Everything Josh Duggar, Child Molester - Part 7

[drivingmishcrazy]

I guess I went too fast on scrolling through the snarking on the snarkers, so... wait! Dr. Phil? I guess I should have expected him to jump in on this... he can't resist a good controversy, and this is so meaty!

Wait what? I must have missed that too. Not a fan of Duckter Phil, but if he's weighing in, I may need to go get some popcorn.

[southernfriedwriter]

Law & Order SVU Episodes Based on Real Life

I'm a big fan of Law & Order SVU and through the years they've had episodes based on real life cases. The link above along with the article's comments reference such cases.

I just wonder if/when the show might tackle the Josh Duggar incident. The show has already had a a couple episodes involving ministers either directly or indirectly involved in sex crimes. Seems that this would play right into the show's theme, especially since they are big on not blaming victims and seeing that victims get the help they need, something the victims in this case appear not to have received.

[justbecause]

According to the fake Josh Duggar blog. Grandma Mary bought Joshie's first house from Grandpa Ruack.

Some of this may be speculation but some looks legit.

fakejoshduggar.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/you-be-the-judge/

Now that seems a lil' bit more than a lil' shady. :o

[Snarkle Motion]

I guess the easiest way to think of it is completely forget about the judge's order. It's legally irrelevant. There's no technicality there and I'm quite sure the report still exists.

Any allegations made would be charged based upon the law at the time of the offense. Not the time of charging or the time of disclosure, the time of the offense. Once the charge is determined, they would then apply the statute of limitations also at the time of offense to determine if the statute has run.

If the elements of a crime change between commission and disclosure the charge is what it was at the time of commission. If there was no charge that existed at the time of commission nothing can be charged. It is always AT THE TIME OF THE CRIME.

If someone came forward and said they were held down and groped by josh in 2003 AND they turned 18 within the past 3 years AND HAD NEVER REPORTED THIS TO AUTHORITIES he could still be charged today.

tgats a lot of "ifs" for a case that would be handled in juvenile court and pretty much summarily closed. He would not have to register.

And with that, I'm going to bed. Be back tomorrow

Thank you for indulging me! When you are back tomorrow I guess I'm still confused or trying my hand at pretend lawyering. My point about the judge order (i know, hear me out) is that I was wondering what system prosecution uses to see if a police report has been made? Like legally if I wanted to challenge that there was a report to police how would I do that? Because I do think its relevant if someone was trying to wipe the records clean or destroy evidence. I'm guessing that there is a system for determining whether a police report has been made and its not just based on asking around? What is the legal way of determining a police report exists?

Because according to huffpost:

“The judge ordered us yesterday to expunge that record,†Springdale Police spokesman Scott Lewis told The Associated Press on Friday. "As far as the Springdale Police Department is concerned this report doesn't exist."

Lewis also told the AP that these types of records are usually kept indefinitely.

Also, I'm hung up on the idea that sex crimes have changed in their classification and understanding how this affect SOL. There is no longer a "carnal abuse" category right? So someone charged with what was previously carnal abuse would follow the SOL (when the crime was committed - I get that) for carnal abuse even if that crime is now called something else? My understanding is that as of 2006 he was charged with "sex offense-forcible fondling" (felony?) as well as "sexual assault in the second degree"? What would forcible fondling have been classified as for the SOL to have been determined?

Because the way I see it is that we have josh admitted to molesting people in 2003 and the sprindale police saying there is no police report.

I'm less concerned with him going to jail or needing to register (the world has received that memo). I don't care if the records are sealed and we never learn anything more about it - that's in the best interest of the victims! My motivation is hoping legal action could determine if he is still abusing other children by at least getting people on the witness stand.

[drivingmishcrazy]

Law & Order SVU Episodes Based on Real Life

I'm a big fan of Law & Order SVU and through the years they've had episodes based on real life cases. The link above along with the article's comments reference such cases.

I just wonder if/when the show might tackle the Josh Duggar incident. The show has already had a a couple episodes involving ministers either directly or indirectly involved in sex crimes. Seems that this would play right into the show's theme, especially since they are big on not blaming victims and seeing that victims get the help they need, something the victims in this case appear not to have received.

As interesting as I think that could be, I can't see them doing that for at LEAST a few years or risk catching hell from both sides, and it would probably have to be very loosely based on it. Like, very loosely just to cover their own butts in the event of Duggar Outrage.

Something tells me though that even Dan Wolf isn't going to touch this one.

[SassyPants]

OMFG, I JUST NOTICED THE NAME OF THIS THREAD!

[Snarkle Motion]

If you've really been lurking for years then you know we don't kick people out.

No but in the last two days I saw like 6 new commenters posting privately or publicly that they felt bullied into leaving. And that hurts my heart. I was just trying to make a point by flipping the argument a bunch of older commenters have made toward new people.

[Candy_love]

According to the fake Josh Duggar blog. Grandma Mary bought Joshie's first house from Grandpa Ruack.

Some of this may be speculation but some looks legit.

fakejoshduggar.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/you-be-the-judge/

Wow. So the grandma is shady aswell..

[Toothfairy]

OMFG, I JUST NOTICED THE NAME OF THIS THREAD!

Me too. FJ is throwing shade

[grandmadugger]

OMFG, I JUST NOTICED THE NAME OF THIS THREAD!

I didn't notice until you said something.

[sense and nonsense]

I didn't notice until you said something.

Maybe we should have the thread name in bold at the top? Large font, very noticeable?

But I'm lazy, so I won't read it anyway.

And then I'll give a big FU to all the mods for responding to my post.

[Snarkle Motion]

So I can speak to having a report destroyed. At my request, as part of my emancipation I requested reports destroyed related to some childhood abuse. The report is destroyed-ish. It effectively meant it wouldn't be used in court, couldn't be requested, etc.

That doesn't mean it actually ceased to exist. In fact, when I applied for private insurance during the time I was consulting from 2000-2003 I was required to provide documents relating to some of the abuse from childhood. When I requested my file again. (It was DCS and Police Investigations that were needed) the report was included but noted that it was not part of the official record, etc.

If you want, I can probably find it, taken and image and blur the identifying details if you are curious.

I absolutely believe you! No need to blur images. I guess my thought is that the judge ILLEGALLY expunged the record. I was wondering if the fact that the judge and police system were trying to illegally erase any record of this report after the fact could actually be used against Josh. In all likelihood the report does still exist in some form but how can we know? I actually think destroying the record is just another instance of how this case was swept under the rug through cronyism and I'm hoping to find any opportunity to use it against them legally.

[treemom]

I absolutely believe you! No need to blur images. I guess my thought is that the judge ILLEGALLY expunged the record. I was wondering if the fact that the judge and police system were trying to illegally erase any record of this report after the fact could actually be used against Josh. In all likelihood the report does still exist in some form but how can we know? I actually think destroying the record is just another instance of how this case was swept under the rug through cronyism and I'm hoping to find any opportunity to use it against them legally.

I have a different opinion and believe the judge acted within the law

[Snarkle Motion]

Maybe we should have the thread name in bold at the top? Large font, very noticeable?

Touche....best comment ever. That's the snark I love from FJ!!!

[Snarkle Motion]

I have a different opinion and believe the judge acted within the law

Maybe they did? I don't know. What makes you think this? I was just going off some articles I read that said this was illegal.

[treemom]

Maybe they did? I don't know. What makes you think this? I was just going off some articles I read that said this was illegal.

Because the Arkansas law allows for this

[Idolatry]

I agree these people are really mean. I posted yesterday about the 5th victim I did'nt want her name only thought why her parent's did'nt report or were they also part of the church. Got blasted for "wanting to know who the 5th victim was". I won't post again.

n00bs, it's a big internet. If you simply must speculate about the fifth victim, who is a real person molested as a child, go do it somewhere it isn't clearly against the rules.

Also, love the new thread title. New and improved!

[Cactus]

No but in the last two days I saw like 6 new commenters posting privately or publicly that they felt bullied into leaving. And that hurts my heart. I was just trying to make a point by flipping the argument a bunch of older commenters have made toward new people.

To me, joining a new internet forum or board is like being someone's plus-one as the two of you visit a friend's house. You don't know the friend personally, you've never been to their house, but they're the welcoming sort so here you are. You're not sure what the friend's policy is on wearing shoes indoors. You could:

a) ask your partner what the best course of action would be before you come inside and follow their advice

b) be too timid to bring it up but decide to take your shoes off, just in case, and if they don't mind then at least the floors won't be dirty and it looks polite

c) wear your shoes indoors because that's what you do at home, so therefore everyone must wear shoes indoors, and ignore the friend's shocked looks and pointed hints to remove your dirty footwear

a) or b) would be, in my view, equally acceptable. c) is not. Several new members seem to be c) kind of people, and act shocked when older board members react negatively to them traipsing around in shoes and spreading mud all over the floors.

New members may not have enough of a feel for board culture to know when their behaviour will provoke a hostile response. Older members may be fed up with explaining the same thing ten times in three pages and wish newer members would go and find things out themselves.

Whether new members have felt welcome or not depends, in large part, on how willing they are to make themselves welcome-able. Nobody likes a muddy carpet. :wink-kitty:

Edited to add that I'm not a mod, nor do I play one on TV, and do not profess to speak over the helpmeets on this subject.

[Snarkle Motion]

Because the Arkansas law allows for this

Does it? My bad then. The articles I read made it seem like it was an illegal abuse of power - some sort of favor called in by Huckabee - but if this was something that was done within legal means that's a completely different story.

[OodOnTheLoo]

whyyyyyyyyyyyy? Why did I watch the Rodrigues gender reveal video? You are the evil friends Gathard warns about. Some things cant be unseen!

Why was there a gender reveal for a 12th child? Why didn't she just not buy all that crap for the party and buy a stroller instead? Why doesn't her voice cause ED in her husband? How does having a gender reveal in the cafeteria include her sister? So many questions.

[princessmahina]

whyyyyyyyyyyyy? Why did I watch the Rodrigues gender reveal video? You are the evil friends Gathard warns about. Some things cant be unseen!

Why was there a gender reveal for a 12th child? Why didn't she just not buy all that crap for the party and buy a stroller instead? Why doesn't her voice cause ED in her husband? How does having a gender reveal in the cafeteria include her sister? So many questions.

Why was there a gender reveal for a 12th child?

Why do something tastefully when you can do it as tackily and as overblown as possible? Jill's sister had the audacity to take the spotlight away from dear, sweet, humble Jill. Of course she needed it back, so...gender reveal party! In the hospital!

How does having a gender reveal in the cafeteria include her sister?

It's in the same hospital as Amy, so it includes her.

[JenniferJuniper]

Why was there a gender reveal for a 12th child?

Why do something tastefully when you can do it as tackily and as overblown as possible? Jill's sister had the audacity to take the spotlight away from dear, sweet, humble Jill. Of course she needed it back, so...gender reveal party! In the hospital!

How does having a gender reveal in the cafeteria include her sister?

It's in the same hospital as Amy, so it includes her.

We're so off-topic here, but Jill R. is one of the worst people in the world.

I still have nightmares over that video with the kids talking about how they love living in the horribly cramped RV with the baby cage. It's the high-pitched "Bye-eeeeee" after each interview that creeps me out the most. Horror movie shit, that is.

[OkToBeTakei]

The best and worst thing about that thread is 'Angry Olivia' she's a poor unfortunate child and should be out of reach of snark....... But it was just so fucking hilarious :lol:

[Tiny Bubbles]

We're so off-topic here, but Jill R. is one of the worst people in the world.

I still have nightmares over that video with the kids talking about how they love living in the horribly cramped RV with the baby cage. It's the high-pitched "Bye-eeeeee" after each interview that creeps me out the most. Horror movie shit, that is.

I can't read about her anymore. She has NO redeeming qualities. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Rien. Makes me want to throw things.

[Vex]

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.

I think people have been taking things far too personally here, and it's becoming a problem. Please try to remember this is just an internet snark site, if someone ignores you or ridicules your post, who cares? If someone disagrees with you, oh well. It shouldn't be enough to ruin your experience on the site and if it is, it's probably not the site for you, which is fine.

I've been a member of this site since the Yuku days (I believe I joined in 2008 or 09). I don't have many posts considering I've been here for 7+ years because I'm more of a lurker than a chatter. 99% of site members have no idea who I am thanks to my infrequent posting so it's not like I belong in the 'longtime poster clique'. I don't have any magical immunity to criticism on this site - nobody does. Often nobody comments on my posts, and for the majority of users their posts go unremarked upon too. It's not something to be upset about. Nobody's ignoring you on purpose. It could just be that you've stated your point well and nobody feels the need to add to it or question it, or people just agree and feel no more needs to be said.

I've gotten into a couple of debates in my time on the site. There has been some dogpiling and unpleasantness, no forum is a perfect utopia. I remember a time back in the Yuku days where a couple of members tried to speak up about the possibility of Ruth being a scam and they'd get shouted down immediately. I think the community has come a long way in being more open to dissenting opinions though, since the site has grown larger and more diverse over the years.

This site is debate heavy and user-moderated, which means that it can come across in an aggressive, unpleasant way to people who are unprepared for it. The thing is, you don't need to engage in debates if you don't want to. I don't usually bother debating for various reasons. That's my personal stance, so I don't engage in debate when it comes up unless something really piques my interest. You don't need to debate if you are uncomfortable with it either. You could respond via PM or hell, you could just not reply to a post that you feel is drawing you into an argument or debate (the two are most assuredly different).

Nobody here wants to close off the site to new members or send them away. There are very few forums where nobody is bothered when a newbie comes along and breaks the rules because they haven't familiarised themselves with the site. This is a site where people will actually inform you that you've broken the rules and hold you to the same standards as non-newbies, which is where things get confusing and upsetting for some people.

That being said, nobody means newbies any harm. Just remember the first rule of internet forums:

When in doubt, always lurk moar.

Okay, so, something Josh-related:

I was so late to this whole thing (thank you, exam season), I've just done a -lot- of catching up. I'm so glad there's no speculation about the 5th victim, I suspected FJ would have the decency to shut that down. Honestly, if it were allowed I wouldn't participate.

We always knew something went on with Josh around that time, and I guess we finally know what it was. Really sad. I wish it had just been something like masturbation, like we speculated years ago.