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

[OodOnTheLoo]

On December 31, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Flyinthesoup said:

 

I am scratching my head over the fact that Jeffrey Conrad has taken Josh's case.  I cannot for the life of me understand why a lawyer with his record, would take such a case, knowing Josh's history with molesting his own sisters.  

Perhaps we should take a bet on how long Jeffrey Conrad stays on as his lawyer.  I am betting he doesn't stay to the end.

My thoughts too.   I sputtered a bit when I read this on Conrad's profile: Conrad became an assistant district attorney in 2000 and built a reputation for seeking justice for sexual-abuse victims. He also conducted seminars at area schools and churches to warn families about Internet predators and pornography.

 

Could the Duggars have sought him out to make Josh seem less guilty by association?

Ultimately though, Im still betting my lunch money that JimBob settles before it goes too far.  But wouldn't it be fun if if he didn't?

[sndral]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

I was going to do this whole long thing about how when I had a choice of cases that were unlikely to be resolved quickly (which isn't often for public defenders), I was far more interested in the points of law involved rather than the type of offense or how good a person I thought the defendant was.  My point was to maybe try to defend this lawyer a little bit by saying that maybe there is some particular thing about the case that caught his interest.  After reading that list of cases, I lost my motivation.  I know that list is just a selection of cases that stood out and isn't necessarily representative of his work or his beliefs, but that combined with his group memberships kind of drained my motivation to take time to go to bat for this guy in even a small way.  Maybe tomorrow, but I am doubting that LOL.

I agree, the fact that a private criminal defense attorney defends a person accused of a particular crime tells us nothing of his/her beliefs. I didn't list his more typical cases like murders and drug trafficking that I found and of course most criminal cases don't make the papers.

Conrad's memberships in the two conservative organizations IMO is a big clue as to why, of all the attorneys licensed to practise in Pennsylvania, the Duggar's chose him. I was surprised to see that they chose someone experienced in criminal defense rather than a civil defense lawyer although Conrad may do a bit of personal injury plaintiff's work for motorcycle riders.

[nokidsmom]

7 hours ago, OodOnTheLoo said:

Ultimately though, Im still betting my lunch money that JimBob settles before it goes too far.  But wouldn't it be fun if if he didn't?

He might have decided to fight it at first but the further it goes, the more damage to the brand, so agree that eventually he will probably settle.   If he decides not to, that's when I'm really getting out the

[SassyPants]

Does anyone know if other lawsuits have been filed with regards to other Ashley Madison clients?

Let's be honest, in terms of fish swimming in that pond, Josh Duggar is a rather small fish.

[notfundy]

31 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Does anyone know if other lawsuits have been filed with regards to other Ashley Madison clients?

Let's be honest, in terms of fish swimming in that pond, Josh Duggar is a rather small fish.

I've been wondering this, too. Agreed that Josh is a pretty small fish in the Ashley Madison pond.  When the breach first was publicized, there were quite a few government emails that were used (!) and a few minor officials were "outed" as users, but that was it.  Nothing earthshaking, except for those people who were outed.  Like the Christian vlogger guy (can't think of his name right now, the one who announced the "pregnancy-that-wasn't" by getting his hands on a pee-stick test and some of his wife's pee sitting in the toilet!)  

I haven't seen anything similar to the suit against Josh Duggar, at least nothing that has been reported in the media.

There are a number of lawsuits (including a class-action suit originating in Canada, and some lawsuits in the U.S. that are trying to achieve class status) where users of the site are suing for damages/emotional distress related to the data breach itself.   

 

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm not sure I'd connect this lawsuit directly to the Ashley Madison breach as however Josh came to meet her, she's suing him for allegedly hurting her during sex.  She came to know who he was after his face was in the news, but she could have just as easily found out who is by flipping through the high-numbered cable channels at some point.

His father may have money, but Josh is a small fish and Danica probably isn't well off.  So there's probably not much she'd ever get from him and unless her attorney took this on a contingency (which I tend to doubt) it's going to cost her as much as Josh.  If Josh has JB's financial support defending this - and I'm betting he does as this impacts the Duggar brand - he probably is better able than she to withstand the costs involved.  

Unless she sought medical or psychological treatment related to Josh's behavior before the Ashley Madison break, I think she has a difficult road ahead of her.  It sounds like Josh is defending this for now, so if she and her attorney were hoping for a quick settlement, it looks like that won't happen.  The burden of proof here is squarely on Danica, and if she can't prove Josh roughed her up, I think there's a good chance she'll drop the case on her own, assuming the court doesn't kick it out first.

As for Josh's attorney, I'm sure JB found/selected him because he's a self-proclaimed born again.  I don't see anything odd about him taking the case despite the fact that he used to be a DA.  He probably does not believe that Danica was hurt, she's a prostitute, and Duggar money is as good as anyone's.

 

[socalrules]

The fact the Josh's lawyer used to be a DA is fairly common. A large number of attorneys leave the DA's office and go into civil or criminal defense. They do it because you can make a lot of money and no longer have to deal with the politics of the DA's office.  You would have had more trial experience as a DA than you would have had if you started your career at  defense firm, which leads to a bigger payday later on. DAs don't always make fantastic salaries and some people would like to be able to buy homes or send their kids to private schools. I know many people who started at the City Attorney's Office or DA's Office and left after a few years because they were in demand and could double their salary. 

Also, most people, regardless of if they are prosecutors or defense attorneys, see it as their duty to uphold the law and make sure that the victim or their client receives a fair trial. Who they prosecute or defend says nothing about their ideology or beliefs. It is their job to fight for their client's rights. Both Josh and Danica deserve a fair trial regardless of whose side we think may be right. 

[Whoosh]

It really is interesting to read all the different thoughts on this.  I am assuming that one or both parties involved in this lawsuit will have some type of evidence that we know nothing about.  For example, a lot of people thought that Josh would be able to produce "proof" that he was not in the place of the alleged assault at the time of the incident.  If he had clear and convincing evidence of that and Dillon had nothing to counter it, I don't believe the case would be going the way it is going.  Some have speculated that perhaps Dillon had set her phone (which was allegedly under her pillow in case she wanted to try to call 911 if necessary) to record the second alleged incident.  I am pretty sure PA is a dual party consent state with respect to use of recorded conversations.  Some states require the second party to actually consent to the recording while others simply require that the second party be informed that things are being recorded in order for the recording to be admissible.  In the back of my mind, I am kind of stuck on wondering if there may in fact be a recording and if there is if it has any chance of getting into court.  Of course, if it were clearly admissible and clearly clear and convincing evidence of these allegations, it seems highly likely that this case would have settled long ago - but maybe not.

Anyway, those are just two types of evidence that may exist that FJers have mentioned.  There is likely all kinds of evidence that we know NOTHING about that may determine the ultimate outcome here.  And that is true whether that ultimate outcome seems accurate and just or not.  Remember, if the gloves don't fit...  Of course, decision was based on the standard of proof required for criminal cases and the defendant went on to lose in civil court.

[DarkAnts]

I would not be surprised if Josh lies to his family about this. i bet he told all of them that the allegations are false. 

[JenniferJuniper]

Just now, DarkAnts said:

I would not be surprised if Josh lies to his family about this. i bet he told all of them that the allegations are false. 

If I were Jim Bob, I might not believe Josh's protests if he claimed he never had sex with her.  He has already admitted to being unfaithful.  And if Josh had sex with her, he probably admitted it out of fear she has proof.

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. If she can't prove any actual damages, Josh's attorney will move to have the case dismissed.

On the other hand, if she went to the ER or her personal physician with injuries - physical or mental - shortly after the incidents happened and can prove Josh caused those injuries, Josh will likely have to pony up some cash or face a monetary award from a jury.

One would think her attorney would know how good a case she has before taking it, but he may have taken the case for a little publicity or simply because she's willing to pay him $150 bucks an hour. I don't know her attorney, but plenty of plaintiff attorneys take on frivolous cases, usually in hopes of a quick settlement.

I want to make it clear that I am not taking anyone's side here, because we have no idea what she can support.  But its worth keeping in mind that anyone can sue anyone in the United States for pretty much any reason.  This doesn't mean a case has merit, or even if it does, that the plaintiff can sufficiently meet his or her burden of proof.

[47of74]

On 12/23/2015 at 10:40 PM, LaLele said:

The big Duggar bucks have paid for a big old billboard off of the highway.  Keep your eyes peeled if you drive on IL 20!  

I live about 90 miles west of Rockford and drive by the city when going to Chicago.    It's been a while since I've been to Chicago.  Maybe I'll go over this year some time.  Is the billboard on the main US 20 that loops around or the Bus 20 that goes through town?

[Whoosh]

I agree that evidence from medical professionals who examined or evaluated Dillon soon after the alleged incidents would be admissible and interesting to a jury or judge (if it were a bench trial).  How clear and convincing that type of evidence would be varies.  I can't agree that that is the only type of evidence that Dillon might introduce when trying to demonstrate that the preponderance of the evidence suggests her version of events is accurate or more accurate than anything presented by the defense.  Think Monica's infamous blue dress.

Of the top of my head, I can think of a few types of evidence that (if in existence) would be admissible and would support Dillon's case.

• Testimony from an outcry witness
• Testimony from hotel employees or guest or anyone else that may have heard anything or may have seen Josh or Dillon soon after the alleged incident.
• Torn or bloodstained clothing
• Testimony from hotel employees as to the state of the room after the guests left (including damaged property, stains, etc)
• Testimony from a medical professional currently treating Dillon

Of course, those types of evidence are not necessarily proof that anything that may have occurred was in fact assault.  Further, Josh may have various types of evidence himself.  For example, maybe Josh recorded something.  Or maybe Josh heard from to someone who ran into Dillon soon after the alleged incident when she was bruised but smiling and bragging about how much money she had just made of a guy who thought he was real tough.  Or maybe former clients are willing to testify as to having consensual rough sex. Or maybe hotel employees will testify that there was no sign of any type of problem or incident.

Am I driving the ISB wildly all over the map?  Yep.  I am not, however, claiming that any of this happened or that any of evidence of this nature exists.  I am solely saying that many types of evidence may exist that might be admissible and would either impact settlement negotiations or would sway the jury in one direction or the other to some degree as to which side is favored by the preponderance of the evidence (unless something about the jurisdiction prohibits the admission of such evidence). My experience is of course largely in criminal cases, but the standards of admissibility are typically more permissive in civil cases, not less.

[Cleopatra7]

I was just at the supermarket, and the new In Touch says Josh could face criminal charges for assaulting Danica. Have no idea how reliable this "info" is, but maybe some FJ legal beagles could look at it and provide a professional opinion.

[Whoosh]

6 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I was just at the supermarket, and the new In Touch says Josh could face criminal charges for assaulting Danica. Have no idea how reliable this "info" is, but maybe some FJ legal beagles could look at it and provide a professional opinion.

Great Googly Moogly!!!!!  Wow.  I just looked up the statute of limitations for sexual assault in PA and it is 12 years for a victim over 18 to report the assault, so the SOL has clearly not run for filing charges.  My understanding of things is that the decision would be entirely in the hands of the prosecution (though they will give some consideration to Dillon's desire to press criminal charges when making that determination).  The decision of the prosecutor will typically rest on whether they believe the evidence against the defendant has a reasonable chance of meeting the standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  As we have been discussing, we have absolutely no idea what types of admissible evidence either side may have in such a case.

I need popcorn and wine.

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

Since she consented to a second round of rough sex w/Josh, and given the nature of her profession, I wonder if she possibly has a "nanny cam" hooked up in her quarters to protect herself. Is that admissible in court?

[Whoosh]

Just now, ksgranola1 said:

Since she consented to a second round of rough sex w/Josh, and given the nature of her profession, I wonder if she possibly has a "nanny cam" hooked up in her quarters to protect herself. Is that admissible in court?

Why do you think she consented to a second round of "rough sex" when the ONLY thing we have to go on at this point is her word - which is that she explained the sex the first time had been TOO ROUGH and he agreed to NOT DO THAT AGAIN?  I just don't understand this line of thinking or phrasing of things.

Any potential nanny cam recording would be in the same category of what has been discussed about any possible cell phone recording.  PA is a two party consent state.  In some states that means the second party needs only be informed that the encounter is being recorded.  In other states, both parties must actually consent to being recorded.  I don't know which category PA falls into.

[JenniferJuniper]

52 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

Of the top of my head, I can think of a few types of evidence that (if in existence) would be admissible and would support Dillon's case.

• Testimony from an outcry witness
• Testimony from hotel employees or guest or anyone else that may have heard anything or may have seen Josh or Dillon soon after the alleged incident.
• Torn or bloodstained clothing
• Testimony from hotel employees as to the state of the room after the guests left (including damaged property, stains, etc)
• Testimony from a medical professional currently treating Dillon

 

 

Danica has to prove both that she sustained damages and that Josh was responsible for them. 

Regarding responsibility, she supposedly didn't know who Josh was until over 4 months (I think that's the time frame) after she encountered him.  As far as we know, she did not report her encounter to the police, and it doesn't sound as though she was trying actively to identify him previously.

What are the odds that any of the evidence you cite above was collected and preserved by her or anyone else?  My guess is slim to none.  It's unlikely hotel workers noted or will remember anything from their - probably very brief - stays.   This isn't a criminal case and no one is going to be doing a forensic investigation, so unless she has something tying him directly to an assault, she's got a huge uphill battle here.

I would guess she is treating now for post-traumatic stress or something similar but if she only sought treatment AFTER the AM outing, this very much weakens her case for damages.  If she was seeking some sort of medical or psychological treatment at the time but her records do not make mention of a terrifying encounter with a client, I'd say she loses the case 99% of the time.

She may have something more than what we know and maybe she has medical records contemporary with the alleged assault.   But if she doesn't, this will appear to be a frivolous, opportunistic lawsuit even if it is in reality based in truth.  

Josh doesn't have to prove anything.  If he was there, all he has to do is admit he paid her for sex and say he didn't hurt her.   In this sense, it is not a simple he said/she said situation.  Josh's word will be accepted unless she can prove otherwise.  And based upon what we know so far, it may not be any easy thing to prove.

18 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

I was just at the supermarket, and the new In Touch says Josh could face criminal charges for assaulting Danica. Have no idea how reliable this "info" is, but maybe some FJ legal beagles could look at it and provide a professional opinion.

If sufficient evidence comes forth from the civil case for a DA to determine that Josh broke laws for which he should be prosecuted, it's possible.

But we're a long way away from that right now, as discovery hasn't started yet and we have no idea whether Danica has solid proof of anything.

[Whoosh]

43 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Danica has to prove both that she sustained damages and that Josh was responsible for them. 

Totally and wholeheartedly agree.  It is a multi part process.  She has to first show that something unlawful happened.  Next, she would have to prove recoverable damages.  Next, she would have to prove that those damages would not have happened BUT FOR Josh's unlawful actions.

43 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Regarding responsibility, she supposedly didn't know who Josh was until over 4 months (I think that's the time frame) after she encountered him.  As far as we know, she did not report her encounter to the police, and it doesn't sound as though she was trying actively to identify him previously.

 

I am not sure why this matters, to be honest.  I mean, it would make her case stronger if she had reported right away, but it is absolutely not necessary to do so in this type of case.  I really am not sure why it would matter if she knew who he was or tried to identify him previously or not.  If Josh's unlawful actions led to a series of events that caused recoverable damages to Dillon that would not have happened BUT FOR his unlawful actions, that is an actionable case.  Of course, if her behavior was contributory to the harm, that will also come into play.

43 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

 

What are the odds that any of the evidence you cite above was collected and preserved by her or anyone else?  My guess is slim to none.  It's unlikely hotel workers noted or will remember anything from their - probably very brief - stays.   This isn't a criminal case and no one is going to be doing a forensic investigation, so unless she has something tying him directly to an assault, she's got a huge uphill battle here.

 

Much of the evidence I discussed above is not physical evidence.  Physical evidence often (but not always) is much stronger and more likely to be admissible if collected right away.  What are the odds that either Dillon or hotel staff threw any evidence in a Ziplock and sealed it?  No clue, but it is surely possible.  I really never thought a White House intern would store a semen stained dress squirreled away in her home.  Live and learn.

Most of the examples I gave above are explicitly labeled TESTIMONY.  While it is preferable to interview witnesses as soon after the events as possible, it is not in any way, shape or form a requirement to do so.  If the witness still recalls information years later it can come in and the finder of fact (jury or judge) is charged with determining the reliability of their recollections and testimony.

43 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I would guess she is treating now for post-traumatic stress or something similar but if she only sought treatment AFTER the AM outing, this very much weakens her case for damages.  If she was seeking some sort of medical or psychological treatment at the time but her records do not make mention of a terrifying encounter with a client, I'd say she loses the case 99% of the time.

As I said, in terms of medical testimony it would strengthen the case if she had sought medical attention early on.  That, however, is not necessary or required.  The testimony of any medical professionals she has seen since the alleged incidents would likely be admissible and again the finder of fact would be charged with determining the reliability and value of that testimony.  I would say medical testimony that counters her claims would hurt her case, yes.  We agree there.

43 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

She may have something more than what we know and maybe she has medical records contemporary with the alleged assault.   But if she doesn't, this will appear to be a frivolous, opportunistic lawsuit even if it is in reality based in truth.  

I just simply don't think this is true.  I disagree based on my education, training, and experience.  I am not sure how you arrive at this conclusion, but I have seen criminal cases that result in conviction where contemporaneous medical evidence did not exist.  Again, her case would be stronger if she had sought immediate medical attention, but it is not necessary as you seem to be claiming.

43 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Josh doesn't have to prove anything.  If he was there, all he has to do is admit he paid her for sex and say he didn't hurt her.   In this sense, it is not a simple he said/she said situation.  Josh's word will be accepted unless she can prove otherwise.  And based upon what we know so far, it may not be any easy thing to prove.

The way the system works is that Dillon needs to present a case that supports a finding against Josh based on a preponderance of evidence. If she can't, the case will end there.  Case closed.   If she is able to do so, then Josh has the opportunity to present evidence to try to prove otherwise.  Totally agree with you on all that.  Saying it may not be an easy thing to prove is very, very, very different than basically saying it can not be proven unless she presents medical evidence from soon after the time of the incident.  Very, very different.  And the ease or difficulty of her making her case believable to the finder of fact under the preponderance of the evidence standard rests on what types of evidence she has - and we have absolutely, positively no idea what that might be.

[Whoosh]

So I jumped to the conclusion that In Touch was saying that the police or prosecutors in the jurisdiction were saying charges might be filed.  I thought that was big news.  I read a few recent articles and it appears they are reporting that criminal charges may arise in cases such as this.  That is totally true and has been all along.  I don't yet see any indication that the authorities are investigating this case or considering filing charges (though that may well happen if it seems warranted at some point).

[JenniferJuniper]

32 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I am not sure why this matters, to be honest.  I mean, it would make her case stronger if she had reported right away, but it is absolutely not necessary to do so in this type of case.  I really am not sure why it would matter if she knew who he was or tried to identify him previously or not.  If Josh's unlawful actions led to a series of events that caused recoverable damages to Dillon that would not have happened BUT FOR his unlawful actions, that is an actionable case.  Of course, if her behavior was contributory to the harm, that will also come into play.

Much of the evidence I discussed above is not physical evidence.  Physical evidence often (but not always) is much stronger and more likely to be admissible if collected right away.  What are the odds that either Dillon or hotel staff threw any evidence in a Ziplock and sealed it?  No clue, but it is surely possible.  I really never thought a White House intern would store a semen stained dress squirreled away in her home.  Live and learn.

Most of the examples I gave above are explicitly labeled TESTIMONY.  While it is preferable to interview witnesses as soon after the events as possible, it is not in any way, shape or form a requirement to do so.  If the witness still recalls information years later it can come in and the finder of fact (jury or judge) is charged with determining the reliability of their recollections and testimony.

As I said, in terms of medical testimony it would strengthen the case if she had sought medical attention early on.  That, however, is not necessary or required.  The testimony of any medical professionals she has seen since the alleged incidents would likely be admissible and again the finder of fact would be charged with determining the reliability and value of that testimony.  I would say medical testimony that counters her claims would hurt her case, yes.  We agree there.

I just simply don't think this is true.  I disagree based on my education, training, and experience.  I am not sure how you arrive at this conclusion, but I have seen criminal cases that result in conviction where contemporaneous medical evidence did not exist.  Again, her case would be stronger if she had sought immediate medical attention, but it is not necessary as you seem to be claiming.

The way the system works is that Dillon needs to present a case that supports a finding against Josh based on a preponderance of evidence. If she can't, the case will end there.  Case closed.   If she is able to do so, then Josh has the opportunity to present evidence to try to prove otherwise.  Totally agree with you on all that.  Saying it may not be an easy thing to prove is very, very, very different than basically saying it can not be proven unless she presents medical evidence from soon after the time of the incident.  Very, very different.  And the ease or difficulty of her making her case believable to the finder of fact under the preponderance of the evidence standard rests on what types of evidence she has - and we have absolutely, positively no idea what that might be.

I'm not able to make a point-by-point response, but I will respond generally to your comments.

I don't know how much civil litigation experience you have but I have over 30 years, all in defense.  And so I am using my experience to point things out.  I have drawn no conclusions as discovery hasn't yet started, and even then we aren't likely to see any of it. But certain things stand out to me already and if they aren't addressed by Danica, she may not have a viable case, no matter what actually happened.

My point about the delay in reporting the incident or any possible delays in seeking medical treatment speak to her credibility, both with regard to liability and damages.  If she was seeing a doctor or psychiatrist at the time and never mentioned the alleged assaults, her credibility will be viewed questionably by a judge or jury.  If she didn't seek treatment until after the AM story broke and she found out she had sex with a guy on TV, her credibility will be viewed questionably by a judge or jury.  This is very important.  This is not a criminal case.  She is seeking to be awarded money for damages.  If her damages aren't supported, the case is either going to be dismissed via motion for summary judgement or she'll be awarded nothing by a jury.  Even generous juries don't give people money for unsupported claims of injury.  

From the liability perspective, you speak of testimony, but you need witnesses before you can get to testimony. If no one sought them out right after the alleged incidents, it's unlikely hotel workers, who experience all kinds of shit on a daily basis, are likely to remember anything about these two people who were only briefly in their midst.  Also, it's not as easy as it may seem to track down employees months later and private investigators can be expensive.  And that would be money Danica would have to come up with sooner rather than later. 

As for physical evidence, he' s not the President of the United States and she says she had no idea who he was until months later, so why would she keep something with his semen on it? 

Frivolous, opportunistic lawsuits happen all the time.  I don't know if this is one or not, but her timing thus far raises some questions.  Odds are this case will settle out (for how much depends on what sort of case she can possibly present) or be dismissed by the court.   So we may never know what this really was all about.

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I'm not able to make a point-by-point response, but I will respond generally to your comments.

I don't know how much civil litigation experience you have but I have over 30 years, all in defense.  And so I am using my experience to point things out.  I have drawn no conclusions as discovery hasn't yet started, and even then we aren't likely to see any of it. But certain things stand out to me already and if they aren't addressed by Danica, she may not have a viable case, no matter what actually happened.

My point about the delay in reporting the incident or any possible delays in seeking medical treatment speak to her credibility, both with regard to liability and damages.  If she was seeing a doctor or psychiatrist at the time and never mentioned the alleged assaults, her credibility will be viewed questionably by a judge or jury.  If she didn't seek treatment until after the AM story broke and she found out she had sex with a guy on TV, her credibility will be viewed questionably by a judge or jury.  This is very important.  This is not a criminal case.  She is seeking to be awarded money for damages.  If her damages aren't supported, the case is either going to be dismissed via motion for summary judgement or she'll be awarded nothing by a jury.  Even generous juries don't give people money for unsupported claims of injury.  

From the liability perspective, you speak of testimony, but you need witnesses before you can get to testimony. If no one sought them out right after the alleged incidents, it's unlikely hotel workers, who experience all kinds of shit on a daily basis, are likely to remember anything about these two people who were only briefly in their midst.  Also, it's not as easy as it may seem to track down employees months later and private investigators can be expensive.  And that would be money Danica would have to come up with sooner rather than later. 

As for physical evidence, he' s not the President of the United States and she says she had no idea who he was until months later, so why would she keep something with his semen on it? 

Frivolous, opportunistic lawsuits happen all the time.  I don't know if this is one or not, but her timing thus far raises some questions.  Odds are this case will settle out (for how much depends on what sort of case she can possibly present) or be dismissed by the court.   So we may never know what this really was all about.

I agree the evidence may or may not be there in this case.  My primary reason for saying that is that maybe nothing happened.  If there was a sexual assault, I agree that it is far easier to track down any existing evidence earlier rather than later and may not be possible later.  I took issue with the statement that reads to me basically as saying "if she didn't seek medical treatment right away, she won't be able to build a case".  This I disagree with and your most recent response does somewhat clear up why.  In my personal opinion, the way things have unfolded, it is likely that Dillon will argue that there was a sexual assault in March and April that she decided not to act upon.  Then, in May, the scandal about the molestations exploded which furthered her distress and greatly contributed to her inability to work.  Then, a few months later the Ashley Madison thing exploded FURTHER COMPOUNDING the harm that never, ever would have happened BUT FOR the unlawful actions of Josh.  Is it potentially tough case?  Yes, but it all depends on what actually happened and what types of evidence are available.  I don't see how saying she pretty much needs medical records or a report to the police from soon after the event is really accurate.  

I guess really what I keep trying to say about this situation is we have virtually no information about what happened or what types of damages she is alleging.  All we are going on are her very brief statements/interviews with the press (and victims change their stories ALL THE TIME and the press is well known to manipulate and distort information) AND our own personal experiences and biases.  Strong statements saying "unless x, she loses" based on the assumption that we have most of Dillon's story don't seem helpful to me.  You probably still disagree with me and I won't debate further as I have far less knowledge and experience in civil cases.  However, I can readily see where the timing of all this could make perfect sense without it coming across as opportunistic and based on what I have seen in child sexual abuse cases where the victim does not report for years and years and years, it is POSSIBLE for her to win this case without any evidence of having seen a medical professional or reporting the incident soon after it happened.  Will that happen here?  No clue.

ETA - I realize that intervening unforeseeable acts by those who broke the news of the molestations and the Ashley Madison stuff would have a large impact here.  I don't think Dillon can successfully recover from Josh for damages she has suffered as a result of those third party actions if they are deemed as unforeseeable by Josh.  I think I am more trying to say that she will argue that the damage caused by his actions are the damages she is seeking to recover for, but she did not fully understand the extent of the damages until later.  In other words, I think she can only likely only recover for damages that are truly the result of Josh's actions and not due to events he could not reasonably have foreseen.  I am not exactly sure how that would play out and maybe you have some insight there.  I do, however, think that the results of the actions of the third parties make the timing of it all seem far more likely to be believable and not opportunistic.  I do think I am a bit confused in my head.

[JenniferJuniper]

55 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I agree the evidence may or may not be there in this case.  My primary reason for saying that is that maybe nothing happened.  If there was a sexual assault, I agree that it is far easier to track down any existing evidence earlier rather than later and may not be possible later.  I took issue with the statement that reads to me basically as saying "if she didn't seek medical treatment right away, she won't be able to build a case".  This I disagree with and your most recent response does somewhat clear up why.  In my personal opinion, the way things have unfolded, it is likely that Dillon will argue that there was a sexual assault in March and April that she decided not to act upon.  Then, in May, the scandal about the molestations exploded which furthered her distress and greatly contributed to her inability to work.  Then, a few months later the Ashley Madison thing exploded FURTHER COMPOUNDING the harm that never, ever would have happened BUT FOR the unlawful actions of Josh.  Is it potentially tough case?  Yes, but it all depends on what actually happened and what types of evidence are available.  I don't see how saying she pretty much needs medical records or a report to the police from soon after the event is really accurate.  

I guess really what I keep trying to say about this situation is we have virtually no information about what happened or what types of damages she is alleging.  All we are going on are her very brief statements/interviews with the press (and victims change their stories ALL THE TIME and the press is well known to manipulate and distort information) AND our own personal experiences and biases.  Strong statements saying "unless x, she loses" based on the assumption that we have most of Dillon's story don't seem helpful to me.  You probably still disagree with me and I won't debate further as I have far less knowledge and experience in civil cases.  However, I can readily see where the timing of all this could make perfect sense without it coming across as opportunistic and based on what I have seen in child sexual abuse cases where the victim does not report for years and years and years, it is POSSIBLE for her to win this case without any evidence of having seen a medical professional or reporting the incident soon after it happened.  Will that happen here?  No clue.

ETA - I realize that intervening unforeseeable acts by those who broke the news of the molestations and the Ashley Madison stuff would have a large impact here.  I don't think Dillon can successfully recover from Josh for damages she has suffered as a result of those third party actions.  I think I am more trying to say that she will argue that the damage caused by his actions are the damages she is seeking to recover for, but she did not fully understand the extent of the damages until later.  In other words, I think she can only likely only recover for damages that are truly the result of Josh's actions and not due to events he could not reasonably have foreseen.  I am not exactly sure how that would play out and maybe you have some insight there.  I do, however, think that the results of the actions of the third parties make the timing of it all seem far more likely to be believable and not opportunistic.  I do think I am a bit confused in my head.

To the first bolded, I never said she can't build a case.  I said failure to report or seek  medical attention or otherwise mention it to a physician could - and probably would - adversely impact her credibility in case that will rely very heavily on her credibility.

How could she claim molestations had any impact on her ability to work?  She probably didn't know anything about them. She didn't recognize Josh until the AM story broke in August, 4 - 5 months after the alleged assaults. And even then, what impact would the fact that he molested girls more than a decade ago possibly have on her?  She had sex with him twice, that's the extent of her relationship with him.

To the second bolded, I'm handicapping the case based upon what we do know and what I see on a daily basis. I did not speak in absolutes, so please no straw man stuff.

To the third, I'm not sure what other third party actions you are referring to as I'm not aware of any, but you are correct, the molestations and the AM outing have nothing to do with her allegations. Her case is a pretty simple one.  He assaulted me during (partly?) consensual sex and I suffered physical injuries and emotional injuries that also resulted in economic loss.    She'll need evidence and documentation and she'll need to come across as credible. 

To the fourth, the fact that she didn't do anything until she knew he was on a TV show and his family had money doesn't make her more believable to me.  Depending on whether she has solid evidence or not, it may well lead her to be viewed as opportunistic.  If the defense chooses to go there.

I can't stress enough that this is a civil case for money damages.   For the purposes of this litigation she is a "plaintiff" not a "victim".   Making her case is would be pretty easy if she has 1) a police report or other official incident report  2) witness testimony 3) dated photos of physical injuries 4) Medical records from shortly after the incident confirming physical injuries 5) Psychiatric reports outlining how the alleged attacks impacted her emotionally.

If she has all of these things, Josh is likely settling out for relatively big bucks.  If she has none of these things, she can't prove damages and the case will probably be dismissed sooner rather than later.   The question is, what does she have and what are the dates of what she has?  Because if she only has number 5 above and the records are all from after the AM scandal broke, she can certainly try to claim delayed post-traumatic stress, but in my experience it is very difficult for plaintiffs (who weren't children at the time) to prevail with these sorts of allegations alone.  

[Whoosh]

First, I just want to say that what I initially responded to was this statement, which I still don't agree with.

5 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Whether she has any actual proof that he hurt her in some way is another issue.  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.

If you are saying that the only type of damages that she could possibly be trying to recover here must be the result of either physical or mental harm, I don't see that.  For example, if her studio and all the clubs contacted her after they got wind of the news of all this and said she was no longer employable in the industry - that is a harm caused by the incident that would not have been known until after the Ashley Madison debacle.  That would not require any type of medical documentation AT ALL.  I don't think I have seen anything that discusses exactly what types of harms she is alleging in the case.  If his alleged illegal act directly resulted in her loss of ability to work, she doesn't need medical documentation unless she is alleging some type of medical reason for that.

Further, if you are saying that PTSD as the result of a traumatic event is something a jury won't believe unless she sought treatment for that PTSD within the first few months, I guess that may be how the general public thinks, but I would sincerely hope that they would realize the grave error of this line of thinking after carefully considering what Dillon presents for a case.  The reality with many cases of PTSD is that the person who has suffered a trauma frequently does not seek treatment for quite some time.  There are many reasons for this starting with the stigma attached to mental health services.  Add to that the fact that many go through a period of kind of shock and awe where things aren't really real.  Next add the stage many go through where they know it is bad but figure they are strong and will work through it.  Then, when you finally DO make the call to seek help, there is a wait.  Sometimes a long wait to get an appointment.  I see nothing unusual about a four month (or indeed longer) lag between the trauma and seeking treatment and if the general public is incapable of comprehending that very real truth even after hearing the case presented by Dillon's attorney - that is just tragic to me.  So, I would not really call what I am saying a straw man - maybe a huge disconnect between our thinking here that led me to misunderstand what you are saying.

Next, if she IS claiming PTSD or something similar, learning that she was sexually assaulted by this particularly distasteful and hypocritical child molesting bible basher could indeed compound her trauma.  I don't know when she found out who he was, but if she recognized him as a result of the massive media coverage surrounding the molestations that took place a month or two after the alleged assault, I could see that having an impact.  You can insist she didn't recognize him until the AM story broke - not sure why you think that.  If she actually stated that, then I retract my earlier statements and say that this knowledge may have furthered her trauma when she did finally have knowledge of it all.

In my opinion, you are making a LOT of assumptions here.  I will also say that YES she is the plaintiff - her reason for being a plaintiff is that she is alleging she is the VICTIM of a sexual assault.  She may well have witness testimony.  She may well have photos of physical injuries and also she may not even be claiming to have suffered physical injuries.  I am sure that at this point if she is claiming emotional damages, she has a psychiatric report that will cover that.  If she waited a few months before seeking help - again that is normal.  "Delayed post-traumatic stress" on the basis that you THINK she may have waited a few months to seek treatment is an interesting perspective - particularly when you consider the larger picture of this case.  

We are clearly just not going to agree here and that does not all center around the gaps in my knowledge of how things work in civil vs criminal cases (though I am sure some of it does).

Again, I only initially responded because I really disagree with the above quote at the beginning of this post.  If the damages she is claiming have nothing to do with the types of injuries you are assuming, medical documentation would not be needed.  Further, I don't see the delay as a problem for proving PTSD as a result of the alleged attack and she may well have photos or witness testimony she could use to try to prove physical harm too.  And for all we know she has those "soon after" medical documents you seem to think are central to her case no matter how it is viewed.  Anyway, carry on.

ETA - not sure if you know this, but professionals often recommend that you seek treatment for PTSD if your symptoms continue for more than 6 to 8 weeks.  If you can't prevail in civil court if you don't follow that recommendation to the day - that is just a sad and sorry statement on our system of justice.

 

59 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

To the first bolded, I never said she can't build a case.  I said failure to report or seek  medical attention or otherwise mention it to a physician could - and probably would - adversely impact her credibility in case that will rely very heavily on her credibility.

How could she claim molestations had any impact on her ability to work?  She probably didn't know anything about them. She didn't recognize Josh until the AM story broke in August, 4 - 5 months after the alleged assaults. And even then, what impact would the fact that he molested girls more than a decade ago possibly have on her?  She had sex with him twice, that's the extent of her relationship with him.

To the second bolded, I'm handicapping the case based upon what we do know and what I see on a daily basis. I did not speak in absolutes, so please no straw man stuff.

To the third, I'm not sure what other third party actions you are referring to as I'm not aware of any, but you are correct, the molestations and the AM outing have nothing to do with her allegations. Her case is a pretty simple one.  He assaulted me during (partly?) consensual sex and I suffered physical injuries and emotional injuries that also resulted in economic loss.    She'll need evidence and documentation and she'll need to come across as credible. 

To the fourth, the fact that she didn't do anything until she knew he was on a TV show and his family had money doesn't make her more believable to me.  Depending on whether she has solid evidence or not, it may well lead her to be viewed as opportunistic.  If the defense chooses to go there.

I can't stress enough that this is a civil case for money damages.   For the purposes of this litigation she is a "plaintiff" not a "victim".   Making her case is would be pretty easy if she has 1) a police report or other official incident report  2) witness testimony 3) dated photos of physical injuries 4) Medical records from shortly after the incident confirming physical injuries 5) Psychiatric reports outlining how the alleged attacks impacted her emotionally.

If she has all of these things, Josh is likely settling out for relatively big bucks.  If she has none of these things, she can't prove damages and the case will probably be dismissed sooner rather than later.   The question is, what does she have and what are the dates of what she has?  Because if she only has number 5 above and the records are all from after the AM scandal broke, she can certainly try to claim delayed post-traumatic stress, but in my experience it is very difficult for plaintiffs (who weren't children at the time) to prevail with these sorts of allegations alone.  

 

[JenniferJuniper]

46 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

First, I just want to say that what I initially responded to was this statement, which I still don't agree with.

If you are saying that the only type of damages that she could possibly be trying to recover here must be the result of either physical or mental harm, I don't see that.  For example, if her studio and all the clubs contacted her after they got wind of the news of all this and said she was no longer employable in the industry - that is a harm caused by the incident that would not have been known until after the Ashley Madison debacle.  That would not require any type of medical documentation AT ALL.  I don't think I have seen anything that discusses exactly what types of harms she is alleging in the case.  If his alleged illegal act directly resulted in her loss of ability to work, she doesn't need medical documentation unless she is alleging some type of medical reason for that.

Further, if you are saying that PTSD as the result of a traumatic event is something a jury won't believe unless she sought treatment for that PTSD within the first few months, I guess that may be how the general public thinks, but I would sincerely hope that they would realize the grave error of this line of thinking after carefully considering what Dillon presents for a case.  The reality with many cases of PTSD is that the person who has suffered a trauma frequently does not seek treatment for quite some time.  There are many reasons for this starting with the stigma attached to mental health services.  Add to that the fact that many go through a period of kind of shock and awe where things aren't really real.  Next add the stage many go through where they know it is bad but figure they are strong and will work through it.  Then, when you finally DO make the call to seek help, there is a wait.  Sometimes a long wait to get an appointment.  I see nothing unusual about a four month (or indeed longer) lag between the trauma and seeking treatment and if the general public is incapable of comprehending that very real truth even after hearing the case presented by Dillon's attorney - that is just tragic to me.  So, I would not really call what I am saying a straw man - maybe a huge disconnect between our thinking here that led me to misunderstand what you are saying.

Next, if she IS claiming PTSD or something similar, learning that she was sexually assaulted by this particularly distasteful and hypocritical child molesting bible basher could indeed compound her trauma.  I don't know when she found out who he was, but if she recognized him as a result of the massive media coverage surrounding the molestations that took place a month or two after the alleged assault, I could see that having an impact.  You can insist she didn't recognize him until the AM story broke - not sure why you think that.  If she actually stated that, then I retract my earlier statements and say that this knowledge may have furthered her trauma when she did finally have knowledge of it all.

In my opinion, you are making a LOT of assumptions here.  I will also say that YES she is the plaintiff - her reason for being a plaintiff is that she is alleging she is the VICTIM of a sexual assault.  She may well have witness testimony.  She may well have photos of physical injuries and also she may not even be claiming to have suffered physical injuries.  I am sure that at this point if she is claiming emotional damages, she has a psychiatric report that will cover that.  If she waited a few months before seeking help - again that is normal.  "Delayed post-traumatic stress" on the basis that you THINK she may have waited a few months to seek treatment is an interesting perspective - particularly when you consider the larger picture of this case.  

We are clearly just not going to agree here and that does not all center around the gaps in my knowledge of how things work in civil vs criminal cases (though I am sure some of it does).

Again, I only initially responded because I really disagree with the above quote at the beginning of this post.  If the damages she is claiming have nothing to do with the types of injuries you are assuming, medical documentation would not be needed.  Further, I don't see the delay as a problem for proving PTSD as a result of the alleged attack and she may well have photos or witness testimony she could use to try to prove physical harm too.  And for all we know she has those "soon after" medical documents you seem to think are central to her case no matter how it is viewed.  Anyway, carry on.

ETA - not sure if you know this, but professionals often recommend that you seek treatment for PTSD if your symptoms continue for more than 6 to 8 weeks.  If you can't prevail in civil court if you don't follow that recommendation to the day - that is just a sad and sorry statement on our system of justice.

 

 

To the bolded 1.  That's a huge stretch.  The only reason any clubs would have "gotten wind" of anything is because she went to the press.  No, I do not see economic loss stemming from her voluntary choice to go public being compensable damages in this suit.  If she claimed she was too injured to work, she could make a case.  With medical records and tax records or a letter from an employer.

To the bolded 2.  What I'm saying is that if all she has as evidence is proof that she sought treatment after Josh was outed in the press as an AM user, she is going to have a tough time making a case in the absence of other evidence.  Rarely, if ever, have I seen a case where someone prevailed with no evidence supporting an incident happened, no physical injuries proven, and a late post-traumatic stress claim.  You can argue all you like about delayed manifestation and I'm sure her attorney will find a doctor to explain that this is what happened (if that's the argument and if the case ever gets that far) but I can tell you from experience that she's going to have trouble convincing anyone to award her money if that's all she can support.  Especially if she didn't seek treatment until after she saw him in the news in August.

To the third bolded  - She said she didn't know who he was until the AM news hit and she saw his face.  And specifically that she didn't know he was married with a pregnant wife and that disgusted her.  She didn't mention the molestations.  The molestations have no connection to her case, as much as you might like them to.

And to the fourth where you accuse me of making assumptions.  I've outlined scenarios based upon various fact patterns and made no assumptions whatsoever, You, on the other hand, seem to be throwing whatever you can possibly think of against the wall to support your desire to see Josh pay.   Sorry if the dose of reality I'm trying to provide is upsetting to you but you really don't know what you are talking about.  So you'll have to find someone else to argue with.

 

[Whoosh]

56 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

To the bolded 1.  That's a huge stretch.  The only reason any clubs would have "gotten wind" of anything is because she went to the press.  No, I do not see economic loss stemming from her voluntary choice to go public being compensable damages in this suit.  If she claimed she was too injured to work, she could make a case.  With medical records and tax records or a letter from an employer.

You call it a huge stretch, I call it a random hypothetical that is just as likely as many other random hypotheticals - including YOUR random hypotheticals.  Dillon's name was all over the web before she went to the press.  YES her decision to go public would be weighed into things, but that is where the proportional responsibility comes into play.  So, say as a random hypothetical other porn stars are refusing to work with someone who had unprotected sex with a child molesting train wreck of a celebrity (true?  doubt it, but it could be.  it's a hypothetical).  If that is the case the jury could say, hypothetically, that the loss of that job is 50% Dillon's fault and 50% Josh's fault and she would be able to recover for 50% of the damages that resulted from his unlawful behavior, right?  Hypothetically.  There are all kinds of scenarios that are not covered by your hypothetical that you seem to think is the only possible way this case will play out. My point here is not that this is a claim in the law suit - my point is that any claim of damages in the law suit that are not medical in nature will not require a medical report.  That's what I am saying.  Are there any claims of damages in the law suit that are not medical in nature?  I would say possibly.

56 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

To the bolded 2.  What I'm saying is that if all she has as evidence is proof that she sought treatment after Josh was outed in the press as an AM user, she is going to have a tough time making a case in the absence of other evidence.  Rarely, if ever, have I seen a case where someone prevailed with no evidence supporting an incident happened, no physical injuries proven, and a late post-traumatic stress claim.  You can argue all you like about delayed manifestation and I'm sure her attorney will find a doctor to explain that this is what happened (if that's the argument and if the case ever gets that far) but I can tell you from experience that she's going to have trouble convincing anyone to award her money if that's all she can support.  Especially if she didn't seek treatment until after she saw him in the news in August.

I just can not fathom why you are so sure she is moving forward with this case with little to no evidence, but maybe I am reading you wrong.  Anyway - 

I hear you, but I think you grossly overstate it if we stop to consider the realistic timeframes for seeking and getting help for PTSD.  The delayed manifestation is silly and is not what I am arguing at all.  PTSD symptoms start fairly soon after the incident.  People often delay treatment.  If the PTSD was caused by an event in March or April, it is very reasonable to think a typical person would not actually START treatment for that until late summer or early fall.  Some may start earlier and some may start later, but it is a perfectly reasonable timeframe.  Do you know when she started to seek treatment, btw?  I think we have absolutely no clue, but again I don't see this timeframe as unreasonable, particularly when things likely got worse as time went on.  I agree that the timing could be seen as opportunistic, but it is my opinion that a good attorney and good medical professionals could clear up any confusion if indeed this is NOT an opportunistic (or mainly opportunistic) claim.

Delayed onset PTSD is actually a thing.  In delayed onset PTSD, symptoms do not start until at least 6 months after the trauma occurs.  Say we go with the March date - that would mean that Dillon's symptoms would have started by September at the earliest.  If that was the case, it is highly unlikely that she would have decided to seek treatment, sought treatment, waited for an appointment, been diagnosed, decided to file a law suit, and actually FILED a lawsuit by mid November.  I don't think that happened.  I have not used the term delayed onset PTSD and I could call this a strawman argument you are using when you claim I have mentioned delayed PTSD - I will assume it is a misunderstanding based on your lack of knowledge of PTSD and delayed onset PTSD instead.  Again, the timing here seems very consistent with what one might expect from good old, run of the mill, non-delayed PTSD.  In that type of flat out PTSD that is not delayed, things frequently get worse over time for a variety of reasons.

We can just agree to disagree.

56 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

To the third bolded  - She said she didn't know who he was until the AM news hit and she saw his face.  And specifically that she didn't know he was married with a pregnant wife and that disgusted her.  She didn't mention the molestations.  The molestations have no connection to her case, as much as you might like them to.

56 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

And to the fourth where you accuse me of making assumptions.  I've outlined scenarios based upon various fact patterns and made no assumptions whatsoever, You, on the other hand, seem to be throwing whatever you can possibly think of against the wall to support your desire to see Josh pay.   Sorry if the dose of reality I'm trying to provide is upsetting to you but you really don't know what you are talking about.  So you'll have to find someone else to argue with.

I stuck these two quotes together somehow - a special skill of mine.  With regard to your third point - I don't give a shit if the molestations have anything to do with the claims she is making or not.  Further, I don't actually want Josh to pay unless that is the just and fair outcome.  Until I read the document, I will think they might, possibly, maybe play a tangental role.  I conceded the point that she did not know about the molestations until August - that seems fairly insignificant to me.  While I did mention the timing of when she found out incorrectly, the impact (if any) of finding out about the molestations on the severity of PTSD symptoms wouldn't be tied to any exact timing.  My bad for getting that timing wrong, though.

LOL - you think you are covering all the fact patterns.  I think you are making assumptions based on your preconceived notions of things like when one should or does typically seek treatment for PTSD, etc.  Potato- potahto.  Again, we can agree to disagree.  

I am still thinking it will likely settle out of court and none of this will matter so I really am tapping out of the conversation until something new catches my eye.  It will, however, continue to be notable to me when someone makes authoritative and strong statements about the case when they don't seem to be thinking outside a preconceived box (a box, btw, that as a former psychologist I disagree with in terms of the PTSD and timing issues).