Tikichick

I don't know, that's why I said I wondered and "if she's ever expressed concern or unhappiness". If it's torpedoing her efforts to have a relationship with some of her siblings that she cares to remain close to, I would guess it's problematic for Jill, but I don't know what the situation is.

And yet how many times did some of his siblings have to attend ALERT and Journey to the Heart?

It's my understanding the girls had to publicly accept culpability when this was all taken in front of their church along with Josh. If that is accurate Michelle didn't step in and shut that down. IMO JB & M should have been the ones up there after the second incident, telling their church how they mishandled things after it happened the first time.

I wonder if Jill and Derrick have ever discussed his SM rants and if she's ever expressed concern or unhappiness about them? I do think he should take her feelings seriously. I'm not even a little bit surprised that Derrick is entirely scorched earth in regard to JB, his first real love in the Duggar family. IMO his palpable anger shows how deep his wound is. He does need to get over it at least to the point where he doesn't cause distress to his wife.

Even if I could get over the hurdle of accepting Michelle's willingness to continue birthing ever more children for the Lord that she handed off to her daughters to raise, I cannot accept the idea she stood behind the idea her daughters should accept culpability, including publicly, for what Josh did to them. Nope, that's definitely a bridge too far. Any credit, any limelight she gets for the sheer number of children she birthed is dimmed and diminished many times over by her failure to do the actual work of mothering them. Failing grade.

Doesn't feel like that to me, either. Although I do appreciate that they at the very least signed off on the recognition that children were harmed and they are victims.

Oh, I'm not suggesting I want to go there in particular. The rave reviews that call out specific parts of the concept are what I find interesting. I'm not interested in dropping lots of cash for flash and hype either.

I'm intrigued by the idea there's a string of five-star reviews. one after the other, yet one of them mentions how nice it is because it's usually not overcrowded. Either they're managing to get by charging a good amount for quality over quantity, or the rave reviews are suspect. Aside from the cigar aspect the concept does sound interesting. Music that's not too loud, not a sports on TV place, small plates, intriguing cocktails and custom distilled spirits. Now I'm bummed out because I have no idea when it's going to be reasonable to even go out for a bite with my husband or get together with friends.

Apparently we're always a Nielsen family because there is some kind of agreement between Nielsen and our cable company. Simply using our cable TV gives them the data I guess.

It looks okay as far as amenities and cleanliness/tidiness in the pictures. Of course that's only within the narrow boundaries of photographs. Wide view would reveal the lack of windows detail which would be a big nope for anybody with options.

You're curious because I mention I would have difficulty sitting as a juror on a murder trial? I'm squeamish about medical and gory things, don't even look if I'm watching a medical TV program if they do an OR scene or something like that. I couldn't look at the evidence required to make the decision. I wouldn't like to have to sit as a juror on a murder trial, but I could do it if there was nothing gory. I would have thought that the fact I have specifically never shared what I do to be more likely to raise curiosity. I purposely don't share what I do because I am in what has been a unique position where I work, opening up the door to my being identified on the internet, which I don't think is a good idea for anybody. I work in a position that requires a bit of interviewing; gathering reports of experts & reviewing; and some of what is called investigating, which I hate using that term because it's misleading and I don't know what else to call it because it's nothing like when police are investigating. I then report back to judges or referees on ongoing cases, try to answer their questions and look into whatever they might ask me to. There are people here who also serve some of these same functions, but so far I am the first where the functions are combined, something I have heard may change after we return post Covid. I started here in a different position after being a stay at home mom for a few years and kind of backed into this when things morphed due to budget cuts in the crash not long after.

Very similar here, although the facilities are independent with trained staff. They also get involved in cases of child physical abuse occasionally. A detective on a case might listen or remotely observe an interview, and occasionally a prosecutor may do the same, but they are allowed no input into the process whatsoever. No one but the child and the interviewer are allowed in the interview room. Family does not listen or observe. Anything requiring a physical examination of a victim is conducted by a SANE nurse, unsure where they are conducted. This applies purely to investigation, not regarding children who are in need of medical treatment. Obviously medical treatment would take priority where needed.

Very difficult. These cases always are difficult to seat a jury. I know if I were called for jury duty and had to go up for voir dire on a murder case I would have to make it completely clear that I would be absolutely unable to serve if it required viewing any autopsy photos or even graphic photos of the body on scene or even on the table prior to autopsy. Depending on the situation and the discussion I'm likely to be unable to handle even listening to anything testified to about the particulars of the injuries and details of the cause of death. I wouldn't have the stomach or the ability to remain objective viewing the information in this type of case either. I would not be very unusual in this regard.

Jury selection for these types of cases is challenging, and extended. The "celebrity" factor here looms large too.

I work in a state court system, not federal. I was referring to the public not seeing it, as in observers. As I said in the murder case, provisions were made for judge, jury, pros, defense and deft. to see all evidence.

I'm not saying the jurors can't see it. I'm saying the public cannot -- in the case of normal times anybody observing in the courtroom in the gallery. I have zero clue how they will go about presenting explicit material to the jury there.

They cannot show the images to the public because then the court is literally publishing child sexually abusive material. I do realize how absurd that seems first hearing it. No idea beyond that how they will go about presenting explicit evidence. We had a murder case here with a young girl who was found mostly nude. When it came time to present any photographs of her body there were great pains taken to make sure that only jury, judge, pros. and defense attorney and defendant could see them. The judge actually came down off the bench into the courtroom for presentation of that evidence.

Mothers offer up their own children for solicitation. Just no words.

They straight out endorse sexually abusing a child as acceptable? I understand Gothard was a sicko playing a long game, setting up his system by design to satisfy his desires, but do they straight up endorse the fact that the sexual abuse of children is no big deal, acceptable, whatever the term might be? I'm still reeling with the recent information about the itinerary for Journey to the Heart being openly known to parents and ever attracting one participant.

My apologies if I was unclear. It is here. I thought I had said that.

First understand that I'm taking what was said in court very differently from the way many other people here are likely taking the comments. It's sure not because I've got some sort of special powers, better insight into people or have a molecule of brain power more than anyone else. I work in a court setting, currently from home, but have spent a significant amount of years now in a court setting five days a week, including criminal, child protective and non financial aspect of probate matters like guardianship. A lot of what's said in hearings is nothing more than pro forma BS and nonsense to go through the motions for show. Some of what is said can and often is said in all candor and honesty, but it isn't necessarily to be taken on its face. I can't play football or basketball or stuff like that either -- but if I sat and watched game after game five days a week, eight hours a day for over a decade is it possible I might start to pick out certain things about the strategy a coach might be using? I guess if I did that for long enough even I might be able to follow the play with anticipation of what's potentially coming next. I don't know that it's correct to say that the child protective system didn't see what we see or didn't see a risk to the children. I think it's likely that this particular case is complicated by additional factors. The fact the charges are federal and this is happening in federal versus state probably means there's much less routine interaction between prosecutors, investigators and child protective services. Federal courts don't deal with child custody matters, don't have the mechanisms for any of that. In local cases it's common to be coordinated to a large degree, with people and agencies familiar with working together and sharing information as routine course of business. That's part of the reason I mentioned upthread that if Josh's team needed to engage the family court to petition for visitation his attorney would not really be eager to engage. It's not his normal stomping grounds -- not only because he's from out of state, but he doesn't deal with that. If it ever did take place however he would be very likely to choose to be the lead on any matters there as well IMO if at all possible. Criminal attorneys routinely represent their clients in family matters while a criminal matter is pending because they want to make absolutely certain they doggedly protect their client's rights in regards to self incrimination. CPS was incredibly unlikely to be privy as to what this case was about any more than any of us until the charges were levied. Are they likely to be on alert now? Yes. They also have a history with the family dating back to the original allegations against Josh as a minor. It seems the coverup and statute of limitations tied their hands there as well, although I can't quite sort out why. This means it's very likely there is some additional incentive to see to it they will not be stymied this time. It also means they are likely to be painfully cautious in their approach and might not take any action at all as far as reaching out to the children until there is any potential Josh returns home. They will not want to risk any opening for being seen as harassing this family or engaging in bias. It won't mean they aren't collecting evidence with an eye towards building a case. What Anna chooses to do and how she chooses to do it is going to be important. If CPS engages with her and she becomes adversarial rather than cooperative it ups the odds they press for removal of the children at some point. If they present her with a safety plan after engaging with her and she demonstrates cooperation she would put herself in a good position. So far there does not seem to be any reasonable inference that it is in the children's best interest to be removed from their mother. Let's hope Anna doesn't make that necessary. Another factor making this case difficult is the insular nature, with no children attending school or participating in extracurricular activities and no adults working in outside the community or family employment. That means little to no sources of objective information available. If and when CPS moves they don't want to risk a court not finding probable cause. They might get one more bite at the apple maybe, but after that they're going to need a body or video evidence in order not to be deemed as acting on bias, prejudice or malice. A defense statement or the court stating that authorities haven't considered the children at risk since 2019 under these circumstances doesn't really mean what it seems on its face. Juvenile matters are also publicly sealed. The only way we as the public will know anything is via leaks.

That caption is just mean spirited, as is printing the photo. Jinger's head is hung low to take a walk and Josh smirked for a mug shot?!?!?!

Don't forget Anna also has to be keeping up with her school age children's education. Educational neglect most definitely is an allegation in abuse and neglect cases. I would think this is a subject she might be familiar with if she's attended a very large homeschooling conference many times. IDK that is a topic addressed at the conference, I'm just guessing that it's a logical guess amongst a gathering of homeschoolers where many are fundies with an aversion to governmental oversight and how to avoid it.

I am aware of those types of patterns and I don't disagree with you. My personal bottom line is I cannot accept or allow sympathy or empathy for any parent to override the reasonable potential of risk to a child. The wellbeing of a child is always going to win the day with me. That's not to suggest in any way that you don't hold a child's wellbeing as sacred and important and I definitely don't think for a moment you don't value a child's safety. I'm only speaking as to where my own personal line that I will not ever accept trespassing sits. Josh has demonstrated finely attuned determination to evade any and all attempts at monitoring and prevention -- both in the aftermath of the initial allegations in 2002 and a recurrence in 2003, and in light of all of the oversight attempts that were in place when the current allegations took place. He has also demonstrated a predatory compulsion to cross boundaries even fellow predators will not cross regarding age and familial connection. For me that tallies out to a sum total of absolutely no more chances. It is also feasible it is a moot point. Anna may have reached her limits and we would have no clue. While the judge's ruling allowed for unlimited visitation if Anna is present, that does not equate to Anna is bound to bring the children to visit upon Josh's demand. Nothing in that order compels Anna to bring the children for visitation at all, and if she chose not to the court is not likely to order that she must. If Anna refused Josh's attorney could file a petition with the court to compel visitation, but the best they could hope for is that the judge would order a new visitation monitor be arranged, subject to court approval, and then the unlimited provision would be up for reconsideration. ETA I'm not even sure it's correct that Josh's attorney could file a petition with this court on the visitation matter. Pretty sure that would fall under the jurisdiction of the family court judge, not the federal judge in a criminal matter. That would present all sorts of complications that would make his lead criminal attorney want to stick his fingers in his ears and scream really loudly to avoid hearing in the first place.

I said I have no grace for her going forward if she chooses to be supportive of Josh and intends at any point to reunite with him. I'll give her all the grace in the world if she has been a crying, shellshocked mess and still cannot formulate a real idea of how she moves forward at this moment. I cannot imagine going through this with six children and pregnant. I'll make every allowance for her to grasp at as many straws as she needs to regarding a plan for how she and her children will live and sustain them going forward. She has no education, no job history, no comprehension of a woman supporting her family. I'll give her grace for days if it takes her several years and more to sort herself out. I have no grace for the idea that Josh is ever part of the equation again.