Josh Duggar Admits Molestation of 5 Juveniles - Part 6

[SassyPants]

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.

Yep- Remember how we used to talk about which Duggars would stay quiverful and have mega families?

My bet, NONE of them.

Yep, I envision lots of tell alls and PO'd adults.

[FreeJesusFromFundies]

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.

This is interesting. On pg 32 of the report, it says "Det. Hignite had not been able to locate an offense inside of the statute of limitations of three years for sexual assault."

I took this as the statute of limitations were over and ended 3 years from the last incident.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

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

Unless another minor comes forward there is nothing to criminally charge him with NOW in my opinion based on what we know.

BUT back in 2006 the DA could have charged them without the parents wishes but maybe they all thought (remember they know much more than we do) that it wouldn't help the girls, or they thought Josh was better now OR the Duggar victims were coached and a jury would not indict. I also believe by 2006 the fifth victim was 18 so might not be easily compelled to testify.

So who knows. Maybe they just did Jim Bob a favor.

[JenniferJuniper]

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?

It's a moot point now that the criminal SOL is up. It's one of the reasons there are criminal statutes of limitations for most crimes. It helps encourage prompt prosecution. Didn't work here.

A civil action, which can still be filed by the youngest victim, would benefit from the actual police file, but it's not necessary. A civil case against multiple defendants would have it's basis in Josh's public confession and branch out to testimony and evidence regarding who knew what when and who covered up the crimes against the claimant.

[JenniferJuniper]

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

Anyone can pretty much sue anyone for anything in the United States. But if a non-victim filed suit it would be promptly tossed by the court for lack of standing.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

This is interesting. On pg 32 of the report, it says "Det. Hignite had not been able to locate an offense inside of the statute of limitations of three years for sexual assault."

I took this as the statute of limitations were over and ended 3 years from the last incident.

Since a we have is the SUMMARY we don't really know what that applies to.

It is possible since cops are generally not that bright and often think they understand complex laws they have not even the basic understanding of that this cop interpreted this incorrectly.

It is also possible this is a summary misunderstanding.

Depending on what actually occured the SOL was anywhere from 3-7 years from date of report if a minor.

[justbecause]

They knew but everyone remained silent.

Even this Christian preacher.

Hypocrites.

Thanks for posting that. I really liked it. :clap:

[JenniferJuniper]

Unless another minor comes forward there is nothing to criminally charge him with NOW in my opinion based on what we know.

BUT back in 2006 the DA could have charged them without the parents wishes but maybe they all thought (remember they know much more than we do) that it wouldn't help the girls, or they thought Josh was better now OR the Duggar victims were coached and a jury would not indict. I also believe by 2006 the fifth victim was 18 so might not be easily compelled to testify.

So who knows. Maybe they just did Jim Bob a favor.

After the interviews with the victims, the local police determined the criminal Statute of Limitations has expired because the last assault allegedly had occurred more than 3 years earlier.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

After the interviews with the victims, the local police determined the criminal Statute of Limitations has expired because the last assault allegedly had occurred more than 3 years earlier.

The problem is that isn't actually the law. So I am not sure this cop actually determined that himself ormthis was just his silly summary of whre the case went.

It is also possible this sentence was added after the FOIA when compiling the summary.

What we read was not the actual police report so we can only go on very basic info that might have been typed up by anyone years later.

[JenniferJuniper]

The problem is that isn't actually the law. So I am not sure this cop actually determined that himself ormthis was just his silly summary of whre the case went.

It is also possible this sentence was added after the FOIA when compiling the summary.

What we read was not the actual police report so we can only go on very basic info that might have been typed up by anyone years later.

Another party for the youngest victim to sue in her civil suit.......

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Another party for the youngest victim to sue in her civil suit.......

BINGO. Another point is that in the legal sense the term "discovery" does not mean when you as a victim realize you were abused. It means when you as a vitcim realize an INJURY.

SO it is possibme that one of these girls could claim injury now as in psychological and sue within the civil SOL.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

CLERGYMAN Mandatory Reporting.

I would also think it was and might still be possible to go after anyone within the Duggar church who were elders, preachers, etc as they have an obligation to report cases of child abuse.

[fronthugger24]

Hooray for Hulu - they've pulled the show from their site. :clap:

http://vulture.com/2015/05/hulu-pulls-1 ... nting.html

[JenniferJuniper]

BINGO. Another point is that in the legal sense the term "discovery" does not mean when you as a victim realize you were abused. It means when you as a vitcim realize an INJURY.

SO it is possibme that one of these girls could claim injury now as in psychological and sue within the civil SOL.

A tougher path, but possible. I really do hope that if the young woman who does have a clear cut case breaks away from the cult sometime before she turns 21 someone directs her to the best law firm around.

[halcionne]

fakejoshduggar.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/hi-free-jinger/

Hi, fakejoshduggar!

Come back! I'm not sure why you don't want to admit you go here since you clearly do. Or did; six of one, half dozen of the other. The internet never forgets, and FJ has a pretty good search function, js.

I don't care why you left, just come back. I won't even make a big deal if you don't want a lot of fuss. I will squee internally, though.

[skulduggery]

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!

Hi crucifysanta, from one new poster to another.

I agree with you, but I ask - at what cost? The five girls bear all the costs of their abuse, including the cost of raising society's consciousness. They are also bearing this cost at a point in America's history where religious politicians shouldn't be passing legislation that goes against Separation of Church and State, treating women like baby factories, redefining rape and using other silencing tactics against speaking out about sexual abuse, and fighting against LGBTQA people's basic human rights. They shouldn't have to bear the cost of what feminists and gay rights workers already fought so hard to change. The price was already paid, five girls should not have to pay it again.

I think it says a lot about our collective failing as a nation to make progress where most people can recognize a bad idea when they see it (like giving a tv show to a family where the mother's uterus is used like a clown car).

Most people know it's wrong and shitty to raise their kids to be racists, so why would anyone ever believe it's acceptable to raise kids to believe women are baby factories and LGBTQA people are deviants and child predators under the guise of "religion"? Let's be honest, it's one thing to believe in a god, it's another to use that belief to hate other people or pretend you can decide for them how to live their lives. Christian extremism is a thing, but at this point it shouldn't be. Especially if we point the finger at Muslim countries and talk about how backward they are while allowing Christian fundamentalism to flourish under our noses unchecked.

We should be better as a country, but we aren't. When talking about checks/balances of social enlightenment, I think that's my biggest frustration. I remember growing up in the eighties where I couldn't wait to wear creative clothes and hang out with my gay best friend without my mom grounding me. I remember back then, I thought I had it figured that this shit would be over by the time I was an adult. I'm far past being an adult, and we're still arguing about gay marriage, birth control, and abortion? FFS.

[umsami]

I've posted twice to Lowe's fb the hypocrisy of pulling ads from All-American Muslim and not 19KAC. They deleted the last one instantly. 8-)

They have a "Rant or Rave" subpage on Facebook. I saw a few anti-Duggar posts there, but for some reason, I couldn't post.

[vienna]

This is one of the best articles on ATI/The Duggar cult that I have ever read

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/28/i_could ... _shock_me/

[halcionne]

They have a "Rant or Rave" subpage on Facebook. I saw a few anti-Duggar posts there, but for some reason, I couldn't post.

I suspect they blocked me, but I'm bad at social media and can't be sure. I'm coping as well as can be expected. :lol:

[umsami]

I suspect they blocked me, but I'm bad at social media and can't be sure. I'm coping as well as can be expected. :lol:

LOL...I may still be blocked from the "American Muslim" days. :)

[CrucifySanta]

Hi skulduggery! I think a lot of lurkers are emerging!!!

I totally agree with everything you have written. Having grown up in an extremely conservative Catholic household, I do think, however, that the abuse would have taken place without the show and was **possibly** less likely to occur due to the scrutiny of the show and the presence of crew members in the house on a relatively regular basis. I actually suspect that there are similar abuses, if not more extreme abuses, occurring in less/unpublicized Quiverfull homes. I feel terribly for these girls - that they went through it at all and that they are forced to relive it, with no real justice (or even therapy) in sight.

Yet - my question remains, does anyone think that there was any initial objective to make the show an exposé of Quiverfull - i.e. a one-off exposé show/documentary that unexpectedly turned into marketing machine? Was there any "pulling back the curtain" objective at the outset, or has this always been a show that was solely created to profit off the growing evangelical/conservative portion of the population?

Hi crucifysanta, from one new poster to another.

I agree with you, but I ask - at what cost? The five girls bear all the costs of their abuse, including the cost of raising society's consciousness. They are also bearing this cost at a point in America's history where religious politicians shouldn't be passing legislation that goes against Separation of Church and State, treating women like baby factories, redefining rape and using other silencing tactics against speaking out about sexual abuse, and fighting against LGBTQA people's basic human rights. They shouldn't have to bear the cost of what feminists and gay rights workers already fought so hard to change. The price was already paid, five girls should not have to pay it again.

I think it says a lot about our collective failing as a nation to make progress where most people can recognize a bad idea when they see it (like giving a tv show to a family where the mother's uterus is used like a clown car).

Most people know it's wrong and shitty to raise their kids to be racists, so why would anyone ever believe it's acceptable to raise kids to believe women are baby factories and LGBTQA people are deviants and child predators under the guise of "religion"? Let's be honest, it's one thing to believe in a god, it's another to use that belief to hate other people or pretend you can decide for them how to live their lives. Christian extremism is a thing, but at this point it shouldn't be. Especially if we point the finger at Muslim countries and talk about how backward they are while allowing Christian fundamentalism to flourish under our noses unchecked.

We should be better as a country, but we aren't. When talking about checks/balances of social enlightenment, I think that's my biggest frustration. I remember growing up in the eighties where I couldn't wait to wear creative clothes and hang out with my gay best friend without my mom grounding me. I remember back then, I thought I had it figured that this shit would be over by the time I was an adult. I'm far past being an adult, and we're still arguing about gay marriage, birth control, and abortion? FFS.

[Arete]

I remember reading Alice's testimony years ago. At the time, I had dismissed it out of hand because several times she was asked questions that she gave non answers to. She would not publicly identify herself. She had no documentation she was willing to share.

I was afraid this was someone with an axe to grind with the Duggars, who was blowing up a confession at church to take them down. Without proof, Josh could have confessed to kissing a girl consensually, which is still a big sin to them, and had that blown up into something bigger. It all comes down to the fact you cannot put out such serious accusations anonymously on the Internet. You have to be willing to at least come out of the shadows and have your identity verified, so people would be willing to dig.

Now, as for TLC, once Harpo knee, so did they. They had the power and the resources to file a FOIa and get the police report. The higher ups chose to ignore. They are absolutely complicit in the Duggar fraud.

Biggest irony? If JB had done the right thing and reported his son within the SOL, his empire would not be crumbling as we speak. Josh would have gone through the court system as a minor and had he completed court mandated treatment and restitution, his record would have been sealed at 18 and no one on the outside would have been able to access it.

[gustava]

From crucifysanta Yet - my question remains, does anyone think that there was any initial objective to make the show an exposé of Quiverfull - i.e. a one-off exposé show/documentary that unexpectedly turned into marketing machine? Was there any "pulling back the curtain" objective at the outset, or has this always been a show that was solely created to profit off the growing evangelical/conservative portion of the population?

I doubt it. TLC doesn't seem to do hard hitting shows that require thoughtfulness and research. That isn't their target population. I think your last sentence was correct.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I'd buy this based on the cover!

Whats up with Josh's right eye, though? They certainly picked a jacked up pic to photoshop in there!

[attachment=0]in touch cover.jpg[/attachment]

Oooohhhhhhhhh this is gonna be good.

They've gone from the squeaky clean, awesome family to the worst people in the world.

[southernfriedwriter]

Apologies if this has been posted before, but I found this very telling.

Jill Duggar Wedding Mystery

I wasn't glued to the set for either Jill's or Jessa's wedding episodes, but it is interesting that Josh was not included in either.