Everything Josh Duggar, Child Molester - Part 7

[FundieFarmer]

(/snip)

I just don't understand why the Duggars can't say, wow we were wrong on this guy and don't let his actions spoil how we are viewed.

Oh my lord, the day the Duggars admit they're wrong about anything, I'll eat my nonexistent hat.

Will it ever happen?! Now would be an excellent time to admit they handled this situation all wrong. I guess we'll see...

[halcionne]

Unfortunately I think "the community" was like this before the scandal and that is just bringing it out more. It seems clear to me that newcomers are not wanted. They are ignored or picked apart at any opportunity. I don't even want to read here anymore let alone try to be part of "the community". I'm disgusted enough that I'd rather read the Pickles page than come here again.

What the posters above me said. And! HA won't ban you for disagreeing with her, or for talking ugly. Unlike Pickles. :disgust:

[HermioneSparrow]

I've said it before on this thread - most people here are quite nice and welcoming to new comers. There have been many posters - new and old - who have been very polite and helpful to the newer posters over the past week. There have also been many posters - new and old - who have been pretty out of line. The recent waves of new posters has made things pretty chaotic at the moment and a lot of people are frustrated - either because they feel they're being treated unfairly or because they are angry that some new posters aren't paying attention to rules. Things will calm down soon.

Sorry to be a meddler but when i started posting here last year in my very first post i think, i compared a situation to something personal very briefly and a longtime poster of this forum said to me "no one cared" and i shouldn't be posting here.. as you can see it was incredibly rude although other posters tried to smooth the situation.. There's nice people with manners here but there's also very very rude people who take the snark to a whole new level, i think we need to be careful about our words and actions.. just because it's a snark site doesn't mean we are here to put under a microscope all of the posters and ruthlessly criticize them. For the last few days i've seen an increase on the hostility that sickens me, honestly. Velocirapture you are of the nice ones IMO.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Oh my lord, the day the Duggars admit they're wrong about anything, I'll eat my nonexistent hat.

Will it ever happen?! Now would be an excellent time to admit they handled this situation all wrong. I guess we'll see...

I am sure they prayed about how to deal with josh and to admit that god answered them incorrectly would never do.

[Snarkle Motion]

Just so you understand, since you are pretty new as well, this is a self-moderating forum. Posters are expected to shut down thing that are against community standards or rules. Helpmeets and admins do not step in unless a situation calls for it. That is why you will see people enforcing community standards and you don't see a lot of moderation unless a situation is out of control. That allows for situations to diffuse themselves and better and freer discussion to arise.

Part of the terms of use includes familiarizing yourself with board culture before you jump in. That is main thing HA has been trying to get across. Read the rules. Check the different forums. If you don't, then there is really no defense.

This Duggar nonsense is not the worse thing this forum has been through by a longshot and the place has survived and flourished.There are reasons newbies are asked to familiarize themselves with board culture. If they don't like it or don't want to adjust expectations, I am not sure what people around here can do for them.

I'm fine with people self-enforcing rules but lately it seems like its become over the top personal attacks on a new person who did something really minor like repost a link.

My point from my previous post is that "board culture" has changed a lot even as recently as 8 weeks ago. I've been lurking for years and reading daily in the duggar and snark forum for about 8 months. The whole problem is it feels like its not even about enforcing the rules but hating and being condescending to new people. Which is pretty much exactly what you did in your comment. :roll:

That's what I was trying to convey in my post - that it feels really frustrating to have all these high and mighty non-mod commenters lecturing about standards that they themselves were not following as recently as the baby dilly watch a couple weeks ago. It would be one thing if it was just about the rules but it feels like people just want new people gone and to stay in their insular bubble. Until a mod kicks me out I'm gonna keep voicing my opinions and if you don't like new people you can go somewhere else. :dance: :dance: :dance: :dance:

[Snarkle Motion]

Back to topic, this link seems to indicate that as of 2001 the crimes Josh committed would fall under sexual abuse in the first degree?

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts/2001/htm/ACT545.pdf

[mebeforee]

There was nothing hateful or condescending in nelliebelle's reply to you.

There has been some rudeness on the forum, but what I've seen has been directed primarily toward people who have repeatedly failed to respect forum rules, have ignored admin posts, and generally pissed off longtime-members. Sometimes it's been unwarranted but most of it has not been. I can also say that when I joined I remember there being some severe... hazing, I guess you'd call it, of new members. I don't remember any particular aggression directed toward me but I do remember a lot of times where I'd close threads I'd been participating on and decide not to ever check them again because people were so rude to me that it was getting me all uneasy and embarrassed. For things I don't think I ever had cause to be embarrassed about, basically being called stupid for having a differing opinion. Without naming anyone, there are still a few people floating around who give me that impression, who just can't stand to have anyone not agree with them. But their presence is not the power it once was. And maybe that's hard to recognize when it's not directed at you personally - I certainly never thought I would be reacted to in the way I was when I was a lurker. But the flood of newcomers HAS started to get me looking at people's join dates when they say something I feel is particularly uneducated (like those who suggested Razing Ruth had been a misunderstood insider that was victimized by internet conspiracy, back before the police report was released). Being a newbie does mean that you have a lot of catching up to do in regard to the information you already understand about the Duggars' culture, as well as other members of the fundie communities the board follows. When in that situation, acting like you're being victimized when people correct misconceptions or ignorance is extremely off-putting to those who have used this forum for years to educate themselves on these topics. A newbie can't come in, expect to be treated as an adult with respect, and then ALSO whine like a child when criticized for failing to read and follow the forum rules.

Also, I just feel the need to say... if someone has been an active member of this board for years, there's not likely going to be a scenario in which they "go somewhere else". So... you're just deliberately rocking the boat with that comment?

[warriorblade8857]

Related to some other posts about the InTouch issue coming out, I really doubt the claims it has the victims' stories is anything more than reprints of the redacted police report. I can't see any of the victims reaching out to any magazine at this point, but the Duggars seem to also have exclusive press with People magazine, so if anyone were to hear the daughters' side of the story it would be through People, not InTouch.

Reporting to say that I just got back from the store where I scanned/flipped through that InTouch issue.

There's nothing in it beyond what we already know. Actually, they've avoided stating outright that the victims include 4 of Josh's sisters, although they did mention that they are pretty sure that one of victims was at most 5 years old. However, any person with half a brain reading between the lines of the rest of the article can infer that the Duggar girls were involved.

Other things the article included:

1. A timeline (2002 molestation, 2003 molestation, 2006 Oprah, 2006 investigation, 2007 lawsuit, fallout).

2. Sidebar article about that state trooper and his claims and quotes.

3. Excerpts from that police report (parts of interview with JB, portion of that email to Oprah). None of the Duggar kids' narratives were published.

So, all in all, nothing new to all of us FJers. But very informative for everyone else, I think.

*Edited to add that if there were "victims' stories" there, I missed them. Probably a good thing they didn't publish the Duggar kids' narratives, though. It's one thing to post the entire police report, but it's another to splash victims' stories front and center in the magazine (unless they've consented of course).

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Back to topic, this link seems to indicate that as of 2001 the crimes Josh committed would fall under sexual abuse in the first degree?

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts/2001/htm/ACT545.pdf

We will probably never know what charges Josh could have faced as we will never know exactly what he did. But I do know that you can't rely on what a cop says he thinks the charges are.

So it is very likely he could have been indicted on this charge. We will never know.

[Snarkle Motion]

We will probably never know what charges Josh could have faced as we will never know exactly what he did. But I do know that you can't rely on what a cop says he thinks the charges are.

So it is very likely he could have been indicted on this charge. We will never know.

My point about this is from the last thread. According to this the SOL has not run out. Also, I'm working under the presumption that there has NOT been a police report made since they had it destroyed. Therefore, I think the law states that Josh CAN still be tried for his past crimes.

[Fascinated]

[nelliebelle1197]

We will probably never know what charges Josh could have faced as we will never know exactly what he did. But I do know that you can't rely on what a cop says he thinks the charges are.

So it is very likely he could have been indicted on this charge. We will never know.

Am I nuts or did Buzzard divine from the old statute that it would be a fourth degree charge? She is a district attorney in a large urban area and has been for about 200 years, so she is likely correct, though she does not practice in Arkansas.

[nelliebelle1197]

[moriah]

1) My reading of the bolded means that the statute doesn't start to run until three years after the minor turns 18 for all the offenses listed below?

2) I'm not sure Sexual Assault in the third degree was an offense at the time. Based on some googling (which may be wrong) it looks like they had much broader definitions of sexual abuse? Based on this link's definition Josh might be guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree? Or incest? Or violation of a minor? If SOL is based on when the crime was committed, does the crime get classified according to the current legal definitions or the ones at the time of the crime for SOL purposes?

.

Since the law used "and" instead of "or", all conditions must be met. So it can't be just that one victim is still a minor -- the violation must also not have already been reported to LE. Even though the pedophile cop didn't do anything about it, for SOL purposes law enforcement was informed.

(If someone else already said this and I missed it, forgive me, please.)

[halcionne]

Reaction from Springdale residents:

http://www.people.com/article/josh-dugg ... dents-feel

A neighbor says the Duggars caroled at her house, and her house only, at Christmas. She must feel blessed!

[mebeforee]

Reaction from Springdale residents:

http://www.people.com/article/josh-dugg ... dents-feel

A neighbor says the Duggars caroled at her house, and her house only, at Christmas. She must feel blessed!

WTF, that is such a weird thing to do! If someone caroled at my house and only my house, I would think it was some kind of a prank. Like a friend hired them to freak me out, or something.

"Let's go caroling!"

"Alright! That's Amazing Grace and Silent Night... any other songs you guys wanna sing? No? Eh, that's probably enough cheer spreading for one holiday."

[princessmahina]

How does she know she's the only one? Did they tell her? Or did they just not carol at her neighbors' houses? They may have picked select people- it seems really strange (even by Duggar standards) to prepare and load up that many people to carol at only one house.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

My point about this is from the last thread. According to this the SOL has not run out. Also, I'm working under the presumption that there has NOT been a police report made since they had it destroyed. Therefore, I think the law states that Josh CAN still be tried for his past crimes.

I don't know about the Case for no report since this one was destroyed since it was destroyed to protect a victim not the suspect. But depending on what josh did there may be other crimes or even civil litigation possibilities.

[DaRealMVP]

Oh for the love of God. Sorry to :dead-horse:, but as a newbie here, I've experienced nothing but kindness from FJ. That's mainly because I lurked for quite a while (I wanted to finish grad school applications before I made an account), so I kinda got a feel for how to post and what the board culture was like. I also did the crazy thing of reading the rules before I signed up. Also I actually read the things HA posts on the first page of new "parts" of a topic. So that some people get butthurt because they (a) don't bother to follow the rules or (b) get called out for posting something ridiculous is NOT the problem for veteran posters or the mods. My advice is to read other parts of the forum other than QFoD, read the rules, and get a fucking grip. Then maybe several posters wouldn't feel the need to "tear you apart".

I swear not all newbies are awful (I hope I'm not one of them) :lol:

Mods :u-rock:

Back on topic: Jim Bob, Michelle, and Joshua Duggar are all tools.

[vtsunshine]

I rarely watch the Duggar program but I did take a few minutes to watch one of the sisters getting married. When JB was about to walk her down the aisle it seemed to me he was trying to produce some fake tears and he was talking to her about what a good husband she will have. Jessa/Jana? looked at JB and basically said that he (JB) picked him out for her. At the time I really thought the bride just wanted to skip all the fake emotions and get married and away from her dad. The look on her face, to me, said this is all bulls*** and I just want out. Now, maybe, know what she was thinking. Don't cry for the cameras, I know you're not crying for me. Maybe her dad will miss her just because of all the work she did around the house.

[moriah]

Back to topic, this link seems to indicate that as of 2001 the crimes Josh committed would fall under sexual abuse in the first degree?

ftp://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/acts/2001/htm/ACT545.pdf

Incorrect.

SECTION 1. Arkansas Code 5-14-108, concerning sexual abuse in the first degree, is amended to read as follows:

5-14-108. Sexual abuse in the first degree.

(a) A person commits sexual abuse in the first degree if:

(1) He engages in sexual contact with another person by forcible compulsion; or

(2) He engages in sexual contact with another person who is incapable of consent because he is physically helpless; or

(3) He engages in sexual contact with another person, not his spouse, who is a patient or resident of a hospital, nursing home, human development center, or other similar facility, and who is incapable of consent because he is mentally defective or mentally incapacitated; or

(4) Being eighteen (18) years old or older, he engages in sexual contact with a person not his spouse who is less than fourteen (14) years old; or

(5) He engages in sexual contact with a person who is less than sixteen (16) years of age and who is incapable of consent because he is 4 mentally defective or mentally incapacitated. ; or

6) Being employed directly or through contract with the Department of Correction or the Department of Community Punishment, or with any city or county jail, the person engages in sexual contact for the purpose of sexual gratification with any person in the custody of the Department of Correction or the Department of Community Punishment or within any city or county jail, the consent of the person in custody notwithstanding.

(b) Sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class C felony.

None of the victims qualified as mentally incapacitated, mentally deficient, or physically helpless. Josh was also at the most 15 at the time of the molestation incidents that are known. SA in the 1st would not have applied.

[Snarkle Motion]

There was nothing hateful or condescending in nelliebellie's reply to you.

There has been some rudeness on the forum, but what I've seen has been directed primarily toward people who have repeatedly failed to respect forum rules, have ignored mod posts, and generally pissed off longtime-members. Sometimes it's been unwarranted but most of it has not been. I can also say that when I joined I remember there being some severe... hazing, I guess you'd call it, of new members. I don't remember any particular aggression directed toward me but I do remember a lot of times where I'd close threads I'd been participating on and decide not to ever check them again because people were so rude to me that it was getting me all uneasy and embarrassed. For things I don't think I ever had cause to be embarrassed about, basically being called stupid for having a differing opinion. Without naming anyone, there are still a few people floating around who give me that impression, who just can't stand to have anyone not agree with them. But their presence is not the power it once was. And maybe that's hard to recognize when it's not directed at you personally - I certainly never thought I would be reacted to in the way I was when I was a lurker. But the flood of newcomers HAS started to get me looking at people's join dates when they say something I feel is particularly uneducated (like those who suggested Razing Ruth had been a misunderstood insider that was victimized by internet conspiracy, back before the police report was released). Being a newbie does mean that you have a lot of catching up to do in regard to the information you already understand about the Duggars' culture, as well as other members of the fundie communities the board follows. When in that situation, acting like you're being victimized when people correct misconceptions or ignorance is extremely off-putting to those who have used this forum for years to educate themselves on these topics. A newbie can't come in, expect to be treated as an adult with respect, and then ALSO whine like a child when criticized for failing to read and follow the forum rules.

Also, I just feel the need to say... if someone has been an active member of this board for years, there's not likely going to be a scenario in which they "go somewhere else". So... you're just deliberately rocking the boat with that comment?

No, I'm trying to rock the boat. I'm trying to respond in the way consistent with the "culture of the board". Apparently, I have to be an asshole to finish my "hazing process"? And whining and feeling victimized is fine if you are a veteran victimized by noobs?

All I'm saying is that I wish people wouldn't essentially bully new commenters who appear to be trying politely to join in the conversation. I'm not defending gross violations of board rules or attacking mods. But someone who was berated for saying she thinks that Ben may have stopped following Derick on twitter got attacked for like a page and accused of deliberately stirring shit and making up rumors and not reading every thread ever on the site. And I think its a fair point that a new commenter made that if all these people are not seeing the rules than maybe their could possibly be a better way to advertise them instead of jumping into "attack X person for making suggestions mode".

Just saying that I think we could all tone it down a bit and that if that person wasn't new someone would have prob just corrected them but no its "POOR ME!!! MY FREE JINGER IS BEING RUINED BY NEW PEOPLE!!!! WAHHHH!!!!!"

/Rant. Did I do that right? Is that how board culture works?

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Am I nuts or did Buzzard divine from the old statute that it would be a fourth degree charge? She is a district attorney in a large urban area and has been for about 200 years, so she is likely correct, though she does not practice in Arkansas.

Nobody can divine any charge because noone knows what actions were commited. We only have a very brief summary from children who were llikely coached.

Again we have no idea what the.charges coukd have been.

[GeoBQn]

WTF, that is such a weird thing to do! If someone caroled at my house and only my house, I would think it was some kind of a prank. Like a friend hired them to freak me out, or something.

"Let's go caroling!"

"Alright! That's Amazing Grace and Silent Night... any other songs you guys wanna sing? No? Eh, that's probably enough cheer spreading for one holiday."

Maybe she isn't Christian, or isn't the "right type" of Christian. She said they also gave her a gift of handmade soap and a Bible.

[Snarkle Motion]

Since the law used "and" instead of "or", all conditions must be met. So it can't be just that one victim is still a minor -- the violation must also not have already been reported to LE. Even though the pedophile cop didn't do anything about it, for SOL purposes law enforcement was informed.

(If someone else already said this and I missed it, forgive me, please.)

I was working under the assumption that a judge publicly announced that the police report didn't exist so that perhaps it could be argued it was not reported to police? I would just love the karmic retribution of destroying the police report to be that Josh can now be prosecuted for his crimes.