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

[Whoosh]

4 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Wouldn't the point of hanging on to DNA evidence be so that you could provide it to law enforcement?  She has never reported this to the police.

If she kept a "blue dress" with no intention of  ever going to the police, this would tend to support her sister's claim that she was a Josh groupie more than anything else.  (not that I believe her sister).

Are we sure she has never gone to the police?  I have no idea on that.

In terms of the "blue dress" scenario, I don't at all see that as something that would just be kept in order to provide it to law enforcement.  I don't think the "blue dress" was ever turned over to police - to the best of my knowledge anyway.

ETA - that said, I think the odds of anyone having actually preserved any physical evidence from any alleged encounters between D & D are remarkably slim. 

ETA2 - just to make sure everyone is clear on this - at this point NO evidence has been introduced.  We are no where near the stage of the process where evidence would be introduced.  If she has any such evidence, she will be expected to disclose that during discovery.

[sawasdee]

@silverspoons I understand what you are saying - but the demographic of lawyers and politicians is unlikely to be replicated in a trial. The average jury is going to cover a much wider spectrum, including retired, unemployed and others who watch a lot of daytime tv..............

[HereticHick]

So do we think that Josh needs to stay hidden at RU until May?

So he has no income, and legal bills to pay, & he has to pay room & board to RU. And back in Arkansas, JB has to feed Anna & the 4 kids.

This is a serious drain on the Duggar family collective income.

[RootBeerFloat]

19 minutes 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.

Edited: no idea how I quoted this post! Sorry!

 

Right. The question I answered was beyond x, y, z what type of evidence could she possibly have. I don't think it's likely either, but anything is possible. People save weird shit. She wouldn't need to know who Josh was to save it, only that she was saving something from a man who assaulted her. I understand why someone in her profession would be hesitant to call the police. Even women who aren't involved in illegal activities hesitate from calling the police. 

If she had some DNA, she would also need to get Josh's to compare it. We don't know that she hasn't asked for this in discovery. Most people wait for an judicial response to a motion to compel to comply with DNA requests. 

 

[JenniferJuniper]

15 minutes ago, silverspoons said:

I think it is possible to find 12 people that do not know Josh in PA. My mom has no idea who the Duggars are and hates reality TV except the amazing race. I went to a wedding where 2 DC lawyers were getting married and the guests were mostly lawyers or people working in politics and only one guest in the group of 20 or so I was talking to knew of Josh and it was just that guy from the big family, nothing more. One of the people in that circle had been on reality tv show (pretty sure it was project runway) . I also would bet if I asked my neighbors door to door , not many would know Josh or the Duggars. While my neighborhood has been cable/dish free before streaming became the trend, I bet there are plenty of people in PA that either are young and don't watch much tv except some binge watching of whatever is the in Netflix show or older people that dislike reality tv.

 

I'm torn if this will make it to a jury trial. One part of me thinks the Duggars don't want it to. The other part remembers the Jim Bob saying "I have the number one show and no one will cancel it", and that Jim Bob might think Josh can win and clear the family name. It would be a dumb move IMO to go to  a trial and try and prove Josh is a great guy who was just curious as a teen and liked porn too much as an adult. While I do believe Jim Bob is pulling the strings, I don't see him as too bright outside of his car buying circles in AR and with TLC (but look at how much money they made off of him so was he that bright with his TLC deal?).

Easy peasy to find jurors in that area that don't know anything about the Duggars.  The northeast almost certainly has a lower percentage of leghumpers or even casual Duggar fans.

But I don't see much chance of this case ever being tried. Only a very small percentage of civil lawsuits ever make it that far.  If it isn't dismissed by way of summary judgement or voluntarily by Dillon, and she really does appear to have some semblance of a case, the Duggars will confidentially settle out with her, and it probably won't take a ton of money to get it done.  On her best day in court, this isn't likely to be a "bell-ringer" jury verdict as some questions are likely to remain. And the fact that she's a sex worker probably won't help her with most jurors.

15 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

 

In terms of the "blue dress" scenario, I don't at all see that as something that would just be kept in order to provide it to law enforcement.  I don't think the "blue dress" was ever turned over to police - to the best of my knowledge anyway.

 

If you are talking about Monica, she almost certainly kept it as a souvenir.  It had on it DNA from leader of the free world.  She didn't hang on to it because she wanted to press charges against him.

So again, why would Danica Dillon hang on to something with Josh's DNA on it if she  1) had no intention of reporting this to the police ever and 2) wasn't  a Josh Duggar fangirl, and in fact had no idea who he was?

I seriously doubt she has anything but if she does, she'll need to answer these questions.

[Whoosh]

24 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

If you are talking about Monica, she almost certainly kept it as a souvenir.  It had on it DNA from leader of the free world.  She didn't hang on to it because she wanted to press charges against him.

Except I am almost positive that is not true.  I don't think she wanted to press charges for their sexual encounter and I am pretty sure that never happened, right?  I would have to look it up, but I am just about certain that she kept the blue dress in the stained state on the advice of Linda Tripp.

 

24 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

So again, why would Danica Dillon hang on to something with Josh's DNA on it if she  1) had no intention of reporting this to the police ever and 2) wasn't  a Josh Duggar fangirl, and in fact had no idea who he was?

If 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 with a letter saying "If I turn up dead, track down this guy".  Do I think that happened in this case?  No clue.  I simply disagree with your assumption that the only reason someone would keep this type of potential evidence is if they plan to go to the police about the event that is in the past.

I seriously doubt she has anything also, but I am not dismissing the fact that she might or bending over backwards to try to explain why it wouldn't happen either.

[church_of_dog]

On January 22, 2016 at 1:23 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

And this isn't just any 5 months - it's the first five months of his new daughter's life.

I can't imagine what could have compelled me to go along with any plan which would have had me missing such a large swath of my baby's first year...but then clearly Josh and I are different people.

You can't get those first months back.

Sadly, I don't get the sense that this would be a big consideration -- after all, for the QFers, any six month chunk of time is going to be a key part of one infant's life or another, since there will always be an infant or young toddler in the family...

 

Also, with regard to whether DD knew who Josh was, I 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, sort of a "hey, you're kinda famous for your movies/videos/live performances/whatever it is that she does, I'm in show biz too, maybe you've heard of me?" kind of way.

And then, depending on whether she's "merely" an opportunist or if she was an actual victim, I could see a person deciding to save some "evidence" even if she didn't have a complete picture at the time of whether it would be for use in a lawsuit or for some fangirl publicity or what.

I'm trying to put this in a different context, like, say, if a fan went backstage at some rock concert and ended up having a sexual encounter with the bass player.  Maybe it was completely consensual, or maybe some part of it was not.  Either way I could envision the fan keeping some evidence -- for either memento reasons or for selling on eBay reasons.  And in the case of something nonconsensual, even more of a reason to keep the evidence, adding potential lawsuit or blackmail into the list of options.

Not suggesting that DD was a 19KAC fan, but that perhaps upon realizing that he had some magnitude of a public identity, if she wasn't aware of him already, an opportunistic person of that sort might find sufficient reason to keep some evidence.

[JenniferJuniper]

3 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

 

Not suggesting that DD was a 19KAC fan, but that perhaps upon realizing that he had some magnitude of a public identity, if she wasn't aware of him already, an opportunistic person of that sort might find sufficient reason to keep some evidence.

If that's the case, it's a double edged sword for her if she kept his DNA because she knew he was someone famous.  As you say, it gives the appearance of opportunism, which doesn't help her here.

And unless the "blue dress" has her blood on it as well, it does not help her prove that Josh Duggar assaulted her. No assault, no valid claim for damages.

I don't think there is a police report and I don't think there is a "blue dress".  If she had these things, she probably would not be dragging her feet on producing discovery and there would be requests for Josh to produce DNA samples so they can get moving on getting the testing done on time.

 

[diplomat]

57 minutes ago, HereticHick said:

So do we think that Josh needs to stay hidden at RU until May?

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.

[Whoosh]

So here is a hypothetical. Lets say that a young woman who happens to be a Hooters waitress (or a prostitute) consents to sexual relations with a gentleman but does NOT consent to be violently sexually assaulted.  She gets violently sexually assaulted by the man.  She encounters the man again a month later and he apologizes profusely and says he would like to have sex with her again and will make it well worth her while and that he will NOT violently sexually assault her again.  For some reason she agrees to this second encounter - maybe she is remarkably gullible, maybe she needs whatever he is offering in terms of making it worth her while, maybe she is drunk or high off her ass, maybe some combination of many factors.  Then the dude violently sexually assaults her for a second time.  

Like many victims of violent sexual assaults, this young woman is hesitant to report these events to anyone.  In her own mind, she is not really clear on the fact that she was sexually assaulted.  I mean she was wearing a really tight shirt and a really short skirt and had agreed to have consensual sex.   She KNOWS that both she and the gentleman in question knew or should have know that she had not consented to being violently sexually assaulted, but she isn't even sure if that isn't HER fault and even if it isn't - who will believe her.  So, despite the very real and ongoing physical and emotional damages she has suffered at the hands of this gentleman, she decides to stuff all that down and move forward with life.  She seeks treatment for any physical or emotional damages as she sees fit with no thought of a future lawsuit.  She likely berates herself for her poor choices that put her in that position where she was "asking for it".

Suddenly, months later, her name is being floated around the internet as a candidate for some semi-famous guy's partner in sordid extramarital activities.  She starts getting calls from sleazy tabloid type media outlets.  She decides as long as her business is already all over the internet, she may as well get some form of compensation for that.  She does her best to be honest in the interview, but she doesn't want to appear to be a totally clueless ass, so she tells a little white lie by saying that her bad choice to be with this man a second time turned out fine.  The sleazy tabloid coerces her into giving advice to the gentleman's wife (which she has no interest in doing), so she says "I didn't know who the guy was or that he had a wife and kids, but here is what I would tell her now".  

After that interview hits the internet, she is contacted by several attorneys who explain to her that what she is describing is IN FACT a violent sexual assault and that she can sue for the damages she has suffered and is still suffering.  They explain that she will have to come clean about the fact that her decision to be with the gentleman a second time did actually lead to a second violent sexual assault.  

In that hypothetical, is this young woman the victim of two violent sexual assaults that deserves compensation or is she a lying opportunistic fame whore?  What if she then makes the ridiculous decision to do an interview and photo shoot for Hustler magazine.  Does that seemingly obvious and clear fame whoring erase or negate everything up to that point?  Does her ability or lack of ability to produce compelling evidence change anything about those past events?

[Artemesia]

I don't think the Duggars will settle. They will see it as an admission of guilt. Throughout Joshgate1 and Joshgate2 Josh issued only brief statements and then hid and let his parents, wife and sisters do the face time to clean up his mess. He will never admit guilt and as much as I dislike Josh I think this is a shakedown. It is rather Karmic though.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

21 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

So here is a hypothetical. Lets say that a young woman who happens to be a Hooters waitress (or a prostitute) consents to sexual relations with a gentleman but does NOT consent to be violently sexually assaulted.  She gets violently sexually assaulted by the man.  She encounters the man again a month later and he apologizes profusely and says he would like to have sex with her again and will make it well worth her while and that he will NOT violently sexually assault her again.  For some reason she agrees to this second encounter - maybe she is remarkably gullible, maybe she needs whatever he is offering in terms of making it worth her while, maybe she is drunk or high off her ass, maybe some combination of many factors.  Then the dude violently sexually assaults her for a second time.  

Like many victims of violent sexual assaults, this young woman is hesitant to report these events to anyone.  In her own mind, she is not really clear on the fact that she was sexually assaulted.  I mean she was wearing a really tight shirt and a really short skirt and had agreed to have consensual sex.   She KNOWS that both she and the gentleman in question knew or should have know that she had not consented to being violently sexually assaulted, but she isn't even sure if that isn't HER fault and even if it isn't - who will believe her.  So, despite the very real and ongoing physical and emotional damages she has suffered at the hands of this gentleman, she decides to stuff all that down and move forward with life.  She seeks treatment for any physical or emotional damages as she sees fit with no thought of a future lawsuit.  She likely berates herself for her poor choices that put her in that position where she was "asking for it".

Suddenly, months later, her name is being floated around the internet as a candidate for some semi-famous guy's partner in sordid extramarital activities.  She starts getting calls from sleazy tabloid type media outlets.  She decides as long as her business is already all over the internet, she may as well get some form of compensation for that.  She does her best to be honest in the interview, but she doesn't want to appear to be a totally clueless ass, so she tells a little white lie by saying that her bad choice to be with this man a second time turned out fine.  The sleazy tabloid coerces her into giving advice to the gentleman's wife (which she has no interest in doing), so she says "I didn't know who the guy was or that he had a wife and kids, but here is what I would tell her now".  

After that interview hits the internet, she is contacted by several attorneys who explain to her that what she is describing is IN FACT a violent sexual assault and that she can sue for the damages she has suffered and is still suffering.  They explain that she will have to come clean about the fact that her decision to be with the gentleman a second time did actually lead to a second violent sexual assault.  

In that hypothetical, is this young woman the victim of two violent sexual assaults that deserves compensation or is she a lying opportunistic fame whore?  What if she then makes the ridiculous decision to do an interview and photo shoot for Hustler magazine.  Does that seemingly obvious and clear fame whoring erase or negate everything up to that point?  Does her ability or lack of ability to produce compelling evidence change anything about those past events?

For the sake of your hypothetical assuming that the assaults occurred - none of her actions after the fact would change the fact that she was twice assaulted.  

But her actions could absolutely change her ability to convince a judge or jury that the assaults happened.  And if there is truly a lack of compelling evidence she wasn't going to prevail in court anyway.

People can and should do what they can to try to understand that others will respond differently to traumatic events, but everyone will initially filter their judgements based on what they consider reasonable behavior.  If someone acts in a way that's so outside the bounds of what average people consider reasonable then that side will need to present clear evidence on why behavior, which seems so inconsistent with what most would consider an appropriate response, shouldn't be used to evaluate credibility.

Because for most people it's going to come down to Occams Razor.  And frankly the simplest explanation for her:

• public inconsistencies
• agreeing the second time after it had been so bad she wondered if he had murdered anyone (and stiffed her part of her fee) 
• Claiming the trauma was enough to warrant damages but yet she was able to discuss it in graphic detail with Hustler (a magazine where the sole purpose is fodder for masterbation)

Is that she's lying.

Not to mention her wtf statements like her indignation about not knowing he had a pregnant wife at home, that he was abrupt and just got to it with no intimacy...  

Occam's razor is that it was a (IMO failed) attempt to make herself appear sympathetic.  Otherwise those statements only make sense in the context of a romantic/social hook up and not a business transaction.  And I'd argue if she was confused about that it won't help her case.

if there is a more complex psychological reason under which making those statements is understandable (if not reasonable) but doesn't indicate a problem with her fully understanding the nature of the interaction they need an expert witness with the communication skills to drive that home with laypeople of the jury.

That she didn't report immediately, if she didn't seek professional mental help immediately...I would have zero issues with that and there a zillion studies out there which show that to be a common response.  It's also something most people can understand - panic/shame/fear of disbelief keeps many victims quiet.  And who's to say what the time line is for anyone when they realize the trauma isn't going to just go away and they seek help.  None of that would be an issue for me.

I totally accept the fact that there could well be proof we know nothing about.  I totally accept that there may well be valid psychological reasons of which I am currently unaware that someone who was assaulted could act the way she had.  But if that's the case they'd have to educate the hell out of the jury in explaining those actions.  I consider myself to be an intelligent person and have an admitted bias against Smuggar yet there is no way I can get past her behavior to believe her at this point.

TLDR - to answer your question for me if she was truly assaulted her behavior since wouldn't erase the assaults.  But as none of us know what happened (if anything) between them her behavior since erases her credibility and any benefit of the doubt in a he said she said scenario.  For me, it erases it completely.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

But I don't see much chance of this case ever being tried. Only a very small percentage of civil lawsuits ever make it that far.  If it isn't dismissed by way of summary judgement or voluntarily by Dillon, and she really does appear to have some semblance of a case, the Duggars will confidentially settle out with her, and it probably won't take a ton of money to get it done.  On her best day in court, this isn't likely to be a "bell-ringer" jury verdict as some questions are likely to remain. And the fact that she's a sex worker probably won't help her with most jurors

I agree.  If he was with her, even if he didn't assault her, they'll settle to keep more specifics from hitting the news.

In cases like this isn't there usually a NDA involved?  If they do settle she may have to accept less than she could have gotten before she went public with such unpleasant specifics.  

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

For the sake of your hypothetical assuming that the assaults occurred - none of her actions after the fact would change the fact that she was twice assaulted.  

But her actions could absolutely change her ability to convince a judge or jury that the assaults happened.  And if there is truly a lack of compelling evidence she wasn't going to prevail in court anyway.

People can and should do what they can to try to understand that others will respond differently to traumatic events, but everyone will initially filter their judgements based on what they consider reasonable behavior.  If someone acts in a way that's so outside the bounds of what average people consider reasonable then that side will need to present clear evidence on why behavior, which seems so inconsistent with what most would consider an appropriate response, shouldn't be used to evaluate credibility.

Because for most people it's going to come down to Occams Razor.  And frankly the simplest explanation for her:

• public inconsistencies
• agreeing the second time after it had been so bad she wondered if he had murdered anyone (and stiffed her part of her fee) 
• Claiming the trauma was enough to warrant damages but yet she was able to discuss it in graphic detail with Hustler (a magazine where the sole purpose is fodder for masterbation)

Is that she's lying.

Not to mention her wtf statements like her indignation about not knowing he had a pregnant wife at home, that he was abrupt and just got to it with no intimacy...  

Occam's razor is that it was a (IMO failed) attempt to make herself appear sympathetic.  Otherwise those statements only make sense in the context of a romantic/social hook up and not a business transaction.  And I'd argue if she was confused about that it won't help her case.

if there is a more complex psychological reason under which making those statements is understandable (if not reasonable) but doesn't indicate a problem with her fully understanding the nature of the interaction they need an expert witness with the communication skills to drive that home with laypeople of the jury.

That she didn't report immediately, if she didn't seek professional mental help immediately...I would have zero issues with that and there a zillion studies out there which show that to be a common response.  It's also something most people can understand - panic/shame/fear of disbelief keeps many victims quiet.  And who's to say what the time line is for anyone when they realize the trauma isn't going to just go away and they seek help.  None of that would be an issue for me.

I totally accept the fact that there could well be proof we know nothing about.  I totally accept that there may well be valid psychological reasons of which I am currently unaware that someone who was assaulted could act the way she had.  But if that's the case they'd have to educate the hell out of the jury in explaining those actions.  I consider myself to be an intelligent person and have an admitted bias against Smuggar yet there is no way I can get past her behavior to believe her at this point.

TLDR - to answer your question for me if she was truly assaulted her behavior since wouldn't erase the assaults.  But as none of us know what happened (if anything) between them her behavior since erases her credibility and any benefit of the doubt in a he said she said scenario.  For me, it erases it completely.

I agree that she will only prevail in court if she has solid evidence that can overcome the questions her own behavior introduce into the situation.  I am simply trying to point out the fact that, while the behavior may seem very odd to the general public (and thus will to a jury on first blush), her behavior up to the interview with Hustler is pretty much what I might expect from a victim in a similar situation.  So, for example, while people might not believe that the timing is 100% consistent with what one would expect in just about any case of an attempt to recover for damages such as PTSD-like symptoms, anyone who truly understands PTSD will realize that it IS exactly what knowledgable people will expect.  

Assuming Dillon's story is true, the question in my mind isn't "what does the average Joe on the street know or assume when they read a story on the internet".  Assuming Dillon's story is true, the question in my mind is "will an empaneled jury be able to set aside their own biases and misperceptions about PTSD and mental health issues AFTER HEARING THE TRUTH about those topics from a competent attorney and any medical experts called in to testify".  That is a huge, huge difference, but in the end it may not matter.

Since everyone keeps laying out all the reasons that this story is so absolutely beyond belief, I am going to share my reaction to those details so that there is at least some balance in the conversation.

• inconsistencies (public or not) are VERY, very common in these situations.  If people stop and think about it, they will likely realize that there are all kinds of examples from their personal lives where someone (maybe a child, for example) tries to explain a situation but leaves out particular details that make them look particularly bad.  I will tell you what is unbelievable to me and it isn't the fact that there are inconsistencies in her story.  What I don't believe is that anyone would be so clueless or stupid to make up the story Dillon told in the first interview.  
• The general public, including someone like Dillon, knows damn well that saying you went back for more is going to play poorly regardless of the truth of the situation.  If someone never met the alleged perpetrator and were making up the entire thing, I simply do not believe they would fabricate a second encounter as it really doesn't make the alleged unlawful behavior much worse, but it absolutely calls many things about the alleged victim into question.  If someone had consensual rough sex and were lying about the lack of consent, changing the story again makes not one lick of sense to me.  It isn't like she needs to worry about Duggar saying "she is lying and I can PROVE it cause I beat the snot outta her the second time too!"  I simply see no reasonable explanation for the inconsistencies in Dillon's first and second versions of the story other than that someone convinced her that she needs to be truthful in court and what she is saying now is true and she told a relatively minor lie in the first interview in order to save face at a time when she was not expecting to have to face any kind of scrutiny in a court of law.
• I agree that being with him a second time looks highly questionable, but I firmly believe that if it is true a qualified, competent attorney and perhaps testimony from qualified professionals and from Dillon herself may well be able to convince a jury of that reality.
• I currently read her "WTF statements" about her indignation entirely differently than you do and I did at the time they were made also.  I don't think she was trying to say anything about thinking she deserves to be treated more like a girlfriend or whatever.  Nor do I think she was viewing this as some type of proof of her allegations now.  I think she was doing what just about every person I have ever met in the service industry does - calling a douche canoe out on their douche canoe behavior.  There are actually whole websites devoted to service people bitching about how they got stiffed on a tip or treated like dirt by customers or clients.  None of them thought they should be treated well because it was some type of courtship or whatever - they think they should not be treated like dirt because they are human beings and they are calling out the fact that many a douche canoe walks the face of this earth.
• As I have said, I doubt Dillon cared much at all about Anna and the kids or about making any type of statement to them.  I think the interviewer knew what the public wanted to hear about (and still does frankly) and made sure that they got the story they wanted.
• I agree that, if any or all of this is true, they will need to make all of this clear to the jury.  As I keep saying, we have NO IDEA what types of evidence Dillon has and we have NO IDEA what types of experts they may choose to call to the stand.  The jury will not be making decisions based on what they saw in a radar online interview (and thank FSM for that).

tl;dr - I agree that if she has nothing but her word, it won't much matter at all what the truth of any of this is or why she may have behaved in the way she has if she is telling the truth.  I just find it unfortunate that on a site where one might expect to find the highest levels of support for Dillon out of anywhere, the predominant and loud message (not from any individual but overall) is that they see absolutely no way her allegations are true and or no way she can prevail in court.  The fact is we have no idea and people are drawing wild conclusions based on random assumptions.  We don't know what happened, we don't know why she is behaving the way she is (regardless of the truth of her allegations) and we don't know what types of evidence she might be able to present.  If her story is indeed true, a competent attorney and skilled expert witnesses may well be able to help the jury to understand the realities of the situation.

[JenniferJuniper]

16 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

 I just find it unfortunate that on a site where one might expect to find the highest levels of support for Dillon out of anywhere, the predominant and loud message (not from any individual but overall) is that there is absolutely no way her allegations are true.  

 

If there is any sort of overall sense - and I'm not sure there is -  it's that she thus far has not supported her claim and appears to be dragging her feet by not being timely with discovery requests.

Josh Duggar is a despicable creature, I think that we can all agree upon.  But the notion that people on this site are obligated to buy what Danica Dillon is selling AND fully support her without any evidence just because she's claiming bad stuff about Josh is preposterous. 

 

[Whoosh]

14 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

 

If there is any sort of overall sense - and I'm not sure there is -  it's that she thus far has not supported her claim and appears to be dragging her feet by not being timely with discovery requests.

Josh Duggar is a despicable creature, I think that we can all agree upon.  But the notion that people on this site are obligated to buy what Danica Dillon is selling AND fully support her without any evidence just because she's claiming bad stuff about Josh is preposterous. 

 

She "appears to be" dragging her feet, yes.  Yet Duggar lost his last motion on that.  So I choose to give her the benefit of the doubt until I see reason not to.  I certainly never said anyone needs to buy what she is saying without any evidence.  STRAW MAN.  I am saying, it is absurd to make assumptions (when we have almost no information) based on your biases or lack of knowledge and then make false claims or extremely biased and questionable statements (which you back by your "experience" in this field) about what is going on overall.  

[Artemesia]

I think the Hustler interview made settlement less likely. If they settle now, that interview stands and can't be rebutted. He can't settle and also sue for slander, can he?

 

[JenniferJuniper]

2 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

She "appears to be" dragging her feet, yes.  Yet Duggar lost his last motion on that.  So I choose to give her the benefit of the doubt until I see reason not to.  I certainly never said anyone needs to buy what she is saying without any evidence.  STRAW MAN.  I said, it is absurd to make assumptions based on your biases and then make false claims or extremely biased and questionable statements (which you back by your "experience" in this field) about what is going on overall.  

He didn't lose his motion as much as the court granted her more time.  For some reason, even though she is the one who sued Josh in PA she's claiming she simply can't get it together because she lives in California.   Yet another strike against her credibility.

Can you list the things that support her story?  I haven't come across anything yet, but perhaps I've missed something that's impressed you.

And can you list all of the "biased" things I've said about her claim?  

I think you said early on in this thread that you are an attorney?  Do you mind if I ask what area you practice?

[Whoosh]

13 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

He didn't lose his motion as much as the court granted her more time.  For some reason, even though she is the one who sued Josh in PA she's claiming she simply can't get it together because she lives in California.   Yet another strike against her credibility.

Can you list the things that support her story?  I haven't come across anything yet, but perhaps I've missed something that's impressed you.

And can you list all of the "biased" things I've said about her claim?  

I think you said early on in this thread that you are an attorney?  Do you mind if I ask what area you practice?

The motion was DENIED - in my book that is a loss.  It was denied without prejudice, so he is free to bring it again if he so chooses and the court can then either decide she is dragging her feet or it can decide AGAIN that she is justified and just fine.  I did think the whining about her being in CA was absurd.  Funny about how you left out the part about the hospitalized legal assistant and the attorney's busy trial schedule (and conflicting trial schedules happen ALL THE TIME and leeway is given to attorneys if they suddenly have many cases in trial at the same time).

Did I miss the memo where Dillon is required to prove jack shit to random people on the internet?  I have not come across much of anything but her two interviews and the court documents.  I am not really sure how to respond to this other than to say maybe it is another straw man?  I NEVER said we have long lists of evidence that support her story.  I SAID we have very limited information and it can be seen in many ways.  

I could list the biases I think you have shown to date, but I chose not to for now.  If you like, I can start pointing them out quite clearly from here on out.

I have said (several times in direct response to YOU btw) about a million times what area of law I practiced in.  

[JenniferJuniper]

4 minutes ago, Artemesia said:

I think the Hustler interview made settlement less likely. If they settle now, that interview stands and can't be rebutted. He can't settle and also sue for slander, can he?

 

I doubt he would ever sue her because it would open him up to too many unpleasant questions about his past history with almost no possibility of getting money out of her as she's likely judgement proof.

Should Dillon's case against Josh go forward however, it's likely the Hustler interview will be brought in if it conflicts with anything she testifies to.  She'll be asked about all of her public statements during her deposition and any and all inconsistencies could be used to impeach her credibility.

So while the Hustler article wouldn't likely directly impact any potential settlement, it was not a smart thing to do if she is indeed serious about this lawsuit.

[gustava]

4 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

 If it isn't dismissed by way of summary judgement or voluntarily by Dillon, and she really does appear to have some semblance of a case, the Duggars will confidentially settle out with her, and it probably won't take a ton of money to get it done.

 

[vienna]

3 hours ago, Whoosh said:

So here is a hypothetical. Lets say that a young woman who happens to be a Hooters waitress (or a prostitute) consents to sexual relations with a gentleman but does NOT consent to be violently sexually assaulted.  She gets violently sexually assaulted by the man.  She encounters the man again a month later and he apologizes profusely and says he would like to have sex with her again and will make it well worth her while and that he will NOT violently sexually assault her again.  For some reason she agrees to this second encounter - maybe she is remarkably gullible, maybe she needs whatever he is offering in terms of making it worth her while, maybe she is drunk or high off her ass, maybe some combination of many factors.  Then the dude violently sexually assaults her for a second time.  

Like many victims of violent sexual assaults, this young woman is hesitant to report these events to anyone.  In her own mind, she is not really clear on the fact that she was sexually assaulted.  I mean she was wearing a really tight shirt and a really short skirt and had agreed to have consensual sex.   She KNOWS that both she and the gentleman in question knew or should have know that she had not consented to being violently sexually assaulted, but she isn't even sure if that isn't HER fault and even if it isn't - who will believe her.  So, despite the very real and ongoing physical and emotional damages she has suffered at the hands of this gentleman, she decides to stuff all that down and move forward with life.  She seeks treatment for any physical or emotional damages as she sees fit with no thought of a future lawsuit.  She likely berates herself for her poor choices that put her in that position where she was "asking for it".

Suddenly, months later, her name is being floated around the internet as a candidate for some semi-famous guy's partner in sordid extramarital activities.  She starts getting calls from sleazy tabloid type media outlets.  She decides as long as her business is already all over the internet, she may as well get some form of compensation for that.  She does her best to be honest in the interview, but she doesn't want to appear to be a totally clueless ass, so she tells a little white lie by saying that her bad choice to be with this man a second time turned out fine.  The sleazy tabloid coerces her into giving advice to the gentleman's wife (which she has no interest in doing), so she says "I didn't know who the guy was or that he had a wife and kids, but here is what I would tell her now".  

After that interview hits the internet, she is contacted by several attorneys who explain to her that what she is describing is IN FACT a violent sexual assault and that she can sue for the damages she has suffered and is still suffering.  They explain that she will have to come clean about the fact that her decision to be with the gentleman a second time did actually lead to a second violent sexual assault.  

In that hypothetical, is this young woman the victim of two violent sexual assaults that deserves compensation or is she a lying opportunistic fame whore?  What if she then makes the ridiculous decision to do an interview and photo shoot for Hustler magazine.  Does that seemingly obvious and clear fame whoring erase or negate everything up to that point?  Does her ability or lack of ability to produce compelling evidence change anything about those past events?

I love this! Well spoken/written!

[HerNameIsBuffy]

35 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

 I just find it unfortunate that on a site where one might expect to find the highest levels of support for Dillon out of anywhere, the predominant and loud message (not from any individual but overall) is that they see absolutely no way her allegations are true and or no way she can prevail in court.  The fact is we have no idea and people are drawing wild conclusions based on random assumptions.

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.  

[vienna]

5 hours ago, silverspoons said:

I'm torn if this will make it to a jury trial. One part of me thinks the Duggars don't want it to. The other part remembers the Jim Bob saying "I have the number one show and no one will cancel it", and that Jim Bob might think Josh can win and clear the family name. It would be a dumb move IMO to go to  a trial and try and prove Josh is a great guy who was just curious as a teen and liked porn too much as an adult. While I do believe Jim Bob is pulling the strings, I don't see him as too bright outside of his car buying circles in AR and with TLC (but look at how much money they made off of him so was he that bright with his TLC deal?).

Yep. The Duggars are the kind of people who really thought that we all would totally understand the stroy of their son molesting his sisters and they probably even expected people to prais them even more for their parenting even in such taff, yet not so uncommen "situations" that actually happen in soooo many familys.... Please Duggars, keep this worldview at least until May!

[JenniferJuniper]

3 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.