27 Dresses - I Mean Duggar Threads (Now, with Duggar women lawsuit discussion!)

[Bethella]

12 hours ago, Shadoewolf said:

It states an anonymous call prompted the investigation, but didn't JB&M openly state they contacted police when it kept happening? 

Second, it constantly refers to the fact that no charges were brought against Josh but fails to note that they couldn't  prosecute Josh because JB&M failed to report the abuse until the statute of limitations had passed.

8 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

From my recollection, JB and Michelle contacted a friend who worked as a Police Officer. He spoke with them and Josh, but never filed a report. This same cop was arrested and wound up in jail for a completely different matter, possibly sexual assault of a minor (DO NOT quote me on this part. I can't remember for sure.) It was later on that an investigation was started. I believe it was sparked by the letter sent to Oprah and/or a phone call.

The family friend was Joseph Hutchens, a state trooper. Hutchens isn't the most reliable source, he's currently serving 56 years for child porn, but he claims that JB only told him about one instance of abuse which is supposedly why he didn't file a police report. In JB's version of events they told him about everything. I'm not sure who to believe in this he-said-he-said, neither one is remotely reliable or believable.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/duggar-breaking-news-disgraced-cop-who-didn-t-report-molestation-shoots-down-jim-bob-s-story-59235

[Lyle Lanley]

1 hour ago, WhyNotJulie said:

Complying with the spirit of the law (rather than simply the letter of the law) in this case, the girls shouldn't have ever been put in a position where this information about them was made public. Even though their names were redacted, the person who released the documents knew or ought to have known that they would be able to be easily identified.

What it breaks down to is if there was enough identifying information removed or not. That's going to be what it hinges on. I'm not sure how much more they could have blacked out without sending an entire blacked out report to the attorney who requested the records. And by law they were required to send the report once it had been requested. Otherwise the Springdale PD would have faced legal consequences at the time.

It's going to be interesting how it plays out. Trying to find an impartial jury is going to be hellish. I wonder if the Duggars asked for a judge and jury trial so that it would drag on for so long that InTouch and the City of Springdale would just settle for an undisclosed amount?

[JesusCampSongs]

1 hour ago, HarleyQuinn said:

These girls are probably not even entertaining the thought of this going to trial. They've been raised to be so entitled. They're all probably thinking step 1: sue. Step 2: get money and nothing else.

Agreed. I think this whole thing is Jim Bob seeing whether or not he can shake down In Touch and for how much. I have a hard time seeing him being in favor of Jill, Jessa, Jinger, and Joy-Anna going through with the whole process given the level of scrutiny it would involve, much of which would be directed at him and his wife. 

Not to mention the fact that he's basically given In Touch a golden opportunity to dig up even more dirt on the family. 

[socalrules]

I agree with the previous poster that they will be treated differently at deposition and trial. At trial,  the attorney will likely be gentle but still strong enough to get the answer they are seeking. At deposition, all bets are off. Attorneys will ask the same question in 17 different ways. They can be more aggressive and have more leeway in their line of questioning. It is easy for a deponent to get tripped up. The problem is that any mistakes made while being deposed can come back to hurt you at trial. 

Requesting a jury makes absolute sense. When you are a Plaintiff, you want a jury because they are easier to sway with emotion than a judge, and are likely to award more than you would receive at a bench trial. It's usually the defense that wants a bench trial because they want a judge to look at the evidence in a more clinical way that is not influenced by emotion. 

[bellina]

I wonder if this isn't about the victims, but instead about the fall from grace and loss of opportunity for Josh?

Really, who knows. The complainants are all legal adults and I truly hope this is their decision, made with the advice of sound and adequate legal counsel.

[Lurky]

Surely In Touch ran all this through their lawyers before they published?  If they didn't, well, they deserve to be sued...

[luv2laugh]

13 hours ago, VelociRapture said:

I honestly don't know what lawyers would focus on during the trial. I would assume they'd stick closely to proving emotional distress and proving that there was something illegal/legal in how everything was handled.

I'm pretty positive the city ran this past their lawyers and so did In Touch. Greedy girls have the audacity to feel they're entitled to multimillions. Nope. Let the bloodbath begin!

[MadeItOut]

2 hours ago, Bethella said:

The family friend was Joseph Hutchens, a state trooper. Hutchens isn't the most reliable source, he's currently serving 56 years for child porn, but he claims that JB only told him about one instance of abuse which is supposedly why he didn't file a police report. In JB's version of events they told him about everything. I'm not sure who to believe in this he-said-he-said, neither one is remotely reliable or believable.

 

That's one thing I never could resolve. Unless it's really different in the states, police are licensed responders - you act on the first reference to anything like that and the procedure is constantly rehearsed so that there's no doubt.

[JenniferJuniper]

4 minutes ago, Lurky said:

Surely In Touch ran all this through their lawyers before they published?  If they didn't, well, they deserve to be sued...

I think it's worth remembering that InTouch and the officials sued will have different defenses.

The public officials will claim they had to follow the Freedom of Information rules and did their best to redact names and ages without violating the requirements of the law.  In other words, they were between a rock and a hard place.

InTouch will assert the First Amendment and the fact that they were simply reporting newsworthy, legally obtained information regarding some (exceptionally self-righteous) involuntary (in the case of the girls) public figures.

I'm sure InTouch - gossip rag that it is - has attorneys that review their more borderline reporting before it goes out , but I also think they rely very heavily on the notion of freedom of the press.  Whether they pushed the envelope a little too far here remains to be seen.   

[Hmmm_idolatry]

I never in a million years thought I'd be cheering for a tabloid to win a lawsuit, but here I am hoping that they win.  I really don't think the Duggars have a legitimate argument here, but I know their attorneys think otherwise. 

[sunshine]

I don't think this lawsuit was a good idea for them and their town. This is going to bring all of Josh's past deeds up again. And not that I defending Josh, but Anna and Joy should have a chance to relax in their new beginnings without going to the supermarket and seeing tabloids rehashing everything.

I wonder if the show will talk about the lawsuit. If I was a big wig in the business, I would say yes that they show the process up to a point.

[VelociRapture]

14 minutes ago, MadeItOut said:

That's one thing I never could resolve. Unless it's really different in the states, police are licensed responders - you act on the first reference to anything like that and the procedure is constantly rehearsed so that there's no doubt.

I haven't read his explanation. I'm curious whether it could be similar to the situation some FJers think Anna might have been in - where the Duggars told them a watered down or minimized version of what happened.

Either that or the Trooper follows the same teachings as the Duggars and he felt the whole umbrella of protection bullshit was a better solution than actually doing his job.

[Jess]

7 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

The statute of limitations for personal injury cases in Arkansas is three years, not two.

I believe it's two years for intentional torts which these are, three years is for negligence based personal injury cases. 

[MadeItOut]

13 minutes ago, VelociRapture said:

I haven't read his explanation. I'm curious whether it could be similar to the situation some FJers think Anna might have been in - where the Duggars told them a watered down or minimized version of what happened.

Either that or the Trooper follows the same teachings as the Duggars and he felt the whole umbrella of protection bullshit was a better solution than actually doing his job.

I have an awful feeling you're right on the latter - or something along those lines, as the former is extremely unlikely. Part of the reason for immediately passing it up the chain is to prevent any individual decision that it's something and nothing. Here's the for example they gave us at the last training I did: scenario - 14yo child in your care alleges teacher made them feel uncomfortable 'looking at them sexy'. ...long to short, the correct answer in the scenario is you pass the concern higher. If later involved in the process with the teacher, you act at all times as though they are innocent, but have to think out all the horrible answers too and never go off half cocked or alone. To do otherwise risks immediate revocation of your own license.

[Jess]

4 hours ago, closetcagebaby said:

@WhyNotJulie

wouldn't a magazine that I imagine has done plenty of FOIA requests know exactly what was and was not acceptable, though?

I feel like the only reason they were identifiable was the fact that Jim Boob and Michelle put their family on television and did little to protect their children's privacy. 

For in touch the foia redaction amount doesn't matter that only applies to the city and county defendants. Their issue is publishing it when the redactions really did make it clear who the victims were. I am sure they will try to argue it wasn't clear it was the duggar girls but that isn't really going to work anyone could figure out at least three of the four. In touches defenses are one that the girls are public figures which means they have a lower expectation of privacy so it needs to be extremely outrageous (which this probably is but it's not a 100% clear and would be heavily litigated). The other defense being that it was newsworthy, however, it's important to separate the newsworthiness of Josh's actions verse the girls being victims. Josh's part is definantly newsworthy the girls maybe not so much. This case is far common being clear cut and will either be settled or heavily litigated.

[marmalade]

9 hours ago, allthegoodnamesrgone said:

I can't even imagine what a big big lawyer could do to these people. They would have to tread lightly because if by some miracle they do get a jury trial, it will be in NWA and it will their home turf and they won't be impressed by some big city liberal snobs making sweet little Christian girls cry.  But I do wonder if there are enough people in the area who would love to see Boob squirm and made to look a fool?

I was considering whether a change of venue would be possible. I think their immediate area is too biased either for or against the Duggars for them to receive a fair trial. Possibly move it to Little Rock where you can get a more diverse jury and possibly people who haven't heard of these nimrods? 

[JenniferJuniper]

I wonder how the Duggars' Springdale neighbors are going to feel about this.  The total population is only about 70,000.

I know how I'd feel.  "I wish that freak show would pack up and move to Little Rock."

[Shadoewolf]

Here's the considerations an Arkansas jury must abide to as of 2016... (WARNING! LONG!) Bolded with my own opinions in italics.

Claim for Damages Based Upon Invasion of Privacy by Public Disclosure of Private Facts

(Plaintiff) claims damages from (defendant) for invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts about (plaintiff), and has the burden of proving each of seven essential propositions:

First, that [he][she] sustained damages;.    Loss of the show? Josh's job?

Second, that (defendant) made a public disclosure of a fact about (plaintiff); . Ehhh, it was redacted

Third, that before this disclosure the fact was not known to the public;. Ehhh, there was definitely speculation per Alice and such

Fourth, that a reasonable person would find disclosure of the fact highly offensive; maybe this one

Fifth, that (defendant) knew or should have known that the disclosed fact was private;  yes on this one, but its a tabloid. There's no more believability to their reporting than a Michigan weatherman.

Sixth, that the fact was not of legitimate public concern;  ehhh if Josh had been properly prosecuted he'd have to register as a sex offender. And does public concern mean disproving their oh so holy reality TV persona?

Seventh, that the public disclosure of the fact was a proximate cause of (plaintiff)'s damages.  Was the Ashley Madison scandal the final nail in 19KaC? Or were they pulled after the abuse broke? The timeline there might be a deciding factor. 

When determining public concern, the following factors should be considered: (1) the social value of the fact published, (2) the depth of the intrusion into (plaintiff)'s private affairs, (3) the extent to which (plaintiff) voluntarily placed [himself][herself] into a position of public notoriety, (4) the nature of the state's interest in preventing the disclosure.

-And it basically says in the next paragraph that if Plaintiff cannot adequately prove the above 7 requirements that judgement should favor the Defendant.

[HarleyQuinn]

JB will probably get audited after this is over.

[marmalade]

1 hour ago, MadeItOut said:

That's one thing I never could resolve. Unless it's really different in the states, police are licensed responders - you act on the first reference to anything like that and the procedure is constantly rehearsed so that there's no doubt.

Yeah, the state trooper was likely a mandatory reporter who shirked his duty to help out a buddy. 

[VelociRapture]

@ShadoewolfThey pulled reruns after the molestation scandal. Show was cancelled mid-July. Josh's cheating was revealed mid-August.

So its likely scandal one is what did the show in.

[MadeItOut]

8 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

JB will probably get audited after this is over.

We can hope.

[JordynDarby5]

That would be awesome.

[FlamingFundie]

I'm willing to be that he's been audited before and knows the ropes.

[CorruptionInc.]

I do not like that the girls are getting re-victimised over and over again.

I also don't like that they have always played it down and more than likely didn't get the right kind of help and treatment for healing.

Unfortunately, I am curious to know if the victims understand the situation in a comprehensive way? They don't have the right to say, no dad, I am NOT talking about this any more, I do NOT want to talk about it. Or, I want to go see a therapist in a private setting.

What interests me is when you go to court, you swear on the bible you're telling the truth. I would like to think the Duggar girls take this very seriously and tell the truth in court. Obviously I'd prefer for their sake they didn't have to talk about it in court.

Do JB and Michelle think if they perjure themselves they can pray it away? Or justify they did it to protect their family?

What my overall point after ranting here is, why are the parents not on trial??? They caused this mess.