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

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, justoneoftwo said:

One of the biggest differences with these kinds of cases and others is which part must be proven.  In most crimes the fact that the crime occurred is a given, the question is who did it.  With rape the question usually ends up being did the crime occur, as we know who was involved. It seems to me that people feel attacked because there is no assumption that a crime happened, and being asked to prove that is difficult and emotionally challenging, particularly if you take into account what makes the same acts not a crime.  All of this is very difficult for any plaintiff to prove, and I'm not sure her profession matters much.   

Well said.  Just wanted to add that even when it's clear a crime took place, the questioning (which has to happen) can add to the feeling of violation.

I am very close to someone who was rape victim.  It was stranger rape - he accosted her in a parking garage where he forced her to drive him somewhere else where it happened.  After which he forced her to drive him to another location and drop him off.  When she got home she was immediately taken by a parent to the emergency room where the police were called.  

She had visible injuries, damage to her clothing, there was no question in the eyes of the hospital staff or police that what she said happened was exactly what did happen.  

She had the support of her family, was believed immediately by law enforcement (who by all accounts tried to be as sensitive as they could), and still considers reliving it for the official statement and again in court akin to being violated all over again.  She's said the only reason she testified in court is because she didn't want him to do it to anyone else...but if not for that she would have let him go unpunished in order to avoid testifying.

That's how bad it is when everyone sees you as the victim and no one blames you.  Imagine how hard it must be to come forward once those facts are murkier.

It's an act of courage to press charges when there has been a sexual assault, just as it's a heinous act to falsely accuse someone of sexual assault.

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

Do we know that Josh was in Texas the whole time March 12-14th? How easy would it have been for him to fly back to DC for work a day early? It seemed like his job had him doing quick travel all the time. Josh would fly just for the day to shake some senator's hand and have a FRC photo op and across the country and then back.

I think Josh really wanted to meet one of his favorite porn stars and he found a way. He was probably mad her appearance in the club was close by to DC and he was suppose to be in TX so he went to TX and found a way to leave early. I'm embarrassed to admit this but I had a crush on an American Gladiator back in college. I had been a pretty good kid all my life but when this American Gladiator was signing autographs I had to go. I found a ride home and my parents were away and I took their car without them knowing. It was a blizzard and I crashed the car, left it on the side of the road and found a way to take a bus the rest of the way to meet Laser. This was so out of character for me but my desire to meet this person made me find a way. I just have a feeling Josh found a way to meet his porn star and have his fantasy come true.

That's not even speculation...that's fan fiction.  People can speculate on where he was or on the particulars which are unknown, but crafting a scenario where his motives are labeled "probably" is just a flight of fancy.

 

[sawasdee]

9 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It's an act of courage to press charges when there has been a sexual assault, just as it's a heinous act to falsely accuse someone of sexual assault.

 

 

 

Yes. Exactly. And the latter can seriously affect the former - as in a lack of belief from law enforcement. I think false reporters are heinous - and would imprison them for a commensurate sentence to rape. The damage that they do is incalculable.  They destroy the credibility of true victims. And it is already hard enough being a victim.

[justoneoftwo]

8 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Well said.  Just wanted to add that even when it's clear a crime took place, the questioning (which has to happen) can add to the feeling of violation.

I am very close to someone who was rape victim.  It was stranger rape - he accosted her in a parking garage where he forced her to drive him somewhere else where it happened.  After which he forced her to drive him to another location and drop him off.  When she got home she was immediately taken by a parent to the emergency room where the police were called.  

She had visible injuries, damage to her clothing, there was no question in the eyes of the hospital staff or police that what she said happened was exactly what did happen.  

She had the support of her family, was believed immediately by law enforcement (who by all accounts tried to be as sensitive as they could), and still considers reliving it for the official statement and again in court akin to being violated all over again.  She's said the only reason she testified in court is because she didn't want him to do it to anyone else...but if not for that she would have let him go unpunished in order to avoid testifying.

That's how bad it is when everyone sees you as the victim and no one blames you.  Imagine how hard it must be to come forward once those facts are murkier.

It's an act of courage to press charges when there has been a sexual assault, just as it's a heinous act to falsely accuse someone of sexual assault.

 

 

 

That's not even speculation...that's fan fiction.  People can speculate on where he was or on the particulars which are unknown, but crafting a scenario where his motives are labeled "probably" is just a flight of fancy.

 

I'm sure its incredibly hard to have to relive it, even when no one is questioning your story.  I work with much less emotionally difficult situations and people still have a hard time going through a deposition.  Add into that a defendant who honestly thought it was consensual, or some such situation (which is not uncommon with rape) and you have a horrible situation with no real good solutions.  

[JenniferJuniper]

9 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

Do we know that Josh was in Texas the whole time March 12-14th? How easy would it have been for him to fly back to DC for work a day early? It seemed like his job had him doing quick travel all the time. Josh would fly just for the day to shake some senator's hand and have a FRC photo op and across the country and then back.

 

The Gold Club in Philly is in Rittenhouse Square, a relatively easy cab ride from Philadelphia International Airport.  Rittenhouse is also a short distance to the 30th Street Station and the Acela will get you from Philly to DC in about 1.5 hours, with the Northeast Regional taking a little longer.  So it's certainly not impossible if he did go later or earlier to Texas.

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, justoneoftwo said:

One of the biggest differences with these kinds of cases and others is which part must be proven.  In most crimes the fact that the crime occurred is a given, the question is who did it.  With rape the question usually ends up being did the crime occur, as we know who was involved. It seems to me that people feel attacked because there is no assumption that a crime happened, and being asked to prove that is difficult and emotionally challenging, particularly if you take into account what makes the same acts not a crime.  All of this is very difficult for any plaintiff to prove, and I'm not sure her profession matters much.   

Since this was in response to my quote - I just want to clarify.  My post was in response to a specific statement made by another poster.  I have no problem with anyone doubting whether or not a crime occurred.  None at all.  I do have a problem with many of the reasons that have been given for that doubt, but not for the doubt itself.  So, I think it is fine to say "I don't know if I believe that happened to her" and even giving reasons seems fine to me, so someone might say "I don't think she was assaulted that night, because I was in the same room with her the entire time and saw nothing".  I don't think it is appropriate or good for the safety and welfare of women as a whole to say things like "I don't think it was assault, because she was wearing a short skirt" or "I don't think it was assault, because she is a hooker".  I also don't think it is appropriate or good for women as a whole to say things like "I don't think she can prove that he was the one who assaulted her because she was at a party with a lot of men that night" or "I don't think she can prove that he was the one who assaulted her because she had lots of clients that night."  I think it is great to discuss the realities of proving these cases in a realistic way.

[jacduggar]

46 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

Do we know that Josh was in Texas the whole time March 12-14th? How easy would it have been for him to fly back to DC for work a day early? It seemed like his job had him doing quick travel all the time. Josh would fly just for the day to shake some senator's hand and have a FRC photo op and across the country and then back.

I think Josh really wanted to meet one of his favorite porn stars and he found a way. He was probably mad her appearance in the club was close by to DC and he was suppose to be in TX so he went to TX and found a way to leave early. I'm embarrassed to admit this but I had a crush on an American Gladiator back in college. I had been a pretty good kid all my life but when this American Gladiator was signing autographs I had to go. I found a ride home and my parents were away and I took their car without them knowing. It was a blizzard and I crashed the car, left it on the side of the road and found a way to take a bus the rest of the way to meet Laser. This was so out of character for me but my desire to meet this person made me find a way. I just have a feeling Josh found a way to meet his porn star and have his fantasy come true.

Ok, I have to preface this by saying this whole thing is making me feel so creepy. But I'm also one of those people who HAS to do the research, you know? Like if information is available to me I just have to look. The whole train wreck thing. 

 

On March 11, Josh was in Houston for an FRC training. I seriously doubt he flew to Texas for work, and then flew back for the dates she is saying because the family was on vacation until the 18th (I believe, I read the Duggar Family blog post yesterday and I'm pretty sure it was the 16th or 18th). He is clearly in many of the family vacation pictures. 

 

Also, I hate to be THIS guy, but there is footage of all of this laying in a TLC office somewhere that would be very easy to access and back up any of these dates/times. Josh's side of the story is pretty much iron clad. I feel SO BAD for Anna being dragged through this whole mess by that shit bag. 

[paganhomeschooler]

56 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

Do we know that Josh was in Texas the whole time March 12-14th? How easy would it have been for him to fly back to DC for work a day early? It seemed like his job had him doing quick travel all the time. Josh would fly just for the day to shake some senator's hand and have a FRC photo op and across the country and then back.

I think Josh really wanted to meet one of his favorite porn stars and he found a way. He was probably mad her appearance in the club was close by to DC and he was suppose to be in TX so he went to TX and found a way to leave early. I'm embarrassed to admit this but I had a crush on an American Gladiator back in college. I had been a pretty good kid all my life but when this American Gladiator was signing autographs I had to go. I found a ride home and my parents were away and I took their car without them knowing. It was a blizzard and I crashed the car, left it on the side of the road and found a way to take a bus the rest of the way to meet Laser. This was so out of character for me but my desire to meet this person made me find a way. I just have a feeling Josh found a way to meet his porn star and have his fantasy come true.

Haha....I remember Laser!!  My cousin and I used to watch American Gladiator all the time.  lol  

[jacduggar]

I really feel like Josh is scum, gum on the bottom of my shoe. But...

 

She he follows many TLC stars on Twitter. The Duggars, the my 5 wives people, the sister wives people...it's odd that she'd follow all of those accounts and NEVER had heard of Josh before. 

 

Also, this makes an excellent case for the whole "internet is forever" thing because it took me a grand total of 30 minutes start to finish to find all of this and I didn't even have to go to the dark corners of the Internet. Only Twitter and Google. 

[silverspoons]

2 minutes ago, jacduggar said:

Ok, I have to preface this by saying this whole thing is making me feel so creepy. But I'm also one of those people who HAS to do the research, you know? Like if information is available to me I just have to look. The whole train wreck thing. 

 

On March 11, Josh was in Houston for an FRC training. I seriously doubt he flew to Texas for work, and then flew back for the dates she is saying because the family was on vacation until the 18th (I believe, I read the Duggar Family blog post yesterday and I'm pretty sure it was the 16th or 18th). He is clearly in many of the family vacation pictures. 

 

Also, I hate to be THIS guy, but there is footage of all of this laying in a TLC office somewhere that would be very easy to access and back up any of these dates/times. Josh's side of the story is pretty much iron clad. I feel SO BAD for Anna being dragged through this whole mess by that shit bag. 

I'm sorry I don't know the specific times but is Danica claiming she spent the 12-14th with Josh? I thought it was just one night in the strip club and back to the hotel so about 6 hours? While there are pictures of Josh , I was just trying to figure out how much time he would have had to be gone to fly to PA , go to the club and hotel and fly back. I would assume the mimimum he would have been gone was 16-17 hours with flight, travel and strip club/hotel time. Were they really taking pictures of him every 3 hours or could there have been a 16 hour gap between photos?

It would not be out of character for Josh to leave for 1 day. If you go back on his social media he flew at least 3 times for 1 day trips to do quick business for the FRC. We would get a pic of him at the airport, a pic of him shaking someone's hand and a selfie in front of some fast food joint and then he would be back home within a day. If he was doing FRC stuff on march 11th, would Anna or anyone question him flying to DC for a day or 16 hours. I doubt it.

Am I correct that Duggar air was not flying back then so he would have had to take commercial flights? Can those records be accessed for court. I would think the ability to prove he flew or did not fly would be better then any family pictures.

I'm not saying it did happen, I just was trying to see if it was possible.

 

[Mothership]

Adding my 2 cents:

I admit that I really despise Joshley and in a perverted way want him to absolutely be found guilty of something-finally.  Although, sadly that would mean that he has left more victims in his wake.

It does appear that he has the better lawyer.  His lawyer is doing exactly what he should be doing in the interest of his client--attacking the Dillon's motivation, timeline, evidence, procedures, trial venue.  And, it would appear that Dillon's lawyer is not up to the challenge, if in fact s/he is late with providing specific evidence.  I think the sister has jumped into the fray to get her own 15 seconds of fame--whether she did so on her own or was sought out by the lawyer doesn't matter.  I don't think the Duggars have the connections or sophistication to seek her out.

All that being said, I REFUSE to question any woman who comes forward with what boils down to a rape allegation.   For far too many years, women did not come forward because their lifestyle, choices, past sexual history, demeanor, occupation and age were all part of the equation.  I recall a lawyer telling me that the only way to win a rape conviction with with an 80 year old nun and a dozen witnesses.   This case is about rape.  I don't care whether Dillon is a stripper and whether her sister likes her, trusts her or believes her.  I don't care whether she stalked Joshley.   If at any point in the encounter, the sex ceased to be consensual, then it was rape.   If he paid for sex and then got rough in a way that she did not consent to, than it was rape.     There is sex and there is rape. Expecting that she would be sophisticated enough at the time gather photographic or other evidence is in my opinion unrealistic.  Furthermore, I do think some women do not realize that an encounter with someone they know was rape and that they were victimized until after the fact.   We've got such a strong rape culture in this country--teaching girls how to avoid being raped rather than teaching boys not to rape and always questioning the victim's motivation when she finally comes forward.

An aside paraphrased from a FB post:  there is not consensual sex and non-consensual sex.  there is only sex (which is always consensual) and rape.  calling rape non-consensual sex allows it to be a sexual act, when in fact it is an act of violence and power.   We don't call it breathing swimming and non-breathing swimming.  We call it swimming and drowning.

So until we have a definite time line that shows that there was no encounter between the two, I choose to believe her.

[justoneoftwo]

3 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

I'm sorry I don't know the specific times but is Danica claiming she spent the 12-14th with Josh? I thought it was just one night in the strip club and back to the hotel so about 6 hours? While there are pictures of Josh , I was just trying to figure out how much time he would have had to be gone to fly to PA , go to the club and hotel and fly back. I would assume the mimimum he would have been gone was 16-17 hours with flight, travel and strip club/hotel time. Were they really taking pictures of him every 3 hours or could there have been a 16 hour gap between photos?

It would not be out of character for Josh to leave for 1 day. If you go back on his social media he flew at least 3 times for 1 day trips to do quick business for the FRC. We would get a pic of him at the airport, a pic of him shaking someone's hand and a selfie in front of some fast food joint and then he would be back home within a day. If he was doing FRC stuff on march 11th, would Anna or anyone question him flying to DC for a day or 16 hours. I doubt it.

Am I correct that Duggar air was not flying back then so he would have had to take commercial flights? Can those records be accessed for court. I would think the ability to prove he flew or did not fly would be better then any family pictures.

I'm not saying it did happen, I just was trying to see if it was possible.

 

In theory this information is accessible to the court, though it would be difficult and time consuming.  You would start by getting all his banking records to see if you could find out how he paid for any alleged flight, asking his work for their records could also be a tactic.  You would need to know what airline you were looking for but you can ask the airlines for the passenger manifests.  If he flew back there would be a record of it.   

[jacduggar]

3 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

I'm sorry I don't know the specific times but is Danica claiming she spent the 12-14th with Josh? I thought it was just one night in the strip club and back to the hotel so about 6 hours? While there are pictures of Josh , I was just trying to figure out how much time he would have had to be gone to fly to PA , go to the club and hotel and fly back. I would assume the mimimum he would have been gone was 16-17 hours with flight, travel and strip club/hotel time. Were they really taking pictures of him every 3 hours or could there have been a 16 hour gap between photos?

It would not be out of character for Josh to leave for 1 day. If you go back on his social media he flew at least 3 times for 1 day trips to do quick business for the FRC. We would get a pic of him at the airport, a pic of him shaking someone's hand and a selfie in front of some fast food joint and then he would be back home within a day. If he was doing FRC stuff on march 11th, would Anna or anyone question him flying to DC for a day or 16 hours. I doubt it.

Am I correct that Duggar air was not flying back then so he would have had to take commercial flights? Can those records be accessed for court. I would think the ability to prove he flew or did not fly would be better then any family pictures.

I'm not saying it did happen, I just was trying to see if it was possible.

 

In the docket it says the 12th-14th, which according to Twitter would be when she was in Pennsylvania for a show.  I don't know if it's possible to access previous flight information. But now we would be coming down to a matter of what time of day, and Danica has yet to provide information of what the date was. So that's a whole different rabbit hole that I am not jumping in. 

[2manyKidzzz]

At this point, why wouldn't Josh have had to prove, been advised to prove he wasn't there if he wasn't there. This is what I don't understand. Why hasn't this been done, or if it has and he wasn't there, what is going on. If he was there, things can move forward. I don't understand the whole thing. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, 2manyKidzzz said:

At this point, why wouldn't Josh have had to prove, been advised to prove he wasn't there if he wasn't there. This is what I don't understand. Why hasn't this been done, or if it has and he wasn't there, what is going on. If he was there, things can move forward. I don't understand the whole thing. 

That's exactly what they are doing.  The whole court process is to get her allegations on record and if he can disprove them to the courts satisfaction he will.  That's why his legal team is on the courts about her legal team filing their stuff within the deadlines so they can prepare their response.

 

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

At this point, why wouldn't Josh have had to prove, been advised to prove he wasn't there if he wasn't there. This is what I don't understand. Why hasn't this been done, or if it has and he wasn't there, what is going on. If he was there, things can move forward. I don't understand the whole thing. 

First, the Plaintiff has to prove he was, not the other way around.  Second, this has to be done at the time of trial, not before.  He could present fact that he wasn't (and maybe doing so) and get it dismissed before that, assuming his facts are uncontested.  Generally, at least where I am, the parties take up to a year and a half to gather all the facts.  Then there are another several months of experts discussing the facts, then they try to set a date, usually another four months or so out.  

Just so I understand your question, why would he have had to prove at this point that he wasn't there?  

[2manyKidzzz]

4 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

First, the Plaintiff has to prove he was, not the other way around.  Second, this has to be done at the time of trial, not before.  He could present fact that he wasn't (and maybe doing so) and get it dismissed before that, assuming his facts are uncontested.  Generally, at least where I am, the parties take up to a year and a half to gather all the facts.  Then there are another several months of experts discussing the facts, then they try to set a date, usually another four months or so out.  

Just so I understand your question, why would he have had to prove at this point that he wasn't there?  

It would seem to me that if he wasn't there and had plane tickets or pictures or receipts, the case wouldn't move forward. Why waste everyone's time if he has unassailable proof he wasn't there. If he can prove it, he can end the process, or maybe not. She must have some sort of proof. Otherwise, it seems very strange she would move forward. 

[nst]

Just now, 2manyKidzzz said:

It would seem to me that if he wasn't there and had plane tickets or pictures or receipts, the case wouldn't move forward. Why waste everyone's time if he has unassailable proof he wasn't there. If he can prove it, he can end the process, or maybe not. She must have some sort of proof. Otherwise, it seems very strange she would move forward. 

proof is everything - documents, pictures, emails everything 

 

[justoneoftwo]

1 minute ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

It would seem to me that if he wasn't there and had plane tickets or pictures or receipts, the case wouldn't move forward. Why waste everyone's time if he has unassailable proof he wasn't there. If he can prove it, he can end the process, or maybe not. She must have some sort of proof. Otherwise, it seems very strange she would move forward. 

Once he produces that evidence he could ask for a summary judgment.  She could then say the facts were disputed and argue against it.  The court then decides if she gets more time to gather her evidence, if the uncontested facts negate her claims, or if they don't.  Most lawyers won't just move forward with that without at least looking at the other parties disclosures.  Motions for summary judgment that don't have all the facts are also a waist of time.  I agree she must have something that shows he was there or that it was likely he was to move forward.  It seems odd that we would find evidence he wasn't in a quick search and that her lawyers wouldn't have bothered.  

[2manyKidzzz]

2 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

Once he produces that evidence he could ask for a summary judgment.  She could then say the facts were disputed and argue against it.  The court then decides if she gets more time to gather her evidence, if the uncontested facts negate her claims, or if they don't.  Most lawyers won't just move forward with that without at least looking at the other parties disclosures.  Motions for summary judgment that don't have all the facts are also a waist of time.  I agree she must have something that shows he was there or that it was likely he was to move forward.  It seems odd that we would find evidence he wasn't in a quick search and that her lawyers wouldn't have bothered.  

Agreed. I wonder what her evidence is that he was there. 

[jacduggar]

13 minutes ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Agreed. I wonder what her evidence is that he was there. 

As of the deadline yesterday, nothing. That we've heard of. I haven't heard if her request for an extension was filed or if the case was dismissed. 

[MatthewDuggar]

Just after Josh got married and he became a major tool and the "Smuggar" name was coined, I had a gut feeling that guy was up to no good.  I was shocked not only at the "inappropriate touching" revelation, but even more so by the "unfaithful" admission.  I had just figured he was dabbling in porn and maybe testing the waters in other "forbidden" areas while still claiming to be the perfect model Christian father.  At this point, nothing would surprise me.  Even some of these wild and carried away theories regarding the Danica allegation could certainly be possible.  Maybe he has an alibi, maybe not, but I wonder if something did actually happen, there are far more damning details they are trying to cover up.

[Whoosh]

@2manyKidzzz - Josh's claims that he was not there at the time bring up two separate legal issues.  This has been confusing me as well, but I think maybe I am understanding what is going on now - someone please correct me if I am off base here.  Josh's whereabouts at the time in question is certainly a question of fact issue in this case.  If he can provide evidence that he was not in PA at the times in question and Dillon is claiming he was in PA and wants to present evidence - that is a question of fact and the finder of fact (a jury in a jury trial and the judge in a bench trial) needs to hear all the evidence on the issue before they arrive at a conclusion as to "was Josh there?" based on the preponderance of the evidence presented by both parties.  This case has not gotten nearly that far yet.  That part all makes sense.

I think what some of us have been bothered by is that Josh's whereabouts at the time in question is also a matter of law issue.  The judge rules on matters of law and those rulings can come at any time.  If I have never been to Texas and I don't do business in Texas or do anything in Texas that gives rise to sufficient "minimum contacts", I can not be sued in Texas.  I would challenge jurisdiction or venue or both and the case would be tossed out of court by the judge as a matter of law.  Josh's situation may be different in that perhaps he did go to PA at times, but he is claiming he was not there at this particular time.  Still,  if he had definitive proof he was elsewhere at the time in question, it seems to me that there is a matter of law issue there based on jurisdiction or venue or something.  When @diplomat gave us that latest update of the court proceedings, she did discuss this aspect of things.  Apparently venue is being challenged.  If Josh can show the judge that the venue is improper, the judge could rule that the PA court doesn't have jurisdiction and there needs to be a change of venue in order for things to proceed.  In many lawsuits, they would simply move the venue to one that would be appropriate.  However, since Dillon's entire claim rests on her claim of Duggar having actually been in PA at the time in question, a change of venue isn't likely to happen. If he can prove to the court he was not there, the judge could rule that the parties proceed with the case in a different venue.  However, I think a case that rests on his presence in PA will get tossed for failure to state a claim in any other venue they might land in.

I hope I am making some sense here.  Anyway - as people have said the court is considering issues of venue and jurisdiction, etc.  Here is a quote about that from diplomat.

On January 20, 2016 at 0:17 AM, diplomat said:

Finally, both parties had to submit affidavits on Tuesday regarding venue, i.e., whether the lawsuit properly belongs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Josh says he wasn't in Pennsylvania on the dates of the alleged assaults (because he was in Texas, Maryland, DC, or flying from Texas to Maryland), but that he has no reason to doubt that someone assaulted Danica when and where she claims; he says Danica is "mistaken, not about where she sustained her injuries, but about who caused them." Danica says "she was accosted and assaulted" by Josh in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, so it's the right place for her lawsuit.

[2manyKidzzz]

Just a random thought, but wouldn't this ruin her clientele base if she can prove a client was with her?? I mean, who would take that chance, I really have no idea. 

And so, her proof will be made public, or not. If so, the above would be a problem it would seem to me. 

Poor Anna.

[Whoosh]

1 minute ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Just a random thought, but wouldn't this ruin her clientele base if she can prove a client was with her?? I mean, who would take that chance, I really have no idea. 

And so, her proof will be made public, or not. If so, the above would be a problem it would seem to me. 

Poor Anna.

I totally agree that all this would be very damaging to a typical prostitute as one of the qualifications people desire in a prostitute is discretion.  Most people who frequent prostitutes are not likely to hire a someone who has gone public in a very big way about one of her clients.

However, all that isn't necessarily true of the adult film industry.  I don't know where Dillon has historically made most of her money or what she would have considered her primary career before all of this.

[2manyKidzzz]

2 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I totally agree that all this would be very damaging to a typical prostitute as one of the qualifications people desire in a prostitute is discretion.  Most people who frequent prostitutes are not likely to hire a someone who has gone public in a very big way about one of her clients.

However, all that isn't necessarily true of the adult film industry.  I don't know where Dillon has historically made most of her money or what she would have considered her primary career before all of this.

I guess it would only apply to private clients, but it would apply.