Everything Josh Duggar, Child Molester - Part 7

[halcionne]

Honestly, I don't think People excluding their names has anything to do with them standing with the girls. I think its just their way of making sure to cover their asses. None of the alleged victims have stepped forward to publicly say they were assaulted - identifying them when they don't want that attention could be making People's Attorneys pretty nervous.

Not to mention that most publications try to avoid naming victims of sexual assault unless they come forward and give them permission.

Agree. My post was kind of vague, I guess. I used to rely on People for being more accurate than other Hollywood magazines, and while I still admire their journalistic integrity, I've gotten a little cynical about just how easy they go on celebs (not so much in this case) in order to stay friendly with publicists, etc.

[VelociRapture]

Okay, did you read my original post back at the People magazine thread? Obviously not.

My post here is a continuation of a response that was posted to me after I mentioned the fact that People magazine left out Josh's incest joke, Gothard's connection to Hobby Lobby, and the fact that the judge that ordered the destruction of Josh's records was connected to Huckabee. Never once did I mention that their names should be made publicly available, and never once did I say the lurid details about what happened to them should be rehashed in front of the public.

I'd appreciate it if you read what I said before arguing a point I never made. Thank you.

Actually, I did read through that thread. I wasn't arguing with anyone. I was responding to your post because you brought that comment by MisUndrstd - if you look closely I was actually disagreeing with her comment, not your's.

I was stating my personal opinion on why the girls weren't identified by name. The post I read before specifically mentioned the girls not being brought up in the article.

I don't see anything in my post accusing you of wanting the details released. I should have made it clearer which comment I was responding to, but you honestly need to calm down.

As for the rest of the post:

I do think its odd that they didn't include those other details in the article. I'm sure they have a reason though. Most likely it has to do with them wanting to either verify information before they publish it (again, to cover their own asses) or it has to do with their close relationship with the Duggars (something that you alluded to).

[Flyinthesoup]

I'm sure it's true that different churches do ordination differently. But it's not true that no Baptists (IFB or SBC or American Baptists or other) have requirements. My Dad is ordained IFB. He completed seminary (a Bachelor's degree program - in his case he also already had a college degree in a secular professional field), after which he and some other ordination candidates were questioned by ordained ministers who were also professors at the seminary, to determine/verify their Biblical knowledge and beliefs. Upon passing that questioning/examination, the ordaining ministers had a ceremony in which they had hands laid upon them and prayer for them. At this point, they received ordination papers from the seminary and the church associated with it. (This was many years ago).

Thanks Apple1, I would have expected at least this, which makes more sense.

I think of "spanky' and being defrocked and there is a way to remove approval of a minister, within a denomination, if the overseeing body is not happy with them.

[skulduggery]

Regarding People and other sites not mentioning that some of the victims are his sisters.....I'm actually surprised that the names of the victims' parents weren't redacted in the police report.

The only police report available that I know of is completely redacted, though. The original report was destroyed by a judge appointed by Huckabee.

And for the second and last time, nowhere did I suggest that the girls be identified:

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26184#p954431

[justbecause]

I will try - never contacted either before.

I emailed several Arkansas papers, I am nkw tracking down nwa tv news. Also contacted Cnn, fox, and msnbc and NBC news and Today.

While you are at it, I'd add TMZ and RadarOnline.

I know that you are thinking they are kind of gossipy sites. This is somewhat true, however a lot of news sources don't get interested until they see that people are interested somewhere else and then they pick up on it. Best to cover all the bases.

Both sites have a 'Share a Tip with us' link that allows you to submit a tip or text in a textbox. I think they ask for contact info, but I've heard some people say they just make something up.

There is also another one called Hollywood Life that is pretty popular.

[VelociRapture]

The only police report available that I know of is completely redacted, though. The original report was destroyed by a judge appointed by Huckabee.

And for the second and last time, nowhere did I suggest that the girls be identified:

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26184#p954431

For the second and last time no one has accused you of saying so.

The issue I see with the job they did redacting the report is that they left the parents' names when taking statements from the victims, along with listing the towns they live in. I feel like doing that wouldn't have made a difference though - just the sheer amount of redacting necessary to hide all the siblings' names would have been a give away. Not to mention the circumstances the abuse was conducted under - what other girls would he have access to while they were asleep?

[paganhomeschooler]

The only police report available that I know of is completely redacted, though. The original report was destroyed by a judge appointed by Huckabee.

And for the second and last time, nowhere did I suggest that the girls be identified:

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26184#p954431

If you take a look in the thread where HA posted the scanned redacted police report, starting on pg. 11, you can see where it says "parents James and Michelle Duggar". It is redacted, but that identifying information was left in.

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26063

[halcionne]

Are you seriously suggesting that asking People magazine to present facts is "sensationalism?"

No. I have opinions about People beyond this story, and my post was unclear. I'm suggesting that People tends to report only what they can verify, which is fine. I'm suggesting that People prefers to stay on their sources' good sides so they will cooperate with future articles. With the Josh story reported they way they apparently did it (I haven't read it), they have left a door open for future good relations with TLC and the Duggars in case, for instance, the show continues or there's a spinoff.

[skulduggery]

I don't see anything in my post accusing you of wanting the details released. I should have made it clearer which comment I was responding to, but you honestly need to calm down.

Well that's nice and condescending, considering nobody said anything about People magazine releasing the name of the girls until you mentioned it, underneath a response of mine that had nothing to do with it.

But whatever, I suppose mischaracterizations aren't exactly the same thing as accusing someone of something directly; it's just a way to make someone's statements look false and I should calm down about it. :roll:

[skulduggery]

For the second and last time no one has accused you of saying so.

And for the second and last time, read what I have to say next time before posting underneath something I said and trying to bring up a point nobody else was talking about in the first place.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

You do not need to be ordained in order to perform a marriage ceremony.

9-11-213. Persons who may solemnize marriages.

(a) For the purpose of being registered and perpetuating the evidence thereof, marriage shall be solemnized only by the following persons:

(1) The Governor;

(2) Any former justice of the Supreme Court;

(3) Any judges of the courts of record within this state, including any former judge of a court of record who served at least four (4) years or more;

(4) Any justice of the peace, including any former justice of the peace who served at least two (2) terms since the passage of Arkansas Constitution, Amendment 55;

(5) Any regularly ordained minister or priest of any religious sect or denomination;

(6) The mayor of any city or town;

(7) Any official appointed for that purpose by the quorum court of the county where the marriage is to be solemnized; or

(8) Any elected district court judge and any former municipal or district court judge who served at least four (4) years.

(b) (1) Marriages solemnized through the traditional rite of the Religious Society of Friends, more commonly known as Quakers, are recognized as valid to all intents and purposes the same as marriages otherwise contracted and solemnized in accordance with law.

(2) The functions, duties, and liabilities of a party solemnizing marriage, as set forth in the marriage laws of this state, in the case of marriages solemnized through the traditional marriage rite of the Religious Society of Friends shall be incumbent upon the clerk of the congregation or, in his or her absence, his or her duly designated alternate.

[moriah]

agreed I made a mistake, which I admitted to. So why is a mod still following around everything I post just so they can post a nasty response? I made a mistake but must I be vilified by a mod of all people??? Why is HappyAtheist still sh*tting on me, the rule that I broke happened HOURS ago. I get it. Does not explain the behaviour of the mod now though, it's just petty and personal now. I will move on when the MOD stops responding nasty things to everything I post

Honey, I'm not a mod. I made my first post today, in fact. But cheezus CHRIST you are demonstrating a martyr complex at the moment that is totally unbecoming.

You made a mistake in ignorance, yes. You were corrected. But instead of trying to learn from it, you kept making excuses for yourself, criticizing the forum, and basically being a bad house guest. Then you have the audacity to make this suggestion:

Just a suggestion, I see on a lot of other forums that have this issue, they have a static post at the beginning of each thread summarizing the main points or a "what we know so far" type of post.

When at the very top of this thread, there is exactly that -- a post saying please do not speculate on the identity of the non-family victim. So Happy Athiest was right -- your suggestion was exactly already what the forum was doing in the first place. And it doesn't seem like you would have even taken the time to read that far, because you obviously didn't! And you can't understand why a mod would get frustrated when faced with such behavior?

Mods have a VERY hard job. They don't get paid to do it. They do it out of the kindness of their own heart. Without them, we would not have online forums at all. Show them some respect. Please.

(Edit to add: I do not want to continue this fiasco and will not post any other response about this. But it disturbs me greatly to see people trashing mods on any forum. Mods are our Internet Heroes and should be treated that way, because they help the Internet not suck.)

[princessmahina]

I think they were mentioned in Jinger's testimony video? She says she passes them out to people.

I'm not sure I believe story number 4. It rings false to me. Boys Don't Cry isn't a movie Jim Bob Duggar would watch. The whole story just seems wrong.

[theradiosong]

or, CRAZY IDEA I KNOW, we could get back on topic ;D

[ApologistsBeDamned]

While you are at it, I'd add TMZ and RadarOnline.

I know that you are thinking they are kind of gossipy sites. This is somewhat true, however a lot of news sources don't get interested until they see that people are interested somewhere else and then they pick up on it. Best to cover all the bases.

Both sites have a 'Share a Tip with us' link that allows you to submit a tip or text in a textbox. I think they ask for contact info, but I've heard some people say they just make something up.

There is also another one called Hollywood Life that is pretty popular.

Thanks for the suggestion. I will do that now.

[formergothardite]

or, CRAZY IDEA I KNOW, we could get back on topic ;D

The best Free Jinger threads have at least a couple of topics in them. :lol:

[alba]

are you serious about Jill putting IDDY in a cage :D

I miss Ben and Jessa

Are you telling me you haven't been exposed to the delights of Jill Rodrigues? :pink-shock:

Allow me to enlighten you: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25888

And the infamous baby cage: rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=1248

[Buzzard]

Just checking back in to say I'm still working on the effective statute at the time. Usually I can find it easily, but this is more difficult.

Case law tends to indicate that it WAS 3 years, but I want the statute.

[VelociRapture]

Well that's nice and condescending, considering nobody said anything about People magazine releasing the name of the girls until you mentioned it, underneath a response of mine that had nothing to do with it.

But whatever, I suppose mischaracterizations aren't exactly the same thing as accusing someone of something directly; it's just a way to make someone's statements look false and I should calm down about it. :roll:

I read the thread. It was closed before I could comment. I read the comment you brought over and I read your response. I offered my own point of view regarding the matter. People were discussing why People took a soft stance by not releasing some facts - names of victims are facts. I offered my opinions on the topic and did not accuse anyone of anything.

Did I misinterpret the comment you brought over? Yeah, I probably did. I'm human and we make mistakes.

I am not being accusatory. I am not being condescending. I am staring my opinion and sharing my views. I don't appreciate being called either of those things, but you have a right to your opinion.

And for the second and last time, read what I have to say next time before posting underneath something I said and trying to bring up a point nobody else was talking about in the first place.

It's a forum. I brought up a point interesting to me that was relevant to the general discussion. Posters introduce new topics constantly. I don't see an issue with that.

[PlaidFrumper]

The only police report available that I know of is completely redacted, though. The original report was destroyed by a judge appointed by Huckabee.

I've only seen the original, redacted police report published by InTouch and also visible here (viewtopic.php?f=87&t=26063). That version blacks out the names of Josh and the other minors but includes the names of their parents.

[formergothardite]

Are you telling me you haven't been exposed to the delights of Jill Rodrigues? :pink-shock:

Allow me to enlighten you: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=25888

And the infamous baby cage: rodriguesfamilyministries.com/main/?p=1248

Thanks for the links so that more people can learn about the insanity that is Jill Rodrigues. And yes, the woman really put her baby in a cage in an RV closet.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

Just checking back in to say I'm still working on the effective statute at the time. Usually I can find it easily, but this is more difficult.

Case law tends to indicate that it WAS 3 years, but I want the statute.

I think the SOL has been misinterpreted especially by the idiot cop Hignite.

No one can tell me that legally speaking under the 2003 code that if an infant or toddler was sexual abused and a third party knew about it and then 3 years and two months later this abused child goes to the police that the police or DA would say "sorry but that happened beyond the SOL so there is nothing we can do."

So if this case truly was closed because some cop said this that is a travesty.

[grandmadugger]

A Quiverfull author has spoken his peace:

rawstory.com/2015/05/quiverfull-author-delivers-melodramatic-defense-of-duggars-against-pagans-and-gullible-christians/

Oh. my. god. :wtf:

:wtf: Did I just read?

[BirthingGodsWarriors]

I think we could all use a quick break to laugh or smile. This pic usually works for me.

We now return to your regularly scheduled snark.

[apple1]

I think we could all use a quick break to laugh or smile. This pic usually works for me.

We now return to your regularly scheduled snark.

Awwwwwwwwww.