@abasket - their names and ages are readily available. They are the only ones matching the age descriptions in the events of 2002-3. The only sister who would have been 5 in 2003 when the final incident took place, and who is still a minor, is Joy-Anna.
The sisters older than Joy-Anna are Jana, Jill, Jessa and Jinger. We know from the redacted reports that 4 sisters total were abused. We know the 5-year-old was Joy-Anna. Reports have stated that Jana was not abused. That leaves Jill, Jessa and Jinger.
You can argue that Joy-Anna and Jinger have not been officially identified as victims, but they are the only sisters who match the age description readily available.
Got it Rockvillemom. I am well familiar with the names, ages, etc. of the girls but am having some confusion and doubt over the # of sisters abused, etc. with what seems to be conflicting info on the reports and from what the parents said last night.
I’m still confused - how many sisters did JB say were victims last night??? I swear at the beginning he referred to “two”. But did he change that later? Or was it “two” the first round of admission from Josh???
Have to wonder how Derrick/Ben feel about all this. (they are the husbands of Jill/Jessa) Clearly, they had to be told about this before/during courtship. If they truly support and believe the notion of practically no physical/sexual contact before marriage, how did they accept what happened and wonder what their feelings towards Josh are?? This is a rough bump in the first year of marriage!
Everyone here is raising really good questions–questions a real “journalist,” who had plenty of time to prep, would have asked if she really wanted to address all the “accusations,” as she referred to them several times. I’ve seen Megyn Kelly do some pretty tough interviews in the past, but that one felt like a very slick defense lawyer questioning her clients on the stand to put them in the best possible light.
I’ve never watched the Duggars’ show on TLC. (I find all these family-based “reality” shows incredibly exploitative of the minor children.) But I don’t know how anybody can go to the grocery store, hairdresser, or dentist on a regular basis and not have seen the family’s photo plastered on the covers of numerous magazines. Just do a Google image search for “duggar magazine cover” and it will tell you all you need to know, if you truly have no idea who they are.
I think if you want a really good picture/understanding (of sorts) you need to watch some episodes of the show.
You see the production that goes into making a meal for this family. (the restaurant style kitchen, they use paper plates what seems to be all the time, the girls do most of the cooking). You see the dorm style living for the kids - all the girls in one huge bedroom, same for the boys. You see plenty of good things - the kids seem well mannered, they seem to help without complaint, the girls seem truly truly close to each other, etc. You see the over the top but perhaps needed organization methods for some things - a food pantry that resembles a couple aisles of a grocery store, a laundry room with multiple, long racks (the amount of laundry these kids - I think it’s mostly the kids do on a DAILY basis is mind boggling - sounds like prison to me!!!)
You see the awkwardness of a courtship - not only how awkward is seems to basically not touch each other, to have a family member in your presence ALWAYS - not to mention a camera crew!
I agree that Megyn went “easy” on them and that interview did not Iive up to the relentless and focused questioning that she usually employs. She did not probe deep enough and just took their first answer at face value. This is not her usual style so it is disappointing. Unfortunately I think Megyn is viewing the attack on the Duggars through a political lens when it is really an ethical and legal issue that involves the protection of children
I still have a lot a questions that remain unanswered and I am betting the media will be more successful in getting those answers than Megyn was.
I haven’t been able to read all these comments so I don’t know if this was mentioned, but for some reason it struck me that they both said, over and over, “as parents”. “As parents…” “As parents…” I don’t know why but I found that off-putting.
That said, I know who they are but I’ve never watched their show. I felt that Megan Kelly was WAY to sympathetic to them in her interview.
There was a great post way up-thread about what can happen to a teen when he is reported…incarceration, registered sex offender, etc. I believe that many of us would try to do whatever we could to avoid reporting to the police.
For a moment, let’s give the Duggars the benefit of the doubt and think about what they are saying. This was a temptation for Josh, perhaps he was tempted 100 times and only gave in temptation a few times. After that he was consumed with guilt, confessed to his parents, was beaten with a rod, confessed to Jesus, was forgiven by the Almighty.
But he continued to live in a household with a seemingly endless supply of young girls! If you know that your beloved son has this weakness, isn’t it a mercy to him to get him away from the source of temptation (i.e. move to a place where there are no girls in the household)? Most loving parents would not insist that their alcoholic offspring work at the family bar. [Of course, the girls’ protection should have been paramount, but I am just going with trying to keep Josh from sinning further in this example.]
Missypie, fewer girls than in the public school system, so keep him home? What if there was only one girl and he got to her? Would it then finally be horrid because it couldn’t be blamed on an endless supply?! Or not, because this one girl was endlessly visible? At what point do we just admit this is perverted?
JB and Michelle sat there during the interview and flat out lied. The police reports are online so there is no dispute. They are despicable. To think those poor girls think they are being victimized by the press, but dont see how their parents didnt protect them.
And they certainly wouldn’t sign a contract to have a reality show filmed in that bar! Unless, they thought having cameras in the bar might be some kind of deterrent to their “alcoholic” son??? (And, in fairness to Megyn Kelly, she did ask the Duggars about their agreeing to do their show AFTER they knew of Josh’s problems.)
@abasket, you’re probably right that it’s hard for someone who’s never watched the show to fully comprehend what life was like in the Duggar home, but I do know many very large fundamentalist Christian families. (Not “19 and counting” large, but with multiple biological children.) While I don’t agree with the “Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of (children)” teaching in the 21st century, I do respect that most of these people are good, well-intentioned people who are simply trying to live out their faith.
The role of homeschooling in these very large families can become problematic, however, when you’re talking about a family like the Duggars who, in my opinion, come across as not particularly well-educated (their grasp of English grammar alone does not suggest that they’d be particularly exemplary English teachers certainly), but their seeming complete cluelessness (and I don’t think that was put on, but I could be wrong) about the PATHOLOGY involved with making sexual advances towards your own sisters (regardless of their age) or ANY child is incredibly troubling. And their children have virtually no outside means to explore whether or not typical “Duggar family” behavior is normal at all.
All this talk by Jim Bob about how common it apparently is in his circles to have incest and “inappropriate touching” or whatever he wants to call it suggests that there’s a lot of child abuse going on in his church circle. And that Bill Gothard church/ministry that many likely are affiliated with is feeding a lot of this aberrant behavior IMHO. They apparently teach that NO boy should ever babysit his sister? Really? This is what the Duggars “learned”? It’s the blind (and delusional) leading the (willfully) blind and their helpless offspring.
@missypie if you cannot risk having Josh around girls then that says it all – he has a problem. Girls are everywhere and if his sisters are proving a “temptation” to him then again that is a big psychological issue.
I feel like this boy was not permitted to have the normal outlets to explore his sexuality that every other 14 or 15 year old might have - hand holding, kissing or even taking a girl to a movie or out for a slice of pizza. Just healthy female companionship for a young teenage boy. I think Josh was so repressed and confined that his sexuality overflowed into the family environment which is really all he had available to him. Not saying this is moral or right. I think in some ways the manner in which the family lives creates all sorts of issues as these kids try to develop. They are handicapped by their own family structure.
Yes, I am well aware that the above is just “armchair” psychology.
I did not watch the interview but have read portions of the interview. I was struck by the statement that they would not have the older boys ever babysit the younger girls again. This is an incomplete solution, an artificial solution that doesn’t get to the root cause of the problem. This was a troubled young man. There are no easy solutions for a parent. I don’t know what I would do faced with this circumstance.
I do believe they were genuinely upset, concerned, disappointed. I would be scared, wondering what is wrong with my son and how to help my son and my daughter. I think they tried to help within the confines of how they live and what they believe (and what they chose to believe about their son), but didn’t really understand the severity of what their son had done. I wonder if Jim Bob saw this as "boys will be boys’ since he mentioned that there are much worse things going on in other families they spoke to. Just that statement alone would give me pause if I am from the department of social services.
[quote]
Everyone here is raising really good questions–questions a real “journalist,” who had plenty of time to prep, would have asked if she really wanted to address all the “accusations,” as she referred to them several [/quote
Isn’t there another half of the interview tonight or did I imagine that? (Which is completely possible)
I wouldn’t report my 15-year old son, either. We have a member of the extended family who was arrested at that age for something else entirely, his parents were persuaded that tough love was the best thing and that they were saving his life. If you could see the ruined shell of a human being that he is at 23 after spending 9 months on Rikers Island, you would never, ever think it’s a good idea for a parent to bring their young teen to the attention of the criminal justice authorities. You just never know once your kid gets sucked into the system what will happen because you completely lose control and are at the mercy of people who have none.
However, I would have moved heaven and earth to get my son help and to remove him from the home.