Skip to main content

"The former Arkansas state trooper who did not report molestation allegations about Josh Duggar tried to kill himself while in jail for child p o r nography possession, according to a report.

Joseph Hutchens was "found lying in a pool of blood" in the fetal position in the Benton County Detention Center on April 8, 2010, according to court documents obtained by RadarOnline.

Hutchens reportedly told jail staff he fell off the top bunk, which was about 5 feet off the ground, before admitting he jumped off the bed."

http://www.nydailynews.com/ent...rt-article-1.2243399

 

Ex- trooper and current inmate Hutchens is the "counselor" the Duggars sent their pedophile son, Josh, to for rehabilitation after deciding against sending  him to a qualified rehabilitation facility.

I yam what I yam and that's all I yam--but it is enough!

Last edited by Contendah
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm surprised that you aren't trying to intimate (hint: I'm using the verb! Also hint is the synonym!) that state troopers are a nest of child molesters.

___

Why are you surprised?  I have no reason to intimate any such thing! The miscreant behavior of one state trooper does not indict the whole lot of them.  Timothy McVeigh was a veteran of the U.S. Army, but I do not characterize all veterans as domestic terrorists, simply because he was one.

 

Grow up and get real!

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm surprised that you aren't trying to intimate (hint: I'm using the verb! Also hint is the synonym!) that state troopers are a nest of child molesters.

___

Why are you surprised?  I have no reason to intimate any such thing! The miscreant behavior of one state trooper does not indict the whole lot of them.  Timothy McVeigh was a veteran of the U.S. Army, but I do not characterize all veterans as domestic terrorists, simply because he was one.

 

Grow up and get real!

Why would you think Stanky isn't real.? I'm asking for jt because I know it

will worry him.

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm surprised that you aren't trying to intimate (hint: I'm using the verb! Also hint is the synonym!) that state troopers are a nest of child molesters.

___

Why are you surprised?  I have no reason to intimate any such thing! The miscreant behavior of one state trooper does not indict the whole lot of them.  Timothy McVeigh was a veteran of the U.S. Army, but I do not characterize all veterans as domestic terrorists, simply because he was one.

 

Grow up and get real!

Why would you think Stanky isn't real.? I'm asking for jt because I know it

will worry him.

____

As usual, you make no sense!

Originally Posted by direstraits:

Don't watch "(un)reality shows."  But, the media is shoving this in our faces. Duggars are portrayed as hypocrites, while liberal actress, Len Dunham, who admitted doing much the same to her sister is left alone. MSM -- the real hypocrites  Doubt I shall post on this mess again

____

The Duggars were served up to their large TV audience as a wholesome model. There was some very un-wholesome stuff going on in that particular rabbit warren.  That having happened, they are fair game for the kind of critical attention they are now receiving. Had they been more judicious in sizing their litter, they might have been able to do a better job of sensing serious irregularities of behavior in the family.

 

Last edited by Contendah

When your 18-year-old daughter is expelled and charged with sexual battery of a child, one option is to go public and declare she’s a martyr under fire from anti-gay bias. That’s the approach taken by the parents of Kaitlyn Hunt, a Florida teen who faces two felony charges of “lewd or lascivious battery” on a child. And sure enough, the tactic has earned Hunt some high-profile left-wing media defenders.

According to the charges, Hunt, a senior at Sebastian River High School who was set to graduate this spring, pressured a 14-year-old girl four years her junior to be her “girlfriend” and engage in sexual activity with her. But when Kaitlyn faced prosecution from her underage partner’s parents, her own parents and gay activists immediately granted her victim status, claiming she was unjustly persecuted for being homosexual.

 Not surprisingly, leftie headlines followed. In the account of ThinkProgress (funded by left-wing sugar daddy George Soros), Hunt was “charged with felony for same-sex relationship with classmate,” while Huffington Post lamented that she “faces felony charges over same-sex relationship” and offers link

ThinkProgress quoted Hunt’s mother talking about the underage girl’s parents: “they feel like my daughter “made” their daughter gay. They are bigoted, religious zeolites [sic] that see being gay as a sin and wrong, and they blame my daughter.” [emphasis in original] 

Talk like that is catnip to the libertine left, always eager to take a stand against sexual prudery and oppression – especially if evil religious types are involved. 

 

 

- See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/m...sthash.sLmtsXR6.dpuf

 

===========

There was also a comedian that molested children, but because she was a big time lefty and pal of rosie o'piggy they kept that pretty quiet. Maybe someone remembers her name.

 

But then miss piggy:

 

Rosie O'Donnell Tears Into Admitted Child Molester Stephen Collins! See What She Said About Her Former Friend's Sit Down With Katie Couric HERE!

 

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

Don't watch "(un)reality shows."  But, the media is shoving this in our faces. Duggars are portrayed as hypocrites, while liberal actress, Len Dunham, who admitted doing much the same to her sister is left alone. MSM -- the real hypocrites  Doubt I shall post on this mess again

____

The Duggars were served up to their large TV audience as a wholesome model. There was some very un-wholesome stuff going on in that particular rabbit warren.  That having happened, they are fair game for the kind of critical attention they are now receiving. Had they been more judicious in sizing their litter, they might have been able to do a better job of sensing serious irregularities of behavior in the family.

 

The activity would have never been discovered had the person who did it (as a child) not felt back and sought forgiveness for it.  The parents did what any parent would do and that's try and handle it the best way they knew or felt would be successful.  They removed him from the house and they all forgave him after he sought their forgiveness.  Years AFTER that happened they started the TV show and not before it happened.  They had already dealt with it and had notified the Police and Family Services and were cleared way before the TV show.  

 

People (with an agenda and purpose to financially hurt the family) now, today, release what was promised to be sealed and private information knowing they are about to retire and can't be fired for releasing it.   A publication (today) decides to publish the information about the family, the girls and what happened so many years ago, in order to try and get their show cancelled and to embarrass them knowing that the victims can be discovered.  Neither the publication or the State employee who released the documents cared one bit about how it would effect the original victims.  

 

Just who are the real evil parties here?

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

Last edited by Stanky
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

___

The "best way" to handle the kind of problem the Duggars had was not the legal way, and as it turns out, it was a very dubious way, seeing that one of the counselors they placed him with has been convicted of child ****ography.  And do not assume that children always "grow out of such things." Very often, "such things" continue and escalate into worse things and the way to head that off is to seek approved professional help, not the aid of some person without proper credentials and training.

 

The Duggars continue to misrepresent what happened between Josh and his female victims. Police records contradict their assertions:

 

<<<<The magazine In Touch Weekly, which broke the story of the Josh Duggar child molestation incidents and obtained key documents under the Freedom of Information Act, noted on Thursday that while the Duggar parents told Fox News that they completely cooperated with the police investigation of the sex abuse cases, police reports show the opposite.

 

“Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe,” in December of 2006, telling Springdale, Arkansas, police that he had hired a lawyer and would not, himself, grant an interview to police, the magazine reported.

 

The political site Talking Points Memo also uncovered other apparent lies by the Duggar parents.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong.

 

According to earlier reports, Josh molested his then-5-year-old sister while he was reading to her.


  http://www.inquisitr.com/21476...#DbH4bSZO0Mf73pqq.99

 

The attempt by the Duggars to minimize the extent of Josh's offenses is apparent when their version of the matter is compared with police records.  The paper trail and the Duggar tale just don't match.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

___

The "best way" to handle the kind of problem the Duggars had was not the legal way, and as it turns out, it was a very dubious way, seeing that one of the counselors they placed him with has been convicted of child ****ography.  And do not assume that children always "grow out of such things." Very often, "such things" continue and escalate into worse things and the way to head that off is to seek approved professional help, not the aid of some person without proper credentials and training.

 

The Duggars continue to misrepresent what happened between Josh and his female victims. Police records contradict their assertions:

 

<<<<The magazine In Touch Weekly, which broke the story of the Josh Duggar child molestation incidents and obtained key documents under the Freedom of Information Act, noted on Thursday that while the Duggar parents told Fox News that they completely cooperated with the police investigation of the sex abuse cases, police reports show the opposite.

 

“Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe,” in December of 2006, telling Springdale, Arkansas, police that he had hired a lawyer and would not, himself, grant an interview to police, the magazine reported.

 

The political site Talking Points Memo also uncovered other apparent lies by the Duggar parents.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong.

 

According to earlier reports, Josh molested his then-5-year-old sister while he was reading to her.


  http://www.inquisitr.com/21476...#DbH4bSZO0Mf73pqq.99

 

The attempt by the Duggars to minimize the extent of Josh's offenses is apparent when their version of the matter is compared with police records.  The paper trail and the Duggar tale just don't match.

____________________________________________________

The juvenile records were improperly obtained:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawy...ourt-record-arkansas

In Arkansas, most juvenile records are automatically sealed. The primary exception is for delinquency adjudications in which the juvenile could have been tried as an adult. In such cases, the records remain available for law enforcement purposes for ten years after the final delinquency adjudication or adult criminal conviction. (Arkansas Statutes § 9-27-309.)

 

I still don't trust anyone who would use records that they should have known were improperly obtained. Any news agency that would do such is not above exaggerating the facts or outright lying. Even if that news agency did have some of the facts correct, it still doesn't change the fact that if the reason for the story on a juvenile's arrest record was for gotcha journalism; that magazine and its loyal readership are still low life scum.

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

___

The "best way" to handle the kind of problem the Duggars had was not the legal way, and as it turns out, it was a very dubious way, seeing that one of the counselors they placed him with has been convicted of child ****ography.  And do not assume that children always "grow out of such things." Very often, "such things" continue and escalate into worse things and the way to head that off is to seek approved professional help, not the aid of some person without proper credentials and training.

 

The Duggars continue to misrepresent what happened between Josh and his female victims. Police records contradict their assertions:

 

<<<<The magazine In Touch Weekly, which broke the story of the Josh Duggar child molestation incidents and obtained key documents under the Freedom of Information Act, noted on Thursday that while the Duggar parents told Fox News that they completely cooperated with the police investigation of the sex abuse cases, police reports show the opposite.

 

“Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe,” in December of 2006, telling Springdale, Arkansas, police that he had hired a lawyer and would not, himself, grant an interview to police, the magazine reported.

 

The political site Talking Points Memo also uncovered other apparent lies by the Duggar parents.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong.

 

According to earlier reports, Josh molested his then-5-year-old sister while he was reading to her.


  http://www.inquisitr.com/21476...#DbH4bSZO0Mf73pqq.99

 

The attempt by the Duggars to minimize the extent of Josh's offenses is apparent when their version of the matter is compared with police records.  The paper trail and the Duggar tale just don't match.

____________________________________________________

The juvenile records were improperly obtained:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawy...ourt-record-arkansas

In Arkansas, most juvenile records are automatically sealed. The primary exception is for delinquency adjudications in which the juvenile could have been tried as an adult. In such cases, the records remain available for law enforcement purposes for ten years after the final delinquency adjudication or adult criminal conviction. (Arkansas Statutes § 9-27-309.)

 

I still don't trust anyone who would use records that they should have known were improperly obtained. Any news agency that would do such is not above exaggerating the facts or outright lying. Even if that news agency did have some of the facts correct, it still doesn't change the fact that if the reason for the story on a juvenile's arrest record was for gotcha journalism; that magazine and its loyal readership are still low life scum.

_______________________________________

It is by no means a certainty that the police records were immune from release:

 

<<<<<"But the lawyer for Springdale, Arkansas, which is located in Washington County, insisted that he acted in "full compliance" with the law when he authorized the release of the records.

 

"The requested record was not sealed or expunged, and at the time the report was filed, the person listed in the report was an adult," Ernest B. Cate said in a statement provided to CNNMoney. "Any names of minors included in the report, as well as pronouns, were redacted from the report by the Springdale Police Department in compliance with Arkansas law prior to release.">>>>

*            *                 *                          *

<<<<<"John Tull, an attorney for the Arkansas Press Association who is an expert in the state's FOI law, believes the release of the documents was legal.

 

"These are police records, not court records, so I don't believe the court has authority to order destruction of the records, nor do I think that the police department has any alternative but to release the records pursuant to Freedom of Information," Tull told CNNMoney.>>>>

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

Moreover, the records on Josh Duggar's offenses were not COURT RECORDS.  The paragraph cited above by Stanky relates to sealing of COURT RECORDS, not  police records, and thus is not applicable to Josh's case.  The Duggars and their allies managed to avoid going to court; thus Arkansas law relative to sealed COURT records does not apply.

 

Last edited by Contendah
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

___

The "best way" to handle the kind of problem the Duggars had was not the legal way, and as it turns out, it was a very dubious way, seeing that one of the counselors they placed him with has been convicted of child ****ography.  And do not assume that children always "grow out of such things." Very often, "such things" continue and escalate into worse things and the way to head that off is to seek approved professional help, not the aid of some person without proper credentials and training.

 

The Duggars continue to misrepresent what happened between Josh and his female victims. Police records contradict their assertions:

 

<<<<The magazine In Touch Weekly, which broke the story of the Josh Duggar child molestation incidents and obtained key documents under the Freedom of Information Act, noted on Thursday that while the Duggar parents told Fox News that they completely cooperated with the police investigation of the sex abuse cases, police reports show the opposite.

 

“Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe,” in December of 2006, telling Springdale, Arkansas, police that he had hired a lawyer and would not, himself, grant an interview to police, the magazine reported.

 

The political site Talking Points Memo also uncovered other apparent lies by the Duggar parents.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong.

 

According to earlier reports, Josh molested his then-5-year-old sister while he was reading to her.


  http://www.inquisitr.com/21476...#DbH4bSZO0Mf73pqq.99

 

The attempt by the Duggars to minimize the extent of Josh's offenses is apparent when their version of the matter is compared with police records.  The paper trail and the Duggar tale just don't match.

____________________________________________________

The juvenile records were improperly obtained:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawy...ourt-record-arkansas

In Arkansas, most juvenile records are automatically sealed. The primary exception is for delinquency adjudications in which the juvenile could have been tried as an adult. In such cases, the records remain available for law enforcement purposes for ten years after the final delinquency adjudication or adult criminal conviction. (Arkansas Statutes § 9-27-309.)

 

I still don't trust anyone who would use records that they should have known were improperly obtained. Any news agency that would do such is not above exaggerating the facts or outright lying. Even if that news agency did have some of the facts correct, it still doesn't change the fact that if the reason for the story on a juvenile's arrest record was for gotcha journalism; that magazine and its loyal readership are still low life scum.

_______________________________________

It is by no means a certainty that the police records were immune from release:

 

<<<<<"But the lawyer for Springdale, Arkansas, which is located in Washington County, insisted that he acted in "full compliance" with the law when he authorized the release of the records.

 

"The requested record was not sealed or expunged, and at the time the report was filed, the person listed in the report was an adult," Ernest B. Cate said in a statement provided to CNNMoney. "Any names of minors included in the report, as well as pronouns, were redacted from the report by the Springdale Police Department in compliance with Arkansas law prior to release.">>>>

*            *                 *                          *

<<<<<"John Tull, an attorney for the Arkansas Press Association who is an expert in the state's FOI law, believes the release of the documents was legal.

 

"These are police records, not court records, so I don't believe the court has authority to order destruction of the records, nor do I think that the police department has any alternative but to release the records pursuant to Freedom of Information," Tull told CNNMoney.>>>>

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

Moreover, the records on Josh Duggar's offenses were not COURT RECORDS.  The paragraph cited above by Stanky relates to sealing of COURT RECORDS, not  police records, and thus is not applicable to Josh's case.  The Duggars and their allies managed to avoid going to court; thus Arkansas law relative to sealed COURT records does not apply.

 _________________________________________________________________

(k) Information regarding the arrest or detention of a juvenile and related proceedings under this subchapter shall be confidential unless the exchange of information is:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining services for the juvenile or to ensure public safety;

(2) Reasonably necessary to achieve one (1) or both purposes; and

(3) Under a written order by the circuit court.

(l) (1) The information may be given only to the following persons:

(A) A school counselor;

(B) A juvenile court probation officer or caseworker;

(C) A law enforcement officer;

(D) A spiritual representative designated by the juvenile or his or her parents or legal guardian;

(E) A Department of Human Services caseworker;

(F) A community-based provider designated by the court, the school, or the parent or legal guardian of the juvenile;

(G) A Department of Health representative; or

(H) The juvenile's attorney ad litem or other court-appointed special advocate.

http://law.justia.com/codes/ar...bchapter-3/9-27-309/

 

I believe the records of those who are arrested or questioned by the police are police records. You and those officials may want to feign ignorance, but the law is the law: hit piece "journalists" and their holier-than-thou readership aren't on the list.

Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

___

The "best way" to handle the kind of problem the Duggars had was not the legal way, and as it turns out, it was a very dubious way, seeing that one of the counselors they placed him with has been convicted of child ****ography.  And do not assume that children always "grow out of such things." Very often, "such things" continue and escalate into worse things and the way to head that off is to seek approved professional help, not the aid of some person without proper credentials and training.

 

The Duggars continue to misrepresent what happened between Josh and his female victims. Police records contradict their assertions:

 

<<<<The magazine In Touch Weekly, which broke the story of the Josh Duggar child molestation incidents and obtained key documents under the Freedom of Information Act, noted on Thursday that while the Duggar parents told Fox News that they completely cooperated with the police investigation of the sex abuse cases, police reports show the opposite.

 

“Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe,” in December of 2006, telling Springdale, Arkansas, police that he had hired a lawyer and would not, himself, grant an interview to police, the magazine reported.

 

The political site Talking Points Memo also uncovered other apparent lies by the Duggar parents.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong.

 

According to earlier reports, Josh molested his then-5-year-old sister while he was reading to her.


  http://www.inquisitr.com/21476...#DbH4bSZO0Mf73pqq.99

 

The attempt by the Duggars to minimize the extent of Josh's offenses is apparent when their version of the matter is compared with police records.  The paper trail and the Duggar tale just don't match.

____________________________________________________

The juvenile records were improperly obtained:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawy...ourt-record-arkansas

In Arkansas, most juvenile records are automatically sealed. The primary exception is for delinquency adjudications in which the juvenile could have been tried as an adult. In such cases, the records remain available for law enforcement purposes for ten years after the final delinquency adjudication or adult criminal conviction. (Arkansas Statutes § 9-27-309.)

 

I still don't trust anyone who would use records that they should have known were improperly obtained. Any news agency that would do such is not above exaggerating the facts or outright lying. Even if that news agency did have some of the facts correct, it still doesn't change the fact that if the reason for the story on a juvenile's arrest record was for gotcha journalism; that magazine and its loyal readership are still low life scum.

_______________________________________

It is by no means a certainty that the police records were immune from release:

 

<<<<<"But the lawyer for Springdale, Arkansas, which is located in Washington County, insisted that he acted in "full compliance" with the law when he authorized the release of the records.

 

"The requested record was not sealed or expunged, and at the time the report was filed, the person listed in the report was an adult," Ernest B. Cate said in a statement provided to CNNMoney. "Any names of minors included in the report, as well as pronouns, were redacted from the report by the Springdale Police Department in compliance with Arkansas law prior to release.">>>>

*            *                 *                          *

<<<<<"John Tull, an attorney for the Arkansas Press Association who is an expert in the state's FOI law, believes the release of the documents was legal.

 

"These are police records, not court records, so I don't believe the court has authority to order destruction of the records, nor do I think that the police department has any alternative but to release the records pursuant to Freedom of Information," Tull told CNNMoney.>>>>

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

Moreover, the records on Josh Duggar's offenses were not COURT RECORDS.  The paragraph cited above by Stanky relates to sealing of COURT RECORDS, not  police records, and thus is not applicable to Josh's case.  The Duggars and their allies managed to avoid going to court; thus Arkansas law relative to sealed COURT records does not apply.

 _________________________________________________________________

(k) Information regarding the arrest or detention of a juvenile and related proceedings under this subchapter shall be confidential unless the exchange of information is:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining services for the juvenile or to ensure public safety;

(2) Reasonably necessary to achieve one (1) or both purposes; and

(3) Under a written order by the circuit court.

(l) (1) The information may be given only to the following persons:

(A) A school counselor;

(B) A juvenile court probation officer or caseworker;

(C) A law enforcement officer;

(D) A spiritual representative designated by the juvenile or his or her parents or legal guardian;

(E) A Department of Human Services caseworker;

(F) A community-based provider designated by the court, the school, or the parent or legal guardian of the juvenile;

(G) A Department of Health representative; or

(H) The juvenile's attorney ad litem or other court-appointed special advocate.

http://law.justia.com/codes/ar...bchapter-3/9-27-309/

 

I believe the records of those who are arrested or questioned by the police are police records. You and those officials may want to feign ignorance, but the law is the law: hit piece "journalists" and their holier-than-thou readership aren't on the list.

_____

Stanky, you need to read more thoughtfully. The law you quoted says THIS (emphasis added):

 

"Information regarding the arrest or detention of a juvenile and related proceedings under this subchapter shall be confidential unless the exchange of information is...."

 

That is a qualifier that does not apply in the case of Josh the Molester, since he was never arrested or detained by the police.  Thus there are no police records related to arrest and detention.  Since there was no arrest or detention, there can be no "related proceedings," i.e. proceedings related to arrest or detention. There are no court records, since he did not have to go to court.  You have nothing, Stanky.  

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:
Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

I'm not a fan of unreality shows so I don't know a Dugger from a doughnut. I will say that child molestation should not be tolerated in society, but the person who copped a feel of his sisters was also a child at the time. I thought the reason that juvenile records are illegal to be released to the public is that children will often grow out of such things.

 

I will also say that in my opinion that people who enjoy the public humiliation of others are some of the lowest lifeforms on earth and are only exceeded by those who would profit emotionally and/or financially from such lowbrow "journalism". Muckraking is a fine tradition if the reason is to point out graft and malfeasance, not better'n thou personal gratification.

___

So in our opinion the press should avoid printing anything that challenges the Duggar model of "wholesomeness"?

___________________________________________________

The press should at least use properly attained legal documentation and only after finding some reason other the titillation of the moronic self righteous masses who only want to destroy those they don't like. If there was reason to suspect that Josh Duggar was still the perverted cretin as he was when he was younger, then he's fair game. Let me ask this, should  the Fourth Estate open up a hunting season on all children of celebrities and politicians or just the ones you don't like? I suspect that some of the Kennedy clan's children would provide some entertainment to others with your sanctimonious attributes on the "Right" side of the fence.

 

There is nothing new about parents trying to do what they feel is best for their children and I suspect that the Duggars thought that this was the best way to handle their child's problem. 

___

The "best way" to handle the kind of problem the Duggars had was not the legal way, and as it turns out, it was a very dubious way, seeing that one of the counselors they placed him with has been convicted of child ****ography.  And do not assume that children always "grow out of such things." Very often, "such things" continue and escalate into worse things and the way to head that off is to seek approved professional help, not the aid of some person without proper credentials and training.

 

The Duggars continue to misrepresent what happened between Josh and his female victims. Police records contradict their assertions:

 

<<<<The magazine In Touch Weekly, which broke the story of the Josh Duggar child molestation incidents and obtained key documents under the Freedom of Information Act, noted on Thursday that while the Duggar parents told Fox News that they completely cooperated with the police investigation of the sex abuse cases, police reports show the opposite.

 

“Jim Bob refused to produce Josh for a police-requested interview and stopped cooperating with the probe,” in December of 2006, telling Springdale, Arkansas, police that he had hired a lawyer and would not, himself, grant an interview to police, the magazine reported.

 

The political site Talking Points Memo also uncovered other apparent lies by the Duggar parents.

Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong.

 

According to earlier reports, Josh molested his then-5-year-old sister while he was reading to her.


  http://www.inquisitr.com/21476...#DbH4bSZO0Mf73pqq.99

 

The attempt by the Duggars to minimize the extent of Josh's offenses is apparent when their version of the matter is compared with police records.  The paper trail and the Duggar tale just don't match.

____________________________________________________

The juvenile records were improperly obtained:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

http://www.criminaldefenselawy...ourt-record-arkansas

In Arkansas, most juvenile records are automatically sealed. The primary exception is for delinquency adjudications in which the juvenile could have been tried as an adult. In such cases, the records remain available for law enforcement purposes for ten years after the final delinquency adjudication or adult criminal conviction. (Arkansas Statutes § 9-27-309.)

 

I still don't trust anyone who would use records that they should have known were improperly obtained. Any news agency that would do such is not above exaggerating the facts or outright lying. Even if that news agency did have some of the facts correct, it still doesn't change the fact that if the reason for the story on a juvenile's arrest record was for gotcha journalism; that magazine and its loyal readership are still low life scum.

_______________________________________

It is by no means a certainty that the police records were immune from release:

 

<<<<<"But the lawyer for Springdale, Arkansas, which is located in Washington County, insisted that he acted in "full compliance" with the law when he authorized the release of the records.

 

"The requested record was not sealed or expunged, and at the time the report was filed, the person listed in the report was an adult," Ernest B. Cate said in a statement provided to CNNMoney. "Any names of minors included in the report, as well as pronouns, were redacted from the report by the Springdale Police Department in compliance with Arkansas law prior to release.">>>>

*            *                 *                          *

<<<<<"John Tull, an attorney for the Arkansas Press Association who is an expert in the state's FOI law, believes the release of the documents was legal.

 

"These are police records, not court records, so I don't believe the court has authority to order destruction of the records, nor do I think that the police department has any alternative but to release the records pursuant to Freedom of Information," Tull told CNNMoney.>>>>

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/0...nsas-police-records/

 

Moreover, the records on Josh Duggar's offenses were not COURT RECORDS.  The paragraph cited above by Stanky relates to sealing of COURT RECORDS, not  police records, and thus is not applicable to Josh's case.  The Duggars and their allies managed to avoid going to court; thus Arkansas law relative to sealed COURT records does not apply.

 _________________________________________________________________

(k) Information regarding the arrest or detention of a juvenile and related proceedings under this subchapter shall be confidential unless the exchange of information is:

(1) For the purpose of obtaining services for the juvenile or to ensure public safety;

(2) Reasonably necessary to achieve one (1) or both purposes; and

(3) Under a written order by the circuit court.

(l) (1) The information may be given only to the following persons:

(A) A school counselor;

(B) A juvenile court probation officer or caseworker;

(C) A law enforcement officer;

(D) A spiritual representative designated by the juvenile or his or her parents or legal guardian;

(E) A Department of Human Services caseworker;

(F) A community-based provider designated by the court, the school, or the parent or legal guardian of the juvenile;

(G) A Department of Health representative; or

(H) The juvenile's attorney ad litem or other court-appointed special advocate.

http://law.justia.com/codes/ar...bchapter-3/9-27-309/

 

I believe the records of those who are arrested or questioned by the police are police records. You and those officials may want to feign ignorance, but the law is the law: hit piece "journalists" and their holier-than-thou readership aren't on the list.

_____

Stanky, you need to read more thoughtfully. The law you quoted says THIS (emphasis added):

 

"Information regarding the arrest or detention of a juvenile and related proceedings under this subchapter shall be confidential unless the exchange of information is...."

 

That is a qualifier that does not apply in the case of Josh the Molester, since he was never arrested or detained by the police.  Thus there are no police records related to arrest and detention.  Since there was no arrest or detention, there can be no "related proceedings," i.e. proceedings related to arrest or detention. There are no court records, since he did not have to go to court.  You have nothing, Stanky.  

______________________________________________________

Ah yes, according to page 41, of the Arkansas FOIA handbook; everyone else except the police are exempt from FOIA juvenile records requests from low life reporters. A lawyer might weasel word that to the satisfaction of people who hate the Duggars, but the intent of Arkansas law is to protect juveniles.

 

https://static.ark.org/eeuploa...dbook-16ed-final.pdf

 

I might have nothing according to you, but I don't enjoy the destruction of others.

Stanky blithereth thusly:

 

"

Ah yes, according to page 41, of the Arkansas FOIA handbook; everyone else except the police are exempt from FOIA juvenile records requests from low life reporters. A lawyer might weasel word that to the satisfaction of people who hate the Duggars, but the intent of Arkansas law is to protect juveniles.

 

https://static.ark.org/eeuploa...dbook-16ed-final.pdf

 

I might have nothing according to you, but I don't enjoy the destruction of others.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Neither do I, but I do not appreciate efforts to con me into believing that a sex offender's actions were less serious than they actually were, which is what the Duggars have attempted, as confirmed by examining their story in light of police records. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," Mr. & Mrs. Duggar!

Neither do I, but I do not appreciate efforts to con me into believing that a sex offender's actions were less serious than they actually were, which is what the Duggars have attempted, as confirmed by examining their story in light of police records. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," Mr. & Mrs. Duggar!

-----------------------------

Good golly gee whiz molly connie, you would have the Mr. & Mrs. beat half

to death if given half a chance. And yes, you do enjoy the destruction of others.

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:

Neither do I, but I do not appreciate efforts to con me into believing that a sex offender's actions were less serious than they actually were, which is what the Duggars have attempted, as confirmed by examining their story in light of police records. "Thou shalt not bear false witness," Mr. & Mrs. Duggar!

-----------------------------

Good golly gee whiz molly connie, you would have the Mr. & Mrs. beat half

to death if given half a chance. And yes, you do enjoy the destruction of others.

 ______________

 

There is probably no way I could  criticize anyone for anything but that you would come on here with your sniping caustic attitude and find something wrong with it. I don't want any of the Duggars beat to death, but I do want them held accountable for the deceitful way in which they have distorted the facts around this child molestation issue.

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 I don't want any of the Duggars beat to death, but I do want them held accountable for the deceitful way in which they have distorted the facts around this child molestation issue.

 

===============

 How have they distorted the facts? Held accountable to who? They don't owe you an explanation.

____

Read back through the threas Worstthinking; its all there. They lied about important details of the actual acts of molestation committed by Josh in order to make it seem less despicable.

Originally Posted by Contendah:
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

 I don't want any of the Duggars beat to death, but I do want them held accountable for the deceitful way in which they have distorted the facts around this child molestation issue.

 

===============

 How have they distorted the facts? Held accountable to who? They don't owe you an explanation.

____

Read back through the threas Worstthinking; its all there. They lied about important details of the actual acts of molestation committed by Josh in order to make it seem less despicable.

--

Correction: "threads"

Read back through the threas Worstthinking; its all there. They lied about important details of the actual acts of molestation committed by Josh in order to make it seem less despicable.

 

============

The threas? Lied to who and how do you know? Do you discuss what you kids did when they were 14 and younger? Do you now? Bet you don't. Why do you care?

Last edited by Bestworking

Here's a shocker! I agree with Contendah about the Duggers.

The Duggar parents said they sent their son, Josh, to a qualified rehabilitation facility for help. But when ask for the name of the facility, they changed their story & said he was sent to a family friend to work/build houses for two years. And wa la!...cured of "just" his curiosity of the opposite sex.

 

 

They put themselves on TV as a pure, wholesome, clean, holier than thou family. When it came out that the Mother of Honey Boo Boo was allowing her child around a former boyfriend just out of prison for sexually abusing one of her daughters, it was all over social media for weeks, & TLC cancelled the show. At least the Honey Boo Boo family didn’t put themselves out there as something they weren’t.

In this instance, the Duggers were the hypocrites & have no business being on TV as the perfect family. They are no different than the Evangelist on TV shouting “send me your money cause God said so”.

 

Originally Posted by Bestworking:

Read back through the threas Worstthinking; its all there. They lied about important details of the actual acts of molestation committed by Josh in order to make it seem less despicable.

 

============

The threas? Lied to who and how do you know? Do you discuss what you kids did when they were 14 and younger? Do you now? Bet you don't. Why do you care?

___

If you wish to selectively and blindly ignore the parts of  the police reports that you don't like, then go ahead, but that makes you look foolish, which is nothing new.

 

Again:

 

"Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar told Fox that their daughters, who were the victims of the inappropriate sexual touching by the then-teenage Josh Duggar, did not even know what had happened because Josh had molested them when they were asleep.

 

But in 2006, Jim Bob Duggar (referred to as “James” in the police documents) himself told police that at least one of the girls woke up while her older brother “was taking her blanket away,” TPM pointed out.

 

In addition, one victim told police in 2006 that Josh was reading to her when he pulled down her pants and touched her in a way that “felt weird,” indicating that at least one victim was aware of what was going on and knew that it was wrong."

Last edited by Contendah

You're the foolish looking one beternnun. I am ignoring all of it, not just a police report. I don't even know them. You can clutch the pearls, swoon and giggle (t itter) about it all you want. Semi had her point about hypocrites, but you go crazy about it. No idea why. Did the lover boy, hot to trot, eager to bump uglies, preacher that left his family to run off with his sweet thang upset you this much?

Last edited by Bestworking
Originally Posted by Bestworking:

You're the foolish looking one beternnun. I am ignoring all of it, not just a police report. I don't even know them. You can clutch the pearls, swoon and giggle (t itter) about it all you want. Semi had her point about hypocrites, but you go crazy about it. No idea why. Did the lover boy, hot to trot, eager to bump uglies, preacher that left his family to run off with his sweet thang upset you this much?

_____

You say, " I don't even know them," Best.  Well, then, I suppose that means that from now on out, unless you "know" the subjects of topics posted here, you will refrain from comment upon them. Given your repeated citation of that philandering preacher, one would assume either that that you "know" him or that you are hypocritically applying a double standard of selectivity deciding whom to bless and whom to  curse.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×