Josh Duggar Part 9: Adult Film Star Lawsuits are so Godly

[Mercer]

I work in the mental health field, and in my experience it's very common for a PTSD diagnosis not to be made for months or even years after the event even with a standard onset. 

There are all kinds of reasons for this, but the most common ones I have seen (either separately or in combination) are:

1.) Client initially found the symptoms tolerable, but symptoms either worsened without treatment or the client realized that the symptoms were not tolerable long-term.

2.) Client initially began treatment for a comorbid condition, and PTSD was discovered to exist as well only once the treatment process was underway.

3.) Client's access to mental healthcare was delayed, often because of an insurance issue or because they were on the waiting list to see a provider.

4.) Client was reluctant to report or discuss the traumatic event for fear of being disbelieved, blamed, or stigmatized.

5.) Client was initially misdiagnosed with a different condition, for example PTSD hypervigilance was mistaken for and treated as ADHD focus and attention problems.

Of course there are all kinds of other reasons. These are just examples. But all this to say, while I don't know much of anything about the legal side, from a mental health perspective the time elapsed isn't even unusual, let alone somehow invalidating of her claim.

[JenniferJuniper]

10 minutes ago, Mercer said:

 

Of course there are all kinds of other reasons. These are just examples. But all this to say, while I don't know much of anything about the legal side, from a mental health perspective the time elapsed isn't even unusual, let alone somehow invalidating of her claim.

It's not about someone "invalidating her claim".  She must prove her claim. This burden is completely on her to first prove she was assaulted and secondly prove she has a disorder that was caused by that assault.

Someone can't just say "I have post-traumatic stress disorder because of something someone did" and expect an award of monetary damages against that person.  The system doesn't work like that.  Nor should it.  There is a much bigger picture here and parsing things out by saying  "Post-traumatic stress is real and it's well within the normal time frame so she should win" is not addressing the vast majority of that picture.

[Whoosh]

LOL - who said she was going to just trot into court and say "I have PTSD - give me Josh's money"?  NO ONE.  

 

What do you call that again...

[Mercer]

1 minute ago, JenniferJuniper said:

It's not about someone "invalidating her claim".  She must prove her claim. This burden is completely on her to first prove she was assaulted and secondly prove she has a disorder that was caused by that assault.

Someone can't just say "I have post-traumatic stress disorder because of something someone did" and expect an award of monetary damages against that person.  The system doesn't work like that.  Nor should it.  There is a much bigger picture here and parsing things out by saying  "Post-traumatic stress is real and it's well within the normal time frame so she should win" is not addressing the vast majority of that picture.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I did not say anything about the outcome of the lawsuit or who should win. 

I simply gave my experience with the timeframe on PTSD diagnosis because there is a lot of misinformation out there (including in this thread) about how mental health treatment works.

[JenniferJuniper]

19 minutes ago, Mercer said:

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I did not say anything about the outcome of the lawsuit or who should win. 

I simply gave my experience with the timeframe on PTSD diagnosis because there is a lot of misinformation out there (including in this thread) about how mental health treatment works.

 

I don't disagree with your post but do feel that it needs to be put in context given that this is a thread about a specific lawsuit in which we don't have, and will never have, any medical records at our disposal.  The fact that Danica claims she has post-traumatic stress disorder is simply that, a claim.  People claim things that aren't necessarily true all the time, especially if there is a potential money award involved.

 

[Whoosh]

16 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I put no words in your mouth.  I specifically said  "Someone can't just say 'I have post-traumatic stress disorder because of something someone did" and expect an award of monetary damages against that person.'"   That someone clearly isn't you.

I don't disagree with your post but do feel that it needs to be put in context given that this is a thread about a specific lawsuit in which we don't have, and will never have, any medical records at our disposal.  The fact that Danica claims she has post-traumatic stress disorder is simply that, a claim.  People claim things that aren't necessarily true all the time, especially if there is a potential money award involved.

 

I think we all know this and I think that point was also clear in Mercer's post.  Others may disagree.  I think mental health professionals are trying to say that the time frame here is pretty much what one would expect if the basis of this case is PTSD (not "delayed PTSD", but PTSD as seen in the real world) resulting from a trauma experienced in the spring.  I got into this conversation with you in large part to point out that you had said something that seems to misunderstand what the timing of that type of claim might look like realistically. NO ONE has said that Dillon will win if she can demonstrate that she has PTSD and that medical professionals would confirm the timing here is what one would expect.  NO ONE.  There is obviously far more to it.  What people ARE saying is that there is nothing suspicious or fishy about the timing from a medical standpoint and if her attorney and any medical experts do their job, that will be clear to the finder of fact.  Ergo, there is really NO reason to give the impression that if she can't produce medical documentation from the first few months after the incident, she really has no case or will have a very difficult time proving her case.  Here again is your quote that started this drawn out conversation.  Of course, things got more interesting after that.

8 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Whether she has any actual proof that he hurt her in some way is another issue.  This is what they (Josh and probably JB) are paying to defend.  She can really only prove this with some sort  of medical documentation.  The more remote in time that medical documentation (i.e. if it's months later and only after Josh was outed as an AM member) the less likely she is to prevail.

[InThePrayerCloset]

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

I work in the mental health field, and in my experience it's very common for a PTSD diagnosis not to be made for months or even years after the event even with a standard onset. 

There are all kinds of reasons for this, but the most common ones I have seen (either separately or in combination) are:

1.) Client initially found the symptoms tolerable, but symptoms either worsened without treatment or the client realized that the symptoms were not tolerable long-term.

2.) Client initially began treatment for a comorbid condition, and PTSD was discovered to exist as well only once the treatment process was underway.

3.) Client's access to mental healthcare was delayed, often because of an insurance issue or because they were on the waiting list to see a provider.

4.) Client was reluctant to report or discuss the traumatic event for fear of being disbelieved, blamed, or stigmatized.

5.) Client was initially misdiagnosed with a different condition, for example PTSD hypervigilance was mistaken for and treated as ADHD focus and attention problems.

Of course there are all kinds of other reasons. These are just examples. But all this to say, while I don't know much of anything about the legal side, from a mental health perspective the time elapsed isn't even unusual, let alone somehow invalidating of her claim.

I agree what all the above @Mercer, and particularly with part 5. I've had mental health treatment for years "depression/anxiety", and it wasn't until about 10yrs after the original treatment for depression that the PTSD was diagnosed... this is despite me disclosing a range of "traumas" to various psychs along the way.

i also think that there is much greater awareness of PTSD amongst mental health professionals in the last 5 yrs or so, and a better and broader understanding of what can be considered "traumatic". 

[Whoosh]

I wanted to try to clarify to everyone a few things I am trying to point out about this case as I was not at all clear about thus far.  This is pretty long, so I am putting it under a spoiler for the (likely majority of people) who would prefer to just scroll on by.  

Spoiler

 

In order for Dillon to prevail in this case, many things need to happen.  I still believe that it will settle out of court, so a lot of this will likely never matter or happen here.  However, if it does wind up somehow actually going to trial, there are some things that are clear and some things that are not so clear.  This is my take on it only, of course.  One minor point is that IF this case ever wound up actually going to trial it could be a jury trial or it could be a bench trial (I believe this would be up to Dillon, but I am not sure).  In a jury trial, the jury is the "finder of fact" and would determine what is true or not true in terms of questions like "does the preponderance of evidence suggest that Dillon and Duggar ever met in person".  The judge rules on matters of law such as "is this (hypothetical) recording of the encounter admissible under the applicable rules of evidence".  In a bench trial, there is no jury and the judge is in charge of all of that.  For convenience, I am going to just talk about what would happen in a jury trial, but in a bench trial you would just substitute the word "judge" for the word "jury". This is just a quick and dirty summary of things and I may well be missing some key points, but I figured it is worth a shot.

In a civil case, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.  That means that the plaintiff must present evidence that supports her version of events.  The plaintiff has the opportunity to present any evidence that the judge deems admissible that she believes will weigh in her favor.  If the plaintiff is unable to state a case or cause of action, the judge will throw the case out and the defendant need not do anything.  If the plaintiff is able to present evidence to state a case or cause of action, the defendant can try to counter that evidence by introducing any admissible evidence that he believes tends to disprove the plaintiff's claims.  The standard of proof in a civil claim is that the plaintiff must prove that the preponderance of the evidence weighs in her favor.  What that means is that if no evidence were presented or if 50.0% or more of the evidence tends to favor the defendant's side, the plaintiff will lose.  If 50.1% or more of the evidence tends to favor the plaintiff, the plaintiff will prevail.  The jury decides how to weigh the evidence heard.

In order to prevail here, Dillon must present evidence that shows that 1) Josh engaged in unlawful behavior of some sort (in this case, nonconsensual sexual assault), 2) Dillon was harmed as a result of that unlawful behavior, 3) that harm resulted in actual damages that qualify for recovery under court rules.  If she can introduce admissible evidence that demonstrates each of those elements, then Josh has the opportunity to try to present evidence that swings the weight of the evidence from being 50.1% or more in Dillon's favor to being 50.0% or more in his own favor.  The judge decides what evidence is admissible and then the jury decides how to weigh that evidence under the guidance of the judge.  

The rules of evidence are complex, but many types of things might be found to be admissible as evidence in this case.  Some people seem to be operating on the assumption or belief that the brief version of events the media has shared from interviews with Dillon and the little we have seen of the documents filed thus far indicate what types of evidence may or may not be available.  I disagree with that point of view.  We know very little in terms of what Dillon's version of events will be and we know even less in terms of what Duggar's version of events will be.  We know remarkably little in terms of what others may have observed or been told and when that may have occurred, when Dillon might have sought any type of assistance or medical care, whether there are any relevant phone messages/texts/emails, whether there is any other type of paper trail or other relevant physical evidence of any nature, whether witnesses are available to prove a pattern of behavior in either party, etc.  We just don't know.  It is probably worth mentioning that Dillon both has a family and was working - people saw her and spoke to her and can testify as to what they did or did not observe at various times.

We also don't know what types of harm Dillon is claiming.  She has said she was harmed physically and emotionally and also that she has been unable to work as a direct result of Duggar's actions.  We don't know whether or not those three things are all tied together and we don't know what type of harm is the basis for her request for $500,000 in damages.  If she is seeking to recover monetary damages based on physical injury, medical documentation from soon after the cause of that alleged harm would be hugely beneficial to her case, but it would not be absolutely necessary.  She could introduce other types of evidence to attempt to prove those injuries such as photos, testimony from witnesses who saw her soon after the event, etc.  If injuries directly caused by Duggar's unlawful actions for some reason developed later (unlikely), she would present evidence to try to prove that.

If Dillon is claiming psychiatric or emotional damages of some sort, I am confident that she will be presenting medical documentation to back up those claims.  Some people seem to believe that if she did not seek professional help with these issues fairly quickly (within a few months or so), her story will lack credibility with the jury.  Medical professionals are saying that it is actually quite common for someone to wait many months or even years before seeking such help.  If Dillon's attorney is any good and they bring in medical professionals who know what they are talking about, it should be fairly straightforward to demonstrate to the jury that a delay in seeking help is not only possible, but it is normal, common and expected in these cases.  While it is true that an argument can be made that this is simply an opportunistic money grab after the AM scandal broke, it is also true that that occurrence may have exacerbated already existing harm which then led Dillon to seek treatment.  We have no idea when she first sought any type of help for this type of injury and I don't see any reason to assume it had to be after the AM scandal broke.  However, if it was after AM and the right types of evidence are available, she could still have a very strong case.  

If Dillon is claiming non-medical damages of some sort, medical documentation would obviously not be needed.  She would need other types of evidence to prove this type of claim.  While it is possible that the statement that she is unable to work as a direct result of Josh's unlawful actions is talking about some type of medical harm, that also may not be.  Without more information, we really just don't know.

I could weave all kinds of stories that would likely have a jury clamoring to believe Dillon's version of the story and wanting to toss their own money at her.  I could also weave all kinds of stories that would have a jury thinking this is just an opportunistic fame whore engaging in a money grab against a poor innocent man.  Various attorneys will be weaving those stories.  What the jury will decide the case on will be what version seems more likely based on the admissible evidence that is presented.  We don't know what that will be. Even if this goes to trial, we may never learn much about the evidence that sways the jury one way or another.  The fact that we may never be privy to a lot of information clearly does not mean that we should simply conclude this is just an opportunistic money grab because Dillon hasn't convinced us otherwise.  We are not the finders of fact and just don't get to know some stuff.

A few things are likely to be key to the results of the case should it go to trial (though many, many factors come into play).  Key in my mind would be 1) what actually happened or what is actually true, 2) what admissible evidence is available at the time of any trial, and 3) is some piece of evidence so hard to ignore or compelling that it overshadows other relevant evidence that really should be given more weight.  It may be hard to overcome the idea that this is just an opportunistic money grab and it may be hard to overcome the idea that any harm actually resulted from LAWFUL or consensual behavior, but it is certainly not impossible by any stretch of the imagination and medical documentation may not even be necessary and certainly would not necessarily need to be from very soon after the alleged harm.  

One final point - many aspects of Dillon's experiences and life during the period from March until the suit was filed may well come into play.  When I mention something like the molestations, I am not saying that the details of what actually happened all those years ago would matter at all.  I am saying that Dillon may well present evidence as to how herself and others learning of various events over time changed her situation and possibly increased the harm she experiences as a result of the alleged unlawful sexual assault.

 

 

[Fascinated]

Wow, Whoosh, thanks for taking the time to lay all of that out for us.  Reading that, and the last few pages of this thread, has felt a little like observing lawyers in action in a courtroom!  Fascinating!  I've always wondered if having one's case heard by a judge rather than a jury increases the plaintiff's chances.  Do you think, if given the choice, that Danica would so choose?  What factors go into such a decision?  I have the sense that, regardless of which side of the courtroom one is on, having several people deciding the issue must be better than one.  Perhaps who that judge is would come into play?

Thanks again for everyone's expert opinions here. I have nothing to add to the discussion, but I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread!

[socalrules]

Whoosh, you are awesome! 

Either side can ask for a jury trial and will get it.  Normally a jury trial is better if you want to use emotion regardless of whether your are plaintiff or defendant or appeal to a portion of the jurors to get a hung jury. This why it is important in a criminal case. Here, in a civil case I work think a jury is a bad idea for Josh just because of what people may already know of his background, I.e. Molestation, and who may use it against him even though they are not to use outside information not brought out in court. I have doubts that the court will allow evidence of the molestations into evidence as it is not relevant to the case. A jury trial may be a bad idea for Danica because she was selling sex and you don't know whether jurors will look passed that and see her as a victim.

Bench trials seem to be straight forward without all the drama of playing up to a jury. Judges tend to look more at the evidence less at the emotion that has been stirred up. Bench trials area also better when most of your evidence is highly technical. I think deciding on whether to ask for a jury trial is a tough decision in this case. 

 

[Whoosh]

Hey Fascinated good question about the jury vs bench trial.  To be perfectly honest, if I had a good idea of which would most benefit each party, I would have said it in my little Summary of Law 101 LOL.  That said - please anyone and everyone feel free to correct anything you feel I got wrong and/or add to what I said.  I know I oversimplified some things and I am sure I forgot others and got some a little off (or worse).  

socalrules makes very good points about the bench vs jury decision here.  I know nothing for sure, but will add a couple thoughts.  In cases I have been involved with, you know who the judge will be before you decide which type of trial you prefer.  While it is fun to pretend that all this court stuff is fair and impartial blah blah blah, we all kind of know that isn't entirely true.  To some extent, the answer to the question depends on what you know of the likely basis etc. of both the judge and the population that makes up the jury pool.  So, to use names many of us in the USA know from SCOTUS, the answer would possibly be different if your judge were someone like Alito, Scalia, or Thomas (more conservative) vs. Breyer, the Notorious RBG, Kagan, or Sotomeyer (more liberal).   Along the same lines, your answer would possibly be different if you were in a very red jurisdiction vs. a very blue jurisdiction as that will impact the jury pool.  

I totally agree that if your case is compelling emotionally, you are more likely to be better off with a jury.  In contrast, if your case is quite complex and jury confusion might harm you, a bench trial might be better.  If you are basically a dick but are legally in the right, go with a bench trial.  Also, some things a judge is just likely to understand where a jury might not.  For example, a judge will be well aware that the burden of proof in a civil case is literally tie goes to the defendant but any weight in favor of the plaintiff swings the decision.  In contrast, a jury is far more familiar with the criminal standard of proof which is beyond a reasonable doubt.  To be honest, I am not really sure who is favored by this difference in understanding of the burden of proof, but I know someone is!  

Along these same lines, a judge is less likely to completely ignore legal rules and legal definitions on some types of issues.  So, for example, if the question "is he a pedophile" was somehow relevant to the outcome of the case (which it is clearly absolutely NOT here), a judge is a better bet if you want someone who understands that, given the actual and legal definition of the term, it only applies to those who are primarily or exclusively attracted to children.  Also, a judge should be more reliable in terms of correctly answering a question such as "can a sex worker be raped or sexually assaulted even when being paid for sex and when known for staring in certain types of porn movies" AND a judge should better understand that the case rests on the relevant facts and not a global assessment of whether either party is a "good" or "bad" person.  You can tell a jury those types of things until you are blue in the face, but they may still decide with their gut.  So, for example, right at the time when the law was changed from "ya can't rape yer wife!" to "yes, indeed, you CAN rape your wife", a judge would be more likely to apply that new legal truth to the case whether they agreed with it or not, where a jury would be more likely go with what they believed deep down inside if they believed that raping your wife was not possible since marriage = the wife always consents - always - no matter what the pesky law says.  

Finally, I feel like I should have all kinds of things to say about what type of trial might net the higher amount in damages if the plaintiff were to prevail, but I am largely drawing a blank.  I DO know that if a case has a huge emotional pull, a jury is far more likely to go crazy town in terms of awarding damages far above what a less emotionally driven decision making entity might see as appropriate.

Well - that seems like enough of a ramble.  I will close with a little chart of interesting fun facts about SCOTUS over time.  This obviously is entirely irrelevant to anything about the Dillon v. Duggar case.  Vote wisely in that there presidential election thingy, y'all.  They appoint these judge folks fer life.

ETA - there is a version of this graph that extends through 2015, but it didn't work as an automatic picture or whatever.  Here is the link 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_leanings_of_U.S._Supreme_Court_justices#/media/File:Graph_of_Martin-Quinn_Scores_of_Supreme_Court_Justices_1937-Now.png

[EmmieJ]

I have enjoyed this legal discussion.  Whoosh briefly touched on the emotions of a jury.  I think that sometimes a jury will find one party or the other, or occasionally an important witness for one side or the other, or even the attorney for one side or the other, dislikeable.  That dislike does occasionally factor into a jury verdict, but I think more along the lines of the amount awarded (or not).  I work as a legal assistant and I recall a wrongful death case from many years ago.  After the verdict (millions for the plaintiffs), we polled the jury.  Turns out almost every last one of them had a strong negative reaction to one of the defendant's key employees.  Her testimony came across as cold, uncaring, snooty.  The attorneys who prepped this witness thought she would make a good impression - she was in her 30's, attractive, and while talking with them, apparently charming.  

In this case, I don't know if a jury would find either party more appealing than the other.  But if Josh comes across as smug, smarmy and/or creepy, and Dillon tugs on the heartstrings of the jurors ---- well, that might make them more inclined to believe her over Josh.  

(I think the case will settle before going to trial, and we'll probably never know too many specific details, which will lead to continued speculation   )

[Fascinated]

Thanks all of you for that great info. It's so interesting!  I'm now wondering if I would have any bias if I were a juror in this case, should it go to trial. I think I could be unbiased but I suppose in reality it's very hard for people to put aside their human emotions. And, with the limited information we have about this, if I were biased, I don't even know which side I'd be coming down on!  Colour me fascinated! 

[Whoosh]

14 minutes ago, Fascinated said:

Thanks all of you for that great info. It's so interesting!  I'm now wondering if I would have any bias if I were a juror in this case, should it go to trial. I think I could be unbiased but I suppose in reality it's very hard for people to put aside their human emotions. And, with the limited information we have about this, if I were biased, I don't even know which side I'd be coming down on!  Colour me fascinated! 

I'm pretty sure we all have some biases and just often can't see them.  Some more than others of course.  This case - man - I feel for any juror who has to try to put it all aside if it comes to that.