Churchhoney

The home "school" at the Seewalds will surely accomplish wonderful things, won't it?

Of course. Everything Jer has/likes is spicy! Not.

If she did that, there wouldn't be room in her head to stuff every single aspect of Jer's personality so she can have it all handy to parrot at all times. She's got the only social-media accounts I see where a person constantly says nothing but stuff that a different person would say. She's really taken the headship thing to the limit. Not one single interest or view of her own ever seems to surface. It's kinda horrifying that she could -- and would-- do that so completely.

They seem to have adopted a family definition of "work" that isn't recognized by the outside world. I mean, sometimes Sinner Twin's plane is his office. And the Medic boys consider skydiving to be important preparatory work for medical missions. And Meeechelle's back muscle is missing.

I could see these being events that almost sort of happened as written (with a little Jessa embroidery) or events that Jessa made up out of whole cloth. But I know they're examples of something about the Duggarlings that's very depressing to me. And it's that over and over and over again, adult Duggarlings spout crap that's just exactly the crap I know their parents indoctrinated them into as kids.....and from which they apparently haven't moved on a millimeter, because they've had virtually no other influences except occasionally some other boobs from inside the exact same bubble. And whether they've already got their little kids spouting these same indoctrinations or they're just putting them into the kids' mouths via social-media fiction, it's still clear that the households this next generation is growing up in ring to the rafters with the same poisonous nonsense that permeates the TTH.....and nothing else. Depressing.

Here's the thing with shoe fashion, Jingle. Today's "next level" is tomorrow's "old hat." Will your headship be able to afford all the next levels that are ahead of you in the worlds of shoes, suits, pocket squares, snacks, burgers, home-gym equipment, desserts, fountain pens, etc.? Because I just don't see how he will.

Mrs. Reber may well have gotten a huge indoctrination to the patriarchal-culture thing from her family growing up, too. That can make women sitting ducks for males trying to find a patriarchal marriage. It can be hard to get away from that kind of indoctrination when it's all around you -- and then people tell you that it's not just the only cultural tradition that's correct but that God orders it too.

And not just November but late November. Yikes.

Apparently Henry's on his way to being a famous evangelist, a megachurch preacher, or President of Liberty U or the Family Research Council. He's already learned to creatively use Bible verses to lie, cheat, and put women in their place while unduly enriching himself. I used to have some hope for Henry......But clearly Jessa and Bin are providing him with the pinnacle of Duggar-style childraising and education. (but not with adequate nutrition)

No, there's no house arrest for this. This has a mandatory prison sentence..... And the minimum is about 5 years.

There is time off for good behavior in federal prison......I'm not sure if I think Josh would behave well or ill. I lean toward "well" because I think he'll ultimately fear to rock the boat. But who knows...

Yeah, I get what you're saying......The thing is, the main place I'm coming from is having sat on a bunch of juries in different kinds of cases.....So what I'm looking for, when I think about the outcome, is -- Where will the jury's sources of reasonable doubt come from? Because that's ultimately where your hung jury or not-guilty verdict gonna come from. And as an frequent juror, I can see that there aren't many potential sources of reasonable doubt in this particular case. A lot of is technology-oriented.....and it's kind of black and white -- the LE didn't have to draw a lot of conclusions from the technology to tie this back to Josh. There's pretty clear path, seems like......And so only a juror who really really doesn't trust any technology or really really trust law enforcement at all is likely to find much doubt there. There aren't going to be a bunch of eyewitnesses or family members testifying that Josh was some other place than the police say he was or testifying about this, that or the other event or statement by the defendant. And those witnesses are a big source of juror doubt -- whether the witnesses were confused or lying.....Are there reasons to think they aren't credible? Etc. Doubt from sources like that will be minimal because there won't be a lot of people testifying. Evidence from a crime scene and the nature of a crime scene or alleged one can also be a big source doubts....But this isn't a case with much physical evidence. So that'll lessen the number of possible doubts. I think Josh's attorneys' arguments about the car lot being a place where potentially many people other than Josh can have committed this crime could raise doubts. But if the jurors have doubts, they can see pictures of the car lot and see it on a map. Heck, they might even be taken there if they're wondering about that. They might see employee logs......And all that in this case is gonna show that the car lot is pretty isolated, clearly wouldn't have had a bunch of people traipsing in and out as Josh claims, and isn't big enough to have a bunch of employees going in and out.....So that, too, won't raise a whole lot of juror doubt, based on what I've seen. Many crimes unfold in numerous stages -- so something that happened at one particular stage of 10 stages can be a source of doubt. But this one really consists of only a few actions. So -- based only on my own jury experience, which of course doesn't prove anything, although it's substantial -- I just don't see that this case will raise nearly as many questions for jurors as many cases do......And when the jurors don't have questions, their verdicts are generally pretty clear. ... Not that it's impossible that his jury will vote not guilty. But I've seen in real life how jury deliberations differ in cases that are of limited scope and technical like this and ones that have a lot of elements, lots of moving parts. And it's the complicated ones that can raise numerous doubts and swing the jury to "not guilty," in the trials I've seen. So, to me, as a constant juror, he looks to have very very very little chance of getting a not-guilty verdict. In my mind, he's risking an extra year in prison for an extremely slim chance at no years in prison. And with those odds, I wouldn't risk it. I envision a jury going out, staying out as long as it takes them to look carefully through all the evidence, but not having very much conversation because where are numerous doubts going to come from? And coming back in a relatively short time with a guilty verdict. But of course he may well not believe the odds are at all what I think they are....(but if that's the judgment he makes, I think he's wrong!) Time will tell......... (But not nearly soon enough for Mrs. Reber, no doubt....)

Well, I think avoiding an extra year in prison would be worth it for a lot of people, wouldn't it? (not all, obviously....but many)... I mean, it's a year out of your life.....And it's prison. And it's a year when you could be FREE and start getting yourself back on your feet, perhaps..... And you're not talking a year off a 25-year-sentence, you're talking a year off of 7 or 8 years, where I think that extra year looms pretty large. Plus, I think a lot of people, on reflection, would rather not go through the trial and watch a roomful of people see exactly what they've done. .... And in the case of somebody with a family -- have their family see exactly what they've done.....Again, obviously everybody won't feel that way. But I'd think a fair number would in a case like this where, without your trial, your family might never see the stuff you were looking at. ... But with the trial they would... And then, of course, undue pressures are put on some people. But I doubt that that would really happen in this case... And if I were famous, like Josh, I'd want fewer media stories....and a trial is certainly going to up that number, I would think! But....of course I'm not Josh and Josh isn't me.....Maybe he's looking forward to all the media stories!

Here's hopin`! I'm trying to keep my expectations low! (and in line with what I've seen on the DOJ website for this district. -- only a very very few getting more than 8 on these same charges -- and many in the 6 to 7 range....)

He's almost certainly not looking at 10 years, though. One of the biggest things that up your sentence are having previous criminal convictions of any kind. Josh has zero. So he's not going to be near the top of the range for his charges. The difference between a plea and a guilty verdict in his case is more likely to be about a year or so, I think.

Not when you're 1,000,000-percent self-absorbed, I guess. And apparently have a fetish involving your own feet.

But that's a percentage based on all kinds of cases. And in some cases, like Josh's, there aren't very many potential sources of reasonable doubt for the jury. In other cases, there are all kinds of complexities, many different kinds of evidence, many different kinds of witness testimony. Cases that, unlike Josh's, are unusual in various ways so there lots of ways in which law enforcement might have screwed up and so on. Josh's is just one of a whole bunch of cases that are being brought under the same program, and Law enforcement and prosecutors have it kind of mechanized...>And it's not a case with multiple human elements and different places in which it took place and different kinds of evidence like documents, blood, eyewitnesses AND tech...... Many cases have lots of places where a jury can find reasonable doubt. But this group of cases he's in are extremely similar to one another and quite limited in their scope. So there's less chance in such a case that things that cast doubt will appear. I'm no lawyer but I've been on a bunch of juries. And I've seen that some cases have many many areas where jurors can feel doubtful about things. And a case like Josh's really doesn't have nearly so many areas that could make you wonder. 17 percent of the people going to trial in cases similar to his aren't going to get not-guilty verdicts. I'd guarantee that. There just aren't nearly the complications of many other kinds of prosecutions.

Of course, if he is -- though I'm not sure he could even do the math to get that far -- he's also figuring without taking into account the fact that many federal cases are way way way way way less routine than his and thus have many many many more potential reasons for jurors to find reasonable doubt! His case is very routine, with many many nearly identical cases all being churned out through the exact same program -- so there's a lot of prosecutorial and LE experience for his kind of case, and many fewer weird human or other elements to throw doubts of various kinds into the mix. I'd be surprised if the number of not-guilty verdicts in his suite of cases is even near the double digits, really.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that about 90 percent of federal cases (overall) are settled with a guilty plea..... !

If their eyes are open when the actual images are shown, and described as something Josh gets his orgasms from, it's hard for me to imagine anybody giving him a pass. I mean, this isn't "pornography" in the way that any average person thinks of pornography. It's just hard for me to see that, no matter what intentions of jury nullification somebody might have come in with, they're not going to be frozen in shock and horror when they see this stuff. Plus, a lot of fundies-- allegedly, at least -- think of a Playboy centerfold as serious pornography. I doubt many of them have even begun to imagine the kind of stuff they'll be shown here. ... Unless they have eyeballs painted on their eyelids and just never look at what he's actually looked at for sexual gratification, I don't think we have much at all to worry about from fervent Christians trying to save him.......I suppose somebody might be nuts enough to persist in the idea that he's innocent and being framed by Satan.....but I'd think it'd be hard for somebody like that not to get weeded out during jury selection.

Despite some glitches, Josh has lived in bubbles devoted to the myth of his superiority his whole life. His parents -- in line with Gothardism and super-fundieism -- raised him and his siblings to believe that Josh was The Leader Of Their Home by the ancient immutable laws of God's Patriarchy. And they promoted him at Gothard events and their home churches and even among JB's political colleagues as such, too. You hear that from multiple witnesses. How he was held up as the great fundie hope for the future. And to some degree a lot of those men seemed to buy it, right along with JB and M, at least to some degree. As a kid and teen Josh reportedly had a real in with the other patriarchs that ran the local fundieist circle in which JB and M had their home church. He was accepted as the Golden Boy. He even was given credence as somebody who could run a political campaign -- as an utterly uneducated teenager. And then the Family Research Council gave him a major job and a big title, when he had no education and hardly any experience, only hype and the connections he had from his tv history and his Arkansas statehouse doings (which certainly were anything but substantial and anything but an unalloyed success -- but for some reason they bought it all, too, as an acceptable resume, despite otherwise hiring people with college educations and so on.). And he left there before his inadequacies got fully revealed by any true challenges. Not everybody would respond to that history by becoming more and more arrogant and sure of their ability to manipulate people and situations. But Josh obviously was born with a personality that did respond that way. So all that treatment was actually a kind of poison to him, making him more and more prone to misjudging his own abilities, although he and his parents probably thought it was all good. They thought they had Caesar Augustus, but what they actually had was Caligula. About time he ran into the real world and got his supposed skills tested. 'Cause he obviously still thinks he has those skills.

You can't get his dick in your mouth unless you turn the other way. And just stop, Hilary. Just stop.

Yeah, I get your reasoning..... But I feel like my own observation has shown people to be much better (and inveterate) compartmentalizers than that. And I'd guess compartmentalization is one of Josh's few actual developed talents.

The thing about the Josh-won't-plead-guilty thing that bothers me most (and my guess is that, very very very unfortunately, he won't) is that, to me, it shows that he truly has absolutely no concept of ethics/morality/decency at all and that he doesn't give a single crap about the one group of people he might possibly give a tiny crap about -- his seven children. Because. to my mind, what he owes those children is the truth and a life as free as possible from media stories about their father's trial on hideous charges -- whether they see those stories today or accidentally pull them up on Google 20 years from now. If he goes to trial, then he doesn't have an atom's worth of concern for his own children, his own little loinfruit, his own DNA. And that's a pretty lowest-common-denominator human concern that sometimes surfaces even in very scummy people. But if Josh allows this to go to trial, in my opinion he has absolutely zero conception of what he owes those kids. I know he didn't want so many. But if he could figure out how to secretly locate and download hard-to-access evil materials, he could have figured out how to get a vasectomy without telling anybody. That said, I'm still hoping he pleads guilty, for those children. Because imagine their future lives -- "educated" at the SOTDRT, still indoctrinated with all manner of Gothard-y crap and the most fundie of fundiness, and living in a world where media stories about their "celebrity" father's scandalous trial on horrifying charges will be scattered here and there in other people's memories and all around the internet, like landmines and UXBs. Forever.

Yep. As they were trying to get some form of accreditation, they revamped that course so they weren't perceived to be offering anything that wasn't in some way substantive and therefore legitimate. Which tells us what it was like when Joe took it. 😁