Josh and Anna

[quarks]

I mean, I don't think he'll have any legal problems writing the book. Other problems, sure, but not legal ones.

I do think he may have a couple of problems selling the book.

I just don't see any publisher, reputable or non-reputable, eager to print this, and although self/indy publication is usually an option, I'm not sure it is in his case - successful self-publication typically involves a lot of marketing and promotion, something that I think will be difficult for him to do under the circumstances.

 

[Absolom]

I can see Josh blaming people for his "predicament." He's seen Jill and Jinger write books and be paid and quite possibly thinks he has as good or better story to tell.  

[AstridM]

5 hours ago, Absolom said:

If he hires competent legal counsel, he can write a book about how prison life has changed him without admitting guilt or discussing his offense.  

I don’t think he can afford competent legal counsel at this point.

[quarks]

1 hour ago, Absolom said:

I can see Josh blaming people for his "predicament." He's seen Jill and Jinger write books and be paid and quite possibly thinks he has as good or better story to tell.  

He does - he could tell the story of what it's like to face federal prosecution and a trial. Or he could offer an insider's view of federal prison. Granted, these stories have been told before, by considerably more sympathetic/likeable people, but he could tell them. Or he could offer to spill the real dirt of growing up as a Duggar and dish out some stuff about his parents and siblings.

That doesn't mean that anyone will be willing to pay him for these stories.

 

 

[merylinkid]

Oh I believe he is having a book written for him.   Remember, there is still the rest of the story .....

It will be full of I didn't do it, I was framed, my parents failed me, my sisters set me up, my wife didn't provide for me.   But it will definitely get written.

[Minivanessa]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

Oh I believe he is having a book written for him.   Remember, there is still the rest of the story .....

It will be full of I didn't do it, I was framed, my parents failed me, my sisters set me up, my wife didn't provide for me.   But it will definitely get written.

I don't know if he'd trash his parents, but I can see him slinging mud in all other directions. I say that because I think if there is a book project, Anna and JB would be very much involved in it. I'd be surprised if Josh managed to connect with someone outside his family to work on a book project. I think he's too lazy and entitled to do it mostly on his own, especially given the logistical constraints that come with being in prison. 

[quarks]

Eh, for a ghostwritten book Josh would only need to do some interviews during visiting hours, and maybe take a few notes here and there. The work would be on the ghostwriter(s), not Josh.

Convincing a reputable or at least experienced ghostwriter to work with him is another story entirely. I don't think most of them will want to touch this. And sure, he could try to ask a family friend - but I'm going to guess that at least one reason In Touch even heard about this is that he already tried this, and failed, and someone (hi, Anna) is hoping that if In Touch runs the story, someone will reach out and offer to "help" with the book. 

And that might happen! I'm just doubtful, because I just think most ghostwriters will have the same reaction I'm having: who is going to buy this?

 

[Dimity]

He'd also need to find a publisher.  Which, given the notoriety of the family, might happen.  Not too likely to be a top rank publisher however.  And even if he gets a ghost writer and a publisher he'd still have to find an audience. 

To be honest he'd probably sell more if he throws his parents under the bus and comes out with that tell all we've all hoped one of the girls would eventually write.   I doubt he'll go that route though. 

[merylinkid]

Consdering there are people who write to murderers in prison with offers of marriage and there are online groups dedicated to "freeing" "wrongfully" convicted inmates I have no doubts there would be a willing ghostwriter and publisher.  Even a reputable one might given that some believe any publicity is good publicity.   

 

Doesn't the fundyworld have its own imprint?   I would say David Rodrigues could print it but he doesn't do anything new, it's "too hard."   

[Dimity]

12 hours ago, quarks said:

I do think he may have a couple of problems selling the book.

This.  I can definitely see someone in Josh's position thinking writing a book might solve his financial issues.  But unless he finds a publisher willing to pay him a lot upfront and added to that unless it's a runaway bestseller it really won't.  He may have Harry Potter sales figures dancing through his head  but the reality is even if he makes decent sales  he won't make enough money to finance his post prison life for long. 

And timing is everything, can he publish a book while he's in prison?  Because otherwise by the time he gets out, will anyone care anymore what Josh Duggar has to say?

[Notabug]

8 hours ago, Dimity said:

This.  I can definitely see someone in Josh's position thinking writing a book might solve his financial issues.  But unless he finds a publisher willing to pay him a lot upfront and added to that unless it's a runaway bestseller it really won't.  He may have Harry Potter sales figures dancing through his head  but the reality is even if he makes decent sales  he won't make enough money to finance his post prison life for long. 

And timing is everything, can he publish a book while he's in prison?  Because otherwise by the time he gets out, will anyone care anymore what Josh Duggar has to say?

I could see some conservative Christian publisher being willing to print a book of repentance from Josh and not insisting he discuss his crimes or throw his parents under the bus.  I think there'd be a very limited market for that sort of thing, mainly at the various fundie churches and other Christian websites and gatherings; but I don't doubt it could be done.  I wouldn't be nearly as profitable as a book telling a broader story, though.

From what we've seen of Josh over the years, he is pathologically lazy. I could see him spending a couple hours on visiting day talking to a ghost writer and then stepping back and let them have free rein over what to write.  As long as he's painted as a godly, persecuted Christian, he is not going to care about the details.

Edited July 13 by Notabug

[satrunrose]

Trying to think of a way to say this that isn't upsetting, but isn't the demand for any book he may write or contribute to (whether a tell-all or a repentance memoir) going to be affected by the type of crime he committed? How many people are going to want to read a book that refers to that, even obliquely.

[Notabug]

15 minutes ago, satrunrose said:

Trying to think of a way to say this that isn't upsetting, but isn't the demand for any book he may write or contribute to (whether a tell-all or a repentance memoir) going to be affected by the type of crime he committed? How many people are going to want to read a book that refers to that, even obliquely.

I think that the fundie crowd, who blame women for tempting men, to the point where their little girls must keep covered from shoulder to knee to prevent the devil from forcing a godly man to attack them; it would not be that big of a deal as long as he repented.  Look at how the Duggars treated Josh' original misdeeds.  Essentially, they punished his sisters so he could remain the golden child.  There is also that odd fundie belief that all sins are created equal, and, if the sinner repents, any sin is forgiven and the sinner welcomed back to the flock.  So, Josh' pedophilia is no worse than shoplifting a pack of gum from 7-11.  He repents and he is back in good standing.  

I also expect that any book published by a Christian publisher would gloss over his offenses and concentrate on his path to finding Jesus in the aftermath.

Edited July 13 by Notabug

[Salacious Kitty]

Who on earth believes he has really repented? He's a compulsive liar who knows how to play the Christian card. Now with persecution! 🙄

[quarks]

9 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Consdering there are people who write to murderers in prison with offers of marriage and there are online groups dedicated to "freeing" "wrongfully" convicted inmates I have no doubts there would be a willing ghostwriter and publisher.  Even a reputable one might given that some believe any publicity is good publicity.   

 

Doesn't the fundyworld have its own imprint?   I would say David Rodrigues could print it but he doesn't do anything new, it's "too hard."   

I'm not going to try to defend or explain the marrying a murderer stuff. But from my understanding, many if not most of those online groups - especially The Innocence Project - at least seem to be trying to address concerns about miscarriages of justice.  I have no idea how many of these concerns are actually valid, but I do think it's pertinent to note that the media has reported extensively on at least two cases this week alone: Sandra Hemme, who just served four decades for a crime she did not commit, and Alec Baldwin, whose case was just dismissed today because of prosecutorial misconduct.  These aren't isolated incidents.

I'll also note that these groups are not focusing on cases where the guilt isn't in question - as with the Boston Marathon bomber. Certainly, a number of people are arguing that he should receive a life sentence instead of the death penalty, but they aren't arguing that he's innocent and should be released.

Not that any of this seems to apply to Josh Duggar. Josh is/was a well to do white man and minor celebrity who was able to afford competent and vigorous legal counsel. He was prosecuted only after a lengthy investigation that was not initially aimed at him; he had a history of similar crimes; and the defense allegations of prosecutorial misconduct were considered by a federal judge and dismissed. The trial took place in open court, with a packed audience that included members of the media.

Since then, fewer than twenty or so people have come forward to raise any sort of defense for him, and at least half of those who did had a financial reason to do so.

So I don't think this is going to lead to various ghostwriters and publishers rushing to tell his story. It's quite the other way around.

He's also almost certainly going to need to find some sort of literary agent - so that's at least three people that he needs to convince (plus other assorted people at the agency and publisher), and, to put it mildly, he's not really in the best position right now to start querying literary agents.

And then there's this:

3 hours ago, satrunrose said:

Trying to think of a way to say this that isn't upsetting, but isn't the demand for any book he may write or contribute to (whether a tell-all or a repentance memoir) going to be affected by the type of crime he committed? How many people are going to want to read a book that refers to that, even obliquely.

Yeah, this.

I am honestly not sure that even one of those so-called "partnership publishing" or "hybrid publishing" groups (aka, the ones that charge authors for publication) would agree to publish him given the specific nature of his crimes - if only because of the very real financial risk.

Just this week three different authors announced that they would not accept blurbs from or work with or appear with a major, New York Times bestselling/award winning author based on allegations made about that author - allegations that, although very serious, have not been proven in court, and do not involve anyone under the age of 18. The blurb issue alone means that publishers have had to reset proofs and redesign covers - it's not a huge expense, but it's not a non-zero expense, either. And I've heard anecdotal reports that independent booksellers are considering pulling this author's books off shelves and returning them (at cost to the publishers), and I've seen a couple calls for libraries to reconsider stocking his work or purchasing renewed licenses for his ebooks.

I'm not saying that convicted criminals can't publish books - obviously, some can and have. But it does create more of a financial risk, and Josh doesn't have a sales record. 

None of this prevents him from self-publishing, of course, or trying to do some sort of redemptive speech tour once he's out. I just don't think he's currently in the position to do the necessary work to make a success out of self-publishing. 

[GeeGolly]

First, I think the story is bullshit because Josh won't need any real money for years to come. And lets be real, he's not worried about supporting Anna and the kids.

With that said, IMO for any book to successful it would have to be a book about Josh from an author's point of view. A book done from interviews and letters, transcripts from the trial and some background history. True crime novels sell, but the criminal is never a hero or even a sympathetic character. 

Josh can write all the books he wants but none will be successful because no one wants to read a book full of lies written by sexually deviant criminal. 

 

[merylinkid]

13 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Who on earth believes he has really repented? He's a compulsive liar who knows how to play the Christian card. Now with persecution! 🙄

The people in  his world doing the same thing and hoping to keep getting away with it.   In his world saying "I've repented" is enough.   He doesn't even has to show by any single action that he has.   

 

10 hours ago, quarks said:

'm not going to try to defend or explain the marrying a murderer stuff. But from my understanding, many if not most of those online groups - especially The Innocence Project - at least seem to be trying to address concerns about miscarriages of justice. 

I should have been clearer, I don't mean organized groups trying to correct miscarriages of justice, I mean the facebook groups, tiktoks, etc, that are all "Free [person I like]"    Look at all the people still defending R. Kelly and think P. Diddy or whatever his name is this week is being framed.   So yeah I would not be surprised there are people out there who actually believe Josh was set up on these charges  for being too "dogly" and had to be removed in order. That it's good old Satan trying to destroy a good family.

[satrunrose]

I would, sadly, not be at all surprised if Josh managed to make some money on speaking to like-minded churches after his release. I would imagine it would be some combination of the devil led me astray, but I repented (again) and converted all my fellow inmates. That was basically the story JB and Anna were spinning at the time. This would also be totally in line with some suggestions that Josh was already giving talks about his initial crimes and that his "redemption" impressed Anna and her dad to the point of them getting married (and yes, that was when I lost all sympathy for Anna). By the same token, this is the same(ish) circuit that a) named Michelle Duggar Mother of the Year, b) featured Jessa Duggar's advice on marriage when she had been married for all of 6 months and c) keep inviting the Rodrigui back to their gatherings. It's not the most discerning group.

All of that being said, I think there's a big difference between going to a summer conference or revival because that's what your community does and buying "The Confessions of Josh Duggar". Despite their messed up belief that all sins are equal, I just can't see people who think knees are a gateway to lust being willing to have something in their homes that refers to that. 

[quarks]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I should have been clearer, I don't mean organized groups trying to correct miscarriages of justice, I mean the facebook groups, tiktoks, etc, that are all "Free [person I like]"    Look at all the people still defending R. Kelly and think P. Diddy or whatever his name is this week is being framed.   So yeah I would not be surprised there are people out there who actually believe Josh was set up on these charges  for being too "dogly" and had to be removed in order. That it's good old Satan trying to destroy a good family.

 

I'm honestly not all that interested in defending either R. Kelly or Sean Combs, but I'm not sure their situations are all that analogous to what's happening with Josh. Both of them are black; both suffered traumatic/troubled childhoods (Kelly more than Combs); both worked to earn their wealth; and both, prior to (most) of their legal difficulties, actually contributed something to society and donated generously to various charities.

And both have made multiple statements against law enforcement throughout their careers. I don't think those statements played any role in their later legal difficulties, but I can see how other people might make that connection. 

Josh did endure poverty as a kid, but it's not even close to what Kelly and Combs individually endured. His wealth came from a show organized by his parents, not him. He apparently once gave Jill some cash, and gave a widow about $1000 per month for some time, but that's it on the charitable contributions. He apparently didn't even help out Medicorps, financially or otherwise, or help out any of his other siblings or relatives. 

When his family members and neighbors were asked to write supportive statements about him to the court, they visibly struggled. His brother-in-law could only come up with "Well, the kids miss him,"; his neighbors noted that he once brought them some over the counter medications; his mother assured us that he used to play with his siblings; and Anna told us that he would sweep up crackers from the floor. The Rebers noted that while he was living for free at their home, he fixed some cabinets.

And in the interest of full fairness, yes, he was once filmed stopping a child from falling off a countertop. 

That was it. 

And he did not, prior to the car lot raid, make public statements against law enforcement.

1 hour ago, satrunrose said:

.By the same token, this is the same(ish) circuit that a) named Michelle Duggar Mother of the Year, b) featured Jessa Duggar's advice on marriage when she had been married for all of 6 months and c) keep inviting the Rodrigui back to their gatherings. It's not the most discerning group.

 

And this is the same(ish) circuit that was recently massively named and shamed because of Josh Duggar.

I think it would be different if they could point to anything - literally anything - that he had done for the community. Anything. But all he did do was become the poster child for everything wrong in their community and beliefs, and attract significant media attention (and Amazon!) showcasing the issues within their community.

I'm not saying that they will refuse to listen to him, especially if he says Jesus loudly and often. But I do think that community may be harboring a lot of anger, and may not be all that welcoming.

[jschoolgirl]

17 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Who on earth believes he has really repented? He's a compulsive liar who knows how to play the Christian card. Now with persecution! 🙄

I bet Michelle believes he has repented.

[Zella]

4 hours ago, quarks said:

I'm honestly not all that interested in defending either R. Kelly or Sean Combs, but I'm not sure their situations are all that analogous to what's happening with Josh. Both of them are black; both suffered traumatic/troubled childhoods (Kelly more than Combs); both worked to earn their wealth; and both, prior to (most) of their legal difficulties, actually contributed something to society and donated generously to various charities.

There are corners of the internet with Chris Watts groupies. They definitely don't care about justice. They just care about twisting a narrative around to excuse someone murdering their wife and kids. Also Bryan Kohberger groupies who think he's being railroaded. They also don't have any serious interest in the justice system.  

Edited July 13 by Zella

[Gweilo]

4 hours ago, quarks said:

When his family members and neighbors were asked to write supportive statements about him to the court, they visibly struggled. His brother-in-law could only come up with "Well, the kids miss him,"; his neighbors noted that he once brought them some over the counter medications; his mother assured us that he used to play with his siblings; and Anna told us that he would sweep up crackers from the floor. 

Hey, let's be accurate here - Anna said that Josh HELPED her to sweep up crackers.

Not all heroes wear capes.

[Tdoc72]

How many repentings does one get?  I mean, he did one after molesting the girls and then another time for the Ashley Madison thing & porn addiction. Is it infinite or a theee strikes and you’re out of Heaven kind of thing?  Because he clearly learns no lessons. 

[quarks]

1 hour ago, Gweilo said:

Hey, let's be accurate here - Anna said that Josh HELPED her to sweep up crackers.

Not all heroes wear capes.

Correct, and I apologize for my misstatement there.

[quarks]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

There are corners of the internet with Chris Watts groupies. They definitely don't care about justice. They just care about twisting a narrative around to excuse someone murdering their wife and kids. Also Bryan Kohberger groupies who think he's being railroaded. They also don't have any serious interest in the justice system.  

See, two MORE people I don't want to defend!

Though I suppose I could note that Kohberger hasn't yet faced trial, and it's at least possible that some of those groupies will quiet down during or after the trial. That happened with quite a few R. Kelly fans after his conviction.

But instead of trying to defend these two (or others) further, I'll ask: ok, sure, but how many groupies? And how many books can they purchase?

Because that's the real question here from the publishing side: can a publisher - any publisher - make enough money from a book written by Josh to cover the costs not just of publishing that book, but of the potential fallout from publishing that book? 

I'm going with no. 

[Zella]

3 hours ago, quarks said:

See, two MORE people I don't want to defend!

Though I suppose I could note that Kohberger hasn't yet faced trial, and it's at least possible that some of those groupies will quiet down during or after the trial. That happened with quite a few R. Kelly fans after his conviction.

But instead of trying to defend these two (or others) further, I'll ask: ok, sure, but how many groupies? And how many books can they purchase?

Because that's the real question here from the publishing side: can a publisher - any publisher - make enough money from a book written by Josh to cover the costs not just of publishing that book, but of the potential fallout from publishing that book? 

I'm going with no. 

My point was simply that people defending others accused of/convicted of heinous crimes isn't automatically someone interested in serious questions about the justice system, as was previously stated. Some of these people are just trash with a ladyboner for a creep. 

That being said, I agree that there's not a huge market of books with them. I think some of the Chris Watts crazies have actually published books, but not with any connection to a major publishing house. And I think there's even less of a market for a book by Josh. 

My guess is if there's any truth to these rumors about a book, it might be more his wife and possibly his parents thinking of him writing a book. I seriously doubt Josh cares. 

 

[quarks]

4 hours ago, Zella said:

My point was simply that people defending others accused of/convicted of heinous crimes isn't automatically someone interested in serious questions about the justice system, as was previously stated.

 

Well, no, and in looking back, that's also not what I said. I said:

"But from my understanding, many if not most of those online groups - especially The Innocence Project - at least seem to be trying to address concerns about miscarriages of justice."

I said this in response to a post that, by putting the words freeing and wrongfully in quote marks, appeared to be making the opposite argument - that everyone defending those convicted of crimes is delusional. That poster has since clarified that wording to say that wasn't what was meant.

And again, it's not that I think that these defenders are automatically interested in serious questions about the justice system. My point is more that the original post seemed to assume that there are no serious questions about the justice system, and that anyone who does speak up is delusional. And that, I think, is untrue. I do think some of the people speaking up are - I mean, the point about the Chris Watts groupies is fair - but not all, or even most. 

Especially because of cases like this, reported just today:

https://www.kron4.com/news/politics/ap-politics/ap-navy-exonerates-256-black-sailors-unjustly-punished-in-1944-after-a-deadly-california-port-explosion/

And even in cases where the guilt is, I think, clear, people can still have a range of questions/responses that may or may not be inherently delusional. Since R. Kelly was brought up, I think that's probably a good example: I think R. Kelly is guilty as hell and got the sentence he deserved, but I can think that while also agreeing with observers who have noted that he has been treated differently by the justice system than, say, Prince Andrew. And also agree with those who point out that R. Kelly's wealth and attorneys gave him a different experience with the justice system than, say, the average person stuck with an overworked public defender. 

This, like many aspects of our justice system, can be very complicated. But also, I think, worth discussing.

Anyway, to bring this back to Josh Duggar, the most notable thing, to me, is that these groupies and defenders haven't appeared. Some people are still defending JB and Michelle, and some people are defending or at least sorta kinda trying to understand Anna. Not most, but some. And the rest of the Duggarlings/Duggar adjacents still have their fans; Jessa Duggar hasn't gotten those YouTube viewing numbers just from hate watchers. 

That just isn't happening with Josh Duggar, which is something I do find fascinating. As we all noted at the time, his attorneys genuinely struggled to find anyone willing to write letters on his behalf, and even now, seemingly nobody except Anna is trying to defend him. Including the rest of his family.

So he can write a book all he wants. It might even be kinda good for him. But I don't think he should be counting on this for money - or counting on groupies and defenders to help him once he is released. I'm not even 100% sure he can count on Anna - yes, she's supporting him now. And yes, I think she very will might support him while he remains in jail. The question is what will happen once he's released. Neither of them will be completely the same person. 

[AstridM]

18 hours ago, quarks said:

Well, no, and in looking back, that's also not what I said. I said:

"But from my understanding, many if not most of those online groups - especially The Innocence Project - at least seem to be trying to address concerns about miscarriages of justice."

I said this in response to a post that, by putting the words freeing and wrongfully in quote marks, appeared to be making the opposite argument - that everyone defending those convicted of crimes is delusional. That poster has since clarified that wording to say that wasn't what was meant.

And again, it's not that I think that these defenders are automatically interested in serious questions about the justice system. My point is more that the original post seemed to assume that there are no serious questions about the justice system, and that anyone who does speak up is delusional. And that, I think, is untrue. I do think some of the people speaking up are - I mean, the point about the Chris Watts groupies is fair - but not all, or even most. 

Especially because of cases like this, reported just today:

https://www.kron4.com/news/politics/ap-politics/ap-navy-exonerates-256-black-sailors-unjustly-punished-in-1944-after-a-deadly-california-port-explosion/

And even in cases where the guilt is, I think, clear, people can still have a range of questions/responses that may or may not be inherently delusional. Since R. Kelly was brought up, I think that's probably a good example: I think R. Kelly is guilty as hell and got the sentence he deserved, but I can think that while also agreeing with observers who have noted that he has been treated differently by the justice system than, say, Prince Andrew. And also agree with those who point out that R. Kelly's wealth and attorneys gave him a different experience with the justice system than, say, the average person stuck with an overworked public defender. 

This, like many aspects of our justice system, can be very complicated. But also, I think, worth discussing.

Anyway, to bring this back to Josh Duggar, the most notable thing, to me, is that these groupies and defenders haven't appeared. Some people are still defending JB and Michelle, and some people are defending or at least sorta kinda trying to understand Anna. Not most, but some. And the rest of the Duggarlings/Duggar adjacents still have their fans; Jessa Duggar hasn't gotten those YouTube viewing numbers just from hate watchers. 

That just isn't happening with Josh Duggar, which is something I do find fascinating. As we all noted at the time, his attorneys genuinely struggled to find anyone willing to write letters on his behalf, and even now, seemingly nobody except Anna is trying to defend him. Including the rest of his family.

So he can write a book all he wants. It might even be kinda good for him. But I don't think he should be counting on this for money - or counting on groupies and defenders to help him once he is released. I'm not even 100% sure he can count on Anna - yes, she's supporting him now. And yes, I think she very will might support him while he remains in jail. The question is what will happen once he's released. Neither of them will be completely the same person. 

Anna has been more hateful than usual on SM. I detest her. 

[Albanyguy]

8 hours ago, AstridM said:

Anna has been more hateful than usual on SM.

Now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear Josh's case (which anyone with half a gnat's brain should have forseen), she's had to face the fact that he's not going to be released anytime soon and he's never going to be "vindicated". She must be in a foul mood these days and her SM posts are reflecting that.

[Gemma Violet]

I just saw on Pickles that Perez Hilton is reporting that Josh was moved to a fancy cushy section of the prison that's been newly renovated.

Take Perez's reports with a grain of salt, but he's saying the new section comes with privileges and has washer/dryers, microwaves, and flowers in the dorms.  They are trying to create an "honors dorm" of "model" inmates.  To be considered, you have to have a job and have no disciplinary infractions.  Josh has no job and does have a disciplinary infraction (remember when they found a phone on him last year). Perez says they are making an exception with Josh, waiving his SHU (Special Housing Unit) punishment time, and allowing him in because he's pursuing a degree. 😕  

Edited October 2 by Gemma Violet

[GeeGolly]

A degree in what, IT? 

[Salacious Kitty]

Perez hasn't been relevant in over a decade. I don't know how he got all this detailed information. 

It simply doesn't add up. 

[Gemma Violet]

5 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Perez hasn't been relevant in over a decade.

IKR?  More like two decades.  I didn't even know he was still in the business.

[Salacious Kitty]

Just now, Gemma Violet said:

IKR?  More like two decades.  I didn't even know he was still in the business.

Me either! 😀

[ginger90]

All of that seems to be quite the stretch and not even something that would happen regarding FF. The BOP has rules for goodness sakes.

[merylinkid]

22 hours ago, Gemma Violet said:

allowing him in because he's pursuing a degree. 😕  

How is that graduate of the kitchen table in any position to earn a degree?   I am quite sure he was as behind academically as all of his siblings.

Also they are not sending someone with his disciplinary history and conviction into an elite section.   It's too dangerous and he hasn't earned it.

[YupItsMe]

21 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Perez hasn't been relevant in over a decade. I don't know how he got all this detailed information. 

It simply doesn't add up. 

I saw posted elsewhere, maybe Reddit, that the info was reported by InTouch.

[ginger90]

13 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

I saw posted elsewhere, maybe Reddit, that the info was reported by InTouch.

And their “source” is probably Perez Hilton.

[YupItsMe]

Ha, maybe 😁

[Salacious Kitty]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

And their “source” is probably Perez Hilton.

Yup. InTouch is notorious for poaching stories. About the only real breaking story they've had w/r/t the Duggars is the molestation police reports.