Everything Josh Duggar, Child Molester - Part 7

[justbecause]

Wow. So the grandma is shady aswell..

Why would JB's mom be giving more than market value price for a home to Michelle's dad? Hmmm..... Who is Michelle's dad? A fundie?

[Chubbi]

I just want to throw out there that I'm pretty much, by every sense of the word, a newbie. My experience has been pretty pleasant, actually. I don't think I've pissed anyone off, at least, if I have, no one's bothered to tell me. I feel like the exasperation/irritation on the part of the more veteran posters is less "GET OFF MAH LAWN!" and more like "WE EXPLICITLY TELL YOU TO READ THOSE RULES WHEN YOU SIGN UP WE EVEN HAVE A DELAY TO FORCE YOU TO LURK PLEASE READ THE FAQ PLEASE."

This isn't to say that everything is sunshine and unicorns, as with real life, but new folks (myself included) need to keep the rules at the forefront of our minds (and honestly, of all the forums of which I've been a part, this place has the least restrictions). At least until we get the hang of it and can post without stepping on anyone's toes.

But anyway, Josh related: Can I just say that following FJ during Joshpocalypse 2k15 has been the biggest challenge in my life these past ten days? Within the last few weeks I've changed jobs, moved 120 miles, graduated college, and adjusted from working second shift to first - and following an internet forum has been harder than all of that. :doh:

I just wanna give a shoutout to everyone posting links and google detective work and for helpmeets being general badasses and making me look forward to lurking even if I don't feel like I read enough to post (this being the exception) :lol:

[apandaaries]

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.

OMFG. Did you use shoes in the house on FJ as an analogy? :stir-pot:

Anyone remember those quotes upon the walls in elementary school? Here's one I remember from former President Abe Lincoln: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I'm also a newbie, but general rules: consider a response; use the SEARCH FUNCTION to see if it's been discussed before/still a hot potato discussion topic within any forum because you recognize that while you're moving into new terrain for YOU, others may/probably have been aware for some time; edit as necessary; learn/move on/don't get butt hurt. I far prefer the OT thread drifts where we get to learn weird new stuff. Apologies for my time spent :dead-horse:

ETA: Chubbi, I totally know where you're coming from. I've had all kinds of big stuff happen IRL these past few weeks. Duggargate is a weirdly satisfying distraction. Glad I never egregiously fucked up in that area.

Can you imagine how many interns have been scrubbing websites of Josh Duggar pics lately?

[drivingmishcrazy]

Me too. FJ is throwing shade

Sort of off topic but that was the first thing that popped in my head. :D

[grandmadugger]

Why would JB's mom be giving more than market value price for a home to Michelle's dad? Hmmm..... Who is Michelle's dad? A fundie?

I don't think Michelle's family is fundie. I know there is someone here who knows some of Michelle's family. Maybe they'll pop in and explain more.

[Furbabies]

It's noted in the police report that they interviewed an older son in the home (I presume John-David) and asked him who the elders might have been.

"Inv. Taylor asked who [redacted] told in the church. [redacted] said that they told the elders of their church. Inv. Taylor asked for their names. [redacted] said that [redacted] did not want to tell. [redacted] said that she(not redacted)needed to ask [redacted] father."

The pronoun she was accidentally not redacted.

Anyone catch that? Thoughts?

Do I need to get back on my blanket ?

[apandaaries]

The pronoun she was accidentally not redacted.

Anyone catch that? Thoughts?

Do I need to get back on my blanket ?

Investigator Taylor, a woman, is the "she." Discussed a thousand or so pages back. :)

The blanket IS the safe space, though. Be careful.

[Furbabies]

Investigator Taylor, a woman, is the "she." Discussed a thousand or so pages back. :)

The blanket IS the safe space, though. Be careful.

I disagree here. In law school I took a class in wrongful convictions and read a lot of police reports. In that sentence instead of using the pronoun she, it would have said "this investigator, " as in "Susie said this investigator needed to talk to her (meaning Susie's) father.

[church_of_dog]

carrying some stuff over from part 6 (and yes I actually made notes of the things I wanted to comment on, because I still had 30-odd pages to catch up on and to make sure no one else had brought up my same comments, and if I didn't write them down then by the time I was caught up I would never have remembered (or found!) the things I wanted to quote...)

As for when the harm was discovered it gets complicated because it also begins to run when the harm reasonably should have been discovered. Jana would have a hard time convincing a court that she shouldn't have reasonably discovered that molestation harmed her at the time it occurred or at least by the time she was 18.

I'm wondering about the idea, as was mentioned here already just briefly, that some of the psychological effects of sexual abuse might not manifest in someone's life (at least not with any consciousness) until they themselves become sexually active. Could there be any legal implications to the idea that the 'injury' didn't take place until years later?

Also saw someone use the phrase "child abuse" instead of "child molestation" and that got me wondering along different lines. I believe I read that the unnamed 5th victim was in the house for the purpose of babysitting. I also think I saw that Josh was "co-babysitting." If that were true, and if any of the sisters were abused while he was babysitting, does that add any legal aspect due to his having been "in charge" of the kids at the time he violated them? Like does that turn it into 'child abuse' since he was in an official position of authority over them?

[church_of_dog]

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.

:lol: :lol:

[TheMissus]

I disagree here. In law school I took a class in wrongful convictions and read a lot of police reports. In that sentence instead of using the pronoun she, it would have said "this investigator, " as in "Susie said this investigator needed to talk to her (meaning Susie's) father.

I picked up on that, too. No law school though. Nursing. When a person does a lot of legal documenting, it is easier to pick up on that sort of thing. A person has to be able to identify the subject and "she" would not be referring to an investigator but the person who is the focus of the "charting". A legal document with the reporter referring to him or herself in the third person would be very odd and rare.

[skulduggery]

Yes, I find if the search isn't turning up what you want through FJ you can often get better results searching directly through Google. Thanks for sharing that.

Also, I like your username. At first I thought it was skullduggAry and thought it was a great pun! Have you played Lords of Waterdeep?

Your welcome, anytime. I haven't ever played Lords of Waterdeep but I googled the images and it looks like a gorgeous game!

[Dandruff]

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.

And they went to Amy's room (since Amy would not be joining the revelers by the vending machines) and told her first.

[TheMissus]

carrying some stuff over from part 6 (and yes I actually made notes of the things I wanted to comment on, because I still had 30-odd pages to catch up on and to make sure no one else had brought up my same comments, and if I didn't write them down then by the time I was caught up I would never have remembered (or found!) the things I wanted to quote...)

I'm wondering about the idea, as was mentioned here already just briefly, that some of the psychological effects of sexual abuse might not manifest in someone's life (at least not with any consciousness) until they themselves become sexually active. Could there be any legal implications to the idea that the 'injury' didn't take place until years later?

Also saw someone use the phrase "child abuse" instead of "child molestation" and that got me wondering along different lines. I believe I read that the unnamed 5th victim was in the house for the purpose of babysitting. I also think I saw that Josh was "co-babysitting." If that were true, and if any of the sisters were abused while he was babysitting, does that add any legal aspect due to his having been "in charge" of the kids at the time he violated them? Like does that turn it into 'child abuse' since he was in an official position of authority over them?

I've skipped over so much in these threads because of people interjecting with complaints about others asking about things that were covered previously. Despite the derailing by the whingers, I do recall reading parts where people were attempting to clarify the difference between criminal and civil complaints. There is a world of difference between the two and the victims might still have recourse in civil court even if their abuser is in the free and clear in regards to criminal court. They would have the added benefit of preponderance of evidence rather than reasonable doubt. But, I'm doubting they have much incentive to testify against their abuser so it is probable a moot issue.

"Child abuse" is an umbrella term that includes "child molestation". All child molestation is child abuse but not all child abuse is child molestation.

As to him being "in charge"...I've also had similar thoughts about that. But, it is purely speculative to wonder if he was taught that as the oldest son that he was the "man of the house" in his father's absence and that he might have also had some wrong ideas about what male leaders are supposed to do.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I picked up on that, too. No law school though. Nursing. When a person does a lot of legal documenting, it is easier to pick up on that sort of thing. A person has to be able to identify the subject and "she" would not be referring to an investigator but the person who is the focus of the "charting". A legal document with the reporter referring to him or herself in the third person would be very odd and rare.

It would also presumably be odd for the detective to spell his own name wrong on every page but he did.

That is because this is not the police report. It is a summary printed out for Information requests. Who knows who actually compiled it. it could have been done years later when the department was going digital.

[16strong]

Do we know anything else about Josh's supposed broken betrothal? If true, I find it interesting that that JB and J'chelle wanted him married off at such a young age. Clearly they wanted him out of the house, and sending him away to do construction work and having him repent did nothing, because he was married off at the ripe old age of 20. I wonder when Josh first began exhibiting abnormal behavior?

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Do we know anything else about Josh's supposed broken betrothal? If true, I find it interesting that that JB and J'chelle wanted him married off at such a young age. Clearly they wanted him out of the house, and sending him away to do construction work and having him repent did nothing, because he was married off at the ripe old age of 20. I wonder when Josh first began exhibiting abnormal behavior?

This speculation has absolutely nothing to do with the identity of the fifth victim.

If you read page 32 of police report I believe (speculate) that Inv Taylor found out who wrote the letter and the allegations against Josh is what lead to them breaking up.

"[Redacted] was the person that [Redacted Josh] was supposed to have [Redacted] with until the allegations started."

I coukd be totally wrong.tho.

[moriah]

The pronoun she was accidentally not redacted.

Anyone catch that? Thoughts?

Do I need to get back on my blanket ?

"She" referred to the investigator, who was female. "[Kid's name] said that [investigator] needed to ask [personal posessive pronoun] father."

[purpleskies]

Thanks again buzzard for the legalese (former Canadian don't really know the ins and outs of U.S. law)

I know the josh confession has been out for a few weeks now, but would it be possible for new victims to come forward with allegations post him turning 18, and would they be able to charge him in a different light (like jian ghomeshi in Canada whose offenses date back to 2002 last I checked)?

I'm wondering if all this attention could draw out more people to make a report against him, or perhaps if they see that the SOL ran out on him for the previous molestations if they'll just keep quiet.

The difference with Ghomeshi is that here in Ontario we don't have a statute of limitations for sex assault, so the police were able to address the complaints whenever the victims found the strength and courage to go to them. This is ideal for situations like Josh's and Ghomeshi's where the victims may not be likely to quickly come forward. Which is super-fantastic. If we had had an SOL in place, the police would not have been able to do anything about several of the crimes for which Ghomeshi was ultimately charged.

[alba]

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.

Erm, you said, and I quote, "Would really like to know who that 5th victim", and were politely informed that we're not speculating on that here.

Post link: viewtopic.php?f=87&t=25811&p=954349#p954349

[alba]

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.

Bonus points for using the wearing (or not) of shoes in the house as an allegory!

[alba]

I picked up on that, too. No law school though. Nursing. When a person does a lot of legal documenting, it is easier to pick up on that sort of thing. A person has to be able to identify the subject and "she" would not be referring to an investigator but the person who is the focus of the "charting". A legal document with the reporter referring to him or herself in the third person would be very odd and rare.

If the interviewee was a boy, though, it wouldn't be ambiguous:

"Inv. Taylor asked who J'Boy told in the church. J'Boy said that they told the elders of their church. Inv. Taylor asked for their names. J'Boy said that he did not want to tell. J'Boy said that she needed to ask his father."

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the bolded, as 'Inv. Taylor' is third-person, too.

[karismanic]

Just a celebratory post that I finally caught up with this beast of a topic. Even without electicity and WIFI for 48 hours.

Damn, I incurred $15 in data charges because of you, Duggars.

[latraviata]

Just a celebratory post that I finally caught up with this beast of a topic. Even without electicity and WIFI for 48 hours.

Damn, I incurred $15 in data charges because of you, Duggars.

Crowdfunding?

[VelociRapture]

YES. Where Nurie lists what they get for their birthdays???

VelociRapture, I actually am waiting with baited breath for your opinions of this crazy train!

Lol! I had to go to sleep so I didn't get far. Just read a comment about the Maxwells being an upgrade for older girl we like - I'm assuming they feed their children and don't put babies in cages?

As for the ice cream incident, I keep seeing that pop up. I'm guessing mom is an attention whore who likes sugar. Or an attention whore who forgot to eat somehow. Or just an attention whore.

How have I never read about her before?! I feel like I've missed so much!