Thursday, May 21, 2015

Statement Analysis: Robert McKnight: Victim of Racial Profiling or Fake Hate?

Here is part one of my analysis of the "He Said; She Said" Racial Profiling Test
First is Robert McKnight's and to follow is Amy Vining's.

Both are written in the narrative format and are given analysis including content, and form.

Was Robert McKnight a victim of racial profiling as claimed?

Remember:  our words reveal us.  In this account, he is alleging to have been a victim of racial profiling due to being a black male knocking on an apartment door.

He targets a particular woman as the perpetrator of this racial act against him.  In part two, I will analyze the woman, Amy Vining's account of "what happened" to learn which one is telling the truth.


I.  The Statement
II.  The Form
III.  The Analysis


My suitcase was packed, and I was prepared to embark upon a life-changing journey from New Orleans to intern at the 84th Texas legislative session in Austin, working for state Sen. Rodney Ellis. The unique internship would not only allow me to receive a stipend but also a full semester of law school credit. However, I was ill-equipped for an experience in my first week in Austin that changed my life: I was racially profiled.

I am an African-American male. That alone is a loaded and difficult calling, an irreversible one. It’s loaded because of the daily heavy lifting required of me so as not to be seen as “intimidating.” This heavy lifting requires me to be aware that my black skin in the eyes of some correlates with a perceived aggression. The load can often times be overbearing because I know I have to fly to opportunities persons from other communities can walk to professionally. It is difficult because, when interacting, I am forced not only to think for myself but also about what the other individual will perceive from my acts or failure to act.

But I fell short of my goal of not being over-generalized, stereotyped and boxed into a corner of racism. Unfortunately, it only took a seven-hour drive for my greatest fear to manifest itself: No matter how hard I worked or what I wear, my black skin can label me as menacing.
A few weeks ago, I parked my car in Austin’s University Village Apartments. I was designated to help a South African Legislative Fellow that evening move into an apartment she shared. To mitigate any mishaps, I thought it would be fitting to go upstairs to the third floor and first introduce myself. When I arrived, I knocked on the door and a blue-eyed, blonde woman appeared.
“How can I help you?” she asked nervously. I replied, “I’m helping someone move in,” and showed her the key to the apartment. I also showed her the leasing agreement and room assignment. I moved the luggage quickly into the room and the intern settled into her apartment safely.
I headed downstairs to my car, but a police officer met me in the stairwell.
“Where are you coming from?” he asked.
“A room, sir,” I sheepishly replied.
“Take a seat,” he uttered as two other cops ascended the stairwell.
Soon it was four cops and only me.
“Why?” I answered. But before I could overreact, the “talk” my mother gave me years ago returned to me at that moment: “Son, don’t make any sudden moves; allow them to see yours hands; and always answer ‘yes’ or ‘no, sir.’ ”
After giving the police my personal information and ID, I was finally released and told this was a “mistake.” The mistake was that the cops were called on me for no other reason than my being a black male, knocking on a door at 8:30 at night, trying to help a colleague move her bags up three flights of stairs. This “mistake” could potentially have been fatal if I had on a hoodie, earrings, tattoos or had spoken or conducted myself a certain way while detained.
I had naively thought I was impervious to any act of racial profiling, such as being accosted by four police officers and having my liberty deprived momentarily for being a black male, knocking on a door in the evening. However, I was wrong. Because of this singular experience, I empathize and stand in solidarity with the countless individuals who have been profiled because of their race, sexual orientation or religion.
Believe it or not, I thank the Caucasian woman who was the impetus for this life-changing event. I thank you because you opened my eyes to an experience I will never forget. I have a newly ignited fire now, to fight for criminal justice reform, to fight for social equality and to fight for a fair, transparent and reliable judicial system. For that, my friend, I thank you.
The subject's statement is:  667 words. 
II.  The Form 
A truthful or reliable account will have a general breakdown of 25/50/25 with an overwhelming number of deceptive accounts heavily weighted in the introduction.  This is to delay the main event because it is not truthful.  
Also, where there are heavily weighted portions found in the post event stage and the pre event stage, this is often "an attempt to explain", rather than to truthfully report.  The introduction is longer as the subject does not want to get to the main event, and the post section is long as the subject feels the need to explain and persuade that the main section was truthful, which indicates that it is likely not truthful.  This is the "need to persuade" and the "need to explain" that is found in deceptive statements and the Form is used to give us an early indication of what we might be looking at.  It is one tool of analysis.  

Please note that when a statement deviates from this account by giving more information in the main account, it will have shorter introductions and post event volume, while still being truthful.  It is to be especially noted when there is a reduction of less than 50% devoted to the main event that the analyst will conclude "Unreliable."

Some unreliable statements contain tangent deception, but the reduction of the main event is the most telling signal.  

The breakdown for reliability is 25/50/25:
1.  25% of a reliable account is Introduction.  This is where a subject will use about 25% of his words (or lines, 11.5 x 8, page and one-half on average) to introduce information before the main event of the account. 
2.  50% of the words used will be to describe and answer, "What happened?" in an account.  This is not only the findings of decades of research, it is considered "the expected" in analysis.  Since "what happened" is the most important part of any truthful account, it stands to reason that it will have the most words dedicated to it. 
3.  25% of the words will be post-account, that is, what took place after the account. 
Any deviation from this formula should be noted, especially if the main event falls below 50%.  

Most deceptive statement are either heavily weighted in the introduction, or heavily weighted in the intro and post, but not the main event.  

The main event is having the police called on him due to racial profiling. 
Form Tested:
A.  Introduction (before event) 238 words
B.  Event; From the time he went to the apartment until the time police released him.   224 words.  
C.  Post Event:  205 words
The breakdown is this:
Introduction is 35%
Main            33%
Post:     32%
The first measurement of the statement shows an imbalance that indicates:  Unreliable. 
A statement that is "unreliable" can still test out to be truthful.  this is just one tool of testing. 

Statement Analysis continues, line by line, with emphasis added for clarity.     
"My suitcase was packed, and I was prepared to embark upon a life-changing journey from New Orleans to intern at the 84th Texas legislative session in Austin, working for state Sen. Rodney Ellis."
Where one begins a statement is not only important (often the most important sentence in a statement) but often is the reason for the statement. 
Here in a claim of racial profiling and discrimination, the subject began with an appointment of position.  
The specific position is given, in the specific city, and the specific district, with finally naming the specific politician, "Sen. Rodney Ellis", using his full name and title. 
The reader/analyst should note at this time that the claim of racial profiling and subsequent police encounter is not mentioned in the first sentence.  This is to state one's self importance and the analyst should be on alert for not only deception within the statement (deception includes minimization, exaggeration, deliberately withheld or suppressed information, etc) but for self grandiose publication or self promotion as the principle or main reason for writing.  
Principle highlighted:  Opening sentence 
Next, we note that the opening sentence does  begin with the pronoun "I", noting that many deceptive statements begin without the pronoun "I" in claims or allegations of "what happened" to a subject.  Instead, we have the first person singular possessive pronoun, "my."  This puts focus upon what the subject possesses, rather than what happened to the subject.  This is a statistical point itself. 
Note that when the pronoun "I" is used, the subject violates the formula for commitment to an event, not only by-passing the event entirely, but by using "was prepared" in his account, "to embark" tells us the reason why the setting exists.  
When a subject tells us "why" they did something, without being asked, it is to be considered a very sensitive topic.  It sometimes indicates the subject anticipated being asked why he did something, before actually being asked.  
In this account, he does not connect it to the allegation.  
This is, therefore, an avoidance of the question, "What happened?" in his introduction.  
The length of the introduction (balance) suggests unreliability. 
The content of the introduction suggests a motive for writing that does not include, "what happened", further weakening credibility.  
We look for a subject to introduce "what happened" in a setting format. 
"I drove to an apartment at 8PM" for example, shows the formula for commitment:  The pronoun "I" and the past tense verb.  
 The unique internship would not only allow me to receive a stipend but also a full semester of law school credit. 
The second sentence continues its focus upon the subject himself, further 'resume building' to the audience.  This shows a disinterest in the account itself, and is a "tangent" to the allegation that is unrelated. 
Principle:  Unnecessary or unrelated words to an allegation are to be deemed "doubly important" to the analysis.  
In his opening lines, the subject wants the audience to know how important a person he is, and not what happened to him.  
Principle:  Avoiding a question indicates sensitivity to the question.   This is why lengthy introductions over 25% are most weighted for deceptive statements.  There is a need to editorialize, self promote and a psychological 'avoidance' of the internal stress of outright lying, hence the 'stalling' of getting to the main event.  
However, I was ill-equipped for an experience in my first week in Austin that changed my life: I was racially profiled.
Here the subject moves to emotional impact:  being "ill-equipped" for an "experience" which tells us two things:
1.  What he went through is an "experience" in his language.  It is not criminal, reprehensible, unjust, etc.  It is an "experience" which follows his initial sentence promoting himself in detail.
2.  The location of emotions.  
In truthful accounts, particularly where any trauma is experienced, the location of emotions is found in the third portion of the statement, not in the introduction, nor in the 'logical' part of the statement.  
This is because it takes humans time to process emotions.  In truthful accounts, the placement of emotions is found in the 'after' portion of the statement.  When they are found in the introduction or main event, it is a signal that they are:
Artificially placed there by the editor.  In the introduction, they are often intended as a "need to persuade" rather than report truthfully.  
Secondly, the artificial placement of emotions is then compared to the language the subject has chosen to describe what happened:  "an experience" is soft language. 
This is consistent with its artificial placement.  
I am an African-American male. That alone is a loaded and difficult calling, an irreversible one. 
The subject has still not reported what has happened, but continues to talk about himself.  Please note that the word "that" is distancing language. 
"I am an African-American male" is to note his origins, but the word "that", instead of "this" shows distancing language.  The distance is then exhibited:
"a loaded and difficult calling"
He is distancing himself from the claim that being an African-American male is a "loaded" and "difficult" calling. 
An interview of the subject should consider asking questions about his background and how "difficult" it was, since he does not take ownership of it. 
Note the language:
a.  loaded
b.  difficult
c.  calling
That it is "loaded" is to use the language of weaponry.  
Was the subject raised in a violent upbringing? Or, was the subject a hunter?
Or still, if neither is answering in the affirmative, we ask, "What caused him to use the word "loaded" in his choosing?  Is this to play upon a racial tension today of violence (gun violence, in particular) among African-American males?  
"Loaded" indicates potential for violence, rather than violence itself.  In context, using the word "that" instead of "this" shows that he is distancing himself from this "loaded" and "difficult" "calling."
Note that "difficult" only comes second to "loaded" which tells us about priority in language.  For the subject, he is distancing himself from being "loaded" and one step away from "difficult" as well. 
It would be interesting to learn if he was raised in a well functioning family setting or if it was a "difficult" upbringing.  
Note that for the subject, the birth and ancestor lineage is a "calling" and not simply something that exists.  A "calling" allows for an answer. 
Is the subject, by using both "calling" and distancing language, negating his background?  Can he "refuse" to answer the "call" to being "African-American"?
This suggests the subject may struggle to relate to other African American males, particularly those who are "racially profiled" by police.  It may be that the subject has a clean record and has not had run-ins with the laws, rather, growing up in a healthy, nurturing environment that encouraged hard work, study, and diligence.  
This is sometimes seen in the words of rappers who want to deny their upbringing and create a "ghetto-street cred" reputation, or a person of privilege who wishes to portray himself or herself as "a man or woman of the people" while having no connection to working class status.  
It is sometimes seen as a form of self-loathing.  
It’s loaded because of the daily heavy lifting required of me so as not to be seen as “intimidating.” 
Here, rather than make his allegation, he continues talking about himself and the 'burden' he bears of being "loaded" with the reason why it is "loaded."
It is a "daily heavy lifting requirement" for him to "not" be seen as "intimidating" which he puts in quotations marks. 
Please note that his "calling", of which he can answer "yes or no" to, in his language, is "loaded", that is, has potential for violence, because each day ("daily") he has to due a strenuous task (heavy lifting), suggesting that not being "seen" as intimidating takes great effort on his part.  This speaks to both appearance and countenance. 
If his appearance is one of massive size, it is only his bearing or countenance that an reduce the intimidation factor.  A man, for example, who is extreme in height and in muscular structure can be intimidating to others.  This same man may seek to counter this appearance by smiling often, showing himself friendly. 
For the subject, convincing others that he is not a menace by virtue of his appearance ("seen", which is visual) is something that is very challenging for him, so much so that it is "daily", that is, every day, and it is "heavy", which weighs him down, and it is "lifting" which requires effort.  This may be the "calling" that he can respond to with the word "yes", but it takes herculean effort to do so. 
The interview should seek to learn if the subject has a history of violence, including many school yard fights, as it takes such great effort to be seen as friendly.  If they learn that he has not been in many fights, they may consider that he is "attempting to persuade", which reveals weakness, or fabricating reality about himself, or...
that he has an issue with anger.  
That the subject may have anger management is something we look for in the language, even beyond the 'story telling' language of his 'burdens' above.  
Regardless of intent, or even story telling (humor included), the words one chooses reveal himself.  
This subject is employing language that not only suggests violence in a potential form, but indicates that he may have trouble controlling his temper; hence, the daily struggle to 'smile' or appear friendly.  
Please note that he began his statement with politics.  Politics' centrality is in appearance, rather than fact or reality.  Even while attempting to portray oneself as one thing, the language chosen can reveal another.  
This heavy lifting requires me to be aware that my black skin in the eyes of some correlates with a perceived aggression. 

The "heavy lifting" is referenced by "this", making it close, while the use of "that", as being African American, is referenced with the distancing language of "that."
It is this "heavy burden" that "requires", that is, it is not optional, as in answer a "calling" is, that he can note:  he has black skin.  

His perception of aggression "in the eyes of some" comes through the color of his skin.  The "heavy lifting", that is, the 'smiling' or being seen as non-aggressive is the place of great effort:

The subject does not find it easy to be pleasant, non-aggressive, peaceful, in demeanor.  How difficult is it for him to present himself as peaceful, friendly, non-threatening, etc, to "some"?
He does not make us wait long: 

The load can often times be overbearing because I know I have to fly to opportunities persons from other communities can walk to professionally. 

It is "overbearing" for him, and he explains why:
He "has to fly" where others only have to "walk", and this is in the professional realm.  

He struggles, to the point of being an "overbearing" struggle to not appear aggressive, and he must do this because he has to "fly" while others "walk."

What is the difference between "flying" and "walking" in professional life?

Please note that "flying" is considerably faster than walking.  

He also struggles with something else: 

It is difficult because, when interacting, I am forced not only to think for myself but also about what the other individual will perceive from my acts or failure to act.

He has acknowledged a struggle with anger, or aggression, and here he tells us that he struggles to think of others over himself.  This is consistent language with his introduction.  His introduction is very important to him that the audience know that it is not an allegation which is paramount, but he, himself, his position in life, his political ambitions and connections.  Here he shows that he, himself, is first and to think of others, he must be "forced" to do that which does not come naturally nor easily for him.  
But I fell short of my goal of not being over-generalized, stereotyped and boxed into a corner of racism. 

Here he acknowledges his own failure.  

Q.  What did he "fall short" in accomplishing?
A.   His goal

Q.  What is his goal?
A.  To not be perceived as aggressive, which for him, is something people do to him by "over-generalizing, stereotyping and boxing into a corner" which, he concludes, is "racism."

Each person has a personal, subjective internal dictionary.  It would be interesting to learn what his personal dictionary defines "racism" as.  

In presenting himself, he failed to achieve his goal, and is telling us that the burden he lifts every day, which can be overbearing, is something he failed at. 

He is admitting that he was aggressive.  

This is similar to the embedded admission found in language.  He may be using a lot of words and going a long way around to do it, but he is admitting failure to lift or carry his burden. 

He dropped it.  

He now will tell us why he failed:  

Unfortunately, it only took a seven-hour drive for my greatest fear to manifest itself: No matter how hard I worked or what I wear, my black skin can label me as menacing.

People do not like to lie directly; therefore, 90% of deception comes from missing information, which is sometimes accomplished in choosing certain words above others.  Here, we have an indicator of deception. 

He adds "seven-hour drive" as "only", and it led him to his "greatest fear" to "manifest itself."

What is his greatest fear?

Note his wording:  "my black skin can label me as menacing."

This is to specifically avoid stating "My black skin caused me to be labeled as menacing" only owning that it "can", rather than it "did."

This is something that reveals the subject knows it was not his skin that caused the "menacing" demeanor claimed by the other party involved.  It shows that he is aware that it was something else that caused the opinion of the occupants and likely police, that caused the perception of "menacing."

The subject would like us to interpret his words, but in Statement Analysis, we avoid interpretation and not the words chosen.  

He finally gets to the specific incident, or "main event" of the story.  The lengthy introduction is measured in the Form and is decidedly "unreliable" in measurement. 


A few weeks ago, I parked my car in Austin’s University Village Apartments. I was designated to help a South African Legislative Fellow that evening move into an apartment she shared. To mitigate any mishaps, 

Law student language.  


I thought it would be fitting to go upstairs to the third floor and first introduce myself

Note that he reports what he "thought" as we look for him to report what he did.  Truthful accounts may include thought, but do include activity with it.  Deceptive accounts will use "thought" or intentions, allowing the reader to believe it happened, while avoiding the direct lie. 

Did he introduce himself?


When I arrived, I knocked on the door and a blue-eyed, blonde woman appeared.

Please note the specific racial profiling 


“How can I help you?” she asked nervously. I replied, “I’m helping someone move in,” and showed her the key to the apartment. I also showed her the leasing agreement and room assignment. I moved the luggage quickly into the room and the intern settled into her apartment safely.
I headed downstairs to my car, but a police officer met me in the stairwell.


Please note that Statement Analysis deals with what one says and it deals with what one does not say. 

He thought to introduce himself, wording that is specifically given, but he did not introduce himself.  This should be noted for deception, as 'intent' is used in the hopes of interpretation.  

If he did not say he introduced himself, we are not to say it for him.  This is an example of how deception is done; not just via missing information, but with the anticipation of interpretation, rather than careful, trained listening.  


“Where are you coming from?” he asked.

“A room, sir,” I sheepishly replied.

That he used "sheepishly" is an indication that he has a need to persuade the reader of his countenance.  This is a signal that he was likely hostile, which upon checking the police report, can be learned.  

“Take a seat,” he uttered as two other cops ascended the stairwell.

Soon it was four cops and only me.

Note the inclusion of the word "only" as in comparison.  He is setting up a "us versus them" with only "him" as the "us", though with the attempt to persuade, he is attempting to get the reader to be part with him in "David v Goliath" persuasion.  

“Why?” I answered. But before I could overreact, the “talk” my mother gave me years ago returned to me at that moment: “Son, don’t make any sudden moves; allow them to see yours hands; and always answer ‘yes’ or ‘no, sir.’ ”

Note the language "before I could overreact" shows intention.  

Note the inclusion of what his mother counseled him years ago.  This is the "perfect" or "logical" portion of the story and the inclusion of the emotion of remember words from his mother is an indication of artificial placement in an editorial manner.  It reduces reliability as it shows the need to persuade.  


After giving the police my personal information and ID, I was finally released and told this was a “mistake.” The mistake was that the cops were called on me for no other reason than my being a black male, knocking on a door at 8:30 at night, trying to help a colleague move her bags up three flights of stairs. This “mistake” could potentially have been fatal if I had on a hoodie, earrings, tattoos or had spoken or conducted myself a certain way while detained.

Note that he claims the cops were called on him for not only being a black male, but he mentions something else that is unnecessary, therefore, doubly important:

"knocking on a door"

It should be learned in what manner did he knock on the door, as this is a very important element of the case to him; equalling in his language, being a black male via its inclusion, and coming before "trying to help a colleague" in its priority.  

How he "knocked on the door" is very important to the writer, which is why he includes it while it is unnecessary.  He could have said "the cops were called on me for my being a black male" and the allegation would be satisfied.  Yet it is that this additional information is a signal that he is speaking from memory and recalling the manner in which he knocked as part of the reason he had the cops called on him.  

Note "the cops were called on me" here is passive, which is appropriate if he does not know who called 911 to report him. 

Who called 911 to report him?  Was it the "blue eyed blonde Caucasian" woman?

I had naively thought I was impervious to any act of racial profiling, such as being accosted by four police officers and having my liberty deprived momentarily for being a black male, knocking on a door in the evening. However, I was wrong. Because of this singular experience, I empathize and stand in solidarity with the countless individuals who have been profiled because of their race, sexual orientation or religion.

He can show empathy or even stand but he was not a victim of racial profiling.  He was profiled as one who causes trouble because of his demeanor, attitude, and his words.  
Believe it or not, I thank the Caucasian woman who was the impetus for this life-changing event. I thank you because you opened my eyes to an experience I will never forget. I have a newly ignited fire now, to fight for criminal justice reform, to fight for social equality and to fight for a fair, transparent and reliable judicial system. For that, my friend, I thank you.
When one challenges the audience (reader/recipient/analyst) to have a choice to believe him or not, the choice is to not believe, as it is a statistical signal of deception.  

Note that he closes his statement where he began:  political ambition.  He is using deception to further his own standing in the community.  


Conclusion:

Deception Indicated
This is another example of "Fake Hate" with the motive of personal ambition.  His Fake Hate got print, and he got a politician to publicly praise him. 

He is deceptive about what happened to him.  
Next:  Amanda Vining 


24 comments:

trustmeigetit said...

Omg!!

I will be watching for statements from Josh.




NEWS

JOSH DUGGAR
ADMITS MOLESTATION
Resigns from Family Research Council

trustmeigetit said...

Just realized not everyone will know this name. Show he s on is called "19 kids and counting"

Super religious large family. Girls don't even wear pants and swim in long skirts and shirts.

The "court" instead of dating and older kids state the didn't even kiss till wedding day. Only held hands after engaged.

Was just watching their show last night talking about their rules for courtship thinking it just wasn't natural. Then this...

I'm now wondering about the dad. Curious to see statements

tania cadogan said...

off topic

The telegenic world of the Duggar family has come crashing down this week, with the family finally breaking their silence Thursday afternoon after decade-old molestation claims and cover up were revealed.

The Christian stars of TLC's hit 19 Kids and Counting confirmed eldest son Josh molested young girls when he was a teen, that they knew about it, and it was revealed he told his wife about it before they married.

Arkansas native Josh has also resigned from his position at the DC conservative lobbying group as Executive Director on Thursday as well, a job he took in the summer of 2013, uprooting his wife and three young children in the process.

'Twelve years ago, as a young teenager, I acted inexcusably for which I am extremely sorry and deeply regret. I hurt others, including my family and close friends,' Josh, 27, said in a statement.

The police report that revealed the claims was redacted and did not include names of his victims, but it also contradicts some of what Josh said on Thursday

'I confessed this to my parents who took several steps to help me address the situation. We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling,' Josh said to People.

'I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life.'

TLC, which airs the hit show 19 Kids and Counting, has not commented. The previously cancelled Here Comes Honey Boo Boo after a child molestation scandal.

It's no surprise the Duggar family chose People to break their silence, as the magazine has featured many Duggar stories on their covers, with Jessa and Jill syndicating photos of and giving interviews about their weddings and pregnancies to the weekly.

Josh's parents also issued a join statement to People, acknowledging the scandal but crediting it with making them more religious.

'Back 12 years ago our family went through one of the most difficult times of our lives,' Jim Bob, 49, and Michelle, 48, told People.

'When Josh was a young teenager, he made some very bad mistakes, and we were shocked. We had tried to teach him right from wrong. That dark and difficult time caused us to seek God like never before.'

Their statement continues, 'Even though we would never choose to go through something so terrible, each one of our family members drew closer to God. '

After a few more sentences thanking religion in their lives and admitting they are not perfect, they end 'We hope somehow the story of our journey – the good times and the difficult times – cause you to see the kindness of God and learn that He can bring you through anything.'

However, other than a few months at a camp, it is unclear what counseling or help the family got. They also did nothing official to prevent a 2003 incident, which came after the parents were

tania cadogan said...

Most surprising of the statement released on Thursday was that from his pregnant wife Anna, currently expecting the couple's fourth child, who claimed she felt 'shock' when she first found out.

'When my family and I first visited the Duggar home, Josh shared his past teenage mistakes,' Anna, 26, told People.

'I was surprised at his openness and humility and at the same time didn't know why he was sharing it. For Josh, he wanted not just me but my parents to know who he really was – even every difficult past mistakes.'

She also credits religion, saying her husband 'had humbled himself before God and those whom he had offended.'

However, the police report of Josh Duggar's alleged molestation reveals that incidents happened multiple times between the then-teenager and five girls, almost always while the minors were sleeping.

It also happened once when he was reading to a child.

The Duggars have grown rich in recent years, traveling the country for paid speeches, publishing books about their family, and starring in never ending seasons of the TLC show.

The allegations are shocking, as is the lack of offical intervention on the part of Josh's parents.

Both of his parents were aware of the situation but waited over a year to notify anyone in law enforcement, going at that time to see a family friend who was a trooper and did not file a report.

They had previously addressed it with a family meeting.

They also revealed details of the incident to church elders who did not reach out to law enforcement. For years, nothing official was done, and the Duggars continued to have babies and Josh continued to live in the home, being homeschooled.

It was not until producers from The Oprah Winfrey Show, who were planning an interview with the family, received an email alerting them to the alleged molestation that an investigation began, this after the show reached out to the Department of Human Services.

That was in December of 2006, over four years after the first reported offense. That is the time period the police report, discovered by In Touch, game out

The police report and all other documents will now be destroyed after one of the victims successfully petitioned a judge on Thursday afternoon saying she was worried that an unredacted copy might be released.

TMZ reports the person was identified as 'Jane Doe.'

The document states; 'The Police Report contains information, which may directly or indirectly identify the Movant as a victim of a sex crime, and Movant is a minor child.'

tania cadogan said...

InTouch reports; 'Josh Duggar was investigated for multiple sex offenses, including forcible fondling, against five minors. Some of the alleged offenses investigated were felonies.'

According to the police report, in March 2002, Jim Bob was told by a female minor that his son, then 14, had been 'touching her breasts and genitals while she slept' on numerous occasions.

Josh allegedly admitted to this according to the report, and Jim Bob says he was 'disciplined.'

He was accused again however in March 2003 of allegedly touching the breasts and genitals of 'several woman,' both while they were sleeping and even when they were awake.

According to the police report 'there was another incident….[redacted, Josh] was reading to [redacted, alleged victim] and [redacted] was sitting on [redacted] lap, [redacted] had touched [redacted] breasts and vaginal area…[redacted] then ran out of the room and called [redacted] and told [redacted] what [redacted, Josh] had done.'

Also 'some time during this time frame, [redacted] had been standing in the laundry room and [redacted, Josh] had put [redacted] hand under [redacted, victim's] dress.'

The police report says the alleged victims 'live with their parents Jim Bob and Michelle.'

At that point Jim Bob reportedly informed the elders at his church of the situation, but no one notified law enforcement.

The elders all agreed that Josh should be sent to a 'treatment program.'

The family did send Josh to a 'program [that] consisted of hard physical work and counseling' according to the police report for four months, but Jim Bob could not remember the name of the program.

The parents also said Josh apologized to the minors and they had forgiven him for the alleged molestation.

This seemed to be backed up in 2006 when one of the alleged victims said to police that Josh told 'mother and dad what had happened… (and) asked for forgiveness.'

They also added that the teenager had 'sought after God and had turned back to God.'

After he returned home from his program, Jim Bob did take his son to Arkansas State Trooper Jim Hutchens, a family friend.

Hutchens had a stern talk with Josh, but did not take any official action.

He is now serving 60 years in prison after he being caught with child pornography shortly after being released from prison on a previous child pornography charge.

Also around this time, according to the police report, 'a family friend aware of what had happened had written down in a letter what he knew of [redacted, Josh's] actions.

'That letter had been placed in a book and had subsequently been forgotten about. Just recently [in 2006] the book had been loaned to someone else with the letter in it and another person discovered the letter.'

Shortly after this is when Harpo, Winfrey's production company, received the email about the allegations and faxed it to Department of Human Services.

tania cadogan said...

The email said that Jim Bob 'lies to his church and his friends to make him look good. At this moment he is in trouble with the church for lying about [name redacted] and things that concern the way the church members acted.'


The individual also wrote; '[The Duggars] have been on TV before and come across as a perfect family, which couldn't be further from the truth.'

The person who then called the hotline from The Oprah Winfrey Show said 'they found out this and asked the family about it, so the parents told them about it with [redacted] sitting right there.'

They said that the parents told them that the incident happened 3 1/2 years prior and that their son has been 'fondling [redacted names] breast and vaginas when they were sleeping.'

The caller said they were concerned this had never been 'reported' and that Josh had 'never received treatment.'

The report reveals that the Duggars were actually in Chicago, where Oprah taped, when authorities reached out to them.

After seeing the email, police asked Jim Bob to bring his son in for an interview but he 'refused to produce his son for questioning.'

Jim Bob also tried to hire a lawyer for his son but 'at least two lawyers refused to take his case.'

When Jim Bob and Michelle were interviewed, they detailed the allegations, which happened at a time when Josh and at least one victim 'were sleeping in a common room.'

The Duggar children now sleep in single-sex bedrooms, with all the girls sharing a bedroom and the boys sharing another bedroom.

Another person interviewed by police, a female who was not a victim but knew the victims, said the incident 'had brought the family closer to God.'

That individual, who said at the time of the interview they were working on getting their G.E.D., also said they only knew 'bits and pieces' about what happened.

Police spoke with an additional person who was not a victim but knew what happened as their 'mother and dad told them during a family meeting.'

They said there were two family meetings and that each were a year apart and that after the second on '[redacted] went away for three months.'

The third non-victim they spoke to said they were never touched inappropriately but were touched on the bottom when 'mother and dad spank.'

That person also said that they use a 'rod' to spank, and that they do it to all the kids.

Police questioned the fifth victim after the other four, who said she was sleeping over the Duggar's house on the couch when her breasts were touched.

She also said that Jim Bob and Michelle spoke with her parents in the aftermath.

tania cadogan said...

Authorities could not pursue charges at this point however as the three-year statute of limitations had expired.

TLC, which airs 19 Kids and Counting, declined to comment on the report.

Family Research Council, where Josh works as an executive director for FRC Action, also did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Josh's cousin Amy Duggar was asked by Radar Online what her thoughts were about the release of this report, and responded by saying; 'I have nothing to say about that.'

The family is very conservative. All the children are homeschooled and only one child has attended college away from home, son Joseph, who attends a Bible college in Tennessee.

The whole family practices 'modest dress. None of the daughters of Michelle wears pants or shorts. They only wear skirts below the knee that are not form fitting. They even wear long skirts to work out. They also cover their cleavage and shoulders.

The boys and men do not wear shorts.

The family wears body-covering modest swimwear if they go swimming.

They family does not dance and does not want their children to dance.

When Michelle, and later Josh's wife Anna, go for ultrasounds during their many pregnancies documented on the television show, they make a point to cover their stomachs from cameras and everyone else in the room.

Josh, 27, is currently married and he and his wife Anna have three children, Mackynzie, Michael and Marcus, with a fourth on the way.

They aired their 'gender reveal' party on the family's show, and they are expecting a little girl in July.

The couple married on in a televised wedding in 2008, and famously saved their first kiss for marriage after a traditional courtship in which they only held hands after they were engaged.

The met at a Texas home school conference.

Anna is from a large family, the Kellers, in Florida.

The Duggar family are staunchly pro-life, trust in God for family planning rather than birth control and are now campaigning for their friend and fellow Arkansas native Mike Huckabee to he President.

Before moving to Washington DC almost two years ago to work at the Family Research Council, Josh ran a used car dealership in Arkansas and lived in a small two bedroom house owned by his parents.

Their first two children were born in the house - with Josh and sister Jill assisting in Mackynzie's birth in the master bedroom and Michael's birth on the toilet.

Marcus was delivered at a midwifery center nearby.

Jim Bob and his wife Michelle have 19 children, nine girls and ten boys, and Josh is the eldest.

They also frequently visit cousin Amy, also 28, their only cousin on Jim Bob's side of the family and an aspiring singer who was born out of wedlock to Jim Bob's sister.

All of Jim Bob and Michelle's children's names start with 'J'.

The TLC show was previously called '17 Kids and Counting' and '18 Kids and Counting', but looks to be done at 19 Kids and counting as Michelle hasn't given birth in four years and it's now grandchild time.

Josh is the parent of three of the Duggar's four grandchildren. All their children have names starting with M, and the first two were born at home.

Josh's younger sister Jill recently gave birth to grandchild four, son Israel, and daughter Jessa is expecting the sixth Duggar grandchild with her husband Ben, 20.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3091940/I-acted-inexcusably-Josh-Duggar-breaks-silence-molesting-young-girls-teen-parents-claim-scandal-drew-family-closer-God.html

trustmeigetit said...


'I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life.'


Interesting he's concerned about how it would affect his life. What about the lives of those you already hurt? What about the lives of those you could hurt in the future.

That statement concerns me.

5emerald29 said...

I noticed that the his "main event" was small compared to his introduction. His introduction was so long that I lost interest in reading the rest of the article; however I pushed through it. One thing did grab my eye------"why, I answered". I find that oddly worded; why wouldn't you write "why, I asked"? Is it just me or is this strange?

5emerald29 said...

I cheated and found Amy Vinings version. Her storying I found interesting and powerful. I won't spoil it until its written here, however what a difference even to novice like me.

trustmeigetit said...

Peter...any way to add a like button to comments? I keep trying to like thinking its Facebook. Lol

John mcgowan said...

OT Update:


Hannah Anderson blasts credibility of Lifetime movie

SAN DIEGO - Hannah Anderson, the teen who was allegedly kidnapped by family friend James DiMaggio in 2013 after he murdered her mother and brother, is blasting the new made for television Lifetime movie about the tragedy, calling it a “lie of a movie.”

"Kidnapped: The Hannah Anderson Story", will premiere Saturday at 8 p.m. It covers questions surrounding the relationship between a then 16-year-old Anderson and 40-year-old DiMaggio.

Anderson said DiMaggio kidnapped her from her East County home on Aug. 4, 2013, bludgeoned her mom, 8 year old brother Ethan and the family dog, and then set their house on fire. DiMaggio then took Anderson to the Idaho mountains where the FBI and US Marshals tracked them. On Aug. 10, 2013, DiMaggio was shot and killed by FBI agents.

However, many, including DiMaggio's sister Lora, were skeptical about that version of events. Some believe Hannah may have played a bigger role. Something the movie also delves into.

Anderson posted the following on Instagram Tuesday: “I never have (sic) them any form of permission to make this movie or even information to put in this movie. Even the preview alone has false facts and untrue events.”

Anderson goes on to ask friends and “even people who support me not to watch this lie of a movie.”

“When the time comes I will tell my story, but again if anyone is gonna tell my story it should be me.”

Hannah is played by actress Jessica Amlee. DiMaggio is being played by Scott Patterson.

http://www.10news.com/news/hannah-anderson-blasts-credibility-of-lifetime-movie

Jen Ow said...

OT

I've watched episodes of the Duggar's show through the years, and even before this horrible revelation, I felt uncomfortable hearing the details of their courting, and modesty 'rules'.

After reading this, I wonder how many of those rules were inspired by this incident with their 15 yo son! (They keep repeating 'young' teenager, as if to excuse his behavior. HE WAS 15! Old enough to start driving, and just a few years from being an adult. He knew better, and he was in a position of power over his siblings as the oldest boy.)

They have said on the show that while courting/spending the with the opposite sex/ engaged, they have to be chaperoned at all times. They don't kiss, and don't allow 'chest to chest' hugging, meaning if they hug it can only be a one armed squeeze from the side, so that their chests don't touch and 'awaken' sexual feelings. (No dancing for same reason.) They also have to copy all their texts, and communications with their significant other to their parents.

I was uncomfortable listening to the mother, and the girls explain the rules, because they seemed to focus on the girls needing to be covered, and modify their behavior (even very young girls not being allowed to wear swim clothes) so as to not entice males. The bathing suit thing particularly bothered me, as it assigned the possibility of a sexually provocative appearance to little girls that were ages 2-10ish.

(The mother also famously said that a wife should never deny her husband sex, claiming that since she is the only one who can provide that for him, she should provide it anytime he wants it.)

Lastly, the idea that the two older girls just married men with whom they never spent a single moment alone, nor had a private conversation is bizarre. People behave differently in front of others, and marrying someone who you have spent zero time with one-on-one, nor had private conversations about your feelings, your future, etc, seems like a recipe for disaster!

trustmeigetit said...

Jen Ow.. Said "lastly, the idea that the two older girls just married men with whom they never spent a single moment alone, nor had a private conversation is bizarre. People behave differently in front of others, and marrying someone who you have spent zero time with one-on-one, nor had private conversations about your feelings, your future, etc, seems like a recipe for disaster!"



I could not agree more and thought the same. A date with others sitting there watching does not allow you to be yourself at all. And how well do you know them then.

trustmeigetit said...

Then the movie about the Hannah Anderson"kidnapping" should be interesting.

I do not believe she is innocent.

She looked awake in the clip at the border and the fact she slipped and said Jim was "signaling for help" moments after stating he would kill her if she had let the hikers know she needed help was so alarming that I do not understand how LE didn't bring her back in to explain.

That and her texts to Jim that she said she needed to give him the address and location to her school to get her despite the fact that he had picked her up many times and did not need an address.

There are many kids in jail for killing their parents. So those that want to use her age as a defense need to look how many times this occurs.

trustmeigetit said...

TLC has cancelled 19 kids and counting.

John mcgowan said...

Anderson posted the following on Instagram Tuesday:

“I never, ("Never is not to be accepted as "did not/didn't, that is, unless the question was "have you ever") have (sic) them any form of (Suggest that maybe there have been talks in the past about it) permission to make this (Close) movie or even (Qualifier)information to put in this movie Even the preview alone (Suggest that there is more in the "movie that eludes to something else) has false facts and untrue events.”

Anderson goes on to ask friends and “even people who support me not to watch this lie of a movie.”

When the time comes I will tell my story,, but again if anyone is gonna tell my story (repeated making her "story" sensitive) it should (Not, "it will be me") be me.”

I do hope she gets whats coming to her. She has been deceptive in every statement she has made!

John mcgowan said...

^^ Correction^^

I should have said " sensitivities"

tania cadogan said...

Even the preview alone has false facts and untrue events.”

This caught my eye, specifically False facts

How can a fact be false?

If it is false then it is not a fact it is a lie, a falsehood.

I would like to know what facts she considers false.

It is also worth noting she says untrue events.

Why not say the preview was deceptive, it was all lies.

I suspect she was perhaps holding out for a movie deal and is now pissed she didn't get what she wanted.

Her anger will cause her to open mouth and insert feet.

She will point out the alleged discrepancies and tell us what really happened or close to what happened.
For example the movie may portray the deaths in a certain order and she will correct them ( how would she know if she didn't see it/wasn't there)
She may let slip who said what again how would she know.

She could reveal what happened during the journey ( even though she was allegedly drugged)

I hope the police are playing close attention, she will reveal a lot.

Sara said...

OT Duggars

Touching/molesting/raping someone in their sleep is a common behavior of narcissists. Sickening.

Sara said...

This guy is such a liar. Proof--self/story contradiction.
He says (1) I never thought I'd be a victim of racial profiling, then says (2) my greatest fear was realized.

You cannot fear something you think cannot happen to you. Fear would be the result of thinking that the bad thing could happen.

This logic based proof supports the veracity/utility of statement analysis. SA also proved he was deceptive.

Jen Ow said...

Well said! I agree, he contradicts himself, and logic in his statement.

He says being profiled, or perceived as aggressive due to the color of his skin was his greatest fear, but later says he felt impervious to having it happen to him. You can't feel impervious to something, while also claiming it's your greatest fear.

His actions also contradict his assertion that he is constantly having to think not only for himself, but about how others will perceive his behavior. If he had considered how his actions would be perceived by ANY woman, (*who was confronted by a strange man knocking on the door of their all female housing unit, after dark, claiming to be moving in an unexpected roommate, without the roommate present, and showing off a key to her home)...then he wouldn't have taken the actions he did.

I also don't see any legitimate reason why he took the intern's keys, and inserted himself into the situation. Even if he was asked to help by the roommate, there is no reason for him to have taken possession of her keys, and proceeded as he did. He only mentions moving in her "luggage', which she clearly managed to get all the way from South Africa without his help, so I suspect she could have managed just fine without him.

John mcgowan said...

Tania said

"Her anger will cause her to open mouth and insert feet.

She will point out the alleged discrepancies and tell us what really happened or close to what happened.
For example the movie may portray the deaths in a certain order and she will correct them ( how would she know if she didn't see it/wasn't there)
She may let slip who said what again how would she know.


Oh i do hope so )

Jen Ow said...

Agreed! I hope her immaturity, and arrogance get the best of her!

Great catch on "false facts" too, Tania!