Tikichick
-
Posts
2.8k -
Joined
Content Type
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Discussion
Posts posted by Tikichick
-
-
On 11/8/2021 at 3:12 PM, Ohiopirate02 said:
Josiah and Lauren stopped posting on their personal social media accounts at least a year ago if not longer. They were never the most prolific of Duggar posters before whatever happened to make them stop altogether. It could be that Lauren was not equipped emotionally to handle the negative comments or that she never wanted to post anything to begin with but her in-laws and TLC made them. Now that the show is gone, they do not have to post anything so they choose not to.
Judging by the narrow window we had into her personality, I would not be surprised in the slightest if she was not able to withstand the negativity received. That's entirely understandable IMO, and likely to make her happier and mentally healthier.
I'm doubly glad for the sake of her daughter on many levels. I don't remember anything particularly critical being posted here about her daughter specifically, but I am constantly taken back by the posts I do see criticizing babies and children (who did not offer up their images for comment) for their appearance. Reading them makes me feel sick and I'm not even the mother.
-
14
-
-
Had to look up what an Alford plea is. Realized I had no idea because they are not allowed in Michigan. That's a really good thing IMO, especially considering the mindboggling idea of that conceivably being available to predators, who are already beyond skilled at gaming society and gaming the system.
If nothing else it seems like it would be political suicide to allow them in cases with child victims. Stranger things have happened, but I hold out hope humanity has some absolute limits.
-
7
-
-
10 hours ago, crazycatlady58 said:
Just because this paster spoke against the Green Gables books foes not mean ALL fundies are against them.
Maybe the real question we should be asking ourselves is -- what does Joanna Gaines think of the Green Gables books?
-
12
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, quarks said:
Sure, but I'm not talking about the interview Megyn Kelly did with JB and Michelle, but about the interview that Megyn Kelly did with Jessa and Jill, two victims and direct witnesses to Josh's behavior. And Josh did make some sort of statement in May 2015, admitting to "acting inexcusably" as a teen, reported by the Family Research Council, the Washington Post and other media outlets. *
It's also not at all clear what the government will be introducing or trying to introduce as evidence for this. In their words:
"If introduced, the government anticipates that the evidence will consist of testimony that the defendant was investigated for, admitted to, and received counseling for touching and sexually molesting multiple minor females."
(From this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqmfmw2htdwvo84/GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 414 AND MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT EVIDEN.pdf?dl=0 )
So it sounds to me as if the government isn't planning on introducing any hearsay based evidence, but instead plans to subpoena direct witnesses to the investigation, the admission and the counseling.
Also, the motion from the defense doesn't mention hearsay, and that doesn't seem to be the main basis for their objection/recent motion. Their motion focuses on relevancy and unfair prejudice. As they point out, the allegations happened when Josh was a minor, and he is now in his 30s; Josh is currently charged with computer crimes, and the previous allegations did not involve computers; and that learning about this would be unfairly prejudicial to a jury. In their words:
"There is no question the allegations at issue arise at a time when Duggar was a minor and the allegations at issue in this case arise at a time when Duggar was in his 30’s. Furthermore, there is no question Duggar was never charged with a crime related to those allegations."
"Despite the fact that the indictment focuses on a three-day period in May 2019 and focuses entirely on computer crimes, the Government seeks to introduce allegations arising when Duggar was a teenager that have nothing to do with computer-based conduct."
"If the jury were to hear about the allegations lodged against Duggar when he was a minor, an unacceptable risk exists that the jury would convict him in this case, not because the Government has proven him guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but because the jury would improperly conclude that the prior allegations against Duggar somehow make it more likely that he committed the charged offenses in this case."
(From this link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cnyh9n8rvyc0iyw/DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF JUVENILE ALLEGATIONS.pdf?dl=0 )
Nothing about hearsay. Which isn't to say that it won't come up, just that this doesn't seem to be the argument the defense is making right now.
(Maybe they should!)
* This is separate from the August 2015 statement about the Ashley Madison and adult pornography stuff, described by Josh Duggar's attorneys as "attributed to" Josh Duggar. The defense is also trying to have this statement excluded, again on the basis of relevance.
Interesting. I'm not following what's going on in depth, or really beyond occasionally reading this thread actually. The comment I saw here only mentioned JB's comments in the MK interview, which is what I based my comment on.
I have no idea what is common in these cases in a federal setting, but from what I'm used to seeing in cases here I wouldn't be surprised to see the judge rule to prevent anything about the prior molestation allegations from coming in.
I am going to be interested to see if we get some detailed information during the case about how they present the information about the partitioning of the computer and the Covenant Eyes software to the jury. I expect it will be presented simply as something that was done to prevent detection by others (partitioning) and something done as a matter of adhering to expectations of a faith-based marriage (Covenant Eyes) without giving any further background as to past history.
-
1
-
2
-
-
On 11/8/2021 at 12:34 PM, Dianaofthehunt said:
Isn’t pleading the 5th Amendment a subrosa way of saying “I’m guilty?”
No. Jurors are instructed that a defendant is afforded the right to remain silent and that choosing to exercise that right cannot be held against them.
-
4
-
9
-
-
On 11/6/2021 at 12:07 PM, quarks said:
Oh, I think it helps the prosecution's argument. I mean, the person who just happened to be in the location where CSA was being downloaded just happens to be the same person who molested his sisters, something his sisters confirmed on national television - even as they downplayed what happened and the significance? Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you say?
But I don't know if the prosecution will be allowed to show that interview in court. The defense is arguing that this all happened when Josh was a juvenile, and he's now in his 30s, and that the trial needs to focus on the current allegations, not on what Josh may or may not have done in the past. I have no idea how the judge is going to rule on this.
I don't see how that interview comes in under the court rules about evidence. Since JB didn't witness the event it is still considered hearsay.
If Josh had made that statement in an interview it could come in as an out of court admission by a party opponent, especially because there would be video evidence of Josh making such a statement that could be presented to the jury.
-
2
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:
I was very surprised at the evidence exceptions that are made in cases of child abuse and/or CSAM. I assumed that mention of Josh's uncharged molestation of his sisters might be allowed during sentencing if he was found guilty, but apparently there is accepted precedent that uncharged, decades-old crimes can be admitted in evidence during the trial since they show a pattern of conduct that is specific to child abusers/CSAM.
That is a very unusual type of exception. I would imagine it came about because of the very nature of these offenders and their crimes.
In Josh's case I don't know that the exception would necessarily be the reason the door is open for his past behavior to come in. If Josh has in fact made admissions about his past behavior I believe it is fair game to come in under prior out of court admissions by a party opponent.
-
3
-
-
17 hours ago, ginger90 said:
From the book:
Marriage is the union of two people who arrive at the altar toting some surprisingly large luggage. Often it gets opened right there on the honeymoon; sometimes it waits for the week after. The Bible calls it sin. Understanding its influence can make all the difference for a man and a woman who are building a life together.
Doesn't exactly sound like Hallmark sentiments for a couple is "celebrating" their anniversary.
-
12
-
-
18 hours ago, Cinnabon said:
Does anyone remember if the tabloids made such a point about the difference in age between Jeremy and Jinger? I’m so sick of this double standard.
I see your point, however IMO the bigger (and problematic) gap with Jeremy and Jinger is the fact she never had the opportunities he did for life experience before it was endgame for her.
-
6
-
-
On 10/21/2021 at 10:17 PM, Zella said:
I understand that. My question is if the number of charges is linked to the number of files. Would he have 2 counts of possession if he had over a certain amount or not? Or is the act of possession always going to yield one federal count of possession, regardless of whether he's being officially charged with possessing 3 or 65 or 500 files?
Looking at the elements under the specific federal statutes that he is charged with may give some answers. The AG or the official responsible for deciding what the charges will be in each case also has the discretion to how the charges are brought. It's likely the decision is made according to what is expected to directly yield conviction resulting in what they consider to be a likely sentence that fits within the expected range.
In the case of an assaultive crime there are times where an entire incident can be charged as a single crime and other times where specific individual acts within the incident are charged as separate crimes. Sometimes those decisions come down to things like specific actions that resulted in more grievous injury, such as a victim losing partial or total sight in an eye; or potentially some specific type of action that can be definitively shown to cause a victim to be put into a heightened state of fear, etc. If the prosecutor thinks it will be straightforward enough to break down some of the individual actions and/or injuries in a way that will be clear for the jury to understand they may elect to proceed with multiple charges. If they expect that the jury will potentially struggle to differentiate why or how this blow was different from the dozen other blows that the defendant also delivered and aren't part of this charge they may elect to stick with fewer counts being easier for the jury to convict. Sometimes multiple charges are also ultimately consolidated or reduced as part of a plea agreement and prosecutors anticipate that from the outset in order to have better bargaining leverage.
Evidence in cases like Josh's is tedious and confusing simply because of the technical minutiae. The prosecution no doubt has thought long and hard about the best way to present everything to the jury in the tidiest and most compact package possible. Get in and get out with the result of X timeframe where they know for sure a predator can't engage in victimizing anyone because he will be behind bars
-
2
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, GeeGolly said:
I think the Seewald kids lack structure, especially around meal times. I also think boredom and their house contributes to their haphazard eating. They basically live in two rooms - one with a toy box and the other with a fridge.
I don't know which is worse, Henry saying something like "no work, then no food" with Jessa cleaning it up a bit, or Henry saying the exact Bible quote.
Then there's the fact that its okay for Henry to be eating snack foods first thing in the morning. That says a lot about the Seewald household. I'm guessing Jessa spends a fair amount of time on the couch tending to the youngest child while "overseeing" the older ones.
So depressing to think another generation is consigned to such a miserable lot in life. It's even worse to realize there's absolutely no valid reason for this situation to exist.
-
12
-
-
17 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:
Stop, just stop, Jessa. You are singlehandedly going to cause a shortage of eyerolling emojis because there can never be enough to respond to this blatant nonsense.
-
16
-
6
-
-
On 10/7/2021 at 9:41 PM, ozziemom said:
Once again the Duggar males and friends show a mean streak disguised as boys having fun.
On 10/8/2021 at 9:38 PM, Zella said:They always act like only men have sexual impulses. It's always on women to police the behavior of men. It's the girls who shout Nike to their brothers (the boys don't shout Nike at them about defrauding men), and it's the girls who have to dress to avoid eye traps (not the men).
So, I don't think they read Hilaria Robinson's behavior as sexual or flirtatious, though she comes across like the world's most stereotypical middle-aged housewife with the hots for a younger man who ever lived to many of us. She's like a Kate Chopin character come to life.
I think they are quite alright with the idea that "boys will be boys".
-
On 10/9/2021 at 2:31 PM, emmawoodhouse said:
I can't copy the tweet, but Jessa now has #sayingsofIvy. I guess Henry's garbled speech never merited a hashtag. ☹️
We need an eye roll emoji as an option for commenting.
-
7
-
-
12 minutes ago, graefin said:
Well, Alyssa has demonstrated a consistent inability to spell even elementary words like "dining" correctly (she constantly made references to her "dinning room" on her Instagram over a period of months until someone finally couldn't take it anymore and corrected her--so, yeah, more advanced words like "midevil" don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of coming even close), as well as a total ignorance of cardinal directions (I swear, she got all four of them wrong during family Pictionary night) . . . so maybe her kids are better off with the iPad teacher.
To be fair, I'm sure the second one is more due to zealous efforts to abstain from anything labeled evil, as opposed to lack of education or knowledge, right? ;)
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:
That room certainly is bare. I guessing it might be the guest room. Not very inviting at all.
I have to say, when we had to rebuild/refurnish our home after a weather event, I looked at decorating very differently. I'm definitely not a minimalist, but any decoration or piece of art I bought, I asked myself, "Do I like this enough to dust it every week?". 😁
Maybe the Vuolos learned from their Laredo house. Its seems they were rather zealous in decorating and furnishing that home. They had more shit for their tag sale after 2 years than some have after 10.
Amen!
-
6
-
-
16 hours ago, GeeGolly said:
While agree with this to a point, I don't feel its 100% accurate.
Being humiliated in front of church elders and church members, in addition to being sent away from your family as a teen for 6 months is a fairly harsh punishment.
And Jesus Camp, though certainly not jail, its not the Ritz either. Most 24 hour programs have strict schedules and chore assignments, in addition to treatment. I'm guessing Josh felt he was above the schedule and chores, but he would have had to adhere to them. Again, not jail, but certainly a punishment.
And then there's the public humiliation. Josh's crimes, indiscretions and his raunchy sexual proclivities are permanently all over the internet. Sitting in a restaurant wondering if the folks at the next table are disgusted by you. Walking through an amusement park and having parents pull their kids into safety. None of that can feel good.
With all that said, if Josh had a conduct disorder as a kid, and now has antisocial personality disorder, no amount of punishment or leniency would make much difference.
If his drive truly springs from predatory proclivities it's likely that what truly bothered (and bothers) him was/is obstacles to freely satisfy his urges and things like humiliation and deprivation and harshness are petty annoyances. Depending on how he is wired he may not have even felt humiliation, instead have thoughts that those looking down on him simply don't understand what he understands, in actual fact feeling superior to them for their ignorance. Most predators understand that their urges are either illegal or unacceptable in society and develop keen instincts in order to achieve their goals without being detected. Many feel that society is simply unaware and with time will come to accept what predators believe is actually right.
-
1
-
7
-
-
On 9/26/2021 at 5:01 PM, Absolom said:
My daughter, a lawyer, and I have had that discussion a few different ways. She isn't the type lawyer that Jim Bob hired 95% of the time. She prefers to lay it out for the client that this motion has a .1% chance of working and will cost you about $x to prepare and defend. If they really want to do it, she will. Everyone is entitled to a zealous defense and a lot of people want the best or most defense that they can afford. Some lawyers seek clients who want that kind of defense and that's the difference as my daughter sees it. She'd rather not have the Josh/JB types as clients. She'd rather not be filing motions that to her look like a waste of her time and the court's time and the client's money. It's part of the job though if the client wants every teeny tiny thread pulled.
Why JB/Josh are doing this and why they sought out a lawyer where it seems this is one of his specialties is really the question. I don't think either JB or Josh wants to face what a creep Josh is. I wouldn't shell out the money this is costing JB for what looks like a likely conviction. No case is a slam dunk until it's over, but this one is not unusual at all. I don't think Josh or the case is worth the expense, but that's my opinion. I think JB should have said if you did it, tell me and we'll find someone to get you the best plea deal we can, but if you did the crime, you have to accept the consequences.
I think the worst possible scenario for JB and Josh is if the lawyer does find a way to get the case tossed or bamboozles a jury. Josh can giggle he got away with it and will continue down the path of perversion and JB will be convinced of his own wisdom and power.
On 9/26/2021 at 7:13 PM, MargeGunderson said:For the lawyers and lawyer-adjacent here, a question. If Josh (and JB) tell the lawyers to pursue some argument and the lawyers don’t, could Josh, if convicted, claim that he didn’t have adequate counsel as a way to appeal the ruling? Maybe that plays a part in the willingness of the lawyers to throw a Hail Mary.
18 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:Prisons are filled with inmates who all claim they did not have adequate counsel after a guilty verdict. Josh could try this tactic if he is found guilty, but the odds are low that he will succeed. The appellate courts are too busy dealing with cases that were truly miscarriages of justice to bother with Josh. Also, appeals cost. At some point, JB will have to cut his losses.
Josh's defense team signed onto this case knowing what it's about and having no doubt their client wants to be acquitted. They also know the odds and are aware they either need to find a kill shot to prevent the prosecution from being able to use most or all of the evidence or they are fighting a battle to minimize the damage, get him the lowest sentence possible -- and hopefully open some chinks and cracks for appellate attorneys to go to work. The motion hearings on their face aren't a total failure simply because they have been denied. They can also be ripe for appellate issues. Pretrial motions are fertile appellate grounds.
A lawyer does not have to file every motion and make every argument a client suggests. Clients float pie in the sky ideas all the time -- the lawyers are the ones who know the legalities. Given the reputation and the fact Josh's team is filing a string of pretrial motions it's not at all likely this opens up an appellate issue in this case.
Yes, appeals courts are clogged, but it's not a matter of courts being too busy to deal with something and therefore an appeal being denied for consideration. If there are potentially ripe appellate issues to be considered the courts accept the case for appeal. As far as $$ being a bar, no. If Josh is convicted of these charges he likely will automatically qualify for an appeal even without request -- and counsel will be provided if he can't afford it -- which in his case with no means of independent income and dozens of children to support won't be a high bar. JB's assets cannot be considered regarding what Josh can afford.
-
3
-
10
-
-
1 hour ago, farmgal4 said:
She has completely ruined her reputation by continuing to support the sick POS. I’m sure that there are hardcore fundies who admire her for standing by her man, but IMO the majority of people think that she’s close to being just as twisted as he is.
Conversely in Anna's mind the narrative is likely to be that she's being persecuted for adhering to her beliefs, as is her husband. She may well see herself as a righteous martyr.
-
9
-
15
-
-
Just now, Zella said:
Yep. And as gross as it was, it makes me feel sorry for her too. I think she's so cloistered off from what people outside the Gothard bubble think that she had no clue how that comes across. She does that a lot. (Like apparently thinking Diaper Mountain makes her relatable.) Just another sign of how dysfunctional they are and how they have no clue that's the case because it is their normal.
How much support was truly known and available to them from outside that bubble either?
IMO I always give a lot of grace and a lot of space to how victims of sexual assault react, something I think is even more appropriate when you have young victims abused in their own home and family and the family protects the offender. This family adheres to some heinous beliefs that were presented to them from childhood as righteous and their existence is so shut off from other influences and their educational pipeline is the SOTDRT. These girls didn't have a shot of a helpful and observant teacher intervening or unburdening themselves to a friend who in turn spilled the beans to their own parents who then went to the authorities. They didn't even have access to something like an after school special to shed some light on how messed up their parents are.
-
13
-
-
15 hours ago, Fallacy said:
I don’t disagree with you at all that Jesus said it was okay to divorce for sexual immorality, but is that how IFB and the Duggars interpret that scripture? I’m not sure
I did a quick Google search and found out that for fundies like the Duggars, the sexual immorality loophole only applies if there is unrepentant, repeated sexual immorality. For Anna, Josh repented of the adultery.
I also think that we can’t apply common sense or any form of modern, educated thinking to Anna. She’s a thoroughly brainwashed member of a cult. So what seems obvious to us, that Josh is a predator who is a danger to children, wouldn’t cross her mind. She would have to witness him abusing a child to believe that. She doesn’t know that most pedophiles start with the fantasy (cp) before they feel an irresistible urge to make that fantasy a reality. She’s never read a book or been exposed to any conversation about how pedophiles function.
So at absolute worst, the Devil tempted Josh to look at those images. But in her mind, certainly Josh would never harm a child! She couldn’t imagine why anyone would believe he’s capable of such a thing. However, she likely doesn’t believe he even intended to view the cp in the first place, so there is definitely no way he’s a danger to children. He’s just addicted to pornography, and as far as Anna knows, this is a common addiction that many Godly men have fallen victim to. She will continue to pray that God will help Josh overcome the Devil and this addiction.
ETA: To be super clear, I’m not sympathetic to Anna at all. I’m just fascinated by why people believe what they believe. To me, Anna’s religious beliefs explain why she continues to stand by him.
At some point does Anna, or perhaps JB and Co., take note that the prevailing winds all now blow in the direction of Josh being a chronic offender and suddenly recognize a new Bible passage -- "Go and sin no more"?
Wouldn't surprise me once it becomes evident it's in the best interest of JB's pocketbook and self interest.
-
4
-
-
When ours were little, but school age, we had a tree swing in our back yard that was a circle seat made to look like a daisy with a rope through the center, a cylinder with a bouncy spring about ten feet above the seat and then more rope up into the tree. There was always a line of kids impatiently waiting for their turn whenever we had friends or family over. Fun times.
-
8
-
-
8 hours ago, Snow Fairy said:
They are young, and this is what they should be doing - travelling and enjoying themselves, not taking care of 3 babies. Possibly even 4 next year
They should enjoy themselves all they want -- with protections in place.
-
2
-
11
-
-
14 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:
Look for a pregnancy announcement in a couple of months.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CTxMcj_lEs9/?utm_medium=copy_link
I actually assumed the thread was active because of an announcement.
-
3
-
5
-
Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events
in Counting On
Civil liability probably comes into play. That is the reason cited here when no contest pleas are taken.