Josh Duggar Admits Molestation of 5 Juveniles - Part 6

[paganhomeschooler]

It seems logical that "Alice" and the initial knowledge about this came from concerned family members of Michelle's. The posts seem quite strongly felt, as would happen with someone you know well (and love). There are old articles where some family members express concern. Losing your family to a cult is hurtful, especially if you feel pushed out.

Totally jumping on the ISB here, but could "Alice" be someone involved in helping/cleaning for the Duggars or one of the families in the home church? When I hear Alice, I think Alice from the Brady Bunch. Is there anyone who would fit that bill? I don't think it would be Nana who did the laundry.

[JenniferJuniper]

Money drives everything.

It sure does, and while it's flying, I'd like to see a little land the way of the littlest victim. I'd like to see all the kids who were pimped out by their parents for a TV show get compensated, but she's the only one with clear path.

[azeotrope]

She seemed to mention 2 accounts of abuse, outside of the home, didn't see?

Wasn't He in therapy in 2003?

My goof on the date of the post and Senate campaign, but yea, she seems to mention two separate instances, one at age 14 and one(at least confessed to) at age 16. The one at age 14 got him sent away to "therapy", so it seems that the second incident, whatever it was, occurred afterwards. Or that was my impression.

[grandmadugger]

VERY GOOD POINT. If there was no report, there would be no case. How could the time prior to 2006 even count in terms of the SOL timeframe, if there was no actual case?

That's what I've wondered, if the first trooper did nothing how does the SOL even start then? Why didn't the 2006 investigation start the SOL? Do they count when the parents were told but did nothing?

[SassyPants]

It sure does, and while it's flying, I'd like to see a little land the way of the littlest victim. I'd like to see all the kids who were pimped out by their parents for a TV show get compensated, but she's the only one with clear path.

I said it yesterday.

I wish there was a way to confiscate every dime that JB has earned from this show and divide it up amongst the kids, even Josh.

JB needs hard consequences- and I think the only way he'd get it would be to hit him in the pocketbook. It's clearly far more important to him than his family.

[DuggarCurls]

According to the police report and InTouch, a Duggar family appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Show in 2006 was canceled after a “61-year-old woman†emailed Harpo Studios

defamer.gawker.com/the-web-has-known-about-josh-duggar-for-years-when-did-1706258269

[Firiel]

My goof on the date of the post and Senate campaign, but yea, she seems to mention two separate instances, one at age 14 and one(at least confessed to) at age 16. The one at age 14 got him sent away to "therapy", so it seems that the second incident, whatever it was, occurred afterwards. Or that was my impression.

Yes, that kind of seems to be the case, but I know that according to the police report, JB said Josh "confessed" to molesting his sisters in 2002 (no action was taken) and then again nine months later in 2003 (after which he was sent to "therapy). So I wonder if THESE are the two instances that concernedmom was talking about and the lost campaign is referring to the 2003 incident as the "sin in the camp," if the campaign was going on then.

It's certainly possible that Josh re-offended after therapy, of course. Just throwing out ideas.

[twinmama]

How did TONS of people know and get warnings but no one ever did anything. Ugh. :angry-banghead:

The thing is, it coming out ages ago wouldn't have protected those girls. These people presumably knew about it once it was all in the past already anyway. I suppose it going to the press years ago could have gotten them therapy sooner, but who is to say they are even going to get therapy now? Maybe if it had come out in the public eye sooner they wouldn't have had a show or it wouldn't have lasted as long, but who knows if that would have been positive or negative for them.

[JenniferJuniper]

That's what I've wondered, if the first trooper did nothing how does the SOL even start then? Why didn't the 2006 investigation start the SOL? Do they count when the parents were told but did nothing?

The criminal Statute of Limitations runs from the day the criminal act was committed.

The civil statute of limitations in Arkansas is three years from the date of the event. However, in the event that the claimant was a minor at the time, the three year SOL does not run until three years after the minor reaches the age of majority. Majority is 18, so that means it's not up until age 21.

[mocoo64]

Do you think that any of the crew knew about this working so close in the house? Especially the camera man that follows them around. Can't remember what his name is.

[twinmama]

We havent discussed the pornography allegation . Exactly how does a 13/14 year old kid who lives in a house like a jail get porn? Did he snag it from boob?

Watching the funny or die video made me sad that we will never see another kid farm...

Maybe he just had a picture of a woman in a tank top. That's porn right???

[Firiel]

Do you think that any of the crew knew about this working so close in the house? Especially the camera man that follows them around. Can't remember what his name is.

The regular show started in 2008, so it's very possible the crew didn't know any of this. They wouldn't have been around during the investigation or when Josh was away or anything like that. I can't imagine that TLC didn't know (or at least suspect), but it makes sense to me that the crew wouldn't have known.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I thought the SOL issue was in regards to now that the press got ahold of this.

Not about the 2006 police report.

They actually appear to have done some sort of CPS or DHS investigation in 2006 just because there were no criminal charges doesn't mean the statute count down didn't start then.

So everyone had until 2013 to file charges.

It is my understanding the 2003 Hutchens confession had nothing to do with the SOL as it was not official.

[FreeJesusFromFundies]

Alice also seemed very harsh with everyone in the family, in a way that I think a family member would not be. She condemns both parents for things not directly related to the sexual assault (Michelle for not taking care of her kids and Jim Bob for being a fame-whore). I think a family member would be more measured in that regard and less hostile outright (even if that hostility is deserved). If there is bad blood between Evelyn and Michelle, though (which is quite possible), that may get rid of the immediate impulse to see good intentions behind a loved one's egregious errors.

You'd hope a family wouldn't have this much hostility, but alas, it happens. With family drama comes passionate opinions. I've heard very similar complaints from family members against other family members, sans the fame.

[MayMay1123]

The regular show started in 2008, so it's very possible the crew didn't know any of this. They wouldn't have been around during the investigation or when Josh was away or anything like that. I can't imagine that TLC didn't know (or at least suspect), but it makes sense to me that the crew wouldn't have known.

to me, it keeps coming back to that cameraman who filmed Josie's accident with the poopy pants..."why wouldn't we film it?" they knew, but of course they filmed anyway, "why wouldn't we?" its all about the money

[CrucifySanta]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Clearly TLC has cashed in on the Duggar clan, but I'm curious if anyone thinks that some producer originally envisioned this show as a sort of exposé of the Gothard/ATI/IBLP/Quiverfull cult, a la Lawrence Wright's Going Clear? TLC clearly reaped the rewards in the interim, but even factoring those rewards in, maybe the outcome is a net benefit in terms of raising public awareness of this misogynistic and hypocritical religious sect? I think it's possible that a TLC producer believed that most viewers would find the Duggars to be wayyyy off the grid (probably wrong to have sought to profit from a freak show), and have suspected that such a producer may have been blindsided by the outpouring of support and admiration for the family.

I'm very torn on this and curious to get some input from this knowledgeable crowd! Sorry in advance if this has been discussed elsewhere and I missed it!

[SassyPants]

The criminal Statute of Limitations runs from the day the criminal act was committed.

The civil statute of limitations in Arkansas is three years from the date of the event. However, in the event that the claimant was a minor at the time, the three year SOL does not run until three years after the minor reaches the age of majority. Majority is 18, so that means it's not up until age 21.

But if nothing was ever documented in 2002-2006, how could a crime have occurred? Doesn't there have to be a record /report of a crime written and on record in order for the state to say that a crime actually occurred?

[Firiel]

to me, it keeps coming back to that cameraman who filmed Josie's accident with the poopy pants..."why wouldn't we film it?" they knew, but of course they filmed anyway, "why wouldn't we?" its all about the money

Do you have any evidence or argument to back up the theory that they knew about it? Filming a child's embarrassing moment is completely different knowing about but not caring about sexual abuse in a home.

So what have you seen that makes you think they certainly knew?

[azeotrope]

I thought the SOL issue was in regards to now that the press got ahold of this.

Not about the 2006 police report.

They actually appear to have done some sort of CPS or DHS investigation in 2006 just because there were no criminal charges doesn't mean the statute count down didn't start then.

So everyone had until 2009 to file charges.

It is my understanding the 2003 Hutchens confession had nothing to do with the SOL as it was not official.

It would also be possible for the Prosecuting Attorney to file charges despite the wishes of the family, right?

[halcionne]

Yes, that kind of seems to be the case, but I know that according to the police report, JB said Josh "confessed" to molesting his sisters in 2002 (no action was taken) and then again nine months later in 2003 (after which he was sent to "therapy). So I wonder if THESE are the two instances that concernedmom was talking about and the lost campaign is referring to the 2003 incident as the "sin in the camp," if the campaign was going on then.

It's certainly possible that Josh re-offended after therapy, of course. Just throwing out ideas.

I feel like you guys are over-analyzing this. "Sin in the camp" has been attached to both Duggar and Holt campaign losses. Who cares.

But don't let me stop you, that's just my opinion. :D

[justodd]

Larry Wilmore talked about this tonight. Called Josh the "pink bubblegum ice cream" of the family" (referring to how not all 31 Baskin Robbins flavors are good).

As a fan of pink bubblegum ice cream, I'm wildly offended by the comparison. Josh is more like an earwax flavored jelly bean. :lol:

[JenniferJuniper]

to me, it keeps coming back to that cameraman who filmed Josie's accident with the poopy pants..."why wouldn't we film it?" they knew, but of course they filmed anyway, "why wouldn't we?" its all about the money

Me too. It was cruel. And so unnecessary. There was nothing remotely interesting or noteworthy or amusing about a young child having a very messy accident.

Many of us home videos from childhood that make us cringe. But they usually stay in the family. The rest of the planet has access to Josie's mishap for as long as the internet exists.

These kids WILL hate their parents for this someday.

[Firiel]

I feel like you guys are over-analyzing this. "Sin in the camp" has been attached to both Duggar and Holt campaign losses. Who cares.

But don't let me stop you, that's just my opinion. :D

AFAIK, "sin in the camp" was originally applied to the Duggar campaign by none other than jhawksgirl aka Razing Ruth. (Fact checking appreciated, if anyone gives a shit ;) )

The first reference to "sin in the camp" is in concernedmom's 2005 post and pretty clearly refers to the Holt campaign. I'm taking most everything Alice and concernedmom say as truth these days, so there's also that. :shifty:

[halcionne]

The criminal Statute of Limitations runs from the day the criminal act was committed.

The civil statute of limitations in Arkansas is three years from the date of the event. However, in the event that the claimant was a minor at the time, the three year SOL does not run until three years after the minor reaches the age of majority. Majority is 18, so that means it's not up until age 21.

Could a sibling who's not explicitly a victim file suit? Just wondering, because there are thirteen of them still under 21.

[OnAndOnAnon]

Oh my goodness, I can't believe I have finally finished reading all the threads on this.

Two thoughts I have had:

1 - (I am not sure how to do all the formatting, but this is copied and pasted from concernedmom's post from several years ago)

The young man, now 16, was made to stand in fornt of the church and confess his sin. He was then told that the campaign was lost due to his sin. The weight of the world on this poor boys shoulders. I do not know what punishment the church gave but I do know that it was harsh enough for his mother to seek advise outside of the “groupâ€, but she did eventually give in to her husband and the group.

Michelle, who blanket trained her infants and followed the Pearl's advice for discipline of her children, thought the punishment the church gave was so harsh that she sought advice outside of the group, and outside of Jim Bob's headship protection? I am VERY curious to what that could possibly mean, and who did Michelle seek advice from?

2 - Also, it's been discussed how odd it is the Jim Bob and Michelle were the ones who did the premarital counseling for Jill and Jessa... I wonder if these issues were discussed, and if the reason the counseling was done by them was to keep this information from coming to light.