Hmmm… my link to #491 appears to not be working now, and when I copy and paste into Google, the only other site that comes up with the quote is Daily Kos, but when you click on it, you get an error message, too.
I promise… I really did cut and paste from this article!
Something has obviously changed in the meantime.
If it was a false report, I apologize.
I do appreciate that the various Little People shows introduced us to people we generally don’t know, breached a gap of sorts.
This is the link I used for the police report.
Beggars can’t be choosers.
http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/josh-duggar-s-youngest-molestation-victim-may-have-been-as-young-as-5-years-old-59145
Perhaps some attorneys have persuaded the sites to take down potentially incriminating material? Attorneys can be quite persuasive.
I have watched some episodes of The Little Couple, mostly because it takes place in Houston, and I know an anesthesiologist at Texas Children’s Hospital where Jen works. But then, I was watching one of the episodes where Jen was diagnosed and was being treated for her cancer, and I recognized her oncologist as being one of my high school classmates, so I continued to watch until that story line was over. Have not watched it this year, but I’ve seen a couple of interviews online, and I do think they are a remarkable family. I do wish the best for them.
Even if there is an investigation, you know they have already coached the kids, so nothing will come of it.
I iike The Little Couple too. They seem like a wonderful family.
Never did watch the Duggars but have caught them a few times on talk shows. There was just something creepy about the whole thing.
What is a boy of 14 or 15 supposed to do when he is told to completely repress his sexual urges and his curiosity?
Interesting link about how victims are blamed:
Michelle Duggar definitely has that Stepford Wives vibe about her, doesn’t she?
The Blue State article cited here references the Washington Post. I’ve used up my limit of free articles there, but it doesn’t look as if there was such an article in the WP.
There is now a source that says this is entirely untrue and original source for the rumor was a satirical site. http://www.inquisitr.com/2123485/no-cps-is-not-investigating-the-duggar-family-despite-reports/
Seriously? Inquistr is vetting? Btw, we do have a mishmash of raggy sources going.
What is a boy of 14 or 15 supposed to do when he is told to completely repress his sexual urges and his curiosity?
*
I don’t know the ages of the kids, but why would a boy be more prone to molesting his siblings than a girl?
Kids are pretty high energy, and I have found organized sports works wonders.
Well, except now the first line in the article @jonri linked says Arizona!
@looking forward, I don’t think it’s vetting; it’s just saying how it happened.
Again, the BlueState articles says “according to the Washington Post,” but there doesn’t seem to be an article in the Washington Post that says anything remotely like what BlueState claims.
I still don’t understand. These instances occurred while Josh was a minor. And not even on the cusp of the age of adulthood (18). How can a minor’s criminal records be made public? Every news article I read where a minor is the perpetrator does not give the minors name. And the news source will cite non disclose due to a minor’s privacy rights.
I don’t understand why the local child protective services department wasn’t following this family to assure the safety of the other children even though the statute of limitations for criminal charges had passed when the charges were made.
I found an article in the Washington Post dated 5/27/2015, headlined that Arkansas Child protective services will be launching a full investigation.
http://washingtonpost.com.co/child-protection-service-launches-full-investigation-into-the-duggar-family/
Is that what you are looking for?
National Review does look to be a parody site, odd that who ever posts for the Washington Post did not catch that, or perhaps legitimate articles occasionally appear?
^I have seen on another site that this is supposed to be satirical (not getting how it is satire??)
Notice after the .com there is a .co after it.
National Report, not Review. :)>-