Josh Duggar Part 11 - The End of Rehab Is in Sight

[2manyKidzzz]

16 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I feel like I can say this to you because I think you will totally agree.  I feel like you and I were annoyed with each other early on in these discussions until we had both yammered away enough that we understood where the other was coming from with their thoughts a bit better.  I can't remember what it was that you said, but you said something at one point that just clicked in my brain as this "aha!  that is her main point that drives what she is saying and I agree with it".  

I hope that makes sense.

Yes, we were annoyed, but I can't remember what it was about. My point always goes to the protection of the young and vulnerable. My kids found that rather annoying. But hey, could be worse. 

The Duggies were all so pure and wonderful....according to them.  I was thinking this morning about people who would brag on their kids, or such, not that many really, but it is like asking for, well, we can see what Meechelle and JB ended up with. 

I do not want to see Joshley's face on television ever again...except for a picture on EXTRA showing him disgraced. Nothing filmed of him on that show about all those kids Meechell gave birth to. Ha ha

[HerNameIsBuffy]

47 minutes ago, OnceUponATime said:

Actually in Document 11 (sworn certification of the defendant - made in january) the first point made (and sworn to by Duggar) is that he has never met DD in PA nor anywhere else.

Kind of hard to have paid sex with someone you have never met (imho)

 

Don't I know it.  That's why all my babies with Alex Van Halen are imaginary.

Kidding aside, this is my recollection as well.  He never admitted to anything with her.

[jacduggar]

If Smuggar has definite proof that he wasn't there (as stated in the court docs the judge signed, so I'm going to believe it) than DD is a sick person. 

 

Smuggar has sexual assault victims in his wake. Danica Dillon exploited that for a quick buck. Regardless of whether or not Duggar deserves it, his victims and his children do not. And if DD was assaulted she knew a long time ago it wasn't Smuggs and waited to pull out for reasons I can't understand.

[garciarodrigez]

Could Josh have video of him n her showing fun was had by all or video of him with someone else?  Lol. Please note:  Purely and totally speculation on my part.  My imagination is rampant today.

[Whoosh]

8 minutes ago, garciarodrigez said:

Could Josh have video of him n her showing fun was had by all or video of him with someone else?  Lol. Please note:  Purely and totally speculation on my part.  My imagination is rampant today.

I can't say the thought has never crossed my mind.  I also agree there is absolutely no reason to think this is true.  And finally, I do need some new mental movies 

[garciarodrigez]

5 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

I can't say the thought has never crossed my mind.  I also agree there is absolutely no reason to think this is true.  And finally, I do need some new mental movies 

Lol.  Hey, save some bleach for the rest of us.

[Whoosh]

7 minutes ago, garciarodrigez said:

Lol.  Hey, save some bleach for the rest of us.

Heh.  Will do.  If you are anything like me, this line of thinking can run fairly bleach-worthy.

On the other hand, Duggar could have some evidence that shows he was at a conference with his family or some other wholesome place that might reveal something embarrassing or unsavory about a loved one.  It does seem he has something he would rather not share with the world, but who knows why that is.

[garciarodrigez]

Yes, it could be a million things and perhaps could include many innocents truly.  Might be best if we never know just for the sake of any innocents.

[OnceUponATime]

Duggar may not have currently leaked his evidence that got the case <insert the correct legal word here> due to one or none of the following:

• he is waiting for his people magazine exclusive cover (feel the burn fAmy) and will publish the evidence there
• he has signed a gag-order contract with TLC for the upcoming series of "Moving on: life after the scandals"
• he was really visiting Trump/Cruz asking them if he could become their VP - they(not duggar) don't want this to be public knowledge yet
• was converting a democrat
• he was playing mindless video games in an arcade *embarrassing*
• he was actually at ballroom dancing lessons learning how to dance to surprise Anna at their next anniversary
• he currently is in a sort of lock-down at RU and isn't allowed/able to make any statement
• still busy making M5 - no time for media yo

 

[Artemesia]

Not only do DD's false accusations make it more difficult in general for other sexual assault victims to get justice, they make it specifically difficult for anyone to accuse Smugs of any sexual crime in the future. People will say, "the last time he was accused it was a lie, maybe this is a lie, too."

[ksgranola1]

Quote

 

If he had kept his big mouth shut after AM broke,  he could have minimized the fall-out. But NOOO, he had to go on to make a public statement saying he was addicted to porn, & that he was unfaithful.  No one else has come forward. Maybe he could have kept some of this under his hat & he wouldn't be in Daddy's Jesus Jail.

[Cleopatra7]

23 minutes ago, Artemesia said:

Not only do DD's false accusations make it more difficult in general for other sexual assault victims to get justice, they make it specifically difficult for anyone to accuse Smugs of any sexual crime in the future. People will say, "the last time he was accused it was a lie, maybe this is a lie, too."

Not necessarily. The molestations have been acknowledged, even if there were no legal repercussions. As much as it pains me to say this, the fact that DD is a sex worker will make a difference in how people process her claims. It can be said, "She's a whore. Of course she would lie about sexual assault." If a future accuser is "respectable" the response will probably be much different.

[Secular Sweetness]

I don't know if anyone else feels the same way, I believe bashing DD as having made up all  her accusations is still premature in the least, and likely that we'll never really know.  She may actually be a victim, but with out the physical proof and/or having an attorney who will prove it, so she could be a victim who was re-victimized by being out-lawyer-ed, calling her a false accuser doesn't seem right with what is known at this point.  The only thing I believe is known for sure is that Josh, although he didn't use this word, has admitted to being a scumbag before DD came forward.  

 

[ShepherdontheRock]

Well...

If Danica was in fact lying, fuck her for trying to profit off this. I am the opposite of a leghumper, but real people's lives were hurt by Josh's actions, and wasting people's time and money because you wanted publicity/money for yourself by profiting off of other people's pain, even people as problematic as the Duggars is a shitty thing to do.

Although I definitely don't think Josh did NOTHING wrong. Something's not quite right.

[Whoosh]

13 minutes ago, Cleopatra7 said:

Not necessarily. The molestations have been acknowledged, even if there were no legal repercussions. As much as it pains me to say this, the fact that DD is a sex worker will make a difference in how people process her claims. It can be said, "She's a whore. Of course she would lie about sexual assault." If a future accuser is "respectable" the response will probably be much different.

I totally agree with this and think that this bizarre saga might even bolster the claims of any potential future victims.  Dillon presents a questionable and somewhat inconsistent story coming from a victim many people might view as partially or entirely unbelievable and/or deserving of whatever happens.  She has also signed a very vague agreement saying her "claims" were falsified - but we have no idea what claims that is addressing (or if this is the signed document where she was truthful as opposed to the other signed documents).  Lots of people will view that as proof she made the whole thing up and I would say she may well be just full of shit.  However, if some more "credible" person came forward with a similar story (particularly with solid and clear evidence), people might step back a bit and say "wait a minute..."

ETA - this is obviously a "what if" - I have no reason at this point to believe that Duggar has ever or will ever assaulted anyone in the course of a sexual encounter outside the molestations.

[SportsgalAnnie]

I smell a coverup and agree to not say what really happened  We will never know the truth 

[socalrules]

The thing is, the burden has always been on Danica to prove her case, not Josh. She obviously could not and the case is now over. Josh does not have to now show the world what proof he had that he was in a different location on the dates she alleged she was abused. Why would he want to continue paying a lawyer on a case that can easily be closed without incurring further costs? Danica has admitted she lied and that should be the end of it. That was the point of vigorously defending himself and not paying a settlement. 

Josh is a child molester, adulterer and enjoys porn. That we know to be true. I do not understand the need to now find a reason that Danica may be lying about lying so we can find Josh guilt of abusing Danica. Why the need so badly for Danica to be a real victim when she has admitted she is not. It doesn't somehow make Josh a worse person and it doesn't change most of our views of him either way. He is a child molester, that's enough reason to despise him for me. I think Josh could put out evidence he was in another country and people would still find a way for Josh to be guilty. I may dislike Josh but I do not want him or anyone else accused or found guilty of something they did not do. That isn't justice and it puts in jeopardy true victims deserving of justice. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, socalrules said:

The thing is, the burden has always been on Danica to prove her case, not Josh. She obviously could not and the case is now over. Josh does not have to now show the world what proof he had that he was in a different location on the dates she alleged she was abused. Why would he want to continue paying a lawyer on a case that can easily be closed without incurring further costs? Danica has admitted she lied and that should be the end of it. That was the point of vigorously defending himself and not paying a settlement. 

Josh is a child molester, adulterer and enjoys porn. That we know to be true. I do not understand the need to now find a reason that Danica may be lying about lying so we can find Josh guilt of abusing Danica. Why the need so badly for Danica to be a real victim when she has admitted she is not. It doesn't somehow make Josh a worse person and it doesn't change most of our views of him either way. He is a child molester, that's enough reason to despise him for me. I think Josh could put out evidence he was in another country and people would still find a way for Josh to be guilty. I may dislike Josh but I do not want him or anyone else accused or found guilty of something they did not do. That isn't justice and it puts in jeopardy true victims deserving of justice. 

 this entire freaking post needs to be stitched on a sampler.  You put this beautifully and not snipping a word because QFT.

[Whoosh]

30 minutes ago, socalrules said:

The thing is, the burden has always been on Danica to prove her case, not Josh. She obviously could not and the case is now over. Josh does not have to now show the world what proof he had that he was in a different location on the dates she alleged she was abused. Why would he want to continue paying a lawyer on a case that can easily be closed without incurring further costs? Danica has admitted she lied and that should be the end of it. That was the point of vigorously defending himself and not paying a settlement. 

Josh is a child molester, adulterer and enjoys porn. That we know to be true. I do not understand the need to now find a reason that Danica may be lying about lying so we can find Josh guilt of abusing Danica. Why the need so badly for Danica to be a real victim when she has admitted she is not. It doesn't somehow make Josh a worse person and it doesn't change most of our views of him either way. He is a child molester, that's enough reason to despise him for me. I think Josh could put out evidence he was in another country and people would still find a way for Josh to be guilty. I may dislike Josh but I do not want him or anyone else accused or found guilty of something they did not do. That isn't justice and it puts in jeopardy true victims deserving of justice. 

I agree with you in theory but it seems the general public is aware of the reality that our system of justice is far from perfect.  The reality is that a plaintiff may well lose in court even if they are entirely telling the truth and entirely in the right.  I don't think that is the case here, but I also don't see this as a slam dunk either.  People will view all this how they view it.

I personally think at this point it is wrong to claim Duggar did anything wrong or even met Dillon (and I think that is true from the time of accusation until the time of any finding of liability or an admission), but I don't think it is outlandish or unreasonable to recognize that there is a possibility the system may have yet again failed a victim (no matter how remote one feels that possibility may be).

[Mothership]

17 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Everytime someone mentions that store I think of Mrs. Piggle Wiggle.  DAE remember those books?  

If she had gotten her hands on the Duggars years ago she'd have cured them all of their horrible behavior.

Finally catching up on this thread.

"The Duggar Cure" for a post count?

Mrs Piggle Wiggle makes you eat tater tot casserole, wear denim skirts, sleep in a bunk house with eleventy siblings while a tape of JB reads from Leviticus.  Finally, you emerge, having stuffed tater tots in your ears to make the noise go away, make your denim skirt into a cape and run free with your eleventy sibs.

[Mothership]

1 hour ago, ksgranola1 said:

If he had kept his big mouth shut after AM broke,  he could have minimized the fall-out. But NOOO, he had to go on to make a public statement saying he was addicted to porn, & that he was unfaithful.  No one else has come forward. Maybe he could have kept some of this under his hat & he wouldn't be in Daddy's Jesus Jail.

And to me, this is still the reality that TLC needs to deal with.   Josh did admit to all kinds of bad behavior--admitted to more bad behavior than he was accused of.   Arguably, porn addiction may not be so much an admission as an allowable excuse by the leghumpers (right up there with "Thanks Obama"..."blame porn") 

As discussed in this thread and other threads, for the leghumpers, the AM scandal and porn addictions have been worse allegations than the molestations.  And yet, we've already seen the press blame  the infidelity scandal (not the charge by DD) as the reason for the show being pulled thereby bypassing the horrendous molestation charges.   Thanks to the great contributors here, WE know that the timeline doesn't play that way.  The show was pulled after Joshgate #1 and the awful MK interviews and the fallout.

Was Joshley savvy enough to manipulate to trade one scandal for another?  Or was he just lucky?

[Secular Sweetness]

50 minutes ago, Whoosh said:

, but I don't think it is outlandish or unreasonable to recognize that there is a possibility the system may have yet again failed a victim (no matter how remote one feels that possibility may be).

Yes, this is what I was trying to say earlier, that it's a possibility.  But may never know, so saying she's a false accuser making real victims look bad, is kind of, sort of, slightly, IMO not a good thing (said quietly as a new member and not wanting to ruffle a lot of feathers).

(my first use of emotican here - at first glance I thought this one was scratching his face, glad I realized what it really was, lol. - )

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, Secular Sweetness said:

Yes, this is what I was trying to say earlier, that it's a possibility.  But may never know, so saying she's a false accuser making real victims look bad, is kind of, sort of, slightly, IMO not a good thing (said quietly as a new member and not wanting to ruffle a lot of feathers).

(my first use of emotican here - at first glance I thought this one was scratching his face, glad I realized what it really was, lol. - )

I have to say that I am personally very glad you voiced your opinion.  Recently in another thread some people were talking about FJ now vs FJ a few years ago.  A few people voiced the opinion that they miss the "feminist perspective" here on FJ.  I am too new to know exactly what went on in the past and I certainly won't try to speak for all feminists.  That said, I will say this - what types of opinions are tolerated vs what type of opinions are summarily shut down by various efforts at community policing will have a profound impact on who belongs to this community as well as on who is willing to actually share their thoughts and opinions here.  

I used to belong to a group that theoretically should have had a membership that was representative of the entire population in terms of race and religion.  Certain views were tolerated and promoted while other views were shouted down with regularity.  Then the majority of the group would complain that the group was about 90% white Christians.  After 5 years of being beaten around and slapped down when I tried to voice my opinion (in a "support" group no less), this non-theist hit the bricks.

So, I won't try to label or lump together the various types of people who might want to say "hey, let's not say Dillon is absolutely lying beyond any reasonable doubt when the reality is we still just don't know what that agreement is even saying let alone why she agreed to it".  I will, however, suggest that if the community as a whole decides it is OK to bash down that or any other well reasoned view with sufficient vehemence, I think they need to understand exactly what that means in terms of the future of the community.  I think it is fine to try to severely restrict some types of views (eg blatant racism, sexism, homophobia, etc), but I think people should think long and hard about what the ultimate impact of those choices and decisions will be.

Anyway, welcome @Secular Sweetness.  I feel you expressed a less common view very eloquently and respectfully.

[Imagine20]

Attached to Josh's answer is an additional memo in which his attorney states that they submitted videotapes and photographs with his answer. Do they show him somewhere else or do they show he just wasn't in the club or hotels the nights she alleges, we won't know. But there is more evidence out there than just the written documents. 

Also, as part of her suit she stated that she is unable to work...yet she's got a new video out. 

[Whoosh]

1 hour ago, Imagine20 said:

Also, as part of her suit she stated that she is unable to work.

I agree with the rest of your post.  I am going to continue to correct this factual error when it is made - to the best of my knowledge, Dillon NEVER said she was unable to work at all from the time of the assault until the time of the filing of the lawsuit. She just didn't claim that in this lawsuit at all.  She said that as a result of the incident she had been "unable to work in her chosen field" and had "lost business opportunities" or something very similar (I will check the exact language).   That is vastly different.  Really, vastly different.  Dillon would have needed to provide evidence that there were business opportunities that were lost due to the alleged incidents, but proving that she did various types of work here and there is entirely irrelevant and efforts to do so could actually quite easily harm all victims.

ETA - the exact language used in the complaint is "unable to work in her chosen field".  It does not give a timeframe.  In a Court Order, the Judge ordered Dillon to produce records to prove "lost business opportunities" to support her damages claims.  Documents submitted by the Defendant used different language, but Dillon would not be held to the Defendant's version of her claims, she would be held to her actual claims as the Judge interprets them based on everything he knew about the case at the time.