeping quiet was to "protect" the Duggar girls from the scandal. Convenient, that.

[Nic]

It's 5pm in Tontitown now. Has anyone been sued yet?

[lostfemme]

Some of you might not be aware of how paranoid Southerners can be about CPS, DHS, News Sources, cops, really all government agencies or anyone who would pry into their lives or take their kids or put them in jail. Even folks who have hated the Duggars for generations (which might be a thing, actually) aren't about to report them to the greater evil, which is government.

Now, the stupidity of this whole deal is that people like the Duggars are actually in cahoots with local LE and politics through multiple connections of like minded WHITE MEN. So the corruption people fear in local agencies is sustained by corrupt neighbors, friends and even hated families. The angle that the law only works for the few is so long instilled in people that they turn to churches to make things "right". Calling the law will only disappoint everyone.

It doesn't surprise me at all that most of Tontitown knew about Josh and kept silent to official sources. It's considered worse to report things than allow brothers to molest daughters or babysitters, especially if the son is going to be a Big White Man someday who can rule and have influence.

Honestly, I don't think the silence has a damn thing to do with protecting daughters at all.

[ShepherdontheRock]

They very well could have received the information about the upcoming suit from the victim herself, however they are calling it "a source" to protect her, as she most likely does not want it known she is speaking to a tabloid for obvious legal reasons. "Sources" are VERY often the celebrity/person in question, but not labeled as such. There was a great article written recently about the inner workings of tabloids. Whenever you hear/see "from a source..." keep in mind it very well could be the person/celeb themselves.

Also, tabloids generally will not run a story if they cannot confirm accuracy, or if the source isn't trusted (if it's not the celeb). They want proof, text messages, emails, etc. to verify your relationship with the person so they *aren't* running bogus stories that could open up to a suit or lose reader credibility.

Yeah, unless InTouch isn't blowing smoke, they may have gotten the news from her or someone close to her, and she/they may have agreed to share the information on the condition that her/their anonymity is kept. Even though I think there's a good possibility this is something blown up/made up, I wouldn't put it past anyone to do that. Also, I remember reading (don't remember exactly where) someone in on breaking the Josh story (I think the guy that broke it) said that they do know who the NFV is, but aren't releasing it for obvious reasons, so maybe they have been communicating with her or someone who represents her.

ETA- I agree that maybe people were fearful of CPS. Also, I know many people that don't have any faith in CPS to do the right thing; CPS often ends up returning children to homes where they're abused or can't see abuse that's occured. It was probably very easy for the Duggars of all people to pull one over on CPS, since there may not have been concrete proof of other kinds of abuse happening, and the kids were all trained to defend Mom and Dad.

But I do agree that it's a little off that they posted it on an internet forum where it couldn't have been verified in the slightest and probably did look very suspicious until the big scandal...

[lascuba]

Was there anything for the locals to report, though? I thought "everyone" knew about the Duggars precisely because of the police and DHS investigation. It doesn't make sense to reprimand people for not calling DHS when they already knew that DHS investigated.

[DeFrauder]

I do not understand the idea that having the abuse revealed is a revictimization of the victims.

Putting myself in the shoes of a victim as best as I can-I think that I would feel vindicated that finally people knew the truth about my abuser and that I was being believed. It is a really big deal for an abuser to publicly admit wrongdoing (because it is extremely rare) and to have everyone believe the victim (it is common for people to doubt the victim, especially if the abuser is popular and well liked). People knowing the truth about the abuser is a form of justice. Many, many survivors of abuse have to deal with people thinking their abuser is the greatest, sweetest person ever, while they have to hide their scars and live with it.

Where I would feel revictimized is the shame that I would feel that someone did this to me. However, that shame is unhealthy because it suggested that the victim was somehow at fault. People accuse victims of being too naive to know better, of enjoying the abuse, of encouraging the abuse, and that fun situation where people accuse the victim of becoming an abuser themselves. That is just if the victims are believed! People will doubt a victim based simply on level of ideal attractiveness. For example, they doubt that popular handsome guy would stoop to rape the plain looking chubby girl. That lends itself to a whole new level of shame.

[blessalessi]

I do not understand the idea that having the abuse revealed is a revictimization of the victims.

Putting myself in the shoes of a victim as best as I can-I think that I would feel vindicated...

What you have done here is put the victims in YOUR shoes.

Putting yourself in THEIR shoes would involve trying to imagine why THEY might feel the things THEY have reported feeling.

[ShepherdontheRock]

I do not understand the idea that having the abuse revealed is a revictimization of the victims.

Putting myself in the shoes of a victim as best as I can-I think that I would feel vindicated that finally people knew the truth about my abuser and that I was being believed. It is a really big deal for an abuser to publicly admit wrongdoing (because it is extremely rare) and to have everyone believe the victim (it is common for people to doubt the victim, especially if the abuser is popular and well liked). People knowing the truth about the abuser is a form of justice. Many, many survivors of abuse have to deal with people thinking their abuser is the greatest, sweetest person ever, while they have to hide their scars and live with it.

Where I would feel revictimized is the shame that I would feel that someone did this to me. However, that shame is unhealthy because it suggested that the victim was somehow at fault. People accuse victims of being too naive to know better, of enjoying the abuse, of encouraging the abuse, and that fun situation where people accuse the victim of becoming an abuser themselves. That is just if the victims are believed! People will doubt a victim based simply on level of ideal attractiveness. For example, they doubt that popular handsome guy would stoop to rape the plain looking chubby girl. That lends itself to a whole new level of shame.

Except these girls have a mindset that we don't. They have basically been brainwashed to not realize the seriousness of what actually happened to them and how badly they've been screwed over. And I imagine it'd be quiet easy for JB and J'chelle to convince them to feel humiliated by this since they believed it'd further their agenda.

[Wingnut]

Except these girls have a mindset that we don't. They have basically been brainwashed to not realize the seriousness of what actually happened to them and how badly they've been screwed over. And I imagine it'd be quiet easy for JB and J'chelle to convince them to feel humiliated by this since they believed it'd further their agenda.

And if they were taught that they are responsible for keeping men's uncontrollable lust at bay, they could possibly feel partialy at fault.

It is not something the majority of people can understand because the majority of people have not had the wacky upbringing those girls have had.

[imjustasteph]

RE reporting things to CPS, here's another relevant factor.

Let me tell you a short story.

Some years ago, I was involved with a guy who was doing some stuff that wasn't legal. This involved hanging around with people who were also involved in stuff that wasn't legal, and in some cases, some who were paranoid. In this particular case, a woman was paranoid that the dude I was dating was trying to steal her husband from her. She was actually convinced that her husband, my then-boyfriend and I were hanging around our house doing illegal things and having three-ways without her (we so were not), and she was more than angry. In order to get revenge, she called in a tip to the police. She told the police that my then-bf would be on such-and-so road at such-and-so time, and in his possession would be massive quantities of a wide variety of illegal substances. At no time would her specific claim have been true, but as it happened, she made the claim at a time when he didn't happen to be doing any illegal things at all, and when he was pulled over, the police learned that the worst thing he was doing was something like having an out-of-date insurance card in the glove compartment, or something along those lines.

Now, their conclusion wasn't that he'd had a lack of success in doing his illegal thing this day, was better at hiding stuff than they imagined, or that they'd caught him some minutes early, it was that the caller was outright lying.

So, their response? There on the side of the road, they said to him, "Well, sorry we inconvenienced you. To be honest, we had a call from a woman named [gave her first and last name], and she told us you had [all this stuff] in your car."

THEY GAVE HER NAME. She called in a tip, and granted she was lying, but she could have not been -- they could have been minutes early or late and missed a pick-up or drop-off or change of plans or anything, and they told him her name!

There has not been one time in my life since then that I have had reason to report anything to any authority that I haven't considered that.

And we're talking about a town where the Duggars and the officials are buddy-buddy.

Only way I'd tell anything on them to any official, if I had to live there, would be under a separate email address and a fake name.

[Palimpsest]

Some of you might not be aware of how paranoid Southerners can be about CPS, DHS, News Sources, cops, really all government agencies or anyone who would pry into their lives or take their kids or put them in jail. Even folks who have hated the Duggars for generations (which might be a thing, actually) aren't about to report them to the greater evil, which is government.

Now, the stupidity of this whole deal is that people like the Duggars are actually in cahoots with local LE and politics through multiple connections of like minded WHITE MEN. So the corruption people fear in local agencies is sustained by corrupt neighbors, friends and even hated families. The angle that the law only works for the few is so long instilled in people that they turn to churches to make things "right". Calling the law will only disappoint everyone.

It doesn't surprise me at all that most of Tontitown knew about Josh and kept silent to official sources. It's considered worse to report things than allow brothers to molest daughters or babysitters, especially if the son is going to be a Big White Man someday who can rule and have influence.

Honestly, I don't think the silence has a damn thing to do with protecting daughters at all.

Oh, for goodness sake. Paranoia about CPS, DHS, LE, and evil government is rampant and certainly not limited to the Southern states.

As for these claims about the Duggars being so important and untouchable in the eyes of the locals

-- I have some questions for Alice, Concerned Mom and 61-year-old-letter-finder - who may or may not be the same person.

What is better? To report immediately to entities that can do something if you have actual knowledge, or to start an internet smear campaign and to gossip to your friends and neighbors? I'd say report, even if you are afraid of repercussions. Cut off molesting potential Big White Man before he molests some more girls and gains a position of power. Otherwise you are a collaborator in wrong-doing.

My point was that Concerned Mom, Alice, and the mysterious 61-year-old-letter-finder (who may or may not all be the same person) chose to spread rumors on the internet, contact the fucking Oprah show, and gossip locally rather than do something effective. So, what is more damaging to the victims: gossip and innuendo locally and on the internet, or a real investigation and early and effective intervention with the offender and his parents?

Thank goodness the Oprah production assistant who read 61-year-old-letter-finder's email actually realized it was an issue, took it higher up, and someone finally did something about it. Don't kid yourself that all emails to Oprah actually get to her in person. Someone put a bomb under 61-year-old-letter-finder to get them to report to the proper authorities and pushed their own report through. It was someone on the Oprah show. Unfortunately outside the SOL.

If you have concrete evidence then for the love of doG blow the whistle on things this important. If you don't, shut the fuck up!

All or most of Tonitown gossiping about this is merely distasteful if they did not have first-hand knowledge or actual evidence. Those who had real evidence and gossiped on the internet and spread the story by contacting a TV show instead of the proper authorities? Why, I feel real contempt for them!

I can't be bothered to read "Harry's" gossipy stuff. It is really not that important or interesting. Do you believe him?

[Mama Mia]

I do not understand the idea that having the abuse revealed is a revictimization of the victims.

Putting myself in the shoes of a victim as best as I can-I think that I would feel vindicated that finally people knew the truth about my abuser and that I was being believed. It is a really big deal for an abuser to publicly admit wrongdoing (because it is extremely rare) and to have everyone believe the victim (it is common for people to doubt the victim, especially if the abuser is popular and well liked). People knowing the truth about the abuser is a form of justice. Many, many survivors of abuse have to deal with people thinking their abuser is the greatest, sweetest person ever, while they have to hide their scars and live with it.

Where I would feel revictimized is the shame that I would feel that someone did this to me. However, that shame is unhealthy because it suggested that the victim was somehow at fault. People accuse victims of being too naive to know better, of enjoying the abuse, of encouraging the abuse, and that fun situation where people accuse the victim of becoming an abuser themselves. That is just if the victims are believed! People will doubt a victim based simply on level of ideal attractiveness. For example, they doubt that popular handsome guy would stoop to rape the plain looking chubby girl. That lends itself to a whole new level of shame.

Really? I would feel incredibly pissed off and embarrassed if someone drug up a long past sexual assault that I had experienced. Because what would be the point? I don't feel shame for being assaulted. I don't feel guilty. But that doesn't mean I want the whole world knowing about it. It's none of their business. Yes, the argument could be made that they are out there in the public eye so they open themselves up for public scrutiny- but aren't there any limits on what the public is entitled to know about people just because they make their livings in the public eye?

Also, you are describing what you think you would feel in situations where people had been doubting your story ----That isn't the situation here, at all.

No one can ever be positive of how they will respond to any particular situation unless they are in it , of course, but I am 95% sure that if I was Jessa or Jill I would be a combination of furious, creeped out and mortified that a nameless, faceless mob of strangers was picking apart the details of an my sexual assault a dozen years later. And not only that -- but coming to the conclusion that I wasn't even bright enough to know my own feelings! And that my standard of living and current employment ( because reality celebrity is a job ) was jeopardized because of it? I would be fucking livid.

[Tatar-tot]

Until a suit is filed I think this is just major BS!!!

[FundieFarmer]

Really? I would feel incredibly pissed off and embarrassed if someone drug up a long past sexual assault that I had experienced. Because what would be the point? I don't feel shame for being assaulted. I don't feel guilty. But that doesn't mean I want the whole world knowing about it. It's none of their business. Yes, the argument could be made that they are out there in the public eye so they open themselves up for public scrutiny- but aren't there any limits on what the public is entitled to know about people just because they make their livings in the public eye?

Also, you are describing what you think you would feel in situations where people had been doubting your story ----That isn't the situation here, at all.

No one can ever be positive of how they will respond to any particular situation unless they are in it , of course, but I am 95% sure that if I was Jessa or Jill I would be a combination of furious, creeped out and mortified that a nameless, faceless mob of strangers was picking apart the details of an my sexual assault a dozen years later. And not only that -- but coming to the conclusion that I wasn't even bright enough to know my own feelings! And that my standard of living and current employment ( because reality celebrity is a job ) was jeopardized because of it? I would be fucking livid.

First of all, :clap: to you, Mama Mia.

I understand what they mean about feeling re-victimized. My experience with my assault was that I felt a profound, profound loss of control (which, coincidentally, my therapist assures me is normal :cracking-up: ) about everything after that first moment, for almost two years. If I were to wake up one morning and the sordid details were splashed across the national news, I think I would just die. It took almost two years to feel like I got the rug even slightly back under my feet after that night, like I had any semblance of control again, and if I'd had the Duggars' experience, I would've felt like it was yanked right back out from under me. It takes an intense amount of work to put that back together again, especially when you don't have a support system or sound counseling, which it appears the Duggars' didn't. I guess for me, that loss of control would be a total revictimization.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Until a suit is filed I think this is just major BS!!!

Yeah, the thread name should be modified.

[Tatar-tot]

Yeah, the thread name should be modified.

Let's have a contest!

[Mama Mia]

First of all, :clap: to you, Mama Mia.

I understand what they mean about feeling re-victimized. My experience with my assault was that I felt a profound, profound loss of control (which, coincidentally, my therapist assures me is normal :cracking-up: ) about everything after that first moment, for almost two years. If I were to wake up one morning and the sordid details were splashed across the national news, I think I would just die. It took almost two years to feel like I got the rug even slightly back under my feet after that night, like I had any semblance of control again, and if I'd had the Duggars' experience, I would've felt like it was yanked right back out from under me. It takes an intense amount of work to put that back together again, especially when you don't have a support system or sound counseling, which it appears the Duggars' didn't. I guess for me, that loss of control would be a total revictimization.

That is a really, really excellent point about the loss of control! Maybe that's why the whole thing is bothering me so much.

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

[FundieFarmer]

That is a really, really excellent point about the loss of control! Maybe that's why the whole thing is bothering me so much.

I'm sorry you had to go through that.

I think that's what's bothering me too. There's just so much loss there and then more, when you're on a public stage. We forget it's newer to us than it is to them, but it doesn't make it easier.

Thanks, Mama Mia! All is mostly good now. I've officially rounded the bend into a new (and awesome!) normal, and it's pretty great :cracking-up:

[DeFrauder]

And if they were taught that they are responsible for keeping men's uncontrollable lust at bay, they could possibly feel partialy at fault.

It is not something the majority of people can understand because the majority of people have not had the wacky upbringing those girls have had.

Well, I did have some similar upbringing, although I did not have to suffer the unfortunate circumstance of being sexually abused by any of my siblings.

I did get the Gothard training and the shaming. I have no doubt that each victim was told that they had done something to cause the abuse. Which is why I indicated that the idea of re-victimization has to do with shaming and is unhealthy.

It is horrible that the victims appear/are expected to take responsibility for what happened. That, in my opinion, is the re-victimization.

Even more horrible is that the victims are saying that people knowing that this happened to them is worse than what happened to them. I have no doubt that they feel humiliated and ashamed that the world knows (although as has been discussed, nearly everyone in their social circle and town were aware of it so I do not understand how more people finding out is different. What I mean is everyone in their town and church community knew. Then they went on national TV as reality stars and now the whole world knows. Are they not already used to everyone in their world knowing?).

I think what may be happening is that the shame, humiliation, hurt and anger they are feeling from the abuse itself is being reflected on to the media attention. They blame the media for their pain, rather than direct blame toward the abuser and toward their parents that put them on TV in the first place.

Even Megyn Kelly asked: "why would you put your family on TV knowing that this has happened".

[DeFrauder]

Really? I would feel incredibly pissed off and embarrassed if someone drug up a long past sexual assault that I had experienced. Because what would be the point? I don't feel shame for being assaulted. I don't feel guilty. But that doesn't mean I want the whole world knowing about it. It's none of their business. Yes, the argument could be made that they are out there in the public eye so they open themselves up for public scrutiny- but aren't there any limits on what the public is entitled to know about people just because they make their livings in the public eye?

Also, you are describing what you think you would feel in situations where people had been doubting your story ----That isn't the situation here, at all.

No one can ever be positive of how they will respond to any particular situation unless they are in it , of course, but I am 95% sure that if I was Jessa or Jill I would be a combination of furious, creeped out and mortified that a nameless, faceless mob of strangers was picking apart the details of an my sexual assault a dozen years later. And not only that -- but coming to the conclusion that I wasn't even bright enough to know my own feelings! And that my standard of living and current employment ( because reality celebrity is a job ) was jeopardized because of it? I would be fucking livid.

No, doubting the story is not the situation here. The victims are very fortunate that they do not have to deal with that (although there were some jerks on the internet claiming the victims were lying about poor Josh, but Josh confessed so the doubters were complete morons).

I wrote about doubting victims as an example of a form of re-victimization. Victims that are doubted for years and then are suddenly vindicated by a confession can be very liberating. As I stated it is a form of justice in a situation where justice is rarely achieved. That is just fact. the majority of victims who press charges against an abuser lose their case. Peer counselors of sexual abuse survivors warn that the abuser will most likely get off if the matter ends up in court.

And I agree. It must be mortifying that so many people are picking the bones of the molestation like a bunch of vultures. Not only are people saying horrible things about their family, but many people are criticizing the victims themselves. However what *is* and what *ought to be* are too very different things. When people become celebrities (and this family has worked hard for their celebrity) being able to keep some things private while everything else is highly public is a what ought to be situation. The reality is that celebrity comes with the media eye on everything. People will dig through a celebrities garbage to try and get a scoop. Everything becomes fair game for people who choose to live their lives in public. Is that fair? no, but it is reality and should be expected by celebrities.If they want fame, they better be prepared to deal with infamy, too. The tragedy is that the victims never asked for celebrity. The same person that failed to protect them from sexual abuse made them into celebrities.

I am not even sure that privacy in this case is in the best interests of the public. We are talking about people who spread false information about LGBTi people and for whatever reason they seem to be very influential. A Washington lobbyist who is pressuring politicians to vote against civil rights measures has turned out to be a child molester. He is a person who lies and says that LGTBi people are a danger when it is actually him that is the danger.

[DeFrauder]

First of all, :clap: to you, Mama Mia.

I understand what they mean about feeling re-victimized. My experience with my assault was that I felt a profound, profound loss of control (which, coincidentally, my therapist assures me is normal :cracking-up: ) about everything after that first moment, for almost two years. If I were to wake up one morning and the sordid details were splashed across the national news, I think I would just die. It took almost two years to feel like I got the rug even slightly back under my feet after that night, like I had any semblance of control again, and if I'd had the Duggars' experience, I would've felt like it was yanked right back out from under me. It takes an intense amount of work to put that back together again, especially when you don't have a support system or sound counseling, which it appears the Duggars' didn't. I guess for me, that loss of control would be a total revictimization.

OK that makes perfect sense. Thank you for sharing this.

It may also be the reason behind this alleged lawsuit that has not yet materialized. The person could be feeling triggered because everyone is talking about it. All kinds of people are being triggered by this "bombshell". They don't have to be Duggars (or friends of Duggars) to get in on the horror show.

In this context is it fair to say that Josh succeeded in re-victimizing thousands--maybe millions of people that are abuse survivors? Gee, thanks Josh, you creep.

If a loss of control is the root of what made Jessa and Jill say that the media attention is re-victimizing them, then I think that it means that the abuse is not as far behind them as they hope. It proves that the abuse was not "nothing" and "dealt with long ago" as they have been coached to believe. I hope that they somehow obtain the tools they need to truly start healing.

[DeFrauder]

I had a thought:

I wonder if this is the first time that Josh's victims have heard any criticism about how things were "dealt with"?

They are so isolated from the outside world that it makes sense that they were not exposed to how situations like this are normally dealt with. It could be causing shock and anger.

It is a good reason why the alleged person allegedly suing might be suing.

[RosyDaisy]

Look, I'm not saying treat every rumor as fact. In light of the fact that the internet rumors about Josh turned out to be true, I think it's best not to immediately assume that other Duggar rumors are false. FFS, weare talking about children being molested here, not some petty crime.

I agree that southerners are suspicious of CPS and law enforcement. I am not one of them. As a southerner myself, I just want to knock some sense into them. I find it reprehensible and disgusting that secrecy takes precedence over the well being of children. It's beyond selfish.

Please, anyone who is reading here about the Duggars and has information, come forward. Break the silence. Josh has a daughter the same age as his youngest victim and has a baby girl on the way. Think of them.