Josh Duggar: Part 10- Will "Rehab" Ever End?

[Whoosh]

5 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I haven't seen anyone making those kinds of definitive statements.  I see some people saying that based on the limited data we have now it's not a believable story, but that can all change depending on what proof she has.  People are reevaluating their opinions whenever new data comes in - like the latest interview.  

None of us have any idea what happened, but I don't know what you mean by people drawing wild conclusions based on random assumptions.  In explaining your points you've thrown out hypotheticals about possible scenarios/reasons that may explain her behavior.

Nothing wrong with that, you were very clear that they were hypothetical and you weren't making assumptions.  But those who don't, at this point, believe her are resting that on the limited data and her own actions.  Not being snarky at all - what wild conclusions are people drawing?

If by regarding expecting higher levels of support for Dillon here you mean because in general were far less likely to make judgements based on slut shaming, far more likely to understand the complexities  in reporting sexual assault, and already know Josh is a scumbag I agree.  Please correct me if that's not what you meant.

the fact that in a forum where many would be predisposed to be supportive she's not finding a lot of support is pretty indicative that if the facts aren't there people here won't give knee jerk support just because she's a woman or sex worker.  

I agree much of this, but we have a few people who are claiming expertise in this field that are making pretty solid statements about what is going on in many ways.  I don't want to go back and dredge up examples, but I will do my best to call out the behavior when I see it going forward.  You are correct in what I meant by the higher levels of support I would expect here.  I don't think people should give her support simply because she is a sex worker.  Nor do I think they should assume she is untruthful simply because they can't picture how a sex worker might respond or react to things differently than they might personally react.

[vienna]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I haven't seen anyone making those kinds of definitive statements.  I see some people saying that based on the limited data we have now it's not a believable story, but that can all change depending on what proof she has.  People are reevaluating their opinions whenever new data comes in - like the latest interview.  

None of us have any idea what happened, but I don't know what you mean by people drawing wild conclusions based on random assumptions.  In explaining your points you've thrown out hypotheticals about possible scenarios/reasons that may explain her behavior.

Nothing wrong with that, you were very clear that they were hypothetical and you weren't making assumptions.  But those who don't, at this point, believe her are resting that on the limited data and her own actions.  Not being snarky at all - what wild conclusions are people drawing?

If by regarding expecting higher levels of support for Dillon here you mean because in general were far less likely to make judgements based on slut shaming, far more likely to understand the complexities  in reporting sexual assault, and already know Josh is a scumbag I agree.  Please correct me if that's not what you meant.

the fact that in a forum where many would be predisposed to be supportive she's not finding a lot of support is pretty indicative that if the facts aren't there people here won't give knee jerk support just because she's a woman or sex worker.  

I have to disagree. If someone would come to fj to check how her story is taken, the answer would be: Not even the haters believe here. At best people end their statments arguing agianst her with something like "we don´t know what happened" but the clear overall tone is: Famebitch, not believing her. Thank you whoosh for your affort to explain usual behaviour for victims of sexual violence!

[Catey]

5 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

find it hard to imagine (presuming there was an encounter at all, consensual or not, which I have no opinion on), that Josh wouldn't have told her "who he was" -- in an ego-driven sort of way

I am sort of a big deal...

[sndral]

8 hours ago, Whoosh said:

f some random guy that I don't know started showing up at my place of work and subsequently assaulting me, I would likely keep any evidence I had of that.  If I felt that no one would believe me for various reasons, I would not be very likely to run to the police, but I might just put that DNA in a sealed ziplock ...

FYI, don't put potential DNA samples in plastic - bacteria/mold can grow on samples stored in plastic making it impossible to obtain usable DNA results. A clean paper bag is better. My geek/nerd tendencies are showing aren't they?

Despite crime scene type TV shows and Monica's blue dress scenarios where DNA is found just about everywhere, it's possible that any potential DNA would be too degraded to ID Josh even if Danica saved something with his bodily fluids on it.

 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, sndral said:

FYI, don't put potential DNA samples in plastic - bacteria/mold can grow on samples stored in plastic making it impossible to obtain usable DNA results. A clean paper bag is better. My geek/nerd tendencies are showing aren't they?

Despite crime scene type TV shows and Monica's blue dress scenarios where DNA is found just about everywhere, it's possible that any potential DNA would be too degraded to ID Josh even if Danica saved something with his bodily fluids on it.

Well I guess I can go throw out my collection of random samples stored in ziplock baggies LOL.  Totally kidding.  As much as I hope this information is something I never need, I appreciate the advice there.

Realistically, I do know that DNA is not always easy to recover under the best of circumstance and that it is highly unlikely in this particular case that Dillon will have any admissible evidence along those lines.  Several people are vocally advocating for their own version of events here and one frequent statement they make to back their claims is that Dillon has no evidence or nothing but her word or nothing but her word and the possible testimony of a medical professional that was not contacted until after the Ashley Madison scandal broke.  I see absolutely no reason to believe that has to be true.  It well might be, but this case has not yet even entered the discovery phase.  If this case continues in court, we are likely to see a series of motions and hearings on various issues.  This would be the first time someone would be required to provide actual the evidence to the court.  If a piece of evidence is not relevant to those pretrial motions and hearings, it will likely not be submitted to the court until the time at which it becomes relevant at trial (though a list of planned evidence should be shared in discovery).  At this point, for all we know Dillon has 85 degrading DNA samples and 5 busloads of eager witnesses squirreled away in her apartment and just chose not to discuss those things with Radar or Hustler.  I kid, but I really hope my point is clear - just because Dillon and her attorney have not shared something with the interwebs doesn't mean it isn't true or doesn't exist.  In fact, they would be remarkably foolhardy to toss all their cards down on the internet at this early stage of the process.  So, people can either build detailed theories of how things happened and what will happen in court based on the fact that Dillon didn't call them personally and tell them about all the evidence she has, or people can take a more reasoned approach and acknowledge that we just don't know.  If you assume she is lying, you will assume she has no evidence.  If you entertain the possibility that she is NOT lying, it suddenly seems reasonable that she may well be able to produce all kinds of evidence (some compelling, some not) to back her claims.

What we KNOW is that discovery has been delayed.  That should be a rock solid indication to people that we don't yet know about all the possible evidence either party may introduce.  And frankly, we may never know about some or all of the potential evidence either party may have.  We are not the finder of fact (who often don't get to know about certain pieces of evidence deemed inadmissible) or the judge here.

*Just to note, I am not speaking to you in that second paragraph, but just speaking to the situation in general.  I do appreciate your input on my plans of squirreling away a ziplock DNA evidence stash

[EmCatlyn]

9 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

For any attorney here that would like to weigh in....could Josh's "previous bad acts" be brought into trial (should it get that far)? If I were his attorney, I would do everything in my power to keep the information/allegations/admitted wrongdoings regarding the molestations, from ever seeing the light of day in the courtroom.

I am wondering that too.  Especially since he was a minor at the time, I would think the judge could agree that the molestation is irrelevant.

It seems to me also that out in the real world the average potential juror may have not heard of the molestation or only heard the bits of it that played it down as adolescent curiosity.

So Josh might do better in a jury trial than Danica, and this may be what his lawyers were bargaining for.

[Whoosh]

34 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am wondering that too.  Especially since he was a minor at the time, I would think the judge could agree that the molestation is irrelevant.

It seems to me also that out in the real world the average potential juror may have not heard of the molestation or only heard the bits of it that played it down as adolescent curiosity.

So Josh might do better in a jury trial than Danica, and this may be what his lawyers were bargaining for.

I am hoping an actual attorney with actual trial experience weighs in on this.  In a criminal case, a defendant can opt to not take the stand, but I am almost positive that is not the case in a civil trial except under extenuating circumstances.  In a criminal trial, evidence of prior bad acts is not admissible unless it falls into a specific category of proving the elements of the crime in question, as it does not speak to whether a particular individual has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime in question.  In a criminal trial character evidence is also restricted, as the fact that someone is basically just a crap person does not speak to whether the particular individual has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have committed the crime in question.  Some of that can change depending on the behavior of the defendant.  For example, if a defendant attempts to present a series of witnesses to attest to his sterling character and propensity to do good at all times, that opens the door for the prosecution to attempt to rebut that argument.  Similarly, if a defendant falsely claims that they have never been accused or convicted of a crime and that is false, they open the door for the prosecution to rebut that.

In a civil case, I am not at all positive, but I believe most defendants do testify (and may be compelled to) and that anything relevant to the case at hand is fair game unless deemed inadmissible for some specific reason.  So, it might be seen as fair game to discuss the Ashley Madison accounts and other affairs Duggar may have had (if any), but something completely irrelevant to the matter at hand outside of attempting to prove the defendant an overall "bad person" would likely be inadmissible unless the defendant opened the door in some way that allows the plaintiff to attempt to rebut their argument with something like the molestations.

I hope that makes sense and that someone can either confirm I am on the right track or set me straight as to how civil court works.

ETA the fact that he was a minor at the time of the molestations makes it exceedingly unlikely in my mind that that would ever come into evidence unless he or his attorney opens the door somehow.

[JenniferJuniper]

7 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I am wondering that too.  Especially since he was a minor at the time, I would think the judge could agree that the molestation is irrelevant.

It seems to me also that out in the real world the average potential juror may have not heard of the molestation or only heard the bits of it that played it down as adolescent curiosity.

So Josh might do better in a jury trial than Danica, and this may be what his lawyers were bargaining for.

Agree. He was a minor, he was never charged with or convicted of any crime and it's relatively remote in time.  I don't think it gets in as evidence.  During the jury selection process his attorney look to avoid any potential juror who knows anything about Josh's past.

[DaysAgo]

As seen on the Life is Not All Pickles and Hairspray Facebook page, this is the document detailing Josh's upcoming court case.

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/10202187/STAMMNORTHUP_v_DUGGAR

 

[Londish]

Are there any FJ lawyers that an translate this into layman's terms? 

[Whoosh]

Here is what looks like a fairly decent write up of what is not so affectionately known in many 2L or 3L circles (and in the courts in general) as "Rule 404(b)".  Anyone interested in the admissibility of prior bad acts or character evidence should check it out.  I am including a quote of the summary paragraph

"FRE 404(b) prohibits the introduction of other crimes, wrongs or acts “to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith.” Yet the rule allows the introduction of other acts evidence for limited purposes if it bears on a relevant issue, such as motive, opportunity, intent, prepartion, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident. Despite its normally broad discretion in admitting such evidence, trial courts frequently demonstrate some trepidation in admitting “other acts” evidence, which is often a hotly contested issue on appeal. Counsel confronting a FRE 404(b) issue may avoid problems in its application by considering the following common questions and mis- conceptions:"

http://federalevidence.com/samples/Lead_Story_APRIL2005.pdf

[EmCatlyn]

10 hours ago, sawasdee said:

The whole of Joshgate#1 was in the Bangkok Post - so yes, the story is out there in the general domain, not just amongst fundy watchers or gossip mag readers, but the general reading public - at least in Asia!

Very true.  But not everyone reads everything or remembers it.  At an AAUW luncheon a week or two after it all came out, only 3 out of 8 women at the table had heard of it, only 5 even knew who the Duggars were, and of the 3 who knew of the scandal only two of us knew exactly what the accusations were, who the victims were, how old the kids had been and what the parents had done/failed to do.  (That was the topic of discussion--the parents' response.)

This was at the height of the scandal.  Though our group is not your typical People magazine and reality TV audience, all of us have neighbors, friends, etc who might have talked to us about the scandal.  And it was in the newspaper.  It just didn't "register" for most of us.  

When the Ashley Madison scandal happened, the molestation was mentioned again in the press, but a lot of people have the impression that Josh got in trouble as a kid for something minor and now he got in trouble for cheating on his wife.  They think, "Horny, sleezy guy," not "Predator with poor impulse control."

So if the plaintiff isn't allowed to bring up the molestation, the jury may not think twice about it in this context.

[Mothership]

To date my biggest surprise in the DD v JD case is that Boob and Mullet haven't blamed it on Obama!

 

[Flyinthesoup]

Do we know when the DD interview took place?  I am just wondering if this interview was conducted before the lawsuit was brought forward, even though it's now being published.  

@Whoosh I simply want to say, I really appreciate how you have been handling the information as it's being released.  You have given me a much better perspective on being 'objective'.  I often try to see both sides of a situation, but how you have handled this, has helped me to see, I'm not as objective as I like to think I am.  Thank you for teaching me a few things!  I truly appreciate your contribution. 

 

[bea]

I'm not an attorney, just married to one. However, just scanning over what's happened, it looks like Josh is not getting what he wants.

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, Flyinthesoup said:

 

Do we know when the DD interview took place?  I am just wondering if this interview was conducted before the lawsuit was brought forward, even though it's now being published.

 

I have not seen any indication of the date of the photo shoot or the interview with Hustler magazine.  I have been wondering about that myself.  However, I actually mentioned a few days ago that Dillon seemed to be on twitter promoting the Hustler spread on both her twitter account and the Hustler magazine account.  Even if the interview, etc took place prior to her decision to file suit, and yet that was in fact her or an agent authorized by her on twitter the other day, I am not sure it matters if that makes any sense.

[DuggarsTheEndIsNear]

The page isn't formatted right so I can't read it. 

[Flyinthesoup]

6 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I have not seen any indication of the date of the photo shoot or the interview with Hustler magazine.  I have been wondering about that myself.  However, I actually mentioned a few days ago that Dillon seemed to be on twitter promoting the Hustler spread on both her twitter account and the Hustler magazine account.  Even if the interview, etc took place prior to her decision to file suit, and yet that was in fact her or an agent authorized by her on twitter the other day, I am not sure it matters if that makes any sense.

I missed that information,  thank you for stating it again for my benefit.   It would be my desire see the evidence to get a better perspective of what all did or did not take place.  I remain open to learning....I  think.  

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, Flyinthesoup said:

I missed that information,  thank you for stating it again for my benefit.   It would be my desire see the evidence to get a better perspective of what all did or did not take place.  I remain open to learning....I  think.  

No problem.  I know nothing about twitter so I sounded like a bumbling clueless person when I tried to mention it LOL.  I am providing a link to what I believe is Ms. Dillon's twitter account.  If you scroll to Jan 20, you will see that she is discussing the Hustler twitter account.  You will see some back and forth on the Hustler twitter account she links to also (also on Jan 20).

I have no idea how to know if something is an official or real twitter account and I really don't get twitter.  I thought she was going to be on the Hustler twitter doing a Q&A and was eager to check it out.  Instead I got an eyeful of NIKE! photos from the photo shoot LOL.  I enjoyed that well enough, so no complaints here.

https://twitter.com/danicadillon?lang=en

[Imagine20]

I'm not a trial attorney, but they seem like normal pretrial strategy things. You can't tell much regarding substance from them. Arguing venue and failure to state a claim are procedural.

The rest lays out the discovery schedule where both sides will show the other what they've got. 

I see other Facebook groups looking at these things as great victories for Danica. 

[EmCatlyn]

8 hours ago, diplomat said:

I'm not convinced that Josh is still at RU, although we know he was there at some point. Paragraph 2 of Josh's answer to Danica's complaint -- http://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/josh-duggar-danica-dillon-lawsuit-signed.pdf -- said only that he "has stayed" (past tense) at RU.

But I do expect that Josh will stay hidden. His attorney likely told him to keep a low profile.

"Has stayed," is not past tense.  It is present perfect.  

Simple past vs present perfect 

The present perfect covers a period from past to present which includes the present except when limited by surrounding words.  The passage you refer to does not have such a limit.  (It doesn't say, for example, "has stayed occasionally," or "has stayed in the past" which would imply he is not there any more.)

The main purpose of the statement was not to declare how long Josh has been/will be at RU but to clarify legal residency.  For all I know (lawyers, please speak up) "has stayed" may be the preferred form when distinguishing between a temporary residence and the regular, legal residence.  

From the point of view of everyday language, "has stayed" could suggest that he is no longer (or not always) at RU, but it could equally imply that he is still there. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Whoosh said:

So, people can either build detailed theories of how things happened and what will happen in court based on the fact that Dillon didn't call them personally and tell them about all the evidence she has, or people can take a more reasoned approach and acknowledge that we just don't know.  If you assume she is lying, you will assume she has no evidence.  

I think this is an unfair characterization of the discussion.  People have been acknowledging that none of us know what happened for pages.  discussing what may or may not happen in different scenarios is no different than what you're doing.

when people make a statement about themselves as a rule other people tend to believe them unless there is a reason not to.  When what you see from that person appears contrary to what they say then there is a tipping point at which the benefit of the doubt vanishes.  That doesn't mean opinions won't change if additional facts are made known.

she doesn't owe random internet people an explanation for her actions, but by the same token she's not owed unwavering benefit of the doubt by anyone either.  

She's an adult and responsible for what she puts out there.  People will form opinions about her based on what she is proactively putting out there and there isn't s moral obligation for the public to ignore that on the theory there could be some logical reason her behavior lacks credibility.  

If it turns out there is a reason people will reasses.

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, Flyinthesoup said:

Do we know when the DD interview took place?  I am just wondering if this interview was conducted before the lawsuit was brought forward, even though it's now being published.  

Josh was in rehab when she did the interview as she makes mention of the fact.  The suit was filed in November, so it's quite possible she did the interview in September or October before she decided to file suit and Hustler waited to publish it until the April edition.

Still, any inconsistencies in her various interviews will be used against her, and there are inconsistencies.

For anyone who hasn't read it yet, here's the last question and answer of the Hustler interview:

Quote

Q:  So what's next for you?

A:  I can't really say what I have in the works but I have some mainstream things that are in the works that I may be cast for .  I guess I can thank Josh Duggar for that.

 

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think this is an unfair characterization of the discussion.  People have been acknowledging that none of us know what happened for pages.  discussing what may or may not happen in different scenarios is no different than what you're doing.

when people make a statement about themselves as a rule other people tend to believe them unless there is a reason not to.  When what you see from that person appears contrary to what they say then there is a tipping point at which the benefit of the doubt vanishes.  That doesn't mean opinions won't change if additional facts are made known.

she doesn't owe random internet people an explanation for her actions, but by the same token she's not owed unwavering benefit of the doubt by anyone either.  

She's an adult and responsible for what she puts out there.  People will form opinions about her based on what she is proactively putting out there and there isn't s moral obligation for the public to ignore that on the theory there could be some logical reason her behavior lacks credibility.  

If it turns out there is a reason people will reasses.

To be blunt, I believe some posters are doing something entirely different.  I would much prefer not to point fingers and name names at this point.  However, as I have stated a few times now, moving forward I WILL be pointing out when someone leaps to an assumption based on limited information and states it as if it were fact and/or then slaps down anyone who mentions a different take on the issue.

I have never, ever said she is owed some unwavering benefit of the doubt.  I simply have not done that and that is not something I would advocate for.  Not at all.  Your opinion can continue to be that her behavior lacks credibility. Mine will continue to be different on some aspects of that.  If I share my opinion and get summarily slapped down by a person claiming to be an expert in matters related to civil litigation, I will comment on that too.

[Coconut Flan]

There reaches a point in many discussions where I begin to offer my grave digging services.  Ladies, I'm heading for the garage soon.  I think the horsie is gasping or gone. 

It's a good time for a break and to remember everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and that every day someone is wrong is on the internet.  It's life.

Next thread: