Duggars by the Dozen 30 - On a Mission from GOD!

[Carm_88]

It's a tough issue. I do think that the lawsuit rings hollow because of Jessa and Jill's downplaying of the abuse. It's fine if they want to speak of their own case but the fact that Jill tried to normalize it, made me want to absolutely spit nails. Was she told it by her parents? Most likely but at that point, she was a full grown woman who could have looked it up. They came on and looked really fake in order to protect their shitty parents and tv show. Their parents did this to them, they forced them to live with their abuser without any help, and then they sold them to TLC for money. If they want to blame someone, they have to blame their parents. They put them out there and they let Josh continue to be a part of the family raising him up to golden boy status. This is all knowing that he had done this to his sisters and that other poor victim. 

[SassyPants]

7 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

It's a tough issue. I do think that the lawsuit rings hollow because of Jessa and Jill's downplaying of the abuse. It's fine if they want to speak of their own case but the fact that Jill tried to normalize it, made me want to absolutely spit nails. Was she told it by her parents? Most likely but at that point, she was a full grown woman who could have looked it up. They came on and looked really fake in order to protect their shitty parents and tv show. Their parents did this to them, they forced them to live with their abuser without any help, and then they sold them to TLC for money. If they want to blame someone, they have to blame their parents. They put them out there and they let Josh continue to be a part of the family raising him up to golden boy status. This is all knowing that he had done this to his sisters and that other poor victim. 

Wasn't there something that JB could have done along the way, that he never got around to doing, that could have prevented these records from ever being accessed? Am I remembering that correctly?

[Jess]

The lawyers are probably working on contingency and made it clear to the girls why they had to file to keep him out. I am guessing sinc he withdrew the first suit this is some kind of motion to oppose consolidation for discovery/trial. Does anyone have the original documents I can't find them just the comentary. At least here sometimes it's the judge to orders consolidation. Never dealt with it in federal court but I would say there is a fair chance the judge ordered the two matters consolidated and they are opposing. Josh's lawyer might also feel  obligated to file to consolidate since it's in Josh's best interest to avoid malpractice claims later. The Duggars could see The Whole thing as lawyers figureing it out. I really don't feel like any of the children are educated enough to understand or care about the legal intricacies / terminology about what's going on.

6 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Wasn't there something that JB could have done along the way, that he never got around to doing, that could have prevented these records from ever being accessed? Am I remembering that correctly?

After it's came out they were destroyed at the request of a the still minor victims if I remember correctly (likely joy but possibly the unknown victim). I think they thought it was already taken care of. Either way it wouldn't really factor into the lawsuit. Either they violated privacy or didn't and it's a real legal issue that's isn't clear. You don't have some kind of legal obligation to mitigate violations of your privacy.

[Gobsmacked]

On 25 August 2017 at 9:03 PM, Grannie2times said:

My granddaughters and I have a deal.  We don't tell their parents how I spoil them but they have to do what I say (cleaning, bedtime, etc)  They are 9 and 7 and we've had this deal for 2 years and it works great.

You are the grandparent I hope to be one day!

[Gobsmacked]

On 29 August 2017 at 11:08 AM, Dogalog said:

Gosh, Josiah looks super happy.

Ok, fried, greasy food again. Point me to the salad bar. No salad bar? Oh bum, I'm a Duggar. No salad for me then. Ok skip dinner. Where is my cake?

Thats what i imagine he is thinking! 

[Cleopatra7]

What gets me (among many things) is that JB was running on a platform that stated that people who committed incest should receive the death penalty during the same time the molestations were occurring. Presumably, this stance was supposed to "balance out" his desire to make abortion illegal in all circumstances, including rape. However, we didn't see JB try to have Josh put to death or even punished or provided with therapy. If a candidate is going to have a "death penalty for incest" plank while incest is going on in his home, that needs to be exposed. JB has been pimping his kids out since day one, for political and entertainment reasons. In comparison, I wouldn't know Rick Santorum's kids from Adam, because they're not public figures. If JB didn't insist on making his children public figures, no one would have been able to identify them from the police report. Furthermore, the average person couldn't tell the Duggar daughters apart. We can, because we're FJ and fundie watching is our weird hobby, but if Jill and Jessa hadn't gone on TV, few people would have known they were victimized.

[Beermeet]

On 9/7/2017 at 7:54 PM, SadieJane said:

Greek food is my weakness. I'm jealous 

Me too!  If I had to pick one country's food to only eat for the rest of my life, I would happily pick Greek.  When I was single and only had to see to myself, I ate 75% Greek.

[Kittikatz]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

Wasn't there something that JB could have done along the way, that he never got around to doing, that could have prevented these records from ever being accessed? Am I remembering that correctly?

If there had been an actual criminal investigation into Josh's actions, the records would have been sealed as part of Josh's juvenile record. Since the molestations were not reported to the police until after the statute of limitations had expired, and the victims denied any further molestation had occured (which may have pushed the cases back into the period of limitations), the records were not part of a criminal investigation, and as such were available for disclosure under FOI.

It's ironic that JimBoob's decision to protect Josh is what lead down this road.

As for the records, I'm sorry, but I just don't have a lot of sympathy. I'm sure the disclosure of the statements were distressing to the victims. That said, FOI is there for a reason, and in order to fulfill its purpose, must be applied to all eligible records equally. Arkansas FOI isn't what I would call good legislation, but it is what it is, and just because the Duggars are 'famous' doesn't mean their records should be treated differently than those of another, non-famous, family.

The fact that the Duggars have opted to file a civil suit makes me ragey - not because they are suing (governments get sued regularly, it's par for the course) but because by suing they are going to be putting the victims through many hours of hostile depositions cumulating in them having to give testimony and be cross examined before a court - and I just don't see how any of them are going to get through that without being re-traumatized. 

[Jess]

@KittikatzTo be fair to the Duggars part of their lawsuit is about the Arkansas FOIA law the other part is about 14th amendment right to privacy which winning hat argument would mean the law was unconstitutional as written then. (I believe it's since been amended anyway so that a disclosure like this wouldn't happen in the future). So it's not really asking for the law to apply to them differently. 

[Kittikatz]

@Jess my understanding is that the Duggars have opted to file a civil suit, not a constitutional challenge. How is this case supposed to result in Arkansas FOI statute being declared unconstitutional? I'm not American, but my understanding is that civil suits are a different stream from constitutional ones, which are heard in federal courts.

[Jess]

19 minutes ago, Kittikatz said:

@Jess my understanding is that the Duggars have opted to file a civil suit, not a constitutional challenge. How is this case supposed to result in Arkansas FOI statute being declared unconstitutional? I'm not American, but my understanding is that civil suits are a different stream from constitutional ones, which are heard in federal courts.

It is being held in federal court there isn't a special constitutional claim court. They have several causes of action. One of them (and frankly the best one imo) is that releasing the documents violates their 14th amendment right to privacy. If they win that it means the court finds that the actions of the defendants violates the girls constitutional rights. They plead this claim pretty poorly it was probably intentional on the lawyers part since right it privacy most commonly associated with abortion. 

Most other foia laws explicitly state you have to balance the right to privacy in releasing documents. When I did some initial research when the case first came out I found prior court cases that said even though it isn't written into the law government agencies releasing documents do have to do a balancing test weighing the right to privacy before releasing documents. 

[cascarones]

22 hours ago, RoseWilder said:

But I have every right to be appalled that they went on TV and tried to minimize the abuse that happened. They did such a disservice to other abuse victims by doing that.

I disagree here, they talked about it and maybe that helped other people look at their own childhood and see things as wrong they hadn't before, maybe it was comforting to know that you can be okay and heal from abuse. Whether anyone thinks it was genuine or not.

I also don't think abuse victims owe anything to other victims, that's putting a mantle on them they never asked for. That leads to logic like blaming the first girl a guy raped, who chose not to report, for every subsequent rape because she "did a disservice" to his later victims by not reporting. Did Jinger and Joy also do a disservice for not speaking out or condemning him? 

Not every victim wants or should be pressured to be a voice, nor do they have to react in a way other people see fit. Abuse and the after effects vary person to person, some truly do forgive or minimize it in their heads as a coping mechanism and go on to lead happy, productive lives.

Ultimately, I think everyone agrees that it wasn't properly redacted enough to protect victims and that it was in poor taste for InTouch to publish it. 

[Dutchie]

On 24-8-2017 at 1:25 PM, Lurky said:

Here's my question about JB and M:

My sister and a load of my friends are all struggling with Boomer parents becoming crazed grandparents who seem to have thrown every idea about child-raising out of the window now they have grandkids - you know, like when we were kids, our parents restricted sweets and chocolates and wouldn't let us go to McDonalds, didn't like us wearing trendy clothing, didn't give us presents outside of birthdays and Xmas etc etc etc, but now they're giving the grandkids every kind of treat imaginable.  Undermining their own kids to spoil the grandkids.  Getting really pissy about not being able to see the grandkids whenever they want, when they only took us to see our grandparents once a year because they didn't like their parents interfering, and so on and so on.

 

All of this, I'm the mom of the only grandchild of 4 crazy boomer grandparents. 2 months ago I told them all, no presents until Christmas.

[Jenn The Heathen]

On the subject of grandparents: my mom is the only one who respects boundaries.  My father in law's girlfriend is CONSTANTLY undermining us, which is extra frustrating because who does she thinks she is.  It's gotten to the point with them that my husband and I don't want to let the kids have sleepovers because we get two over tired, cranky brats back. No thanks.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

On 9/9/2017 at 4:45 PM, RoseWilder said:

My feelings about this aren't colored by the fact that it's the Duggars. My feelings are colored by 1) the fact that they're famewhores who sell every moment of their private lives, including their births, doctors appointments and funerals. So their claim that they feel their privacy was violated rings a little hollow for me

Snipped

I don't agree at all. They have a right to privacy. This means that we aren't entitled to know anything about their lives beyond what they actively choose to show us. The FOIA doesn't cover abuse victims identities and those who blacked out identifying information did a poor job. They went public when the info was already public, a questionable choice and, on this I agree with you, a famewhorish move mired at damage control. But still we had no right to know their identities from documents provided through FOIA request.

[VelociRapture]

I'm hoping I word my thoughts here properly.

I've looked through the reports and summarized them in a thread on here a while back (so no one else would have to look at it if they didn't want to.) I have no background in FOIA, but I don't think redacting every piece of identifying information in the reports would have protected them either. I feel this way because:

1. The sheer amount of blacking out necessary to hide the names of the siblings living in the home. It was a pretty big giveaway that the victims were related to Josh.

2. The fact that the years the attacks took place were listed, making it clear how many children the Duggars had during that time and seriously narrowing the pool of possible victims.

3. The fact that attacks occurred while some of the victims were sleeping and the Duggars have publicly said they keep a close watch on their children, which means the pool of possible victims could have been limited to just family or very close friends. 

Now, do I think it was right or fair for In Touch to report this the way they did? I don't think it was entirely. It's not In Touch's fault that the documents made it easy to identify some victims as Josh's family members - once they received the documents they were free to publish them. But I don't think it was entirely ethical for them to print the documents as they were either. 

The four known victims didn't deserve to have one of the worst experiences of their lives outed the way it was. It's entirely unfair that they were forced to relive this publicly when they themselves did nothing to deserve any of it - and it was especially cruel that this news broke when Jill was a brand new mom and Jessa was eagerly awaiting the birth of her first son. Of all the times to have to deal with this shit again...

But Josh did deserve to be outed as a child molestor and his parents did deserve to be outed as hypocritical assholes. The fact that the three of them are celebrities does make the attacks and the reports newsworthy, especially given Josh's work at FRC and Michelle's robocall claiming Transgender people are actually child molesters looking for easy access to new victims. 

I wish the identities of all the victims could have been protected, but I don't know if it was entirely possible given the situation and the way the documents were worded and setup. I don't think the law allows for summaries to be released - I believe it has to be the actual documents. And I don't know if In Touch was allowed to do further redacting in order to protect the victims. If so, then there's not much that may have been possible in this very specific incident. 

That said, I personally find the Washington County report fairly problematic. It lists the bodily areas the victims were touched,  which lets us know they were definitely female. It also makes clear that the offender was sneaking around while the victims were asleep and that "the girls were sleeping in a common room at this time" (quote from the report), making it pretty clear the victims were likely living in the same house as him and we're likely related. Additionally, whoever did the redacting on that report failed to remove one victim's age (Joy) and identified some of them as Jim Bob's daughters - and anyone with internet access could have figured out from there which daughters were alive at that point in time. As I said earlier, I don't know what the law says specifically, but I do feel strongly that someone in that department may have fucked up and (if so) should be held responsible. I think under different circumstances the redacting may have been sufficient - the fifth victim has, thankfully, never been identified. So at least it worked properly for someone.

And just for the record: The sisters did nothing to deserve any of this and I absolutely sympathize with them. I do think this could be a good time for a review of the law to be sure it offers adequate protections in situations where someone has been victimized. At the end of the day though, the blame for them being outed really rests with their parents and brother. If not for their choices, In Touch would have had nothing to report in the first place. 

@cascaronesPersonally, I have no problem with them discussing their experiences or feelings publicly if they want to. They have every right to do so. I do have a massive problem with them downplaying the seriousness of the situation or throwing out incorrect statistics though. 

@JessThe only victim who could have filed for the records to be destroyed is Joy. The reports indicate the fifth victim was an adult when they were interviewed by police - so they are likely closer to Josh's age.

On 9/9/2017 at 1:31 PM, sawasdee said:

Their address was shown in the redacted documents, if I remember correctly. That meant that even though their names were obscured, their identities were not. 

Their addresses were not shown. The 2006 local police reports start with interviewee information sheets. The street addresses were blacked out for the victims - only the town and state are visible.

So no. You could not definitively tell that some of the victims were Josh's sisters based off the addresses alone.

[candygirl200413]

Honestly in the end it just makes me the most frustrated that while we could have known that it happened, if Jboob and Mechelle just did an actual parent job and gone through actual proper channels his records would have been sealed.

[cascarones]

@VelociRapture Very thoughtful post. It's another way for me to look at it, their interview and the scandal are what brought the Duggars to my notice. I personally can't find fault with the girls for quoting statistics that they were clearly told. I don't get the impression either of them are strong enough in math or research to be able to speak accurately on it and had simply disregarded those points of the interview when I watched. Though I know that's just me, I paid more attention to the experts all over the case with more accurate stats.

They were never given counseling, or likely even made aware it was serious, just a come tell Mom if it happens again. Since they were so sheltered probably took "it's not a big deal, girls" at face value. Or "it's over and done and we're never going to talk about it again", so it went into the closet and stayed there.  It's one of the things I find most disturbing about fundamentalism and cults. The lack of agency, access to information, the stifling of normal reactions through emotional and spiritual blackmail is heart breaking. In that sense, it makes it so clear why the closet getting aired out could be more traumatizing.

I don't think the girls knew better, but I do lay blame on the men/ headships in their lives who probably made the decision to do the interview and guided them on their feelings through prayer. The same way I feel that Derick, despite his wife's clear fear and unhappiness, dragged her back to CA with their infant and one on the way.

Anywho, I'm sure that topic was thoroughly covered long before I joined FJ and I truly hope Josh's demons are kept at bay. It seems from Joe and Kendra's wedding, the fundie world they live in have forgiven him full part and parcel.

[Jenn The Heathen]

1 hour ago, VelociRapture said:

But Josh did deserve to be outed as a child molestor and his parents did deserve to be outed as hypocritical assholes. The fact that the three of them are celebrities does make the attacks and the reports newsworthy, especially given Josh's work at FRC and Michelle's robocall claiming Transgender people are actually child molesters looking for easy access to new victims.

This!  This, so much this.  Josh is a sexual predator.  Convicted sexual predators have to resgister with the government to protect the people in the communities around them, but Josh never had to do any of that.  He was around his own small children and god knows how many other children.  The public has the right to know.

And don't get me started on JB and Michelle.  They were complicit in the molestation of their own daughters.  It's absolutely appalling that they were granted custody of Tyler.

[TuringMachine]

@VelociRapture Thank you so much for that post. I agree with every word.

[VelociRapture]

@cascaronesI understand and I respect your opinion. I will always have sympathy for these women for what they went through - not just the actual molestations, but the coverup and for having to relive it publicly. I can't even imagine how horrible that must have been.

I do hold Jill and Jessa partially responsible for that horrible interview though. If we take their words at face value, no one forced either of them to speak publicly about the attacks and, while I have no doubt their parents played a role in everything that was said, they are still adults with internet access. Yes, the two of them have been horribly miseducated by their parents and I feel for them on that... but they chose to publicly address everything and they chose to do so without doing a simple internet search to see what the current statistics are. I wouldn't give other people a pass on that, so I'm not going to give them a pass either. 

That interview was damage control intended to make everything look less serious than it really was and Jill and Jessa bear responsibility for promoting a false narrative, presenting false facts, and taking part in the damage control - all at the expense of belittling the very real experiences many other people go through. 

At some point everyone has to start taking responsibility for their actions and words. I have never and will never blame them for their attacks or the coverup, but I strongly feel that they are responsible for the things they said in this specific interview. 

(I obviously exclude Jinger and Joy from this because neither of them have publicly spoken about it. Likely because they weren't married at the time it was fresh news, but still. I'll hold them responsible for their words and choices in other areas - like if Joy starts promoting anti-abortion ideology online or if Jinger is shown attempting to convert Catholics or something.)

ETA: Just to add, one reason I find the belittling so abhorrent is because they didn't make it clear that they were speaking only of their own attacks. It sounded, to me at least, that they were speaking of all the molestations. It's ridiculously clear from the police reports that two of the victims were well aware they had been molested each se they were awake and aware when it happened. One victim, Jinger, was so traumatized she started crying when asked about it years later. They likely spoke that way in the hope that people who didn't read the reports would take their word at face value, in order to prevent people from knowing the full extent. Because damage control.

Maybe Joy and Jinger would have said the same things if asked. Maybe not. Either way, Jill and Jessa didn't have the right to speak for them or minimize what their sisters may have experienced, especially because they were awake when assaulted. So yes. They hold responsibility for that. 

[Jess]

@VelociRaptureI definitely agree that Josh being a child molester was newsworthy and he has no legal case. However, as a legal issue you have to seperate that from the girls. Is their being victims of sexual assault newsworthy is the question and I say probably not. If the documents couldn't be redacted enough to protect them they shouldn't have been released. It's also important to remember that newsworthiness as a legal doctrine diminishes with time and these were old documents. I don't know that the court will agree with that. They are still public figures with lower expectations of privacy. I have never seen in matter in practice but in legal theory there are three different kinds of public figures: one political public figures which are only elected officials and people running for office (So even though Josh worked so heavily in politics he isn't a political public figure.), two the celebrity public figures (which the girls are who have more of an expection of privacy but far less then a non public figure), three people who are related to public figures. I think because they are a type two public figures, the documents were old, and it is such intensly private information their legal case has some merit against the try and county at least.

[VelociRapture]

@JessI agree that the sisters being victims isn't newsworthy and they should have been allowed to reveal that information on their own terms (if they ever wanted to.) And, as I've said, I feel great sympathy for them all. I feel exactly no sympathy for Josh and their parents though. They invited this to happen by their actions and words over the years and their decision to pursue reality tv fame. They deserved to be outed for what they are - the sisters did not deserve to be collateral damage though. So I am able to separate the two fairly well.  

Do you know Arkansas FOIA laws specifically? Or anything about how much redacting is legally necessary according to Arkansas law? I don't, so I really can't speak on whether the reports should have been released at all or whether they were properly redacted. 

I think there's a very delicate balance that is necessary. There are times when the public should know about something happening (and I'd argue that knowing Josh molested children and his parents covered it up counts, though not necessarily which children were victims), but victim identities should always be protected as much as possible. If they did everything legally required then I don't see a legal case against In Touch at least. Maybe they acted unethically by publishing the full reports as they were, but I don't know if they can really be held responsible for that legally. Washington County is pretty problematic to me though and I do think they could have a case against them, especially Joy since she was outed by age and relationship to the offender.

[Jess]

@VelociRaptureBefore this case came about I didn't have much of any knowledge about Arkansas FOIA laws. However, since I have done more research then I care to admit. Basically, the Arkansas law is poorly written when compared to the federal law and other state laws typically FOIA laws explicitly states that the entity releasing has to weigh individuals constitional right to privacy before releasing to avoid the constitutional issues faced here. However, as the law as written in Arkansas doesn't say this, but there had already been case law establishing hat Arkansas entities had to weigh privacy before releasing, because of constitutional right to privacy issues. It's not clear that the city or county did any weighing of right to privacy before releasing from what I have read they just went to plain language of the law which some research their end should have shown they were risking constitional violations. Obviously they might have some internal memo we will never see that reflect research they did and help their case. Regardless, the issues with constitutional right to privacy and the Arkansas law were already well known and the state legislature probably should get on fixing that. So, it does come down to the constitional right to privacy when it comes down to the city and county. If the girls were not public figures I don't think their would be any question that their right to privacy was violated. 

Now the In touch defendants are not governmental defendants and therefore can't violate the constitional right to privacy. They are being sued for invasion of privacy, but that is somewhat different then constitional right to privacy and I think that case is not as good.

 

[VelociRapture]

@JessThank you! That makes much more sense. I didn't think they'd have much of a case against In Touch, but I'm not an expert by any means. My entire extent of knowledge regarding FOIA is from one college journalism course about six or seven years ago - and even that wouldn't have helped because I'm not in Arkansas. 

It does bug me that they could possibly win. Not because I think they don't have a fair point or because I think they deserve what happened, but because any money won isn't going to go towards something useful, like counseling or education or charities to help other victims. But if a review of the law is a result and lawmakers manage to tighten it to help protect other victims... I guess I could live with that.