Jump to content

Menu

Jim Bob and Michelle giving tv interview


gingersmom
 Share

Recommended Posts

Then MK should have pounced on that because they made it clear that Josh came to them and that the girls were asleep and didn't know except for the incident of the girl on his lap and 'one more'. They said the girls didn't even know until JB and Michelle told them. 

 

I thought in the police report Josh told them about a couple of them.  But yeah, they are quite the revisionist couple. 

 

I'm sorry.. I misunderstood then what the poster meant. I shouldn't have commented since I didn't see the show. I thought they meant the police report was Josh 'turning himself in' which is a crock. But it is possible that JB and Michele found out from Josh rather than the girls. In fact that is probable. After all the girls had to know they were going to get blamed for it since it's always the girl causing the boy to sin, not the boy choosing to do something wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wanna bet?

 

No thanks! I'm guessing that the girls have been trained to put it behind them, forgive and forget.  If they do remember what happened, they are being victimized all over again to have their parents tell everyone they didn't even know it was happening.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people aren't turned off by the actions, they're turned off by the "superior moral code?"

 

Personally, I'm turned off by the ACTIONS, and lack of appropriate REACTION by the parents.

 

The superior moral code is the Bible, and everyone interprets that differently.

 

People are turned off by hypocrisy. This was not an element with Sandusky. It is a focal point with the Duggars.

 

I'm horrified and disgusted by the whole lot.

 

The effect of the bible on the actions of people does not follow the claims made. Case in point, this whole sexual assault / incest horror is not unique to the Duggars, and while it's not unique to xianity, we can determine certain variables that predictably increase the risk of such events. The Duggars' created an environment that maximizes these risk factors, and did so specifically and publicly by appealing to your book of supposed moral codes. 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry.. I misunderstood then what the poster meant. I shouldn't have commented since I didn't see the show. I thought they meant the police report was Josh 'turning himself in' which is a crock. But it is possible that JB and Michele found out from Josh rather than the girls. In fact that is probable. After all the girls had to know they were going to get blamed for it since it's always the girl causing the boy to sin, not the boy choosing to do something wrong.

 

 

Well, just because JB and Michelle said tonight that Josh came forward first doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It might be true...but it might not be. They were dancing around so many things....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are turned off by hypocrisy. This was not an element with Sandusky. It is a focal point with the Duggars.

 

I'm horrified and disgusted by the whole lot.

 

The effect of the bible on the actions of people does not follow the claims made. Case in point, this whole sexual assault / incest horror is not unique to the Duggars, and while it's not unique to xianity, we can determine certain variables that predictably increase the risk of such events. The Duggars' created an environment that maximizes these risk factors, and did so specifically and publicly by appealing to your book of supposed moral codes. 

 

Starting a charity to "help children" and then abusing those children is not hypocritical? Perhaps you define it differently then.

 

Lots of people create environments that increase risk factors. The Duggars are not unique in that regard. You seem to be looking at this emotionally rather than rationally.

 

I'm not defending the Duggars. I wish someone could throw the book at them.

 

Both books.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No thanks! I'm guessing that the girls have been trained to put it behind them, forgive and forget. If they do remember what happened, they are being victimized all over again to have their parents tell everyone they didn't even know it was happening.

Well, in the teaser for the interview with Jill and Jessa, Jill is crying, talking about how releasing the report of a Juvie is victimizing them, IOW, she sounds like she blames the wrongful release of the report and the evil people who pursued that for the humiliation of her status as a victim.

 

I'm terribly sad for those girls.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT?? That is hideous. That's not liking making your kid pay for an item they stole from the store. Molesting a child is indication of a mental disturbance.

 

Did they say anything about counseling for the girls? I have been wondering about that..

They did say that all of the children had counseling by a licensed, trained professional, after the "awake" incidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way it's sort of an interesting indictment of having so many kids that you can't properly keep track of what's going on. Older kids raising youngers etc.

I agree, though I am generally pro-large family. But there does have to be a tipping point - perhaps it differs from family to family - in which it's just too many lives to input and too many little ones to have a relationship with.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just because JB and Michelle said tonight that Josh came forward first doesn't necessarily mean it's true. It might be true...but it might not be. They were dancing around so many things....

 

Very true. I certainly don't believe most of what comes out of their mouths. But since there isn't evidence to the contrary if they are asserting Josh came to them first then even if Megan didn't believe them it would be difficult for her to jump on them and call them liars unlike if they contradicted something directly in the police report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a way it's sort of an interesting indictment of having so many kids that you can't properly keep track of what's going on. Older kids raising youngers etc.

I was one of three, and my parents didn't know everything I did. I think it is impossible to monitor even one kid.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Megan ask if the husbands knew about Jill and Jessa before they were married? I figure just like Anna they will say they knew it all and were fine with it but I'd be curious to see them asked. Even if they knew it bugs me to no end knowing that these girls were forced to marry a man they were never alone with or allowed to discuss something so major with in private. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, though I am generally pro-large family. But there does have to be a tipping point - perhaps it differs from family to family - in which it's just too many lives to input and too many little ones to have a relationship with.

 

How many siblings did Lena Dunham have?

 

Having fewer siblings means more opportunity for two to be alone.  But having more ups the statistical likelihood of anything happening.

 

It goes back to:  there is no demographic profile of a teen who engages sexually with younger siblings / relatives.  It happens in all kinds of families.  And I'm guessing none of the parents expected it to happen.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am reasonably satisfied with Megyn's handling of it. No, she is not playing ferocious hardball, but she is also not avoiding the many questions we have been discussing here; i.e., did they get licensed actual counseling, what did they do to protect the kids after the admission, why did they pursue a TV show after this has happened, etx.

 

Everything JBoob and M said fits well with what I expected. Although I was surprised that the conclusion they draw is that boys are even less trustworthy than they already thought.

 

Ah, the old 'boys will be boys' defense. Funny how that one always seems to make the girls' lives a whole lot smaller and more difficult.

 

Anyone want to take any bets on how long it is going to take for Joshua to start giving interviews? 

 

And of course Mike Huckabee is helping them out. They are good friends. He's not an elected official or an announced candidate right now, so he's just a regular public figure, so hopefully I am not breaking any rules. But, in his last book he said that Jay Z had a 'pimp' relationship with his wife because he was her business partner. It was all over the media for a few days and he defended it.  So, what exactly does that make his good friends the Duggars?  

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notable lines from tonight: 

 

From Jim Bob, "As parents we are not mandated reporters'   So that makes it ok that you treated it 'in house' until the THIRD TIME it happened. 

 

Both parents pointed out that he touched them 'for just a few seconds'.   and 'over clothes'    Apparently the five second rule applies to molestation. Who knew. 

 

 

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name="SKL" post="6394496" timestamp="

 

It goes back to: there is no demographic profile of a teen who engages sexually with younger siblings / relatives. It happens in all kinds of families. And I'm guessing none of the parents expected it to happen.

 

Is this really true? It's all just a crap shoot?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many siblings did Lena Dunham have?

 

Having fewer siblings means more opportunity for two to be alone. But having more ups the statistical likelihood of anything happening.

 

It goes back to: there is no demographic profile of a teen who engages sexually with younger siblings / relatives. It happens in all kinds of families. And I'm guessing none of the parents expected it to happen.

I know nothing about Lena; never heard of her except on WTM, don't have HBO, which I think is where she appears. I am not saying a good reason for not having 19 kids is because the younger siblings are sure to be molested. I'm just agreeing with the poster who said there is an upper limit to how many children a family can purposefully guide well.

 

You know, SKL, you seem to constantly defend inter-sib sexuality on this forum. It gives me serious pause. I'm sure it happens now and then, but I don't consider it pedestrian, nor bound to happen in any type of family.

  • Like 25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notable lines from tonight: 

 

From Jim Bob, "As parents we are not mandated reporters'   So that makes it ok that you treated it 'in house' until the THIRD TIME it happened. 

 

Both parents pointed out that he touched them 'for just a few seconds'.   and 'over clothes'    Apparently the five second rule applies to molestation. Who knew. 

 

I know there is no point in asking this since few seconds or several minutes is still molestation but how exactly do they know it was just a few seconds? Josh told them? There is a reliable source. He's an adult and still downplaying his actions so of course there is no chance he downplayed what he did when he was 14, especially knowing he was going to get beaten. Also, the police report specifically says 'put hand under dress'. That is not over clothes.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know there is no point in asking this since few seconds or several minutes is still molestation but how exactly do they know it was just a few seconds? Josh told them? There is a reliable source. He's an adult and still downplaying his actions so of course there is no chance he downplayed what he did when he was 14, especially knowing he was going to get beaten. Also, the police report specifically says 'put hand under dress'. That is not over clothes.

Yeah, they were emphasizing "over clothes" and "a few seconds" when they were talking about the first few incidents, which were with the sleeping victims. Apparently, the boldness increased over time and they said little about the more disturbing incidents.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this really true? It's all just a crap shoot?

 

I strongly disagree it's ALL a crap shoot.  I also wouldn't say it shouldn't be something all parents shouldn't be aware of and watching for and all kids should be trained about kinds of touch. 

 

This is a decent document out of a counseling center about sibling s*xual abuse and risk factors.

http://www.ksacc.ca/docs/sibling_sexual_abuse.pdf?LanguageID=EN-US

 

Risk Factors

- Responsibility that can lead to abuse of power

- Children who have witnessed or experienced s*xual abuse

- Access to p*rnography

- Neglect

- Lack of s*x education

- Inadequate socialization

- Denial (parents)

- Feeling overwhelmed (parents)

 

ETA - note in this document the first thing it says under what should you do if this occurring in your house is REPORT IT TO AUTHORITIES. 

 

I think we could speculate at a minimum a number of these things would have probably been a factor in the Duggar household that might have made odds higher than average they'd have an incident in their house.

 

I watched some clips of this interview and I'm completely disgusted.  I'm fully convinced JG is a narcissist or has some sort of mental illness.  And his wife isn't too far behind.  I feel horrible for those girls and not because the report came out. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Starting a charity to "help children" and then abusing those children is not hypocritical? Perhaps you define it differently then.

 

Lots of people create environments that increase risk factors. The Duggars are not unique in that regard. You seem to be looking at this emotionally rather than rationally.

 

I'm not defending the Duggars. I wish someone could throw the book at them.

 

Both books.

 

You referenced football, which is not a charity to help children.  The hypocrisy is not on Sandusky because he never promoted himself as an example of moral behavior.

 

You missed or ignored the rest of my post. The Duggars are not unique in that regard, but we can determine certain variables that predictably increase the risk of such events. The Duggars' created an environment that maximizes these risk factors, and did so specifically and publicly by appealing to your book of supposed moral codes.

 

By trivializing xianity's effect on this event and lauding the bible as a source of superior morality, I think you are attempting to change the goalposts here so the Duggars are no more or less guilty than Sandusky. The problem with comparing the two in this way is that Sandusky didn't peddle the idea of being a virtuous embodiment of the superior morals, nor do applying ideas found in NFL documents contribute to immoral actions, regardless of how they may be interpreted. It's not a valid comparison, and the Duggars should in no way be vindicated, even by the frantic appeal of the "everyone else does it" or "boys will be boys" defense. 

 

I think one book has caused enough trouble. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, SKL, you seem to constantly defend inter-sib sexuality on this forum. It gives me serious pause. I'm sure it happens now and then, but I don't consider it pedestrian, nor bound to happen in any type of family.

 

I am NOT "defending" it.  I am pointing out that it happens more than most people seem willing to believe.  Statistically it is very likely happening (or has happened or will happen) in the homes of some of the posters on these Duggar molestation threads.

 

Believing that this hardly ever happens, and could certainly never happen in my own home, is seriously distorting the reality.  Some other WTM members have posted statistics that back me up on this.

 

"My kid would never do that" is generally a questionable world view.  And it can be a dangerous one.

 

Encouraging people to believe that it's the religion or the # of kids or the skirts or whatever - that is an unhealthy kind of pretending.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I watched some clips of this interview and I'm completely disgusted. I'm fully convinced JG is a narcissist or has some sort of mental illness. And his wife isn't too far behind. I feel horrible for those girls and not because the report came out.

Very much this. And it is clear that Josh is the golden child. Guess Jill and Jessa get to be the scapegoats :/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen a lot of people on this board saying 'My kid would never do that"? I've seen people saying they have teenagers or kids of the same ages and they don't believe Joshua did anything 'accidentally' or that he didn't know what he was doing, but I don't think there has been a lot of 'not my kid ever' type posting. Or maybe I am missing it?

 

I think the strict patriarchy of the home, their attitude that men take and women submit, female bodies are the source of lust, men cannot control their sexuality, etc can create situations where abuse is more likely, but that isn't due to their religion, that is fundamentalism and misogyny in a potent combination and it is found in many religions, not just Christianity. 

  • Like 24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the last half of the show. I think they truly feel they did their best, offered their children the best help and therapy and feel that they are just being attacked by Satan. Persecution of their religion. Perhaps, that is part of it. Perhaps they are being persecuted by the tabloids. It does make a good story of a wholesome marketed family being "taken down" by skeletons in their closet. I don't *think* most assume they are the perfect family.

 

I was happy to see that they did address the girls as victims. It was nice to seem them agree that they shouldn't be just protecting Josh's reputation but also, looking towards the victims. They did state they had professional counseling for all involved. However, I was saddened to hear them force blame on the male sex as if it is just in their nature to lean to abusive situations. I have heard that line just this year of boys in co-op not being allowed to hold any children. It saddens me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I watched some clips of this interview and I'm completely disgusted.  I'm fully convinced JG is a narcissist or has some sort of mental illness.  And his wife isn't too far behind.  I feel horrible for those girls and not because the report came out. 

 

I admit I haven't watched any - just saw the headline saying how they feel like a failure.  (oh, it's all about MMMEEEE. :nopity:  what will people think?  :svengo: )

that combined with other stuff they've said over the years. . . . (and I've never actually watched the show - just caught snippets here and there.)

 

I assume you mean JB.  M reminded me of my grandmother.  my NPD grandmother.  (oh, she really didn't mean she wanted to go to NYC,  . . or be a nurse, etc.) 

 

I feel sick for ALL of the kids.   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the last half of the show. I think they truly feel they did their best, offered their children the best help and therapy and feel that they are just being attacked by Satan. Persecution of their religion. Perhaps, that is part of it. Perhaps they are being persecuted by the tabloids. It does make a good story of a wholesome marketed family being "taken down" by skeletons in their closet. I don't *think* most assume they are the perfect family.

 

I was happy to see that they did address the girls as victims. It was nice to seem them agree that they shouldn't be just protecting Josh's reputation but also, looking towards the victims. They did state they had professional counseling for all involved. However, I was saddened to hear them force blame on the male sex as if it is just in their nature to lean to abusive situations. I have heard that line just this year of boys in co-op not being allowed to hold any children. It saddens me.

 

and did they define that counseling?  NO?  that's because it was all ATI approved.  (josh worked construction on an ATI project and a 'stern talking to' - and that was considered "counseling")  nothing that would be recognized by any official licensing body or governmental agency.

 

in reality - the girls didn't have any counseling of a form proven to help abuse victims.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And of course Mike Huckabee is helping them out. They are good friends. He's not an elected official or an announced candidate right now,    

 

 

I'm a conservative - and I loath the man. (and not just because he commuted Maurice clemmons sentence. .)  if this puts paid to any of his political ambitions, good riddance.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and did they define that counseling?  NO?  that's because it was all ATI approved.  (josh worked construction on an ATI project and a 'stern talking to' - and that was considered "counseling")  nothing that would be recognized by any official licensing body or governmental agency.

 

in reality - the girls didn't have any counseling of a form proven to help abuse victims.

 

well they said they were licensed, accredited...I can't remember the terminology but it did come across as professional counseling vs counseling from a religious entity. I'm not saying it wasn't ATI afiliated. Probably was. Just stating they think they did everything they could and have a clear conscience over it obviously and now feel they are the victims of a public agenda to slander their name. 

 

Not saying I think they are in the clear and did all they could have done.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a conservative - and I loath the man. (and not just because he commuted Maurice clemmons sentence. .) if this puts paid to any of his political ambitions, good riddance.

I always forget Huckabee's role in that murder spree in our area. For those not familiar, 4 cops died at the hands of a man who was supposed to be in prison for life. It was very tragic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I saw a few clips on the Lawrence O'Donnell Show and I thought Jim Bob came across as a very arrogant man. He was doing his phony soft voice, but he still seemed full of himself.

 

I had to rewind and re-watch the part where he explained that pedophiles are adults and Josh was just a child. He clarified that pedophiles are over 15 and Josh was only 14 or 15, so he was still a child. :svengo:

 

You know, because at 15, Josh was nowhere near 16. :glare:

 

I thought that was incredibly lame, and as usual, Michelle gazed lovingly at him while he said it.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I saw a few clips on the Lawrence O'Donnell Show and I thought Jim Bob came across as a very arrogant man. He was doing his phony soft voice, but he still seemed full of himself.

 

I had to rewind and re-watch the part where he explained that pedophiles are adults and Josh was just a child. He clarified that pedophiles are over 15 and Josh was only 14 or 15, so he was still a child. :svengo:

 

You know, because at 15, Josh was nowhere near 16. :glare:

 

I thought that was incredibly lame, and as usual, Michelle gazed lovingly at him while he said it.

 

yes! It was so odd. However, he is the weirdo that just can't wait to hear about his daughter getting pregnant. If my dad had told me those words on the eve of my wedding I would have been soooo grossed out! I wonder if they have a TTC calendar for their daughters at home, too?! He is gross to me.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notable lines from tonight: 

 

From Jim Bob, "As parents we are not mandated reporters'   So that makes it ok that you treated it 'in house' until the THIRD TIME it happened. 

 

Both parents pointed out that he touched them 'for just a few seconds'.   and 'over clothes'    Apparently the five second rule applies to molestation. Who knew. 

 

missed that part of the interview... gross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it. As a regular Duggar viewer, I have been pretty disgusted by the whole thing. I knew their views were very different, and certainly bordering on the cultish with the Gothard environment, but I have always just enjoyed watching the show and the dynamic of the family. Because of that, I guess part of me hoped I'd see the interview and be able to somehow sympathize and maybe be reassured they had done more for those girls, but I was sorely disappointed.

 

It's possible in their minds they did do what they thought was right (not surprising with Gothard's teachings at the forefront of their lives), and I do think it's sketchy that this just accidentally got leaked to a tabloid, but that doesn't negate what happened and that it was terribly mishandled. Now those girls have to deal with this horrific nightmare on top of what they dealt with 12 years ago.

 

I hope at least the married ones' husbands will stand up for their wives and keep them from being so enmeshed in that garbage. Maybe if that would happen the others could somehow find a way out as well.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see the show, I just can't watch the Duggars say anything ugh, but I did read the police report. Josh did not confess on his own. The girls went and said something was happening. They are masters at rewriting history.

 

No --- JB and M were talking about Josh coming to them (the parents) to confess what he had done. It does appear that for some of the incidents, the girls didn't even know anything had happened because they were asleep when he sneaked into their room at night. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No --- JB and M were talking about Josh coming to them (the parents) to confess what he had done. It does appear that for some of the incidents, the girls didn't even know anything had happened because they were asleep when he sneaked into their room at night. 

 

I watched the interview.   I wanted to see what they had to say.  They contended that none of the girls knew anything and were asleep for 100% of it.  That is not what the police report said.   I think they are trying to make it "better."  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got around to watching it, and any hope I had that this was going to be a real interview died when the Fox intro neglected to mention that the cop friend they talked to about Josh is also a convicted pedophile.  :glare:

 

With that said, what a load of crap. I can't believe how much talking in circles they did to keep bringing things back around to the over-the-clothes groping, and away from the fact that he went on to molest his five-year-old sister. Because apparently when you feel someone up while they're sleeping, as long as you don't wake them up and they allegedly don't know about it, it's not really that bad.  :cursing:  I really think that if JB had tried to downplay the early incidents because they were over the clothes one more time, I was going to lose it and toss my phone out the window. I mean hey, he talked to other families, and everyone does it!

 

*gag*

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the interview.   I wanted to see what they had to say.  They contended that none of the girls knew anything and were asleep for 100% of it.  That is not what the police report said.   I think they are trying to make it "better."  

 

Megyn Kelly must have read the police reports before she did the interview. What a bunch of crap that she didn't even attempt to call them on their lies.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the whole interview yet, but I saw a few clips on the Lawrence O'Donnell Show and I thought Jim Bob came across as a very arrogant man. He was doing his phony soft voice, but he still seemed full of himself.

 

I had to rewind and re-watch the part where he explained that pedophiles are adults and Josh was just a child. He clarified that pedophiles are over 15 and Josh was only 14 or 15, so he was still a child. :svengo:

 

You know, because at 15, Josh was nowhere near 16. :glare:

 

I thought that was incredibly lame, and as usual, Michelle gazed lovingly at him while he said it.

 

And he was supposed to be responding to the criticism against M's robocalls against transgenders using public restrooms because they might molest girls. He totally deflected the fact that there is no evidence of that scenario coming about, and that it was hypocritical of them to call out the one while shielding their son. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought they seemed very well-rehearsed, based on the clips I saw.

 

There was one question -- I forget what it was now, but one that was not unexpected, I thought -- where Michelle paused for quite awhile as she seemed to gather her thoughts about how to word her answer. I must admit that I'm cynical enough that I wondered whether she really didn't have a ready answer or whether she was trying to make it look like that. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am NOT "defending" it. I am pointing out that it happens more than most people seem willing to believe. Statistically it is very likely happening (or has happened or will happen) in the homes of some of the posters on these Duggar molestation threads.

 

Believing that this hardly ever happens, and could certainly never happen in my own home, is seriously distorting the reality. Some other WTM members have posted statistics that back me up on this.

 

"My kid would never do that" is generally a questionable world view. And it can be a dangerous one.

 

Encouraging people to believe that it's the religion or the # of kids or the skirts or whatever - that is an unhealthy kind of pretending.

There are certain worldviews that increase the probability of sexual abuse, namely, those who promote unequal power between the genders, surround sexuality with unrealistic restriction, paint males as inherently unable to control their urges, paint females as "stumbling blocks" that must be covered in a grain sack, and just plain surround fertility and sex with so much promotion and intrigue.

 

I do think we, as parents, should not cling to a belief of, "my kids would NEVER do that," whether we're talking about sneaking alcohol, peeking through a hole in the girl's locker room, looking at p@rn on the internet, or any other wrong behavior. At the same time, though, I don't understand a parenting (or life) philosophy that is so suspicious of every male, simply because they are male, that they come up with a "rule" that no boy plays hide-and-seek with his sisters or that boys letting baby girls sit on his lap are certainly up to no good.

  • Like 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was one question -- I forget what it was now, but one that was not unexpected, I thought -- where Michelle paused for quite awhile as she seemed to gather her thoughts about how to word her answer. I must admit that I'm cynical enough that I wondered whether she really didn't have a ready answer or whether she was trying to make it look like that. 

 

There was another one where JB paused for a few seconds. I think they were thinking, "Now which of my rehearsed answers will kinda-sorta answer this question, but not really?"

 

I was not impressed. And if I was a Duggar fan wanting to be able to let this go, I would be very disappointed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the interview.   I wanted to see what they had to say.  They contended that none of the girls knew anything and were asleep for 100% of it.  That is not what the police report said.   I think they are trying to make it "better."  

 

The girls were asleep for some (the first) incidents. JB and Michelle even referred in the interview to the "awake" incidents that occurred later. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...