Duggar interview

[cabanafrau]

They did hire an attorney in 2006. There are details from that time of refusing an interview with a detective. And I agree with you that they didn't figure this out, but it sure looks like their attorney might have realized what was in the parents and son's "best interest". Ugh. Once again forgetting the victims.

From what I understand the statute may have run by the time legal counsel and the authorities were involved. What I don't think the public and the media grasp is that to a very large extent this case may not have played out much differently were the authorities involved 5 min after the first incident took place. I think for their own reasons this family is not sharing what happened during the pendency of the protective services case.

 

[DisneyLvr55]

I wonder what other sealed records are out there, waiting to be leaked....

I only saw a small snippet on GMA this morning, but when the mom said something to the effect of "well, you can do your best with your kids, but you can't control everything they do" really upset me. To a point, that is true - However, if the kid comes to you THREE TIMES to confess what hes done and you do nothing, you can no longer blame it on the child - Its your fault as a crappy parent!!

 

[Luv2Run]

This will probably make everyone flip out, but it is often preferable to keep those offenders who present as likely incentivized to become serial offenders under house arrest also. This is done to try and limit their access to victims and is pursued when parents or guardians have demonstrated they are fully onboard with all treatment protocols and are fully engaged in the treatment process. Extreme supervision is put in place here and quite frankly these offenders more often than not break rules and wind up held in the system or under supervision as long as possible. Generally these are cases where they wind up on the registry as a youthful offender because it is recognized they may indeed wind up as lifelong offenders if left unchecked. It is also preferable to pursue house arrest here to not only limit the potential to reoffend, but especially important to avoid hooking up a potential predator with a college level education in all matters of criminality, that's gasoline on a fire for sure.

Thanks for the info, that really helps me understand how younger offenders' situations are processed. It makes sense that they wouldn't be lumped in with other types of criminals (thieves, arsonists, etc). What you posted made me think of two questions, though: 1) Would they still recommend house arrest when the victims are family members? That seems a little...risky to me, to say the least. Especially in such a large family as the Duggars. And 2) I assume they take into account the family size and parents' ability to extremely supervise their child, right? In a family the size of the Duggars, I can't imagine that a judge would deem either Michelle or Jim Bob fit for providing the level of extreme supervision that this type of case would call for. Even if the judge were to not take into account their level of delusion over the severity of what happened due to their religious beliefs/brainwashing, but just the mere fact that they had, what, 12 or 13 other children at the time to care for.

(I hope that made sense. I'm having trouble separating my feelings of anger from my logical thinking processes, so forgive me if I lost you there!)

 

[cabanafrau]

I wonder what other sealed records are out there, waiting to be leaked....

I only saw a small snippet on GMA this morning, but when the mom said something to the effect of "well, you can do your best with your kids, but you can't control everything they do" really upset me. To a point, that is true - However, if the kid comes to you THREE TIMES to confess what hes done, you can no longer blame it on the child - Its your fault as a crappy parent!!

If legitimately sealed records are indeed leaked at this point I expect prosecution and lawsuits. The police reports were left in a bit of a no man's land, but improperly handled all the same. Juvenile and family court records that involve juveniles are a horse of another color.

 

[gwynne]

Thanks for the info, that really helps me understand how younger offenders' situations are processed. It makes sense that they wouldn't be lumped in with other types of criminals (theives, arsonists, etc). What you posted made me think of two questions, though: 1) Would they still recommend house arrest when the victims are family members? That seems a little...risky to me, to say the least. Especially in such a large family as the Duggars. And 2) I assume they take into account the family size and parents' ability to extremely supervise their child, right? In a family the size of the Duggars, I can't imagine that a judge would deem either Michelle or Jim Bob fit for providing the level of extreme supervision that this type of case would call for. Even if the judge were to not take into account their level of delusion over the severity of what happened due to their religious beliefs/brainwashing, but just the mere fact that they had, what, 12 or 13 other children at the time to care for.

(I hope that made sense. I'm having trouble separating my feelings of anger from my logical thinking processes, so forgive me if I lost you there!)

Great points and questions. May I add that in addition to the parents having so many children, they routinely turn the care of the children over to "buddies". How in the world are children raising children going to keep an eye out for worrisome indicators?
The whole set up is risky to me.

 

[Dawnlight]

Truthfully, in the lives of John and Jill Q. Public the repercussions of an incident like the one that's apparently taking shape in this case would not have ongoing or long-lasting legal repercussions. As I understand the situation it would have been handled largely under the umbrella of a protective services case, as this one was, in family and/or juvenile court supervision, as this one was.

As unsettling as it is to hear, incidents like this happen and families go on. Some families continue on fractured. Some families heal, including forgiveness. It's not forgotten, but if they can move on and salvage family bonds, that is their right and their business. The fact this family participated in reality TV doesn't change their right to do so. The fact that this family lives a less than mainstream lifestyle doesn't negate their right to do so. What I would do, how I would feel or act doesn't affect their right to do as they will.

For all of the so called public concern for the victims, IMO this circus is victimizing in a horrible way. Now even when they express anything in their own words it's brushed aside as untrue. Who gives anybody that right to speak for them?

Agreed.

It's also strange for me to see so many people commenting about what should have happened, how they would have managed the situation. Anyone can think they would do X in a given situation, but once faced with it, they make react completely differently. I was faced with this situation when it came to one of my pregnancies. I thought I'd never terminate for any reason, but once faced with a test result that showed a very high likelihood of my baby having a chromosomal defect that would most likely result in death shortly after birth, I rethought my position (thankfully, that baby was fine). Since then, I've rethought my position several times; thinking evolves with more knowledge and time. No one can know how they'll react in any given situation.

Some women that are raped and become pregnant choose to terminate, some chose to carry the baby and put it up for adoption, some chose to carry the baby and raise that child. Some people go off to war and come back to lead normal lives; some go off to war and come home with PTSD, get counseling and heal; some go off to war, get counseling and still struggle on a daily basis.

There is no one right choice; it's personal. I can see the same applied here; there is no one right way; it's personal to the individual family and I think it's wrong to assume that they went about it the wrong way just because it was different than what others might have chosen to do. To assume the girls are not healed and are just living horrible, traumatized lives is wrong.

 

[CdnCarrie]

There is no one right choice; it's personal. I can see the same applied here; there is no one right way; it's personal to the individual family and I think it's wrong to assume that they went about it the wrong way just because it was different than what others might have chosen to do. To assume the girls are not healed and are just living horrible, traumatized lives is wrong.

I agree. People are projecting what they THINK happened onto the scenario. We weren't there so we don't know all the details. Of course it was wrong but I think that people are blowing this way out of proportion because it wasn't handled the way they think it should be handled.

 

[cabanafrau]

Thanks for the info, that really helps me understand how younger offenders' situations are processed. It makes sense that they wouldn't be lumped in with other types of criminals (thieves, arsonists, etc). What you posted made me think of two questions, though: 1) Would they still recommend house arrest when the victims are family members? That seems a little...risky to me, to say the least. Especially in such a large family as the Duggars. And 2) I assume they take into account the family size and parents' ability to extremely supervise their child, right? In a family the size of the Duggars, I can't imagine that a judge would deem either Michelle or Jim Bob fit for providing the level of extreme supervision that this type of case would call for. Even if the judge were to not take into account their level of delusion over the severity of what happened due to their religious beliefs/brainwashing, but just the mere fact that they had, what, 12 or 13 other children at the time to care for.

(I hope that made sense. I'm having trouble separating my feelings of anger from my logical thinking processes, so forgive me if I lost you there!)

Generally in the immediate aftermath of a family-centric incident the offender must be removed. Investigation and intense evaluation of the offender would take place. Dependent upon many factors the family may be then reunited at a determined point in time with safety plan in place. A safety plan addresses many areas, not simply immediate safety as you might read it to be, but ongoing measures to improve and educate long-term.

I suspect during the time the family was under court supervision many services were undertaken that the family has chosen to keep private. Participation in and successful completion of these services is probably why the case was closed. It may not be popular to say to a bloodthirsty public demanding their pound of flesh, but the reality is that by the time the authorities were involved the danger may have in fact passed, so satisfaction of treatment goals was not such a huge barrier to overcome. Sort of like undertaking disaster preparedness more methodically and calmly when you know there will be no hurricane or earthquake before you have everything in order.

We've speculated about this case at work and none of the people I've talked with who specialize in that area think there is any ongoing threat. Several of them actually have grave concern for the offender surviving this firestorm. When professionals who specialize in prosecuting and treating these crimes stop to express concern for the offender it stops you cold. It's sort of like a purple giraffe just walked in the room. Don't get me wrong, they care about the victims. More than one of them said they have a bad feeling the public sentiment and media spotlight are likely to cause a tragedy.

ETA: When I refer to preferring the house arrest over incarcerating juvenile offenders, I was referring to incarceration in "juvie" or the youth system, not jail and certainly not prison. It is common in a great many juvenile delinquency matters to keep all but hardened youth offenders out of the youth system because you wind up tipping at risk kids who are dipping their toe in the water into the deep end and coming out with hardened criminal tendencies in place.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The morons don't even understand what Sophie's choice means.....hahaha

I've never watched the movie or read the book and I'm not entirely sure I know. Is that like a catch-22?

 

[LukenDC]

Incest between siblings is relatively rare. I wonder if the large number of children in the home, and the methods of parenting (i.e. buddy system), weakened the natural bonds between siblings. Is it possible for a Duggar child to form a deep sibling bond with all 18 of his/her brothers and sisters?

 

[Dizlvr]

Truthfully, in the lives of John and Jill Q. Public the repercussions of an incident like the one that's apparently taking shape in this case would not have ongoing or long-lasting legal repercussions. As I understand the situation it would have been handled largely under the umbrella of a protective services case, as this one was, in family and/or juvenile court supervision, as this one was.

As unsettling as it is to hear, incidents like this happen and families go on. Some families continue on fractured. Some families heal, including forgiveness. It's not forgotten, but if they can move on and salvage family bonds, that is their right and their business. The fact this family participated in reality TV doesn't change their right to do so. The fact that this family lives a less than mainstream lifestyle doesn't negate their right to do so. What I would do, how I would feel or act doesn't affect their right to do as they will.

For all of the so called public concern for the victims, IMO this circus is victimizing in a horrible way. Now even when they express anything in their own words it's brushed aside as untrue. Who gives anybody that right to speak for them?

To be fair, I personally don't believe the women in that family really do get to speak for themselves, about anything.

At this point, its the Duggar's turning this into a circus, most likely for profit. They can't sit there an complain that it should have never been made public and then do these interviews. They should have just made a simple statement that the situation was handled within the family years ago and out of respect for the victims we won't be discussing it.
I have no problem judging them, what they do, what they say, or anything about their lives. That is the price they pay for pimping themselves out to make a buck.

 

[Luv2Run]

Generally in the immediate aftermath of a family-centric incident the offender must be removed. Investigation and intense evaluation of the offender would take place. Dependent upon many factors the family may be then reunited at a determined point in time with safety plan in place. A safety plan addresses many areas, not simply immediate safety as you might read it to be, but ongoing measures to improve and educate long-term.

I suspect during the time the family was under court supervision many services were undertaken that the family has chosen to keep private. Participation in and successful completion of these services is probably why the case was closed. It may not be popular to say to a bloodthirsty public demanding their pound of flesh, but the reality is that by the time the authorities were involved the danger may have in fact passed, so satisfaction of treatment goals was not such a huge barrier to overcome. Sort of like undertaking disaster preparedness more methodically and calmly when you know there will be no hurricane or earthquake before you have everything in order.

We've speculated about this case at work and none of the people I've talked with who specialize in that area think there is any ongoing threat. Several of them actually have grave concern for the offender surviving this firestorm. When professionals who specialize in prosecuting and treating these crimes stop to express concern for the offender it stops you cold. It's sort of like a purple giraffe just walked in the room. Don't get me wrong, they care about the victims. More than one of them said they have a bad feeling the public sentiment and media spotlight are likely to cause a tragedy.

THANK YOU! It's such a relief talking to someone who can speak from a professional side. Up until now, I've really had a bad taste in my mouth over this whole situation, and while I still am having a hard time accepting what happened, my hackles are starting to go down a bit. I'm still very much enraged over the hypocrisy, but that doesn't change what happened in the past. I guess out of everything, I just wish they would own up to what happened instead of dancing around the issue or mincing words to try to make themselves seem like the pinnacle of Christianity. It still really bothers me.

 

[SMD]

I've never watched the movie or read the book and I'm not entirely sure I know. Is that like a catch-22?

She gets to Auschwitz with her daughter and son, they tell her she can only keep one, the other is going to be immediately killed. I think using either term to explain the situation is inaccurate. There was no one or the other choice here. It was the interviewer who brought that term up. Their response was Jesus protected the flock and rescued the one who strayed, and that didn't mean he wasn't a good shepherd. Immediately followed with when they did remove him from the home after the 3rd time he admitted he did something (there were 5 victims at this point when originally there were only 2) that even after he left the girls still didn't know that the inappropriate touching was wrong and Michelle had to tell them that he did a bad thing. So to compare choosing which of your children should die immediately vs. sending a child who is abusing your other children temporarily out of the home is hardly the same thing.

 

[cabanafrau]

To be fair, I personally don't believe the women in that family really do get to speak for themselves, about anything.

At this point, its the Duggar's turning this into a circus, most likely for profit. They can't sit there an complain that it should have never been made public and then do these interviews. They should have just made a simple statement that the situation was handled within the family years ago and out of respect for the victims we won't be discussing it.
I have no problem judging them, what they do, what they say, or anything about their lives. That is the price they pay for pimping themselves out to make a buck.

That's not my chosen lifestyle either.

I suspect the decision to do an interview was to preserve the possibility of a TV production to continue. Do I wish they had done otherwise? Absolutely.

As far as judging them, I am guilty of that. I don't think my feelings about the parents give me carte blanche to rip all of them to shreds, particularly knowing that several of them at a minimum are hurting terribly for a situation far beyond their control.

 

[kidshop]

Truthfully, in the lives of John and Jill Q. Public the repercussions of an incident like the one that's apparently taking shape in this case would not have ongoing or long-lasting legal repercussions. As I understand the situation it would have been handled largely under the umbrella of a protective services case, as this one was, in family and/or juvenile court supervision, as this one was.

As unsettling as it is to hear, incidents like this happen and families go on. Some families continue on fractured. Some families heal, including forgiveness. It's not forgotten, but if they can move on and salvage family bonds, that is their right and their business. The fact this family participated in reality TV doesn't change their right to do so. The fact that this family lives a less than mainstream lifestyle doesn't negate their right to do so. What I would do, how I would feel or act doesn't affect their right to do as they will.

For all of the so called public concern for the victims, IMO this circus is victimizing in a horrible way. Now even when they express anything in their own words it's brushed aside as untrue. Who gives anybody that right to speak for them?

The fact that they put themselves and their children on a tv show as the pinnacle of purity is exactly why we know who the victims and perpetrator are. They sold wholesomeness as their brand and judge others who do not live as they do.

Maybe not the smartest choice.

 

[robinb]

I just watched the videos. According to Michelle releasing the records was a "lesbian agenda"? Did I hear that right?

 

[asta]

I have never watched or paid any attention to these people. It is ridiculous to make celebrities out of people just because they had a lot of children. And now we find that they were not even able to be suitable parents to all of them, particularly the young girls.

Two things:
1-HYPOCRITES
2-Did this young man who molested/xxxxxxx abused his sisters get sufficient treatment to protect young females who come in contact with him? Protections are in place for people like him who go through the justice system to help them not reoffend. Labels may hurt but are necessary to let others know that safeguards are needed when he is around young females. Does he now have children and, if so, who is watching and protecting them?

 

[TaylorEar]

I agree. People are projecting what they THINK happened onto the scenario. We weren't there so we don't know all the details. Of course it was wrong but I think that people are blowing this way out of proportion because it wasn't handled the way they think it should be handled.

Please explain how you think an almost 15-year-old boy sexually molesting his 4 year old sister is being blown "way out of proportion"...

Those are the self-admitted facts. Nobody is projecting ANYTHING. He confessed to REPEATEDLY sexually molesting MULTIPLE siblings and a babysitter. They can use words like "improper touch", and point out which incidents took place over vs. under the clothes all day long, but that does not change the facts. These were not the actions of a confused, curious, "tender hearted" young boy.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I just watched the videos. According to Michelle releasing the records was a "lesbian agenda"? Did I hear that right?

It sounds like that at first but if you listen again she says " it must be an agenda".

 

[TaylorEar]

I have never watched or paid any attention to these people. It is ridiculous to make celebrities out of people just because they had a lot of children. And now we find that they were not even able to be suitable parents to all of them, particularly the young girls.

Two things:
1-HYPOCRITES
2-Did this young man who molested/xxxxxxx abused his sisters get sufficient treatment to protect young females who come in contact with him? Protections are in place for people like him who go through the justice system to help them not reoffend. Labels may hurt but are necessary to let others know that safeguards are needed when he is around young females. Does he now have children and, if so, who is watching and protecting them?

He was sent to a "Christian" facility to receive "counseling". He was also given a "stern talking to" by somebody who is now currently in jail for child pornography.

He has 3 children, one of whom is a 5 year old girl. As for protection, I'm sure she's on a prayer chain list or something.