Josh Duggar acknowledges he sexually molested underage girls including some of his sisters,

[Underseer]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...lls-us-about-conservative-christian-morality/

As with the Catholic child molestation scandals, it's not the molestation that's the issue, it's the excuses made for the molestation, and the things done to sweep the whole thing under the rug as quickly as possible. It's the fact that those involved are clearly more interested in maintaining the illusion of moral superiority than in the welfare of children.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Another Duggar Bombshell: Josh Sued The State Of Arkansas Over DHS Investigation

​

From In Touch Weekly:

The Josh Duggar molestation case did not end when Springdale, Ark. police closed their investigation in 2006 because the statute of limitations had run out, In Touch Weekly is reporting exclusively. Police referred the matter to the Families in Need of Services agency, which has jurisdiction over minors. The Department of Human Services (DHS) was then brought into the case, In Touch has learned. Nine months after those agencies entered the Duggar molestation case, Josh Duggar sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services. A trial was held on August 6, 2007. The results of the investigation into the Duggars and Josh’s trial are sealed. But a source familiar with the Duggar investigation told In Touch it was likely that Josh “appealed the DHS decision or finding from their investigation.” The source notes that DHS had the authority to apply “restrictions or stipulations about him being at home with the victims."​

So it appears that Josh Duggar sued so that he could stay in the family home with his victims. In 2007 he was 19 years old. The Duggars are refusing to comment about the trial.

 

[Derec]

If the victims were sleeping, age doesn't even matter, whether older or younger.

It would not make it ok (although it would be worse with younger victims) by any stretch.
However, my point about them being relatively close in age (excluding the 5 year old, if that happened) was the comment by credoconsolans that Josh would be a threat to his own children. It was not to excuse his behavior.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

However, my point about them being relatively close in age (excluding the 5 year old, if that happened) was the comment by credoconsolans that Josh would be a threat to his own children. It was not to excuse his behavior.

So, if you exclude the part about him sexually assaulting a much younger relative of his, there's no reason to assume that he'd be a threat to his younger relatives?

Isn't that like saying if you exclude the part about Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, there's no reason to decline his invitation to come over for dinner?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the victims were sleeping, age doesn't even matter, whether older or younger.

It would not make it ok (although it would be worse with younger victims) by any stretch.
However, my point about them being relatively close in age (excluding the 5 year old, if that happened)...

But they aren't relatively close in age. A kid in high school and a fifth grader are very far apart!

That he did it repeatedly would be a serious future danger sign.

- - - Updated - - -

However, my point about them being relatively close in age (excluding the 5 year old, if that happened) was the comment by credoconsolans that Josh would be a threat to his own children. It was not to excuse his behavior.

So, if you exclude the part about him sexually assaulting a much younger relative of his, there's no reason to assume that he'd be a threat to his younger relatives?

Isn't that like saying if you exclude the part about Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, there's no reason to decline his invitation to come over for dinner?

Derec is insisting that because Josh is substantially older than his children, there isn't a threat to his children. He bases this on the evidence that Josh may not have molested a five year sister. I don't think that is a reasonable interpretations, especially if he hasn't seen real help.

 

[Derec]

Josh Duggar fully admits that he molested four of his sisters and a non-family female without their consent and even while they were asleep.

Do you have a link to the direct quote by Josh? Because my understanding is that the ages and identities are a matter of conjecture and guesswork.
In fact, this is the only statement by Josh I know of:

Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends.

No mention of number.
Besides, the four eldest Dugger daughters are 12, 11, 10 and 9 while Jo-Anna (who turned 5 in October 2002) is 5th eldest daughter. So even if he did molest 4 of his sisters in addition to overnight visitors I do not see how people get to the 5 year old anyway.

You made a declaration about Josh and his victims (plural) being close in age as if that makes his behavior less harmful.

I made that "declaration" in response to credoconsolans who said that Dugger would possibly be a danger to his own kids. I do not think his behavior, as wrong as it is, indicates that he is into kids as an adult.

The reality is that only one of his sisters was "close in age" by two years.

Why would a three or 4 year gap not also be close in age? Why the cutoff at 2?

That leaves three of the four even younger sisters, including the five year old, who were also molested by him.

I still do not see any basis for the claim that Joy-Anna would have been one of the victims. She isn't even among the 4 eldest daughters. Did she make any claims about this herself? Note also that she is technically still a minor today, turning 18 in October.

We don't know which four of the sisters he molested. We only know that there were four admitted to, and that means that all of his victims were between 2 to 10 years younger than him.

Again, show me where he admits to molesting four of his sisters. I haven't seen any report about him being that specific in his admission. Hence all the conjecture and guesswork by the likes of Gawker.

Even if being "close in age" somehow minimizes his predatory behavior (& it doesn't), his victims were not "close in age". They were all pre-teens when he started molesting them, and all were almost certainly pre-pubescent.

I did not say it minimizes anything, just that it's not indicative of him being into kids as an adult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The reality is that only one of his sisters was "close in age" by two years.

Why would a three or 4 year gap not also be close in age? Why the cutoff at 2?

2 is being charitable. 4 is unthinkable. 9th grader and a 5th grader? On what planet is that close maturation wise?

 

[Derec]

You can do math, right?

You can count, right?

In 2002 the older daughter (born 1990) was 12. Then going down the clown car list, they were 11, 10, 9, 5. He was 14. So he was 3, 4, 5, and 9 years older.

That's 5 of his sisters, not 4: Jana Marie (1990), Jill Michelle (1991), Jessa Lauren (1992), Jinger Nicole (1993) and 5th eldest daughter Joy-Anna (1997) [the gap is there because there are two boys in between]. So if he molested his 4 oldest sisters the biggest gap would have been to Jinger Nicole which is 5 years - not that small but not 10 years either. But we don't even know he molested four sisters for sure, it could just as easily have been three or two (in which case the age gap would be substantially lower).

Many high schoolers hitting that 5th grader booty these days? And that is the best he can look here with what he has admitted to.

But he wasn't in high school. Jinger Nicole wasn't in 5th grade. They were all home-schooled and rather isolated. They weren't socialized normally. I would say their parents, with their strange ways bear at least as much blame for Josh's behavior as he does himself. After all, his guilt must be mitigated by the fact that he was a kid himself at the time.
But listen, I am not saying he looks good or that he is blameless, just that this doesn't mean he is a pedophile who is a danger to his own children or, say, nieces. I know such nuance is way too much for many on this board who like to deal in stark black and white.

 

[Derec]

So, if you exclude the part about him sexually assaulting a much younger relative of his, there's no reason to assume that he'd be a threat to his younger relatives?
Isn't that like saying if you exclude the part about Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, there's no reason to decline his invitation to come over for dinner?

Except that there is no evidence he molested Joy-Anna while there is a lot of evidence that Dahmer ate people. So not a good analogy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can count, right?

In 2002 the older daughter (born 1990) was 12. Then going down the clown car list, they were 11, 10, 9, 5. He was 14. So he was 3, 4, 5, and 9 years older.

That's 5 of his sisters, not 4: Jana Marie (1990), Jill Michelle (1991), Jessa Lauren (1992), Jinger Nicole (1993) and 5th eldest daughter Joy-Anna (1997) [the gap is there because there are two boys in between]. So if he molested his 4 oldest sisters the biggest gap would have been to Jinger Nicole which is less than 4 and a half years. But we don't even know he molested four sisters for sure, it could just as easily have been three or two.

Or 1 or 0! Easily!

Many high schoolers hitting that 5th grader booty these days? And that is the best he can look here with what he has admitted to.

But he wasn't in high school. Jinger Nicole wasn't in 5th grade. They were all home-schooled and rather isolated.

So that changes biology how exactly?

They weren't socialized normally. I would say their parents, with their strange ways bear at least as much blame for Josh's behavior as he does himself. After all, his guilt must be mitigated by the fact that he was a kid himself at the time.

Some blame can be mitigated by age (odd that now you are defending someone due to his age). The point was you stated that ages were pretty close. I countered that a quasi 9th grader and 5th grader are not close at all. You counter that they were raised differently in a different social climate. My response to that is that biology doesn't give a butt about social rearing.

But listen, I am not saying he looks good or that he is blameless, just that this doesn't mean he is a pedophile who is a danger to his own children or, say, nieces. I know such nuance is way too much for many on this board who like to deal in stark black and white.

What nuance are you seeking here? That the younger kids socially developed quicker, but the older kids socially developed slower, which then makes a roughly 5 year (5 grade differential) less of an issue? Or is that people think that the guy needs to be checked out by an actual doctor? Are you against that? No one is saying he is guilty of harming his own kids, but the threat definitely exists knowing that he apparently wasn't treated for this at all.

 

[Derec]

Why would a three or 4 year gap not also be close in age? Why the cutoff at 2?

2 is being charitable. 4 is unthinkable. 9th grader and a 5th grader? On what planet is that close maturation wise?

I would say Planet Quiverfull, where there is limited ability to interact with one's peers.

Also, again:
I am not saying that he did nothing wrong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

2 is being charitable. 4 is unthinkable. 9th grader and a 5th grader? On what planet is that close maturation wise?

I would say Planet Quiverfull, where there is limited ability to interact with one's peers.

Also, again:
I am not saying that he did nothing wrong.

The big bold red font doesn't help much. In fact, I was pretty clear on what I responding to what you said, ie they were close in age. I'm saying that a 9th and 5th grader are not close in age. I'm not saying you said "he did nothing wrong."

 

[blastula]

So, if you exclude the part about him sexually assaulting a much younger relative of his, there's no reason to assume that he'd be a threat to his younger relatives?
Isn't that like saying if you exclude the part about Jeffrey Dahmer eating people, there's no reason to decline his invitation to come over for dinner?

Except that there is no evidence he molested Joy-Anna while there is a lot of evidence that Dahmer ate people. So not a good analogy.

The report says he molested one girl while he was reading a book to her while she was sitting in his lap. Which one would you guess that was?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Except that there is no evidence he molested Joy-Anna while there is a lot of evidence that Dahmer ate people. So not a good analogy.

The report says he molested one girl while he was reading a book to her while she was sitting in his lap. Which one would you guess that was?

Oh glob! And the officials didn't seek professional counseling?!

While there is no good thing as "good" in this case, the above is just unthinkable. An attempt to normalize it with the child.

 

[Toni]

You can count, right?

In 2002 the older daughter (born 1990) was 12. Then going down the clown car list, they were 11, 10, 9, 5. He was 14. So he was 3, 4, 5, and 9 years older.

That's 5 of his sisters, not 4: Jana Marie (1990), Jill Michelle (1991), Jessa Lauren (1992), Jinger Nicole (1993) and 5th eldest daughter Joy-Anna (1997) [the gap is there because there are two boys in between]. So if he molested his 4 oldest sisters the biggest gap would have been to Jinger Nicole which is 5 years - not that small but not 10 years either. But we don't even know he molested four sisters for sure, it could just as easily have been three or two (in which case the age gap would be substantially lower).

Many high schoolers hitting that 5th grader booty these days? And that is the best he can look here with what he has admitted to.

But he wasn't in high school. Jinger Nicole wasn't in 5th grade. They were all home-schooled and rather isolated. They weren't socialized normally. I would say their parents, with their strange ways bear at least as much blame for Josh's behavior as he does himself. After all, his guilt must be mitigated by the fact that he was a kid himself at the time.
But listen, I am not saying he looks good or that he is blameless, just that this doesn't mean he is a pedophile who is a danger to his own children or, say, nieces. I know such nuance is way too much for many on this board who like to deal in stark black and white.

We don't actually know which 4 sisters he molested. It's just a guess that they are the ones nearest his age. The youngest is totally within the realm of possibility.

There is no suggestion of mutual playing doctor here. We have a young teenager molesting 4 of his younger siblings. I am sure the relative isolation from say: outside objective adults or knowledge of sexuality played a big role in this. But that's not the whole story. He was raised with the idea that males are in charge, females are relatively passive and subservient. That the outside world is evil and corrupt.

It's a horrible circumstance. What do parents do? Get rid of the son? Try to monitor so he never has access? They certainly love all of their children. This is true regardless of the religious leanings.

 

[Axulus]

So what exactly are people proposing here:

-He didn't get receive proper justice as a teen (not his fault, he didn't have control over that), so therefore retroactive justice should be implemented?
-Because he may be a danger to children today, he should be evaluated to make sure he isn't? On what legal grounds?
-The parents did report the activity to the police so, if anything, it was the justice system that failed here. If he wasn't given proper legally mandated counseling, or whatever, how is that his fault?

When the legal system fucks up, especially when it is in regards to a minor, there shouldn't be some form of retroactive justice to make things right. If there is new evidence that he is abusing children, that obviously merits a through investigation. It may be prudent for the mother of his children to take those children to a councilor and make sure no new abuse is taking place (that is her responsibility). But until the point that new suspicious arise, I don't see any rational basis to make him pay for the past, regardless of how hypocritical his scummy parents may be and how wrong his past actions were. The time to have properly dealt with the situation is in the past. The past can not be undone.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what exactly are people proposing here:

-He didn't get receive proper justice as a teen (not his fault, he didn't have control over that), so therefore retroactive justice should be implemented?

He hasn't received proper counseling.

-Because he may be a danger to children today, he should be evaluated to make sure he isn't? On what legal grounds?

That it appears he molested a five year old, and the circumstances of that molestation indicate he has issues.

-The parents did report the activity to the police so, if anything, it was the justice system that failed here. If he wasn't given proper legally mandated counseling, or whatever, how is that his fault?

Didn't they report it to a friend in the Police? Didn't Josh sue the state regarding their findings of the case?

When the legal system fucks up, especially when it is in regards to a minor, there shouldn't be some form of retroactive justice to make things right. If there is new evidence that he is abusing children, that obviously merits a through investigation. It may be prudent for the mother of his children to take those children to a councilor and make sure no new abuse is taking place (that is her responsibility). But until the point that new suspicious arise, I don't see any rational basis to make him pay for the past, regardless of how hypocritical his scummy parents may be and how wrong his past actions were. The time to have properly dealt with the situation is in the past. The past can not be undone.

The past can not be undone, but he can seek counseling to help to determine if he needs help.

 

[RavenSky]

You can count, right?

In 2002 the older daughter (born 1990) was 12. Then going down the clown car list, they were 11, 10, 9, 5. He was 14. So he was 3, 4, 5, and 9 years older.

That's 5 of his sisters, not 4: Jana Marie (1990), Jill Michelle (1991), Jessa Lauren (1992), Jinger Nicole (1993) and 5th eldest daughter Joy-Anna (1997) [the gap is there because there are two boys in between]. So if he molested his 4 oldest sisters the biggest gap would have been to Jinger Nicole which is 5 years - not that small but not 10 years either. But we don't even know he molested four sisters for sure, it could just as easily have been three or two (in which case the age gap would be substantially lower).

Many high schoolers hitting that 5th grader booty these days? And that is the best he can look here with what he has admitted to.

But he wasn't in high school. Jinger Nicole wasn't in 5th grade. They were all home-schooled and rather isolated. They weren't socialized normally. I would say their parents, with their strange ways bear at least as much blame for Josh's behavior as he does himself. After all, his guilt must be mitigated by the fact that he was a kid himself at the time.
But listen, I am not saying he looks good or that he is blameless, just that this doesn't mean he is a pedophile who is a danger to his own children or, say, nieces. I know such nuance is way too much for many on this board who like to deal in stark black and white.

You are ASSUMING it was the four oldest girls of the five. You have zero evidence of that, but apparently it helps you minimize what he did. Maybe he molested the four youngest and not Jana Marie. Maybe he molested the two oldest and the two youngest but skipped Jessa.

 

[RavenSky]

And the saga continues:

The Josh Duggar molestation case did not end when Springdale, Ark. police closed their investigation in 2006 because the statute of limitations had run out, In Touch Weekly is reporting exclusively.

Police referred the matter to the Families in Need of Services agency, which has jurisdiction over minors. The Department of Human Services (DHS) was then brought into the case, In Touch has learned. Nine months after those agencies entered the Duggar molestation case, Josh Duggar sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services. A trial was held on August 6, 2007.

The results of the investigation into the Duggars and Josh’s trial are sealed. But a source familiar with the Duggar investigation told In Touch it was likely that Josh “appealed the DHS decision or finding from their investigation.” The source notes that DHS had the authority to apply “restrictions or stipulations about him being at home with the victims.

http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/...e-arkansas-department-of-human-services-59201

 

[Toni]

He hasn't received proper counseling.

-Because he may be a danger to children today, he should be evaluated to make sure he isn't? On what legal grounds?

That it appears he molested a five year old, and the circumstances of that molestation indicate he has issues.

-The parents did report the activity to the police so, if anything, it was the justice system that failed here. If he wasn't given proper legally mandated counseling, or whatever, how is that his fault?

Didn't they report it to a friend in the Police? Didn't Josh sue the state regarding their findings of the case?

When the legal system fucks up, especially when it is in regards to a minor, there shouldn't be some form of retroactive justice to make things right. If there is new evidence that he is abusing children, that obviously merits a through investigation. It may be prudent for the mother of his children to take those children to a councilor and make sure no new abuse is taking place (that is her responsibility). But until the point that new suspicious arise, I don't see any rational basis to make him pay for the past, regardless of how hypocritical his scummy parents may be and how wrong his past actions were. The time to have properly dealt with the situation is in the past. The past can not be undone.

The past can not be undone, but he can seek counseling to help to determine if he needs help.

The bolded part is the most important, along with help for his victims.