Duggar son allegedly molested girls including sisters

[Anonymous]

"And one more thing -- if I found out that my 14 year old son was touching a 4-5 year old sister, one of the major things I'd be wondering is whether my 14 year old son had been subject to some abuse himself. Because usually, abusers have been abused."

The cycle of abuse has been debunked by several studies. Perpetrators who were victims of abuse are in the minority. Interestingly, the highest percentage of male subjects abused in childhood by a female relative became perpetrators.

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/179/6/482

[Anonymous]

After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

What new information makes you think it is less horrible? I thought the interview made them look worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

What new information makes you think it is less horrible? I thought the interview made them look worse.

+1 oh, well, if it was only some light touching and only over the clothes of a sleeping girl, then that's nothing at all!

I think there's still more to the story - more victims, worse abuse - beyond the whitewashed story these folks want us to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

What new information makes you think it is less horrible? I thought the interview made them look worse.

+1 oh, well, if it was only some light touching and only over the clothes of a sleeping girl, then that's nothing at all!

I think there's still more to the story - more victims, worse abuse - beyond the whitewashed story these folks want us to believe.

Of course you do! And you're just DYING for somebody to dig SOMETHING up! Praying to find out someone got into drugs, or that one of them was gay, or one of them had premarital sex, ANYTHING! You'd be so thrilled, wouldn't you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

What new information makes you think it is less horrible? I thought the interview made them look worse.

+1 oh, well, if it was only some light touching and only over the clothes of a sleeping girl, then that's nothing at all!

I think there's still more to the story - more victims, worse abuse - beyond the whitewashed story these folks want us to believe.

Of course you do! And you're just DYING for somebody to dig SOMETHING up! Praying to find out someone got into drugs, or that one of them was gay, or one of them had premarital sex, ANYTHING! You'd be so thrilled, wouldn't you?

statistically speaking - one of them probably is gay. not that he/she will ever be able to express that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

What new information makes you think it is less horrible? I thought the interview made them look worse.

+1 oh, well, if it was only some light touching and only over the clothes of a sleeping girl, then that's nothing at all!

I think there's still more to the story - more victims, worse abuse - beyond the whitewashed story these folks want us to believe.

I just want to unread that last post!!!
How do suppose JimBob and Michelle qualified the touching with Josh? What kind of sick questions did they ask him before they all came to the conclusion that it wasn't reeeeaaally sexual touching of their 5 year old, just the lightest whisper of a touch. And just a few times, and few youthful, honest mistakes. Probably with clothes on. And the girls never even felt a thing. GROSSSSS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A real journalist (not Megyn) would have walked through the whole timeline of events from beginning to end. No mention of the Oprah show, the letter in the book...?

She did. Right at the beginning of the interview she went through the whole timeline of events.

Yeah, but she's from "faux news", so she doesn't count. The only credible reporters come from msnbc, didn't you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A real journalist (not Megyn) would have walked through the whole timeline of events from beginning to end. No mention of the Oprah show, the letter in the book...?

She did. Right at the beginning of the interview she went through the whole timeline of events.

Yeah, but she's from "faux news", so she doesn't count. The only credible reporters come from msnbc, didn't you know that?

I don't remember her mentioning Oprah, the letter, etc either. Did she walk through the relevant facts in the police report or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A real journalist (not Megyn) would have walked through the whole timeline of events from beginning to end. No mention of the Oprah show, the letter in the book...?

She did. Right at the beginning of the interview she went through the whole timeline of events.

Yeah, but she's from "faux news", so she doesn't count. The only credible reporters come from msnbc, didn't you know that?

I don't remember her mentioning Oprah, the letter, etc either. Did she walk through the relevant facts in the police report or not?

I haven't watched the interview.

[Anonymous]

https://youtu.be/vS4qe7ds_hA



Funny Parody of this sick. twisted family-we need a breath of "fresh air" on this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A real journalist (not Megyn) would have walked through the whole timeline of events from beginning to end. No mention of the Oprah show, the letter in the book...?

She did. Right at the beginning of the interview she went through the whole timeline of events.

Yeah, but she's from "faux news", so she doesn't count. The only credible reporters come from msnbc, didn't you know that?

I don't remember her mentioning Oprah, the letter, etc either. Did she walk through the relevant facts in the police report or not?

Yes she mentioned Oprah. The word "letter" was not specifically used but she did ask about how the information came to light and that specific situation. Yes, she did walk through the facts in the police report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After reading the new police report and watching the interview I believe this is not as horrible as some want to make it out to be.

I think the family handled it as best they could with the tools they had at the time.

What new information makes you think it is less horrible? I thought the interview made them look worse.

+1 oh, well, if it was only some light touching and only over the clothes of a sleeping girl, then that's nothing at all!

I think there's still more to the story - more victims, worse abuse - beyond the whitewashed story these folks want us to believe.

I didn't say it is nothing at all. I don't think it is as horrible as some are making it out to be either. I also take people at face value and don't seek to make a bad situation even worse just because I don't like a person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A real journalist (not Megyn) would have walked through the whole timeline of events from beginning to end. No mention of the Oprah show, the letter in the book...?

She did. Right at the beginning of the interview she went through the whole timeline of events.

Yeah, but she's from "faux news", so she doesn't count. The only credible reporters come from msnbc, didn't you know that?

Exactly. To some people she could do nothing right. I mean she isn't even a real journalist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't been following this and I'm not sure if I have all the facts straight, but here's my take:

No parent would call the police and pursue criminal charges against their tween...especially in a situation that involved groping and not rape. Anyone who says they would turn their kid in over this sort of thing is lying. If you were in their shoes, you would intervene, take precautions, and get everyone into therapy/treatment.

And I do feel bad for the girls. This info should not have been made public. Period. No victim should have their story made public without their consent. The media circus is shameful.

I can't stand the Duggars or what they stand for, but I don't think this information should have been made public. It simply isn't fair to those girls to publicize what was handled years ago. Regardless of how it might have been handled better or differently, it's not anyone else's call on sharing such private information about the victims. It's their story.

If I learned that my teenage child was fondling my kindergartner, under her clothing or while she slept one time, I would intervene and get both children into therapy. If I learned that my teenage child did this multiple times, with multiple children, I would still get both children into therapy, but I would also tell the police.

Doing otherwise sends the message to the abused child, who is also your child, that you care more about protecting their abuser than them.