Jump to content
Forums forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

15.2k Excellent
  1. Can you maybe explain if there's a difference between references to the howlers and the lost boys? I've always assumed the howlers were the very youngest boys. I guess thinking about it now probably the teenager that just got married a month or two ago was one I always would have pointed to as a howler, but I'm realizing that not only don't I know all of their names and cannot successfully put a name with a face for a wide swath of them, I'm actually confused about categories and nicknames. Sinner twin has always confused me too, I get that it comes from the other set of twins that's n
  2. I cannot wrap my brain around how hard it's got to be to seat a jury who's aware they're going to have to view this stuff. They've got to probe that possibility to assess if people can handle it. If you release someone who says, there's no way I can do that and remain objective 80-percent of the pool is going to say the same, if only to get out of serving. If you put on someone who can't watch it when the time comes, it jeopardizes the trial.
  3. That's exactly how I have always received the story myself, the Duggar version of a humble brag. Until I was typing my reply above. If this little anecdote began to be trotted out publicly after what took place in their home in the early aughts I wonder if it means something else. Could this be a very stealth way to normalize the idea of who's responsible when "defrauding" is alleged? Wasn't there an alleged victim who was not part of the family? The normal defense against this type of crime is to discredit the accuser. That can easily backfire. But if you wrap it in an "acc
  4. No. This wasn't a wrong turn because the streetlights were out.
  5. I can't imagine any mom not being hysterical with fear at the thought of her child facing incarceration. I'd have a hard time just with the idea when, where and how I could see and be with my child wasn't up to myself and my child. I can't imagine what it must be for a parent to look at the entire concept of incarceration. That's in the normal range of parenting attitudes in my opinion. Frankly I have no idea how to even begin to sort out where Michelle might land on anything to do with this, or much of anything to do with any of her children for that matter. I have no idea whether
  6. I absolutely don't disagree with your summation of their parenting and JB's pronouncements of how others need to work harder in order to match what he claims his family is. Then I recognize what the actual parenting and preparation of the kids actually was, along with the fact they may have a very distorted viewpoint of how they stack up in the real world. I don't see them having much of anything to show us, and I can't really hold them much more than 20-percent at fault, if that. I shudder to think of what the last years of being a minor now looks like for the ones under 18 with t
  7. There are the outlier cases where things like that happen, but unless there is very good reason it's avoided. The judge made the statement he did because he was making a record that they were taking every possible measure to preserve the defendant's right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty.
  8. Can it be considered willingly doing anything if the reason you did it is because you were brainwashed? I mean they convicted Patty Hearst, but IDK if that proves the point for me. According to what I'm understanding the tenets of their beliefs to be, yes, what Josh did as a teenager was a big deal -- but under those same tenets the girls are considered to have instigated or caused the behavior and also a big deal. If they accept those beliefs or have been brainwashed into doing so isn't it understandable they would have reason to fudge the details of the narrative? IMO most people s
  9. Trying any financials with the child allegations was what I was asking about. I definitely agree that it's a bad idea to try to run a jury through both in the same proceedings, which was my point about the bow. No way they're ever trying a child sexually abusive matter and an unrelated financial matter against one defendant with a financial matter against yet another defendant.
  10. I did know Josh was sick and had sexual compulsions. The fact he had an isolated upbringing with his family and the adult porn/cheating scandal made me think his initial predation was merely preying on the only victims he could access at the time and that his drive had aged with him. Discovering his drive was children is disturbing to say the least. Would they risk muddying the waters by pursuing any financials against Josh until they had tied the bow on the child crimes? The child allegations are the absolute priority, yes?
  11. It doesn't have to be information that came from Josh's computers or anything about the raid. Transactions can even have taken place since the bond hearing that might not have attracted attention before, but some detail stands out for notice to someone now. Information could have been turned over in relation to the bond hearing that revealed something of interest and someone went digging. Maybe nothing's going on and the rumor about another potential arrest is just idle speculation.
  12. My guess would be JB playing fast and loose with financials. Even knowing the car lot got raided some time ago, my first thought in regard to hearing a Duggar could be arrested would be financial and JB first suspect. I did not suspect Josh had a predatory compulsion towards children. Financials would at least be snark worthy, not this horror.
  13. IDK about there, but here counsel tables have a front panel down to the floor specifically so jurors or potential jurors will be unaware if a defendant is in fact in leg irons. They must be dressed in street clothes and not jail uniforms by law, cannot have their hands shackled in view of jurors and only come and go from the courtroom when the jury is not present to observe, but they can and do sit at counsel table throughout trial in leg irons in many cases.
  14. I've heard prosecutors from that unit here advocate that idea in casual conversations, but I'm not very clear exactly how far that is allowed to fly in reality. Judges here are hyper conservative about how they run these kinds of cases in the event they do go to trial. It's not uncommon to actually have a day or two of jury selection, sometimes even seat a jury and then have the predators finally wave the white flag when it's clear there is no exit, they're going to trial, and say they want to take a plea. We used to have one judge who had a rule that once a jury was empaneled no pleas
  15. In cases that I'm familiar with that issue is normally a really bloody legal argument for the exact reason you outline. It's caught between the right of the accused to see and hear all evidence against them and not wanting to gratify a potential predator. If this thing went to trial it would be very interesting to understand how they address the issue in this specific case.
  • Create New...

Customize font-size