Dillards 93: Counting the Cost - Indeed

[St.Clara]

2 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Although, I hate to come across as sticking up for JB in any fashion BUT  —- They did go to the police at some point before the abuse was discovered by the outside world.

I think I know what you mean but I saw a clip of Jim Holt - I think it was from Shiny Happy People - where he alleges that he more or less forced JB to go the police after JB had told him about the abuse.

I would not necessarily believe Jim Holt just because he says so but the story does make a lot of sense to me. I simply cannot imagine JB informing the police of his own free will, particularly not after what we have heard from Jill about him. It is not consistent with his overall behaviour. On the other hand, I can easily believe that JB, after being forced to inform the police, would allege that he did it on his own. That is just like him.

[St.Clara]

5 hours ago, nolongerIFBx said:

Apologize for what I'm sure will be many posts as I'm catching up. Jill's explanation of the dismissal of their lawsuit didn't quite makes sense to me. It was like the judge agreed they broke the law but he wasn't going to do anything about it. But I don't think that the legal law was broken. And that is JB and Michele's fault. From what I recall in research done at the time of the publishing of the investigation report, if they had actually filed a police report turning Josh in for molesting his sisters WHEN IT HAPPENED (not when they were exposed), when Josh was still only 14, THEN the records could have been sealed by a judge after juvenile Josh's trial (that never happened because they hid it rather than legally dealing with it). Because that never happened, the record OF THE INVESTIGATION that happened 5 years after the crime was legally obtained under FOIA. While the details were rightly redacted, it was easily apparent who the victims were. While it is horrific that the investigation report was published for the entertainment of masses, the police department did nothing legally wrong in releasing it, in fact, they legally had to BECAUSE IT WAS NOT A SEALED JUVENILE RECORD because of JB and Michele's mishandling of the situation. Which lands the true blame for the situation back in JB's lap. And Jill's anger at In Touch should at the least equally fall on JB. I will say morally, In Touch publishing the investigation record is questionable. They had to know that the victims would be easily identifiable and would be re-victimized. I know journalists have an obligation to be truthful, but a) I hesitate to call what In Touch does journalism and b) if the "journalist" felt it their duty to release the information, it could have been further edited to hide the victim's identity more.

Anyhow- I know we have some lawyers/paralegals here- is my impression correct? That because there were no court proceedings or charges filed, the record could not be/was not sealed and that is what left it open to FOIA?

I know next to nothing about US law and I hope someone more knowledgeable will explain this in more detail. But someone on Youtube said  - and I am very sorry I do not remember who * - that there are exceptions to FOIA under Arkansas law, specifically that information about victims of sexual abuse has to be protected. They also said that that means that the disclosure of the information was indeed unlawful but that the officials in question were not aware of the exceptions and did not take the time to doublecheck what they were doing because they were under pressure by the press who wanted the info. So, the judge said indeed that the information should not have been disclosed but that the officials who made the mistake did not know any better at the time. In order to sentence them they would have had to prove that they knew that what they were doing was against the law and they could not.

That being said, even if that is so, Jill does give a lot of grace to her parents, and not much grace to the officials who made a mistake but presumably had no malicious intent. She also does a bad job of explaining why they lost their case. This is absolutely understandable from her point of view. But I do not agree with her because I suppose that the officials in question thought they were doing the right thing. The consequences of their mistake were admittedly horrible for Jill. But if JB had not insisted on having a show although he knew they had a dark secret there would never have been a FOIA request in the first place.

JB failed to protect Jill, and the officials who disclosed the information failed to protect Jill, too. That is true. But JB failed to protect Jill many times, and besides, he is her father. It is imo quite obvious with whom the greater responsibility lies.

* Coming to think of it, it might have been Dr Kirk Honda (Psychology in Seattle) in his Duggar series but I am not quite sure.

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, eljayem said:

Dangling 80k infront of young adults who are all more or less getting married and having kids, no tertiary education, limited career options and an aversion to debt - tempting.

All of that - plus most children tend to more or less trust their Parents, no matter how old the child is.  They might disagree on various topics, or get frustrated/resentful/disappointed with some of their actions, but most people aren’t going to assume the Daddy/Pops you love is going to completely screw you over financially. 

 

 

 

 

[nolongerIFBx]

I thought the explained a lot, especially why they were asking for money for their missionary work when (it was supposed) she had all this money from the show. I was blown away that she said what Jinger could never make herself (or was allowed to say so they didn't lose JB's $$) say: that they were in a cult. What I can't understand though, is that she made it clear that she wanted some sort of good relationship with her father even if she wasn't going to allow him to control her, that Freddy's birth was a catalyst towards getting them there-- and then she goes ahead and releases this book that has driven a wedge between them again. I think she has a right to share her story with the world and profit from it, but did she want/need that more than a relationship with her pops that she craves?

[FiveAcres]

1 minute ago, nolongerIFBx said:

I thought the explained a lot, especially why they were asking for money for their missionary work when (it was supposed) she had all this money from the show. I was blown away that she said what Jinger could never make herself (or was allowed to say so they didn't lose JB's $$) say: that they were in a cult. What I can't understand though, is that she made it clear that she wanted some sort of good relationship with her father even if she wasn't going to allow him to control her, that Freddy's birth was a catalyst towards getting them there-- and then she goes ahead and releases this book that has driven a wedge between them again. I think she has a right to share her story with the world and profit from it, but did she want/need that more than a relationship with her pops that she craves?

I think a lot of people who are recovering from toxic families as well as family cults will say they want a good relationship with their parents. But then they will go on to say the equivalent of "but hell will freeze over before my father (or mother) respects me as a human being and peer and stops seeing me as their minion. But it would be so great if it happened."

[Father Son Holy Goat]

Does she want a good relationship with her parents or does she need that to continue to see her former buddies? There is a significant difference. 

[Tdoc72]

3 hours ago, St.Clara said:

I know next to nothing about US law and I hope someone more knowledgeable will explain this in more detail. But someone on Youtube said  - and I am very sorry I do not remember who * - that there are exceptions to FOIA under Arkansas law, specifically that information about victims of sexual abuse has to be protected. They also said that that means that the disclosure of the information was indeed unlawful but that the officials in question were not aware of the exceptions and did not take the time to doublecheck what they were doing because they were under pressure by the press who wanted the info. So, the judge said indeed that the information should not have been disclosed but that the officials who made the mistake did not know any better at the time. In order to sentence them they would have had to prove that they knew that what they were doing was against the law and they could not.

That being said, even if that is so, Jill does give a lot of grace to her parents, and not much grace to the officials who made a mistake but presumably had no malicious intent. She also does a bad job of explaining why they lost their case. This is absolutely understandable from her point of view. But I do not agree with her because I suppose that the officials in question thought they were doing the right thing. The consequences of their mistake were admittedly horrible for Jill. But if JB had not insisted on having a show although he knew they had a dark secret there would never have been a FOIA request in the first place.

JB failed to protect Jill, and the officials who disclosed the information failed to protect Jill, too. That is true. But JB failed to protect Jill many times, and besides, he is her father. It is imo quite obvious with whom the greater responsibility lies.

 

At one point, it was going around that b/c the police chief is a lesbian and the Duggars were anti-gay (in a hate the sin, love the sinner way they claim) that it was done on purpose. I want to say JimBob was saying that b/c it was a long time ago so it may have been just a rumor. I personally think they had no I’ll intent and it was an accident, not on purpose. 
~~~~~
Apparently it was Michelle. But I’ve seen comments by JimBob and even Jill alluding to some “personal agenda” of the former chief’s. 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3111199/amp/Is-moment-Michelle-Duggar-blames-retiring-police-chief-s-lesbian-agenda-release-records-son-Josh-molesting-four-daughters.html

Edited September 21, 2023 by Tdoc72

[Giraffe]

7 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I read on Facebook that Jim Bob is threatening to disinherit any of the kids who read Jill’s book. I don’t trust the source but it wouldn’t surprise me if there were threats.

This wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Although one of the great ironies of how he raised his children is that some of them are probably so good at hiding things from him he’ll never find out if they read it. 

[marmalade]

44 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

This wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Although one of the great ironies of how he raised his children is that some of them are probably so good at hiding things from him he’ll never find out if they read it. 

Joy is in deep doodoo then. I'm sure word has gotten to Boob that she intends to read the book.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

This wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Although one of the great ironies of how he raised his children is that some of them are probably so good at hiding things from him he’ll never find out if they read it. 

Especially the married couples, unless he’s searching their houses how on earth would he know?

 

32 minutes ago, marmalade said:

Joy is in deep doodoo then. I'm sure word has gotten to Boob that she intends to read the book.

She also may have just said what she needed to say during the interview. 

[marmalade]

3 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Especially the married couples, unless he’s searching their houses how on earth would he know?

 

She also may have just said what she needed to say during the interview. 

It wasn't an interview. It was said in a curated Q&A on her YouTube. 

And yes, if Boob tried to put the kibosh on reading Jill's book, there may well be some sort of repercussions for Joy. He's so vindictive. 

[KnittingOwl]

On 9/19/2023 at 8:12 PM, NachosFlandersStyle said:

My parents used to go to Mass at a local retirement home (when they were still in their 50s) because "that priest could get you in and out in 30 minutes flat."

The most impressive Catholic mass I’ve ever attended was my friends’ wedding at a church in Mexico. An Irish priest did a wedding and full mass in 45 minutes. We were joking that he really wanted to get to the open bar after. 😆

[Cam]

Ugh. JB’s obsession with women’s bodies and what he’s so sure they do to men’s minds every single minute of the day permeates and saturates every single little thing in the Duggar world. Yes, we’ve always known this, but I just read in Jill’s book where JB confronts her for wearing pants. She was 26, married, with two kids. She mentions that because of the “Google alerts Pops had set up to monitor anything and everything posted about the family”, he learned she’d worn pants in public after someone posted a pants photo of her online. 

He asked to speak with her. “Mom wasn’t there, neither was Derick. I followed Pops up to his and Mom’s bedroom, the scene where all the most serious conversations always took place.” He says that Jinger at least called him and discussed the matter with him before she wore pants. He admonishes Jill for not doing the same. 

Then he says, “You know, Mom’s got this book somewhere that talks a lot about clothing and modesty and what it does to men when they see women wearing pants and stuff. So maybe you should give that a read.”  He gives her the book.

It is so utterly disgusting to read the crap shit garbage that comes out of JBs mouth and the sexually obsessed mentality he has, wanting this kind of suffocating control. Over friggin pants! That so many more fundie women now wear! 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Cam

[CarrotCake]

Can you disinherit your children completely?

In the Netherlands children can always get part of their inheritance (I think it is half of the money?) even if their parents disinherit them. 

[postscript]

Jim Bob, shut up about the pants already. It has nothing to do with modesty and everything to do with your need for absolute control over your family. What you really want is a family cult with yourself at the head. 

At this point, the five oldest girls have all worn pants in public. The only reason the younger four haven’t is because they’re still under Jim Bob’s roof. Of the daughters in law, I think only Anna and Kendra haven’t been spotted in pants, and Anna has let Mackenzie wear pants. JB has lost that battle. 

Even before Jill’s book, I would have been willing to bet Jim Bob played inheritance games, how will he know if some kid has read Jill’s book? What if they don’t read it now, but read it in a couple of years? At some point, some of the kids will get tired of the constant you’re in-you’re out games and say “screw it, we don’t care of you cut us out of your will. Stop playing head games.” I would not be surprised if there’s a will contest when he dies. 

1 minute ago, CarrotCake said:

Can you disinherit your children completely?

In the Netherlands children can always get part of their inheritance (I think it is half of the money?) even if their parents disinherit them. 

Yes. In the US you can leave your money however you want. He could leave it all to one kid, or to Michelle, or to charity. No matter what he ultimately decides, given the number of kids, I think there will be family infighting at his death. 

[St.Clara]

12 hours ago, Tdoc72 said:

At one point, it was going around that b/c the police chief is a lesbian and the Duggars were anti-gay (in a hate the sin, love the sinner way they claim) that it was done on purpose. I want to say JimBob was saying that b/c it was a long time ago so it may have been just a rumor. I personally think they had no I’ll intent and it was an accident, not on purpose.

I agree, I tend to believe that people are decent as long as I do not see any evidence to the contrary. Christian conservatives saying that LGBTQ people have "an agenda" is no evidence at all, they always say that in one form or other. (I think it is some sort of projection. They want to get rid of the LGBTQ community and so they think the LGBTQ must be wishing to get rid of them, too.)

Besides, if they did know that it was unlawful they must have foreseen that JB would sue them.  Because, of course, he would. Why would you risk that? To me, that makes no sense.

9 hours ago, Giraffe said:

This wouldn’t surprise me in the least. Although one of the great ironies of how he raised his children is that some of them are probably so good at hiding things from him he’ll never find out if they read it. 

I do not think he cares that much if they secretly read it, but he cares a lot about whether they speak about it publicly. Because, let´s face it, to read the book is to take Jill´s side. It is bad for JB´s image that Jill criticizes him so publicly but with every child who openly sides with her, it becomes so much worse.

[Mama Mia]

16 hours ago, St.Clara said:

I think I know what you mean but I saw a clip of Jim Holt - I think it was from Shiny Happy People - where he alleges that he more or less forced JB to go the police after JB had told him about the abuse.

I would not necessarily believe Jim Holt just because he says so but the story does make a lot of sense to me. I simply cannot imagine JB informing the police of his own free will, particularly not after what we have heard from Jill about him. It is not consistent with his overall behaviour. On the other hand, I can easily believe that JB, after being forced to inform the police, would allege that he did it on his own. That is just like him.

Oh yeah, I’m sure going to the police was not JB’s first choice, and may have been done under an ultimatum. But timeline wise, the initial police contact was before the report by Oprah’s crew. I can see why the victims were/are still very angry at the release of those records. 

[Cam]

@postscript, I agree most definitely there will be sibling fights over family inheritance when that time comes. There are so many better ways JB could be using his money now to help his children, but instead, it is a means of control. 

Am I the only one who finds it odd that all serious discussions with the kids were done in the parents’ bedroom? With all its connotations of perpetual physical intimacy between the parents, it doesn’t sit well with me.

After the pants rant from JB, Jill decides to get a nose piercing; a woman at her church had one. Jill calls JB ahead of time to inform him and it goes to voicemail, so she leaves a short message of her plans. Gets the nose piercing, then has a voicemail from JB waiting for her. “He pleaded with me not to do it. He told me I was making a huge mistake. He begged me to think about how it was going to affect my little sisters. He said I was ruining my life.”

This man has such serious problems. 
Btw, Jill says she wasn’t wearing pants or getting a piercing as an act of rebellion. I mention that because all the tabloids continually framed it this way with her and Jinger and I was so sick of it. 

[OHFL2009]

1 hour ago, St.Clara said:

I do not think he cares that much if they secretly read it, but he cares a lot about whether they speak about it publicly. Because, let´s face it, to read the book is to take Jill´s side. It is bad for JB´s image that Jill criticizes him so publicly but with every child who openly sides with her, it becomes so much worse.

I think he cares if they read it secretly, because he doesn't want any of the kids still under his control to get any ideas. He doesn't want them to realize that the way he's treated them and the things he's done to them were unfair, or that he cares more about money and his reputation than he does any of them. 

[Giraffe]

37 minutes ago, Cam said:

@postscript
Am I the only one who finds it odd that all serious discussions with the kids were done in the parents’ bedroom? With all its connotations of perpetual physical intimacy between the parents, it doesn’t sit well with me.

No, you are most definitely not alone in that. My disgust reaction on your prior post was for that specifically. As sex obsessed as these families are I would expect their bedrooms to be off limits for almost everything. I would feel so uncomfortable if my parents wanted to have a serious conversation in their bedroom! The only way it would be ok is if I were helping them clean it or helping them change their sheets and a serious conversation organically happened. But for the parent’s bedroom to be the default “serious conversation” location is just creepy to me. 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Giraffe
Series ≠ serious

[St.Clara]

45 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

 I can see why the victims were/are still very angry at the release of those records. 

I can see that, too. Survivors should be supported in telling their story and should be able to decide what parts of their experience they want to share when they are ready. This clearly did not happen here.

[Coconut Flan]

52 minutes ago, Cam said:

Am I the only one who finds it odd that all serious discussions with the kids were done in the parents’ bedroom? With all its connotations of perpetual physical intimacy between the parents, it doesn’t sit well with me.

Especially since both parents had some form of office.  They obviously don't think like most other people think.  I was never taken to my parents' bedroom for anything and I can't imagine my daughter and SIL having a serious talk with a kid there.  For some reason their usual choice for a discussion with a kid is the dining room.  Plenty of chairs?

[nolongerIFBx]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

Oh yeah, I’m sure going to the police was not JB’s first choice, and may have been done under an ultimatum. But timeline wise, the initial police contact was before the report by Oprah’s crew. I can see why the victims were/are still very angry at the release of those records. 

I think calling it "going to the police" is a stretch. JB hauled his son to a man under his thrall who was a police officer to "put the fear" into Josh NOT to make a report. (Seeing as that man was also a pedophile, The Talk couldn't have been that convincing.) A report was not made until Oprah (or whoever from her staff) reported it several years after it happened. That report resulted in an investigation by CPS but did not result in Josh being charged for molestation thus no trial and no sealed records which led a flustered records department to release the investigative report upon receipt of the FOIA without confirming with their legal department that it was discoverable under FOIA which led to it being released illegally though not with malice thus dismissal of the case. (Holy run-on sentence, Batman!) Just saying for the record again that JB and Michelle created the re-victimization situation by not actually reporting Josh's crime. It may not have prevented Josh's further cheating and his viewing child sex abuse images (possible that he would have received counseling that would have been effective), but the record might have been sealed so that it wasn't even ignorantly illegally released.

38 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

No, you are most definitely not alone in that. My disgust reaction on your prior post was for that specifically. As sex obsessed as these families are I would expect their bedrooms to be off limits for almost everything. I would feel so uncomfortable if my parents wanted to have a serious conversation in their bedroom! The only way it would be ok is if I were helping them clean it or helping them change their sheets and a serious conversation organically happened. But for the parent’s bedroom to be the default “serious conversation” location is just creepy to me. 

I never thought anything of it, but I was usually corporally disciplined in my parent's room, so maybe it was assumed to be the default. Maybe not in the Duggar's since they don't understand the meaning of the word, but in my case, I assume that it was for discretion so siblings did not see their other sibling in that position. Spanking was purely for discipline not for the purpose of humiliation or a parent's release of anger/frustration.

Edited September 21, 2023 by nolongerIFBx
making fun of myself

[Chickenbutt]

So has JB read Jill's book? "Do as I say, not as I do."

I'm sure he has. If only to know what messes he needs to clean up before someone (IRS?) comes a knockin.

 

[FilleMondaine]

3 hours ago, CarrotCake said:

Can you disinherit your children completely?

In the Netherlands children can always get part of their inheritance (I think it is half of the money?) even if their parents disinherit them. 

But then where would author Jane Austen get her plot points? 

Oh, right. It’s not the 19th century any more. Hahahaha!