Willis Family including rape charges

[Whipple]

Just defining abuse differently I guess. Exploiting children for financial gain and not giving  them a choice as to whether they are on tV seems to be a running characteristic, common thread. Like all of Kate's kids wanted to be on TV before they could talk. Anyway, even if they say they love it, I don't think most kids are ready for the fame that comes with TV exposure.  The Little Couple seems to be the exception but as the kids get older, I hope that they pull back. 

[Blup]

12 hours ago, Palimpsest said:

The second source (ABC is a major "reputable" news network) has some paperwork related to asking for info from anyone who picked Toby Willis when her was hitchhiking out of TN to KY.  They mention the overall charges, that is all.

 

You obviously didn't read that article. The TBI states "[they] charged him with one count of Rape of a Child" and that the victim is female. According to the Tennessee law this means "Rape of a child is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or the defendant by a victim, if the victim is more than three (3) years of age but less than thirteen (13) years of age". Or in laymen terms ages 4-12.

ABC7 claims to have Tennessee court paperwork and is much more specific: "The relative was between nine and 12 years old" (bold added by me). Because they are so specific it looks to me they really have the paperwork.  They list of victims -- this is not speculating -- is with those four words much smaller. If they made it up, someone has to sue them to the ground. This story is the base of literally hundreds of copy/paste articles.

Because of those four words my first thought was another sleazy article. But it hadn't the normal signs and looked legit. You confirmed that they are reliable. One copy/paste journalist made it even worse by adding another word. But they retracted it quickly and I think they didn't have the paperwork themselves.

So again my questions. Could the press obtain paperwork with this much information at this moment in time? If not someone has to make ABC7 confess or make them publish the documents so everybody can see it is true or bogus. Even the sleazy source of the arrest warrant understood that facts must be verifiable and published the documents as well.

I'm not speculating because I know what journalism has become. I try to verify everything or ask questions about the reliability.

 

Added: I obviously didn't watch the video in the article. Usually the don't play well across the ocean. But the showed four court papers which although blurry are not the papers from Kentucky. In the video the said the same four words and even blended in the age range 9-12.

[faraway]

I think at least some of the media sources have seen the court papers, but are simply protecting the victim by not outing her. While I'm glad this is happening, I'm sure it will come out sooner or later. That's probably also the reason why the information about the year and age of the victim are kind of vague. I'm not sure they are doing anyone a huge favor because there's a lot of speculation going on and a lot of it just looks like bad journalism. 

[Blup]

1 hour ago, faraway said:

I'm not sure they are doing anyone a huge favor because there's a lot of speculation going on and a lot of it just looks like bad journalism. 

I think only one source has the papers. They are blurry in the video, but because it seems a reliable source and they are quoting specific details, they must have them. Nobody denied that they couldn't have them. Because of specifics they narrow the victims to a small group. Relative here means a member of your family. That includes everyone up and then down again from your parents. If you want to be more specific it is brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, nephews or nieces. I presume that this is the same in the USA.

The speculation will happen even without specifics. And it is at least lazy journalism. If the court papers could be obtained, then why don't the reputable sources do that. I'm not a journalist through my education, but learned from them that you must always go back to the source. Never trust anything that you don't have verified yourself. It is tedious, but the only right way to do it. Of course this cost money and because everything on the internet is free (as in beer), it isn't done. In the end we must blame ourselves for the copy/paste and introducing errors journalism we have today.

[DaisyD]

I blame the 24 hour news cycle. It used to be that a journalist had time to do some research before publishing a story. Now they need to be the most up-to-date story at any given time so they publish whatever is easily available and add to it from there. There's no time to fact check.

I'm not condoning the practice. It drives me nuts. I just understand how it happens. 

[OyToTheVey]

On 9/17/2016 at 2:34 PM, Snarkle Motion said:

I think there is actually research supporting the Facebook over posters and relationship posters. If you have to tell people how in love you are your probably not. 

I tend to also be suspicious of those that loudly protest lgbtq rights as it seems it's often a response to inner conflict about ones own sexuality. 

But in terms of those who proclaim to demonstrate family values I think there is more to it. I think there is an intersection of extreme control of one's children, believing women and children need to be submissive, and the superiority/entitlement of men. I see a lot of overlap in personality types that gravitate toward sex abuse and fundamentalism. Obviously not all fundamentalists but the control and power discrepancy I think makes it more pervasive. 

I have a friend like that. I'm honestly just waiting for her to come out. She always posts lgbtq things. Sometimes it just screams out lout I have something to say but I'm not gonna say it now.

[OyToTheVey]

15 hours ago, SilverBeach said:

I am a Little Couple leghumper. I have indeed learned so much from their wonderful show. Remember, they had a show before the children came, and the children have never been the sole focus of the show.

Unfortunately, exploitation of children has been a long standing practice in the entertainment industry

 

Plus as much as I don't want to stereotype, The Little Couple are highly educated and had money before the show. The rest of the families are either home schooled or religious fanatics. I like Jen and Bill. They both seem to come from good families and have a solid relationship with them. 

[EmmieJ]

12 hours ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

She in particular is amazing. 3'2" tall, a doctor, and she went through the cancer with such an amazing attitude and strength. She is an inspiration to anyone who knows about her. Amazing. Wonderful. Guess I am a leghumper here too for them. 

I agree that Mrs. Little Couple is quite an accomplished person who dealt very bravely with her cancer.  I also agree that the couple seem fairly well grounded, intelligent and in love with each other and their children.

However, I think it is sort of like playing Russian Roulette to have your minor children on reality tv.  The couple does not need the money - they were apparently doing fine financially before the show and certainly have made lots of money due to the show.  Why risk your children's well being when you don't have any compelling reason to do so?  Yes, the two children are very cute (although I was not appreciative of the over-the-top gifts they were receiving from their parents - possibly/likely courtesy of TLC - like the motorized cars).  But they are now very well known, to all sorts of people, some of whom could have criminal intent or just be unbalanced fans who could potentially stalk or harass the family/children.  As a parent myself, that's not a risk I would be willing to take.  I wish they'd wrap up that show, and live happily ever after in as close to anonymity as they could now obtain.

[Palimpsest]

7 hours ago, Blup said:

You obviously didn't read that article.

As I said, I took a quick look at the article and attempted to answer your question politely.  I didn't bother to watch the video.  I now see that they showed a shot of the arrest warrant.

Quote

The TBI states "[they] charged him with one count of Rape of a Child" and that the victim is female.

Yes.  I was speaking generally in referring to victim(s) as he/she.

Quote

ABC7 claims to have Tennessee court paperwork and is much more specific: "The relative was between nine and 12 years old" (bold added by me). Because they are so specific it looks to me they really have the paperwork. 

It looks as though the ABC affiliate has obtained some court records, including the arrest warrant.  They are very blurry.  This they can do quite legally through a FOIA request.  I note that FoxNews has also got some court documents (opinions vary greatly on whether Fox is a reputable news source. /sarcasm)

Quote

They list of victims -- this is not speculating -- is with those four words much smaller. If they made it up, someone has to sue them to the ground.

Which four words?  No, they won't have been making stuff up about the charges out of thin air.  They might be paraphrasing from the original document to make the legalese more understandable to the general public.

Quote

This story is the base of literally hundreds of copy/paste articles.  because of those four words my first thought was another sleazy article. But it hadn't the normal signs and looked legit. You confirmed that they are reliable. One copy/paste journalist made it even worse by adding another word. But they retracted it quickly and I think they didn't have the paperwork themselves.

Yes.  Lazy journalism is annoying.

Quote

So again my questions. Could the press obtain paperwork with this much information at this moment in time?

As I said above - yes.  Quite legally.

Quote

If not someone has to make ABC7 confess or make them publish the documents so everybody can see it is true or bogus. Even the sleazy source of the arrest warrant understood that facts must be verifiable and published the documents as well.

Confess?  Oh, please.  Inaccuracies are annoying but I don't think this is a journalistic conspiracy to defame Toby Willis - especially if the news sources have the arrest warrant in hand.  

No, they don't "have" to publish the documents (which may or may not reveal the name of the victim.)  Publishing the documents (or not) or publishing them redacted (or not) is an editorial choice.  Many reputable news sources have policies against publishing the names or identifying information about minor victims - especially the victims of sexual assault.  Perhaps you should take that up with the individual news source's ethics boards.

1 hour ago, Blup said:

 Because of specifics they narrow the victims to a small group. Relative here means a member of your family. That includes everyone up and then down again from your parents. If you want to be more specific it is brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, nephews or nieces. I presume that this is the same in the USA.

Yes, it is very unfortunate that the specifics narrow the victims to a small group.

 

1 hour ago, Blup said:

The speculation will happen even without specifics.

Unfortunately people are very crass.  I don't think the general public has a "right to know" the names of victims of sexual assault at all.  People who want to know are either suffering from vulgar curiosity or tend to use the information to attack victims.

Quote

And it is at least lazy journalism. If the court papers could be obtained, then why don't the reputable sources do that.

Some have.  If I were you I'd cool my jets until after the hearing this week.  My guess is that the local newspaper coverage will be far more detailed and accurate than TV news or random tabloids.  The Tennessean looks to be a reliable local source.  http://www.tennessean.com/

Note that the Tennessean has a policy not to name victims in these cases.

And I agree with @daisyd681, journalism is getting increasingly sloppy as pressure mounts to be first with a story.  It is getting ridiculous.

 

 

[iweartanktops]

18 hours ago, Fascinated said:

@Buzzard, can a judge order that the victim's name be withheld from public record?  Does the age of a victim come to bear at all in such matters?

 

18 hours ago, Buzzard said:

I dont know TN law, but generally no.  The right of the public to have access to the courts and hold the courts accountable generally trumps the rights of the victim.  The State can try but its highly unlikely.  I would expect any such attempt to be met by motions from "media" demanding access to the records.  The defendant himself has a right to a PUBLIC trial.  No one really seems to care about the victim's rights.

I'm going to slink off into my corner and mumble about why juvenile defendants are treated with more respect than juvenile victims of crimes...

First of all, I am NOT an attorney.

Buzzard, I'm not sure if you can answer this since I'm not going to give a bunch of details. But in my experience, years ago (early 20s, so not a minor), I was a (technically) victim in a high profile crime. It was covered nationally. Myself and the other surviving victim were never identified publicly. Even after the trial, obviously anyone present could identify us, but the media never did. I guess I'm wondering how this could be different. It happened in another state, and early reports had our names. But they were quite literally wiped from the Internet long before trial (thankfully). That's about all I'm willing to say here, but I'm troubled that this victim wouldn't have the same protection, especially as a child.

Does a murder change that? If so, why? 

[Snarkle Motion]

10 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

I agree that Mrs. Little Couple is quite an accomplished person who dealt very bravely with her cancer.  I also agree that the couple seem fairly well grounded, intelligent and in love with each other and their children.

However, I think it is sort of like playing Russian Roulette to have your minor children on reality tv.  The couple does not need the money - they were apparently doing fine financially before the show and certainly have made lots of money due to the show.  Why risk your children's well being when you don't have any compelling reason to do so?  Yes, the two children are very cute (although I was not appreciative of the over-the-top gifts they were receiving from their parents - possibly/likely courtesy of TLC - like the motorized cars).  But they are now very well known, to all sorts of people, some of whom could have criminal intent or just be unbalanced fans who could potentially stalk or harass the family/children.  As a parent myself, that's not a risk I would be willing to take.  I wish they'd wrap up that show, and live happily ever after in as close to anonymity as they could now obtain.

I agree that having their children on tv isn't healthy but I actually see some positives from their tv show. I think that shows featuring little people living normal lives has likely reduced a lot of stigma and educated the general public.

[Buzzard]

2 minutes ago, iweartanktops said:

Buzzard, I'm not sure if you can answer this since I'm not going to give a bunch of details. But in my experience, years ago (early 20s, so not a minor), I was a (technically) victim in a high profile crime. It was covered nationally. Myself and the other surviving victim were never identified publicly. Even after the trial, obviously anyone present could identify us, but the media never did. I guess I'm wondering how this could be different. It happened in another state, and early reports had our names. But they were quite literally wiped from the Internet long before trial (thankfully). That's about all I'm willing to say here, but I'm troubled that this victim wouldn't have the same protection, especially as a child.

Reputable media will not publish/report on the identity of a sexual assault victim without his/her OK (the most famous being the "dot" in the William Kennedy Smith trial in the 90s).  There is actually a discussion about whether that is "appropriate" but thats a question for the media to wrestle among themselves.  LEGALLY, the information is a matter of public record and is free to be disseminated.

[iweartanktops]

14 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Reputable media will not publish/report on the identity of a sexual assault victim without his/her OK (the most famous being the "dot" in the William Kennedy Smith trial in the 90s).  There is actually a discussion about whether that is "appropriate" but thats a question for the media to wrestle among themselves.  LEGALLY, the information is a matter of public record and is free to be disseminated.

Thank you for answering. I guess I'm still troubled and confused a bit. Not from your answer. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I wish people weren't so hungry for every single detail of these awful crimes. 

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, iweartanktops said:

Thank you for answering. I guess I'm still troubled and confused a bit. Not from your answer. I guess we'll have to wait and see. I wish people weren't so hungry for every single detail of these awful crimes. 

The difference is legality vs policy.  The information is legally available but, by policy, no reputable media will publish it.  Considering the media that we are dealing with I fully expect the name to be readily available.

Think of it this way - a trial is going on right now in a hypothetical courtroom.  In the audience is a concerned citizen and a local print reporter.   The citizen goes home and blogs every.single.detail about what they heard, including the name of every witness and what they were wearing.  The reporter publishes a summary of highlights and names only law enforcement, referring to the victim as "the alleged victim."

Both are legally correct.  Everyone has to abide by their own standards.

[Funwithfundies]

19 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I agree that having their children on tv isn't healthy but I actually see some positives from their tv show. I think that shows featuring little people living normal lives has likely reduced a lot of stigma and educated the general public.

Is it 'worth it' though?  And who has the right to decide that for minors?  Obviously the parents (who seem like nice people) have the legal right, but personally I would never want to put my kids in a position where they looked back on their childhood fame (which will never fully fade) with anger and resentment.  This is currently playing out with Jacob Roloff, plus I'm guessing several Gosselin kids will be in the same boat a few years down the line.

[iweartanktops]

36 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I agree that having their children on tv isn't healthy but I actually see some positives from their tv show. I think that shows featuring little people living normal lives has likely reduced a lot of stigma and educated the general public.

I really enjoy the Little Couple, first of all. And I agree with you, to a point. But is it worth it at the expense of these kids' mental health? It's extremely unnerving to be in the public eye as an adult. I can't imagine what it's like for a child. 

@Funwithfundies, apparently we have the same thoughts! I didn't see your post before I posted.

[EmmieJ]

34 minutes ago, Snarkle Motion said:

I agree that having their children on tv isn't healthy but I actually see some positives from their tv show. I think that shows featuring little people living normal lives has likely reduced a lot of stigma and educated the general public.

Agree that it is helpful in the sense that those watching the show who were uncomfortable or intimidated or otherwise were relatively unfamiliar with little people, have probably gained a better understanding of the everyday frustrations and trials of being a little person.  However, they could still film and really minimize the children - as in, very limited filming of the children.  The parents could discuss in broad terms the issues they dealt with in adopting the children, what the children deal with when they start public school, etc. -- while not including the children in the filming.  Clearly, TLC knows these adorable children are a huge audience draw, probably more so than their parents. 

Also, are people really still quite unfamiliar with little people?  I am acquainted with two little people - it's a couple who go to my hairdresser.  For awhile, the wife's appointment schedule and mine must have synced up, because I'd see her almost every time I got my hair colored.  On the first meeting, what I noticed most was she was a little person.  After that, what I noticed most was how well she was always dressed and it was no different chatting with her than it was with any other patron at the salon. 

[Palimpsest]

@iweartanktops, not sure if this answers your question but to add to what Buzzard said:

It is a policy (not a legal requirement) that reputable news media refrain from publishing the names of adult victims of DV and sexual assault.  Minors are a different matter.

Way back when, it was a hard fought battle to get the media to stop naming (and often outright shaming) victims - the argument being that being outed publicly re-victimized the victim.   The victim should be able to retain control over whether and how they could/should disclose their identity.   The flip side of that argument is, as the majority of victims of DV are female, does it patronize and infantilize adult women?  There is a lot more too it, of course.

The debate continues and it is a tricky one - good summary of the pros and cons here:  http://www.cjr.org/minority_reports/domestic_violence_reporting.php

[iweartanktops]

Thank you, @Buzzard and @Palimpsest. I will read the link. And sorry, not trying to derail the thread! It's just something I've wondered about. 

[Snarkle Motion]

1 hour ago, Funwithfundies said:

Is it 'worth it' though?  And who has the right to decide that for minors?  Obviously the parents (who seem like nice people) have the legal right, but personally I would never want to put my kids in a position where they looked back on their childhood fame (which will never fully fade) with anger and resentment.  This is currently playing out with Jacob Roloff, plus I'm guessing several Gosselin kids will be in the same boat a few years down the line.

I agree it's probably not worth it and something I would never do to my kids. But I could see the argument made that they're motives are to make the mainstream public more aware of little people and issues that go along with being a little person. I don't buy the duggar argument that they are "ministering" through tv.

[DaisyD]

I've tried to verify it, and have come up with nothing to back it, but I remember Jen saying on the show that they only film like twice a month because they want the kids to have normal lives. The show is a very small part of their world. Of all the families on TLC, they worry me the least.

[MorningMist]

1 hour ago, daisyd681 said:

I've tried to verify it, and have come up with nothing to back it, but I remember Jen saying on the show that they only film like twice a month because they want the kids to have normal lives. The show is a very small part of their world. Of all the families on TLC, they worry me the least.

I don't remember this moment (I only saw a few episodes tbf) but they did a livestream once that I watched where Jet and one of the other older girls talked about how TLC only filmed when something big was happening like tour or house disasters and other than that they hardly saw the cameramen. I think they joked about how Brenda would make everyone clean up the house/bus when they got notice that TLC were coming to film...

[DaisyD]

I was referring to Jen Klein of "Little Couple". If the Willis family didn't film very often, then all the better for them too.

[MorningMist]

2 minutes ago, daisyd681 said:

I was referring to Jen Klein of "Little Couple". If the Willis family didn't film very often, then all the better for them too.

Haha I saw that just after I posted it, I just saw Jen and immediately assumed Jennifer Willis. Sorry! 

ETA: Either way, there seems to be a big difference between how the Little Couple and Willis Family approached their tv shows compared to the Duggars. The Duggars seem to want to film any old thing.

[OyToTheVey]

1 hour ago, daisyd681 said:

I've tried to verify it, and have come up with nothing to back it, but I remember Jen saying on the show that they only film like twice a month because they want the kids to have normal lives. The show is a very small part of their world. Of all the families on TLC, they worry me the least.

Yup I remember Jen saying how they don't film that much. Plus they didn't film for like 6 months after the adoptions to let the kids adjust. I'm not worried about Zoey and Will at all.