Duggar scandal

[CrossCuT]

Found out in my news feed that a few of the victims were named and Fox News had them on to discuss their molestation. Terrible. I AM mad now that the media is exploiting this story from the perspective of the victims. I wish they could have remained anonymous but of course people would go after them as well for publicity.

But who knows, maybe the victims wanted to speak out. In this case,it was 3 of Josh's sisters. They said during the fox interview that they blame the media and love their brother etc...which is not an unexpected response. I dont judge them for how they feel in this case because their experiences are personal. But I do judge Fox News.

One of the girls was crying during the interview because of everything in the media which is the only thing I didnt like. I dont like that this has all been dug back up and put in their faces. Shame shame shame on Fox News for interviewing them.

But at the same time, a sex offender should be listed publicly for the safety of others. It is very unfortunate that the Duggars lead such a public lifestyle. Celebrity scandals are never private so they shouldnt have expected it to be such.

Edited June 4, 2015 by CrossCuT

[PhuturePriest]

What does anyone think about how this sheriff broke the law by revealing these sealed juvenile documents? Why isn't there any backlash against her for having broken the law for publicity?

[CrossCuT]

I dont know much about laws with those things, but I believe since the case was so old, it was no longer able to be held against him which is why he isnt facing any charges etc. Someone can correct me if Im wrong.

Im also pretty sure there is some law or something that states all child molesters or sex offenders need to be listed in a public registry for public safety.

Edited June 4, 2015 by CrossCuT

[hotpink]

​

What does anyone think about how this sheriff broke the law by revealing these sealed juvenile documents? Why isn't there any backlash against her for having broken the law for publicity?

​Might be someting of the sort.  Also, because of "family sources" that were very open and verifiable...and the fact that when he was 14 he only had 5 sisters...it wasn't rocket science to figure out who they were.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

As far as I remember, InTouch Magazine requested the Duggar documents under the Freedom of Information Act. I assume that if a law enforcement agency is required to release documents under the FOIA, then the sheriff had no choice but to release them. The documents did remove all the names of minors, which I assume is required under the law. However, since Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar's names were part of the document, it wasn't hard to figure out the rest. After the documents were released, the youngest victim, who is still a minor, asked a judge to have the documents destroyed in case the document was ever released without deleting the names of the minors. The judge complied, and the documents were destroyed a few days after their release. I seriously doubt the sheriff did anything illegal--if anything, she might have been prosecuted under the FOIA if she had not released the documents. (I am not very familiar with the FOIA.)

Note: Only four of Josh's victims were his sisters. In the interview last night, the Duggars said the fifth victim was a babysitter. 

[franciscanheart]

And apparently the babysitter was asleep and didn't know it had happened? This story is so strange.

[hotpink]

And apparently the babysitter was asleep and didn't know it had happened? This story is so strange.

​It is really strange....but then again who exactly to you call to watch your kids when you have a a dozen?  It's not like you can call the college kid from across the street.

[CrossCuT]

I dont really know what to think. I was reading more of the interview with the family and the girls and I dunno. I dont want to hate on the girls who were molested, but they have such an odd view. They dont seem concerned about molestation fears for others and simultaneously condemn the media for blowing this out of proportion, minimize what he did to them, but also still claim to be victims. I dunno. Its just all so weird.

Half of me understands their reaction I mean, he is their son/brother, of course they still love him etc and Im sure finding that out about your son is very shocking and difficult. but I dont understand the minimization of what he did or the blatant disregard for getting him help.

I do find a mild sense of irony in the fact they were only angry about the virility of the case and not the case itself when their entire life is based in the public eye. Cmon people, what did you expect?

[beatitude]

I dont really know what to think. I was reading more of the interview with the family and the girls and I dunno. I dont want to hate on the girls who were molested, but they have such an odd view. They dont seem concerned about molestation fears for others and simultaneously condemn the media for blowing this out of proportion, minimize what he did to them, but also still claim to be victims. I dunno. Its just all so weird.

​It's not weird at all. Minimisation is a very common reaction among abuse victims. In fact, it's common for them to take it even further and idolise their abuser while denigrating themselves - thinking of the abuser as practically perfect and assuming that they must have done bad things to deserve what happened. I saw it all the time in the child and adolescent psychiatric unit where I used to work. We all received specialist training in how to respond to it.

[hotpink]

I dont really know what to think. I was reading more of the interview with the family and the girls and I dunno. I dont want to hate on the girls who were molested, but they have such an odd view. They dont seem concerned about molestation fears for others and simultaneously condemn the media for blowing this out of proportion, minimize what he did to them, but also still claim to be victims. I dunno. Its just all so weird.

Half of me understands their reaction I mean, he is their son/brother, of course they still love him etc and Im sure finding that out about your son is very shocking and difficult. but I dont understand the minimization of what he did or the blatant disregard for getting him help.

I do find a mild sense of irony in the fact they were only angry about the virility of the case and not the case itself when their entire life is based in the public eye. Cmon people, what did you expect?

​I agree with beaitiude...

...they came off more like brainwashed victims than anything else.

[Archaeology cat]

​It's not weird at all. Minimisation is a very common reaction among abuse victims. In fact, it's common for them to take it even further and idolise their abuser while denigrating themselves - thinking of the abuser as practically perfect and assuming that they must have done bad things to deserve what happened. I saw it all the time in the child and adolescent psychiatric unit where I used to work. We all received specialist training in how to respond to it.

​Especially when you consider that the counseling doc from ATI suggests the victim did something to encourage it to begin with. (I think @Cherie posted that doc earlier?)

[PhuturePriest]

As far as I remember, InTouch Magazine requested the Duggar documents under the Freedom of Information Act. I assume that if a law enforcement agency is required to release documents under the FOIA, then the sheriff had no choice but to release them. The documents did remove all the names of minors, which I assume is required under the law. However, since Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar's names were part of the document, it wasn't hard to figure out the rest. After the documents were released, the youngest victim, who is still a minor, asked a judge to have the documents destroyed in case the document was ever released without deleting the names of the minors. The judge complied, and the documents were destroyed a few days after their release. I seriously doubt the sheriff did anything illegal--if anything, she might have been prosecuted under the FOIA if she had not released the documents. (I am not very familiar with the FOIA.)

Note: Only four of Josh's victims were his sisters. In the interview last night, the Duggars said the fifth victim was a babysitter. 

​Doesn't hold, because according to the Freedom of Information Act, there are restrictions: 

Jim Bob said he and Michelle are in touch with attorneys about suing the chief and possibly the city of Springdale. According to Fox News' Los Angeles Correspondent, Trace Gallagher, "the release was approved by the Springdale police chief and city attorney.  Exactly why they approved it is still a mystery, because they haven't commented or returned our messages. But the mayor of Springdale supported them, saying, 'from every indication I have, the chief and city attorney reluctantly did what they had to do to comply with the state freedom of information law.'"

However, Gallagher says "freedom of information laws in Arkansas clearly state 'Records of the arrest of a juvenile, the detention of a juvenile shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.'"

[CrossCuT]

​Especially when you consider that the counseling doc from ATI suggests the victim did something to encourage it to begin with. (I think @Cherie posted that doc earlier?)

​Ah yes I didnt consider this. They probably do think that it was their fault for maybe provoking him in some way if they were dressed immodestly? Ugh! So awful. those poor girls

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

​Doesn't hold, because according to the Freedom of Information Act, there are restrictions: 

Jim Bob said he and Michelle are in touch with attorneys about suing the chief and possibly the city of Springdale. According to Fox News' Los Angeles Correspondent, Trace Gallagher, "the release was approved by the Springdale police chief and city attorney.  Exactly why they approved it is still a mystery, because they haven't commented or returned our messages. But the mayor of Springdale supported them, saying, 'from every indication I have, the chief and city attorney reluctantly did what they had to do to comply with the state freedom of information law.'"

However, Gallagher says "freedom of information laws in Arkansas clearly state 'Records of the arrest of a juvenile, the detention of a juvenile shall be confidential and shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.'"​

If a judge in Arkansas decides that the release of the records was illegal, then I'll believe that.

Until then, I'm not going to trust the opinion of a Fox News correspondent from Los Angeles over opinion of the city attorney of Springdale. 

FP--I know you want to think the Duggars are great. But, I think they are grasping at straws to try to not take responsibility for the way they handled Josh's acts of molestation. Even if the victims were asleep, if a teenage boy touches the breasts and genitals of a younger female (especially of a five-year old!!!) both over and under her clothes, without her consent, that is molestation.

The Duggars were very naive to think that they could be on reality TV and yet keep their secrets private--especially when those "secrets" involved the police. Even though he was 14/15 at the time, Josh Duggar committed some acts that qualify as felonies--not just "bad mistakes." The Duggars accepted money and allowed their children to appear on reality TV. It's too late now to shout "Our personal lives should be private" when they have allowed the cameras to do things such as film the actual labor and birth of their grandchildren.

Whether they admit it or not, the Duggars have have been presenting themselves as examples of a strong Christian family. Mrs. Duggar accepted a "Mother of the Year" award. The Duggars speak on family values at conferences (for which they are almost certainly paid). You can't present yourself as a role model unless you are willing to "walk the walk." 

I think that if the Duggars really cared about their children's privacy, they would ask that their show be cancelled, and go back to living in obscurity. Although Jim Bob said in the interview last night that he was fine if the show was cancelled, I suspect that the family has gotten used to the extra money and fame they have gained from the show. For example, Josh Duggar has never struck me as unusually smart. I doubt he would have gotten his lobbyist job in Washington D.C. had he not been a Duggar.

If the Duggars really wanted to protect the privacy of Josh's victims (one of whom wasn't even a family member) they would not have allowed the Duggar reality show in the first place.

Whether they like it or not, the Duggars can't have it both ways. They can't let cameras into their home for a "reality show" and then later claim their privacy has been violated.

 

[hotpink]

If a judge in Arkansas decides that the release of the records was illegal, then I'll believe that.

Until then, I'm not going to trust the opinion of a Fox News correspondent from Los Angeles over opinion of the city attorney of Springdale. 

FP--I know you want to think the Duggars are great. But, I think they are grasping at straws to try to not take responsibility for the way they handled Josh's acts of molestation. Even if the victims were asleep, if a teenage boy touches the breasts and genitals of a younger female (especially of a five-year old!!!) both over and under her clothes, without her consent, that is molestation.

The Duggars were very naive to think that they could be on reality TV and yet keep their secrets private--especially when those "secrets" involved the police. Even though he was 14/15 at the time, Josh Duggar committed some acts that qualify as felonies--not just "bad mistakes." The Duggars accepted money and allowed their children to appear on reality TV. It's too late now to shout "Our personal lives should be private" when they have allowed the cameras to do things such as film the actual labor and birth of their grandchildren.

Whether they admit it or not, the Duggars have have been presenting themselves as examples of a strong Christian family. Mrs. Duggar accepted a "Mother of the Year" award. The Duggars speak on family values at conferences (for which they are almost certainly paid). You can't present yourself as a role model unless you are willing to "walk the walk." 

I think that if the Duggars really cared about their children's privacy, they would ask that their show be cancelled, and go back to living in obscurity. Although Jim Bob said in the interview last night that he was fine if the show was cancelled, I suspect that the family has gotten used to the extra money and fame they have gained from the show. For example, Josh Duggar has never struck me as unusually smart. I doubt he would have gotten his lobbyist job in Washington D.C. had he not been a Duggar.

If the Duggars really wanted to protect the privacy of Josh's victims (one of whom wasn't even a family member) they would not have allowed the Duggar reality show in the first place.

Whether they like it or not, the Duggars can't have it both ways. They can't let cameras into their home for a "reality show" and then later claim their privacy has been violated.

 

​Well said.

 

I think what many people fail to understand is that the Duggars are part of the larger circle of what I call "mommy bloggers" who are so celebrated that they can literally comitt, be charged with and not apologize for child abuse and still be incredibly popular and sought after speakers.  The Pennintons (With Alecia Pennington I posted about before).  The mother blogged about abusing her 2yo, was investigated, was charged, and was still seen as a hero when less than 5 years later her eldest daughter left at age 18.  Even though there have been civil cases there are still hundereds of people who support not her, but her parents.  She joins a host of other young people who "don't exist" or other semi-public mommy blogger supporters.  There's another girl who's mother admitted to throwing a fryingpan at her head age 9, knocking her out, becuase she was protesting doing dishes after she cooked for her family (at that point 5 kids and two adults).  The entire family on a radio broadcast laughed at  her saying that she was "being dramatic" and while it was true she was leaving out vital details becuase one of the children had a broken foot and couldnt help and her mom was dealing with a misscariage.  Now, don't get me wrong being a parent of 5 kids and dealing with loosing a baby would be horrible but I don't think that even is acceptable.  Yet there are many people that still support the parents and jump on the girl's blog and tell her that she needs to forgive her parents and thst she's a horrible ingrate.  Its just crazy.

But still the Duggars are just a big cog in a very scarry wheelhouse.

[Ice_nine]

 

One of the girls was crying during the interview because of everything in the media which is the only thing I didnt like. I dont like that this has all been dug back up and put in their faces. Shame shame shame on Fox News for interviewing them.

 

​So shame on Fox news for interviewing the victims but not shame on the media channels who blew up this story? I suspect the motives of all media outlets, and I really don't like supporting Fox news but they agreed to interview with them.

[veritasluxmea]

​It's not weird at all. Minimisation is a very common reaction among abuse victims. In fact, it's common for them to take it even further and idolise their abuser while denigrating themselves - thinking of the abuser as practically perfect and assuming that they must have done bad things to deserve what happened. I saw it all the time in the child and adolescent psychiatric unit where I used to work. We all received specialist training in how to respond to it.

​I'm curious, can you share how you were supposed to respond to minimization? I think I see this in some areas of life and am just wondering what the thinking is or what you can say, that sort of thing. 

[franciscanheart]

But who knows, maybe the victims wanted to speak out. In this case,it was 3 of Josh's sisters. They said during the fox interview that they blame the media and love their brother etc...which is not an unexpected response. I dont judge them for how they feel in this case because their experiences are personal. But I do judge Fox News.

One of the girls was crying during the interview because of everything in the media which is the only thing I didnt like. I dont like that this has all been dug back up and put in their faces. Shame shame shame on Fox News for interviewing them.

​They didn't have to do the interview. They chose to do it, so you can't really blame Fox for that whole mess.

[hotpink]

​They didn't have to do the interview. They chose to do it, so you can't really blame Fox for that whole mess.

​Given their pathology (I mean who couldn't predict they'd defend their brother and blame themselves?????)it was a rather cruel thing to do.  Alought another poster was right in that they probably were better off with fox than other news outlets.

[CrossCuT]

I know it would never happen, but it would be nice to have a news station show discretion with these types of things. And Id like to clarify, I dont care what they did/said about josh, but I do care about the victims being brought into it. Maybe an anonymous statement could have been released I dunno.

But I suppose you cant blame a station for exploiting the publicity when the people approach them.