Joshley Madison Pt 8: Are We Still Talking About This?

[quiverofdoubt]

If she kept her phone under the pillow maybe she made a recording!

maybe this is why she agreed to a second encounter. She was hoping he'd repeat bad behavior and she would have proof the second time round

[EmCatlyn]

But if that's the cause, they would have to have him evaluated by a court appointed psychologist - aka, a real psychologist. Remember the dinner theater episode where Josh acted? He was shitty actor; I don't think he could fool a real professional into thinking he's insane and can't participate in any proceedings regarding the case.

Josh may be a very bad actor "on stage" but he was clearly a good enough actor in his real life that he led a double life for a while.  He was able to speak convincingly about his "family values" and the Duggar godliness without giving away how far he was from these values and how ungodly he truly is.  

His family may have suspected that he would occasionally sin in a small way (viewing porn for ex) but I think they were totally surprised by what was going on with Ashley Madison and so forth. He has been a good enough actor to play "Good Christian Josh," and we have been expecting he would come back from wherever ready to play "Repentant Josh"  to the satisfaction of Fundie critics.  

He seems to be one of those people who can only play themselves, but his "selves" include some variations from reality.  All this is to suggest that he might (depending on the type of psychological examination he would be subject to) give a not-unconvincing performance of a man driven by sexual obsession and who perceives that obsession as the work of Satan who has built a fortress in his heart and is destroying him from within because he isn't praying enough.  It would convince because it would be close enough to what he believes.

So, while I agree that Josh could not fool a professional that he is legally insane,  I don't think that legal insanity incapacitating him to stand trial is what the Duggars would shoot for.  I think they would use the sexual/pornography "addiction" as an extenuating circumstance, in the "court of public opinion" if nothing else.

[EmCatlyn]

Personally I never thought it was all fake, but I do question the complete accuracy of her account, and continue to do so.  If the case goes forward we will get more information and in theory know more about what may or may not have happened.  

I agree.  I tend to believe that he did have some encounters with Danica, but I am skeptical of the details.  And I also wonder how she could prove that he was too rough and so forth.

[Themiscyran]

As for Boob handing over a lot of money, I'm of two minds.  If it were just for Josh, I don't think he would.  If he feels making this go away saves him money and helps the brand in the long run, he'll try to settle out.  I think he at least tries to settle out.    

I agree that JB will do almost anything to protect his "brand." If settling is what it takes to keep things quiet, he will.

And I feel rather conflicted about that. Like many posters, I have no desire for Josh's children or young siblings or other young family members to live through a nasty lawsuit. 

On the other hand, I really do feel like the Duggar "brand" NEEDS to be fully exposed for what it is. Josh Duggar isn't an aberration; he's the logical end product of the abusive, controlling, Gothardite philosophy. The Duggars have successfully marketed as "wholesomeness" what is really ignorance, fear, and domination. And it's really scary how long they've gotten away with it, and how to some extent are still getting away with it.

[JenniferJuniper]

I agree that JB will do almost anything to protect his "brand." If settling is what it takes to keep things quiet, he will.

And I feel rather conflicted about that. Like many posters, I have no desire for Josh's children or young siblings or other young family members to live through a nasty lawsuit. 

On the other hand, I really do feel like the Duggar "brand" NEEDS to be fully exposed for what it is. Josh Duggar isn't an aberration; he's the logical end product of the abusive, controlling, Gothardite philosophy. The Duggars have successfully marketed as "wholesomeness" what is really ignorance, fear, and domination. And it's really scary how long they've gotten away with it, and how to some extent are still getting away with it.

Yes, I truly feel sorry for Anna and those babies.  But the horribleness of the Duggars and all they stand for must be brought out for everyone to see.

What was the phrase in "I Claudius"? 

"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."

 

[mebeforee]

I think Josh would definitely settle, if given the opportunity. But if he leaves the decision and influence up to his father (and that may very well happen, since his father is likely to be funding his legal defense here), I don't know that JB would settle. 

They have built a whole life around revisionist history with a very skewed idea of what the mainstream world is like, how American justice works, what they're owed by the world, and what God will do for them as True Believers. While they love to discuss Christian persecution, they only recognize the bad consequences of their choices AFTER they happen, they don't really seem to acknowledge the influences their actions may have on future life (case in point - the many unemployed adult Duggar children). By all appearances they really seem to believe that God will provide some way for them to come out on top (and this has been supported by their past achievements. JB being elected as a State Rep and them getting the cash cow TV show).

I really think that Josh has grown up to realize that God doesn't swoop down from heaven and control people's actions (he sure didn't stop him from getting what he wanted, prevent his compulsive behaviors, provide for him as a young child in poverty or keep his parents from controlling every single aspect of his life until marriage). His complete absence from the public eye through all of this drama seems to indicate that he does NOT want this kind of attention and will do what it takes to make it go away quietly. But if the choice isn't up to him, if he leans on his family to take care of this situation, I don't know that JB will make the same choices. He decided to go from mainstream life into ATI, he's self-delusional about how the world works.

Josh should absolutely be held accountable for his actions but I think he'd be way more likely to settle than JB. JB is past the point of no return when it comes to self-publicizing and he'll hold out until the end that he and his wife did everything right, by the word of God, and that Josh is being misconstrued as some monster he isn't. Josh's silence will probably be met with something like 'he may have been unfaithful, but he has a tender heart and would never hurt a woman'.

[Pupalup]

maybe this is why she agreed to a second encounter. She was hoping he'd repeat bad behavior and she would have proof the second time round

unfortunately that might work against her because I think recording someone without their permission is illegal? There might be expectations, I'm not sure. I just know it's illegal here in Illinois to record anyone without their consent.

[EmCatlyn]

Did any one else notice that it took about 30 minutes after this story broke for Jill and Jessa to post another baby picture?  Someone should tell them that's not going to work.

It is their equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes tight, and singing "La, la, la, la." 

But I do feel sorry for them, in a way. They were Josh victims before, and  they did what they were supposed to do according to their parents and here they are, being shamed again.

[EmCatlyn]

Getting a divorce now won't help her.  She's married to the jerk and so she is also liable for his debts.

I hope one of the lawyers on the forum will address this, but my understanding is that a spouse's liability for the other spouse's debts is interpreted differently by different states.  A lot may depend on how the law reads in Arkansas and in Pennsylvania (if that is where Danica's lawsuit is being filed.)

But even in states where each spouse bears responsibility for any debt incurred by the other, I believe that filing for divorce and commencing a separation of assets would protect Anna from being held liable for any judgments in cases after this one (and possibly even this one, depending on the law in Pennsylvania or wherever).

As I said, I'd like to know what the law is.  Not that it matters because Anna is not going to divorce him.

[EmCatlyn]

TLC had better cancel those fucking specials already.

But if they do, how will Jill and Jessa support their families now that Daddy JB is going to have to empty his bank account and sell the airplane to pay off Danica and others?

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if instead of cancelling the specials they did another one to cover their reactions (or the whole family's reaction) to Josh's sin.

[rodgerdodger]

Well, if the Duggars haven't blasted off Josh's name off the family tree Sirius Black style, they definitely have now.

[lilith]

Sorry, just assumed she did. Usually tell all stories are paid for.

The tabloids often don't pay for stories but pay decent money for the pictures that accompany them. So they can claim that their sources weren't paid for their stories but the sources still get a pay day.

Sorry, just assumed she did. Usually tell all stories are paid for.

The tabloids often don't pay for stories but pay decent money for the pictures that accompany them. So they can claim that their sources weren't paid for their stories but the sources still get a pay day.

[elliha]

unfortunately that might work against her because I think recording someone without their permission is illegal? There might be expectations, I'm not sure. I just know it's illegal here in Illinois to record anyone without their consent.

How is this in the US, in my country it would be legal as long as you record yourself as well so as long as she was engaged in the conversation and you can hear what she says it would be OK. For example, to record a phone call is OK but not put a hidden microphone in someones home.

[ophelia]

I don't guess that situations like this were covered in the Wisdom Booklets. 

You made me laugh so hard. Good that I'm the only one in my office today!

[Whoosh]

How is this in the US, in my country it would be legal as long as you record yourself as well so as long as she was engaged in the conversation and you can hear what she says it would be OK. For example, to record a phone call is OK but not put a hidden microphone in someones home.

This answer isn't very helpful, but it varies by jurisdiction.

ETA - based on a quick search it appears that PA is a two party consent state.  While exactly what that means varies, basically it looks like all parties to the conversation would need to at least be informed that they are being recorded.  In some states, it means that all participants (two or more) to the conversation must actively (vs passively) agree to or consent to the recording.

[MatthewDuggar]

I too feel for Anna & the M kids, but mostly on an emotional level.  Financially she's broke on her own, but she's still under the JB Duggar Dynasty umbrella.  JB has plenty of money stashed away in investments and God only knows what else.  She's obviously being supported by JB and I seriously doubt they will cut her off given the 4 kids, etc.  

The lawsuit is silly and reeks of fame-whoring and attention on Danica's part.  The only good that comes from it is the bad press for everything Duggar.    

[Elvis Presby]

I've been in a few motels & never once found porn. Italy was another animal altogether, tho.

 

Please do tell!  We are leaving for Italy in a few days.  Since we are a family of 5 we are booked in 2 rooms.  Do I need to confiscate the TV from the other room to avoid an unplanned sex ed lesson?

 

I know this is a few days old, so sorry if someone has already asked you about this.

[nelliebelle1197]

A -fucking-men! To both points.

If her account is accurate, he pulled a Jian Ghomeshi, and yes, it's criminal, but good luck getting charges laid.  Makes sense to me that she would pursue  a civil case, especially if (as she originally claimed) part of her concern is basically exposing him as a slimebag. And it would make perfect sense for her to be traumatized as she is claiming. Not of that says it's all true or that she will win the case, but it's all pretty logical, to me at least.

 

 

Prostitutes are allowed to say no, but she did it a second time. She went back and said it was less rough the second time. I hope we are not at an age where anyone can claim to be a victim and automatically believed because she is a women or a prostitute. This woman is a sophisticated sex worker, not  girl on the streets. She went straight to the tabloids when this broke. Then trauma seems to have conveniently appeared as scandals broke.

This woman has proven nothing other than the fact that she possibly was paid to have sex with Josh Duggar. Twice. And the second time was not so bad. She was so traumatized by it that she rushed straight to InTouch as soon as it looked lucrative. And never talked about her victimization or trauma.

Defending this kind of cash grab and automatically believing something had to happen makes me angry. Real people get hurt and victimized all the time. Real prostitues working on real, rough brutal streets get beaten and degregated and murdered every single day. 

None of it sounds logical to me other than the fact this woman got paid to have sex with Josh Duggar - twice - and now wants to cash in on it. Right now, I see evidence of nothing but opportunism and that makes me angry because women and girls are hurt and abused every single day. The real victims voices get smaller and stories get less believable.

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

Well, this will be interesting. Poor Jessa -- even naming her spawn Spurgeon couldn't keep her the center of attention and the family out of the fray for long!

Jessa deployed the Spurgeon Diversion. Clearly it failed.

[FundiesInParis]

I wonder if a trial could lead to new relevations? And also, a possible success of this lawsuit could open Pandora's box for real. Who knows how many other women (or men) have been damaged by Duggar family members, and some could feel encouraged to go to court as well.

I don't want to speculate, because rules and all. But I would be 0% surprised if anything about Jim Bob came out.

[ksgranola1]

 

Please do tell!  We are leaving for Italy in a few days.  Since we are a family of 5 we are booked in 2 rooms.  Do I need to confiscate the TV from the other room to avoid an unplanned sex ed lesson?

 

I know this is a few days old, so sorry if someone has already asked you about this.

 

Yeah, be real careful there. Parental supervision at all times.

[Whoosh]

I am going to jump on my preaching high horse for a minute and then focus on other endeavors until some of this blows over.  Everyone can throw all the rotten tomatoes my way they so choose.

I want to make sure everyone commenting remembers how the early conversations about the molestations (which sadly went on for years) unfolded.  If you don't remember or weren't around then, I would suggest you go back and check some of that out.  Hindsight is an interesting thing, no doubt, and I am not trying to fault anyone for what they believed at any point in the past.  However...

• Is it possible that an opportunistic fame whore is trying to score notoriety and riches by going after someone who has made himself an easy target?  Absolutely
• Is it possible that the allegations are 100% true and we don't even know half of what went down yet?  Totally.

I am very, very comfortable saying I just don't know and will reserve judgment until I have more information.  No one else needs to do that of course.  I would ask everyone this, though - if it turns out you happen to be totally wrong on this one, will you be proud of what you said?

I don't really believe anyone thinks the cluster fuck that surrounded the molestation debates was a good thing.  I would hope people could learn from history and admit we just don't know and it might be wise to carefully consider what you say rather than aggressively throwing the more innocent party (whoever that may be) under the bus here.

[nelliebelle1197]

Yep. I am fine being wrong. I am not fine supporting someone blindly whose public behavior seems to indicate something different than her allegations.

I am going to jump on my preaching high horse for a minute and then focus on other endeavors until some of this blows over.  Everyone can throw all the rotten tomatoes my way they so choose.

I want to make sure everyone commenting remembers how the early conversations about the molestations (which sadly went on for years) unfolded.  If you don't remember or weren't around then, I would suggest you go back and check some of that out.  Hindsight is an interesting thing, no doubt, and I am not trying to fault anyone for what they believed at any point in the past.  However...

• Is it possible that an opportunistic fame whore is trying to score notoriety and riches by going after someone who has made himself an easy target?  Absolutely
• Is it possible that the allegations are 100% true and we don't even know half of what went down yet?  Totally.

I am very, very comfortable saying I just don't know and will reserve judgment until I have more information.  No one else needs to do that of course.  I would ask everyone this, though - if it turns out you happen to be totally wrong on this one, will you be proud of what you said?

I don't really believe anyone thinks the cluster fuck that surrounded the molestation debates was a good thing.  I would hope people could learn from history and admit we just don't know and it might be wise to carefully consider what you say rather than aggressively throwing the more innocent party (whoever that may be) under the bus here.

[sj3339sta]

You know, I don't really feel all that horrible for Anna.  She didn't deserve this nor did she cause it.  But, she is staying with Josh.  She is supporting him and in some ways defending him.  She isn't making any changes (at least that we can see) to protect herself or her children.

I DO feel terrible for the M kids.  Especially considering how Gothardites focus on generational sins.  Not only is Josh's sin going to reflect directly on JB, but it is also going to taint the M kids.  Anna is going to keep them in that culture and environment, even though they will be kept on the outskirts and not fully be accepted by the IBLP's mainstream.  My heart breaks for them in so many ways.  

[Buzzard]

I am going to jump on my preaching high horse for a minute and then focus on other endeavors until some of this blows over.  Everyone can throw all the rotten tomatoes my way they so choose.

I want to make sure everyone commenting remembers how the early conversations about the molestations (which sadly went on for years) unfolded.  If you don't remember or weren't around then, I would suggest you go back and check some of that out.  Hindsight is an interesting thing, no doubt, and I am not trying to fault anyone for what they believed at any point in the past.  However...

• Is it possible that an opportunistic fame whore is trying to score notoriety and riches by going after someone who has made himself an easy target?  Absolutely
• Is it possible that the allegations are 100% true and we don't even know half of what went down yet?  Totally.

I am very, very comfortable saying I just don't know and will reserve judgment until I have more information.  No one else needs to do that of course.  I would ask everyone this, though - if it turns out you happen to be totally wrong on this one, will you be proud of what you said?

I don't really believe anyone thinks the cluster fuck that surrounded the molestation debates was a good thing.  I would hope people could learn from history and admit we just don't know and it might be wise to carefully consider what you say rather than aggressively throwing the more innocent party (whoever that may be) under the bus here.

When the molestation first broke I said wait until we see the police reports.  We got them.  With this we have an article (supported by an inadmissible lie detector test) and the complaint.  These are solid statements of the circumstances.  They're not all inclusive, but it is a pretty broad brush of the facts as she sees them.  

She was paid and it was "scary" but that she did it again.  The complaint hinges on the terms of their "contract" in that we dont know what she consented to, or if he went outside of the bounds of their agreement.  My problem with the allegations is that she's alleging psychological damages which is inconsistent with her behavior (doing it again) and my general knowledge of a professional in her field.  If she was truly traumatized to the point that she should recover half a million in damages she would have told him to take a hike, not take the hike with him to a hotel room.

As much as I want Josh publicly humiliated and rendered irrelevant, I dont know if she was the right person to attempt that.