Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[mittsigirl]

28 minutes ago, Heathen said:

I have never once seen the infamous bikini photo, although Mullet has mentioned it (not as often as it's been mentioned here). I find it hard to believe that a woman who had her knees blacked out while waterskiing in a long skirt would show a photo of herself in a bikini. 

I feel sorry for the younger Duggars who are still at home. I can see their parents cracking down on them big time, in the naive belief that too much freedom caused Josh's issues. (Wrong.) And if Jim Bob burns through a lot of his money on Josh's defense, the younger kids might have to revert to the old Duggar ways, with not enough food, wearing used shoes and ugly-ass frumpers, no fancy cell phones or trips. It's also likely, in that case, that the younger kids wouldn't get the big weddings and extras that their older siblings got. They might have to actually "leave and cleave," as Mullet said once upon a time, although anybody with half a brain knew the kids didn't really leave OR cleave. 

Well the bikini story was when JB first saw Michelle cutting the lawn wearing the bikini and was instantly attracted to her, horndog that he was/is. She likes to show that picture, but made darn sure her own daughters never owned a heathenly bikini. JB was free to gawk at Michelle in her bikini, but the daughters had to yell the code word 'Nike' in case a scantily dressed woman came in to the boys vision, so they could instantly look down at their shoes. Talk about being a hypocrite.

[MsJamieDornan]

Quote

JB has never been the smartest guy in the room...

JB isnt even the smartest guy in the room when he's alone in the bathroom.

 

Edited May 4, 2021 by MsJamieDornan

[Lady Whistleup]

Well the prison jumpsuit might be very countenance enhancing.

 

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

Well the prison jumpsuit might be very countenance enhancing.

 

Well, Smuggar needs all the help he can get! 😂

[skatelady]

7 hours ago, Natalie68 said:

Yikes!  I think I wasn't clear.  I don't think Jed or Justin were up to anything.  I put this all on JB.  He can see his legacy dying before his eyes and doesn't want the Josh taint touching anyone else.  In the real world we know that Josh's issues are his own and whoever may have hurt him.

Yeahhhhh I don't think anyone wants to be near Josh's taint......

 

And, I'll see myself out!

 

[Nysha]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

Riddle of the day: Is Jim Bob the smartest guy in a room by himself? ;) 

Depends, is there furniture or fixtures in the room? He might be the smartest guy in a dirt root cellar...as long as there aren't any bugs, rats, or root vegetables in there with him.

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, Nysha said:

root vegetables in there with him

A turnip takes one look at Jim Bob and goes full Doc Holliday on him. :D

[catlover79]

3 hours ago, Zella said:

Riddle of the day: Is Jim Bob the smartest guy in a room by himself? ;) 

Is this a "if a tree falls in the forest" type question? 😂

[Zella]

4 minutes ago, catlover79 said:

Is this a "if a tree falls in the forest" type question? 😂

That's exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it! LOL

[catlover79]

16 minutes ago, Zella said:

That's exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote it! LOL

Great minds, my friend. 😊

[Tdoc72]

5 hours ago, Namaste said:

I wish Wednesday would get here. We need to know if he is getting bond or not. And where he’s going to live if he does get bond. 

I wonder if we’ll get any more info about the charges.  

[ginger90]

8 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Do we have a time? I need to clear 

Edited May 4, 2021 by ginger90

[galaxygirl76]

10 hours ago, Westiepeach said:

JB has never been the smartest guy in the room...

He sure thinks he is though. 

[Chai]

So why put all those LLC’s into Anna’s name but not the house? 
 

The house they sold in 2019 was beautiful even if it needed work done. I would be depressed having to move from that into a windowless warehouse. Just being in Anna’s name is not enough?

[Albanyguy]

"...in a residence where there are no minors in the home or that would be visiting unsupervised".

Does that mean that Josh would be able to have his kids brought to see him as long as they were supervised? I'm not entirely opposed to that (at least the kids wouldn't think that their father had dropped off the face of the earth), but it would depend on how carefully they were supervised. 

[doodlebug]

9 hours ago, mittsigirl said:

Well the bikini story was when JB first saw Michelle cutting the lawn wearing the bikini and was instantly attracted to her, horndog that he was/is. She likes to show that picture, but made darn sure her own daughters never owned a heathenly bikini. JB was free to gawk at Michelle in her bikini, but the daughters had to yell the code word 'Nike' in case a scantily dressed woman came in to the boys vision, so they could instantly look down at their shoes. Talk about being a hypocrite.

I don't recall that version of the story.  On the show, Michelle was discussing the importance of women dressing modestly to avoid arousing men.  She talked about mowing the lawn in a bikini when she was in high school.  Her neighbor happened to see her, and, shortly afterwards, divorced his wife.  Michelle seemed to think that the sight of her in a swimsuit drove the man into a lustful frenzy which caused him to end his marriage.  

Michelle never said that her neighbor actually flirted with her, admired her bikini or otherwise expressed any interest in her.  Nor did the neighbor or his wife every tell her that her lawn mowing outfit had anything whatsoever to do with the collapse of the marriage.  Michelle apparently assumed she was just so darned irresistible that it was inevitably her fault.

[Chai]

Someone needs to stand up and help Anna and have a come to Jesus moment with JB. Something along these lines.... You WILL buy me and my 7 children a house to live in, a wharehouse isnt going to cut it. I have done everything I can do with your son. The marriage will be annuled by several avenues... fraud most likely. Grandparents will have open visitation which is more than their own father will. She needs to blackmail him with money to get her started on this new life.... or she goes to every news publication(Starting with Sean Overbeek from TLC) and give the inside info on what life has been like these last 12 years because..... INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW!

[Ohiopirate02]

17 minutes ago, Albanyguy said:

"...in a residence where there are no minors in the home or that would be visiting unsupervised".

Does that mean that Josh would be able to have his kids brought to see him as long as they were supervised? I'm not entirely opposed to that (at least the kids wouldn't think that their father had dropped off the face of the earth), but it would depend on how carefully they were supervised. 

He is still their father, so I can see the courts allowing supervised visits with the M kids.  Supervised here means someone approved by the courts to watch Josh with his kids, not Anna nor anyone else with the Duggar last name.  

[ginger90]

3 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Supervised here means someone approved by the courts to watch Josh with his kids, not Anna nor anyone else with the Duggar last name.

It actually can be someone in the family.

In this case, will that be approved? I guess we’ll see.

[Tikichick]

11 hours ago, Westiepeach said:

JB has never been the smartest guy in the room...

Clearly.   He does however tend to live as much of his existence as possible in spaces he creates and controls, therefore ensuring he's always the biggest donkey braying the loudest, with all the "smaller" donkeys expected to listen and nod their heads in agreement.

Watch what happens whenever he's in a place where his money, fame, connections are meaningless and participation requires knowledge he doesn't have, forcing him to take instruction like he's one of the other donkeys.  It's obvious very quickly the ass doesn't know what to do with himself.

[mythoughtis]

Question for the court experts here: 

Are the release conditions ( if he gets released)  the judge handed down standard for CP/abuse charges?  The thirds party residing with him?  I understand the not being around children condition. 
 

I’m trying to read between the lines as to whether this means there’s a lot of  images or very disturbing images behind these two standardly worded charges, or if they expect him to run from the area if he gets released.... or if it’s just standard for these charges. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by mythoughtis

[doodlebug]

11 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

Question for the court experts here: 

Are the release conditions ( if he gets released)  the judge handed down standard for CP/abuse charges?  The thirds party residing with him?  I understand the not being around children condition. 
 

I’m trying to read between the libes as to whether this means there’s a lot of  images or very disturbing images behind these two standardly worded charges, or if they expect him to run from the area if he gets released.... or if it’s just standard for these charges. 

Not a lawyer, but a mandated reporter at my job.  Yes, the courts can and do require those charged with these sorts of crimes to have someone else in residence with them.  Remember what Josh is accused of doing.  He will probably also have to agree to no internet access pre-trial, too.  The court wants to do what it can to make sure he has as little opportunity as possible to commit similar crimes in the run-up to the trial.

It is also likely that he will have a GPS monitor on his ankle so his whereabouts are always known and he will be required to remain at home except for medical appointments and court related appearances/meetings with his lawyers.  He doesn't really have a job, I doubt he'll get a release to work.

As far as supervised visitation, the courts can also mandate where that visitation is to occur.  He not only would need someone to supervise his visits (Anna would probably not be considered eligible), he might be ordered to only see his kids in a neutral location and perhaps with a specific trained individual like a social worker present.  Most of the time, it doesn't come to that; but, if the judge is strict and/or has concerns about the welfare of the children, it could happen.  There are actual professional centers where this sort of visit can take place and it is up to the defendant to pay all costs associated with the visit, too.

Edited May 4, 2021 by doodlebug

[Absolom]

1 hour ago, Chai said:

The marriage will be annuled by several avenues... fraud most likely.

Annulment looks out of the question.   The only tiny possibility is marriage by force or fraud and that would have to have been claimed well before 7 children were conceived within the marriage for a judge to rule in Anna's favor.  An annulment is a legal presumption that a valid marriage never existed. 

Divorce, however, would be a perfectly viable option for Anna.  She's had quite the chance before for a divorce and passed it by though.  

[Snow Fairy]

OK, I understand that under Gothard, the woman needs to take care of her man, so he wouldn't satisfy his needs elsewhere.

But what when you're on the other side? What would happen and what would they say if Anna's kids (or any other Duggar kid for that matter) was being molested, filmed and put on the dark web by somebody not married and outside of the family? What if some other kid (older) did that?

Would they be mad, would they find the explanation, what would they say to the victims?

 

I just can't grasp that Gothardisam and protecting the molester. 

[Ohiopirate02]

9 minutes ago, Snow Fairy said:

OK, I understand that under Gothard, the woman needs to take care of her man, so he wouldn't satisfy his needs elsewhere.

But what when you're on the other side? What would happen and what would they say if Anna's kids (or any other Duggar kid for that matter) was being molested, filmed and put on the dark web by somebody not married and outside of the family? What if some other kid (older) did that?

Would they be mad, would they find the explanation, what would they say to the victims?

 

I just can't grasp that Gothardisam and protecting the molester. 

Unfortunately, it depends upon who the predator is.  If it is someone who believes in the "correct" Jesus, then the Gothard rules apply.  If it is some unsaved sinner, then the fault lies with the sinner.  Or course, no Gothard child would ever be in the presence of an unsaved sinner, so the chances are slim that the abuse would not be considered the child's fault.  

[GeeGolly]

Since Josh's lawyers requested the bond hearing, we know JB is onboard. Does that mean as long as Josh has everything lined up, his release will be automatically be approved?

I would think if the answer would be no, the hearing would have been denied to begin with.

[doodlebug]

10 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Since Josh's lawyers requested the bond hearing, we know JB is onboard. Does that mean as long as Josh has everything lined up, his release will be automatically be approved?

I would think if the answer would be no, the hearing would have been denied to begin with.

Don't you think its going to depend on the amount of the bond?  Although, with JB onboard, he has a lot of property that can be used to secure the bond, so he could probably come up with the dough.  Since this is Josh' first offense (for which he has been arrested), his bond won't be outrageous.  His lawyers are going to argue that he has a wife and 6, soon to be 7, kids as well as dozens of other relatives in the immediate vicinity which makes him less likely to flee.

I think Josh has a savvy lawyer who deals with this stuff all the time and he wouldn't have asked for the hearing if he didn't know what they'd have to do to be ready for Josh to be released on bond and wasn't pretty certain that JB would do what it took to provide it.

[iwantcookies]

I bet Josh rather be in jail than be out on bond and facing SEVERELY angry Jim Booger. Ooohhhh boy. Imagine that scene. 
 

[doodlebug]

39 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Annulment looks out of the question.   The only tiny possibility is marriage by force or fraud and that would have to have been claimed well before 7 children were conceived within the marriage for a judge to rule in Anna's favor.  An annulment is a legal presumption that a valid marriage never existed. 

Divorce, however, would be a perfectly viable option for Anna.  She's had quite the chance before for a divorce and passed it by though.  

Didn't Anna also claim after the molestation scandal that she knew about Josh' history before she married him?  If so, she'd have a tough time proving that she was forced or there was fraud involved.  Courts tend to think sentient adults can think for themselves and make their own decisions.  Since she claimed that she married Josh after learning of his history, it would be hard for her to go to court and claim ignorance now.

[Tikichick]

10 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Since Josh's lawyers requested the bond hearing, we know JB is onboard. Does that mean as long as Josh has everything lined up, his release will be automatically be approved?

I would think if the answer would be no, the hearing would have been denied to begin with.

The judge may have absolutely zero intention of offering bail, or may already know that if offered it will be at such a level that JB will absolutely swallow hard before committing the necessary assets.   Not offering the hearing at all could be an issue at the appellate phase, where an appeals lawyer could use it to demonstrate the Court did not appreciate he was innocent until proven guilty and therefore a conviction needs to be overturned and at least remanded for a new hearing.

I'm fascinated by the fact in a case like this where data is key and massive amounts of data would be expected that the pretrial is only scheduled one week before the scheduled start of trial.   Even in ordinary circumstances that is surprising.   Under current conditions where courts are facing a tsunami of criminal backlog in particular as courts attempt to resume normal operations it shocks me that it's scheduled this way, knowing that pretrials frequently bring up issues that require rescheduling of trials.   In a case like this I'd expect the defense to be informing the judge at pretrial that they need more time to prepare and go through the significant volume of evidence.  Courts are operating at levels these days where they cannot afford a hole in a calendar because the time allocated for a case sits open because a case had to be rescheduled.  

[WinnieWinkle]

2 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

I bet Josh rather be in jail than be out on bond and facing SEVERELY angry Jim Booger. Ooohhhh boy. Imagine that scene. 

Also Josh is his own worst enemy.  I can't see him abiding quietly by court mandated conditions or keeping his mouth shut.  He might listen to his lawyers.  Maybe.  But I doubt it.  He'd be far better off staying put but I can't blame him for not wanting that to happen.

[Rabbittron]

Why do I have this strange feeling that Smugs is going to go to the federal country club prison in Englewood Colorado?

[GeeGolly]

2 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

The judge may have absolutely zero intention of offering bail, or may already know that if offered it will be at such a level that JB will absolutely swallow hard before committing the necessary assets.   Not offering the hearing at all could be an issue at the appellate phase, where an appeals lawyer could use it to demonstrate the Court did not appreciate he was innocent until proven guilty and therefore a conviction needs to be overturned and at least remanded for a new hearing.

I'm fascinated by the fact in a case like this where data is key and massive amounts of data would be expected that the pretrial is only scheduled one week before the scheduled start of trial.   Even in ordinary circumstances that is surprising.   Under current conditions where courts are facing a tsunami of criminal backlog in particular as courts attempt to resume normal operations it shocks me that it's scheduled this way, knowing that pretrials frequently bring up issues that require rescheduling of trials.   In a case like this I'd expect the defense to be informing the judge at pretrial that they need more time to prepare and go through the significant volume of evidence.  Courts are operating at levels these days where they cannot afford a hole in a calendar because the time allocated for a case sits open because a case had to be rescheduled.  

Hmm, not sure that not offering a bond hearing would be grounds for appeal. Its done all the time in this country. And all those folks are presumed innocent.

IMO, there's a few responsible reasons not to release Josh. His charges certainly could be considered a risk to the community. He has access to money, planes and pilots which could be considered a flight risk. 

 

 

[Oldernowiser]

21 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

His lawyers are going to argue that he has a wife and 6, soon to be 7, kids as well as dozens of other relatives in the immediate vicinity which makes him less likely to flee.

I would think the prosecution would argue that the existence of those children is a reason to deny him bond, not grant it. It’s not like he’s been charged with Grand Theft Auto. 

[Zella]

37 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Since Josh's lawyers requested the bond hearing, we know JB is onboard. Does that mean as long as Josh has everything lined up, his release will be automatically be approved?

I would think if the answer would be no, the hearing would have been denied to begin with.

The judge's wording was "if he is eligible for release," so it sounds to me like it is not necessarily a given. 

 

3 hours ago, ginger90 said:

That was the most info I've seen directly from the court proceeding on the bond hearing--thank you! 

[Tabbygirl521]

2 hours ago, doodlebug said:

I don't recall that version of the story.  On the show, Michelle was discussing the importance of women dressing modestly to avoid arousing men.  She talked about mowing the lawn in a bikini when she was in high school.  Her neighbor happened to see her, and, shortly afterwards, divorced his wife.  Michelle seemed to think that the sight of her in a swimsuit drove the man into a lustful frenzy which caused him to end his marriage.  

Michelle never said that her neighbor actually flirted with her, admired her bikini or otherwise expressed any interest in her.  Nor did the neighbor or his wife every tell her that her lawn mowing outfit had anything whatsoever to do with the collapse of the marriage.  Michelle apparently assumed she was just so darned irresistible that it was inevitably her fault.

And since he apparently didn’t approach Michelle after the divorce, he just couldn’t stand to be with his wife anymore after seeing Michelle’s body? He would rather be alone than with his wife - because of Michelle? Sure, that makes total sense.

(I wonder if JimBob but that in her head because HE is such a horn dog for her? Anyway, they’re nuts.)

[Oldernowiser]

4 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

And since he apparently didn’t approach Michelle after the divorce, he just couldn’t stand to be with his wife anymore after seeing Michelle’s body? He would rather be alone than with his wife - because of Michelle? Sure, that makes total sense.

(I wonder if JimBob but that in her head because HE is such a horn dog for her? Anyway, they’re nuts.)

By her logic, any man who ever drives by a beach is going to get divorced. 

Oy.

[Tabbygirl521]

39 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

I bet Josh rather be in jail than be out on bond and facing SEVERELY angry Jim Booger. Ooohhhh boy. Imagine that scene. 
 

Will they shave Josh’s head again and make him dig another pond? Or something worse, since that didn’t do the trick before?

[Tikichick]

7 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Hmm, not sure that not offering a bond hearing would be grounds for appeal. Its done all the time in this country. And all those folks are presumed innocent.

IMO, there's a few responsible reasons not to release Josh. His charges certainly could be considered a risk to the community. He has access to money, planes and pilots which could be considered a flight risk. 

 

 

Not offering a bond hearing at all absolutely would be a point any appellate attorney worth his salt will include in a bid for an appeal.   It won't be the only factor pointed to I'm sure.  If you're familiar with the appellate process you know that they swing on a very intricate web of minutiae and technicality and really aren't about what most people commonly assume.  Being forced to remain locked up without even being afforded the opportunity of a bail hearing so that you can have unfettered access to assist your attorney in your defense?   Yeah, that's a pretty key appellate issue that's going to be raised.  Note, that's a completely different thing from saying a judge MUST grant the bail.  

I certainly didn't say Josh had to be released, far from it.   The insular, self employed, asset laden, covert financial network of this family will definitely cut against his release.  They also have to tread gingerly as far as family ties as far as father of seven, tight knit family, etc.  given the number of minors, the number of residences and properties, etc.  Those types of things that normally cut one way in a bail hearing can also cut the other in a case like this.   I don't work in a federal setting so I wouldn't hazard a guess on how a judge will come down on the issue of bond.  

Everybody's been hanging on every word of every statement released by family members.     Make no mistake, at the very least JB & M's got approved, if not outright composed, by Josh's lawyer -- in no small part specifically with an eye to the posture that can be presented to the judge at a bail hearing.  His attorney made damn sure they didn't say anything the prosecution could present to the judge and lead to a denial of bail.  I suspect everyone in the family was asked to either remain silent or was given very specific boundaries it would be appreciated if they could remain within if they made a statement.          

[SunnyBeBe]

Is Josh a licensed pilot?

[galaxygirl76]

1 hour ago, Oldernowiser said:

I would think the prosecution would argue that the existence of those children is a reason to deny him bond, not grant it. It’s not like he’s been charged with Grand Theft Auto. 

Is the court allowed to use the molestation of his sisters as well as a reason to refuse bond or is that not in consideration because it never went to court? 

[3girlsforus]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Since Josh's lawyers requested the bond hearing, we know JB is onboard. Does that mean as long as Josh has everything lined up, his release will be automatically be approved?

I would think if the answer would be no, the hearing would have been denied to begin with.

I think it’s likely he will be offered bond. The Subway Jared guy got bond on similar charges but his actually included traveling to molest a child (can’t remember the legal term) so I would think Josh will be granted bond as well. Whether it’s too high to pay it is another story. 

[MsJamieDornan]

33 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Is Josh a licensed pilot?

Josh is barely licensed to drive.

[ozziemom]

32 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Is Josh a licensed pilot?

We have never seen him piloting a plane. I think JD, sinner twin Jer and Josiah have been shown flying a plane.

[Tikichick]

It just occurred to me that the transfer of assets into LLCs in Anna's name will likely be raised as a negative factor in a bond hearing, particularly if the timing was in the wake of the raid on the car lot.   

[Marshmallow Mollie]

I assume currently Anna receives a monthly stipend from Jim Bob. That amount of money might be fine for six kids under 10, but in five years it’s not going to be enough for seven kids including many teenagers. Does she go ask Jim Bob for a raise? I doubt he is going to adjust the stipend on his own. How awkward. Surely the family with their messed up beliefs is laying some of blame at her feet. Add to that the legal expenses and possible fines that Josh will incur. Again, how awkward that Anna is completely reliant on them. We may see the M kids get real, worldly jobs as soon as they are of age out of necessity.

Edited May 4, 2021 by Marshmallow Mollie

[ginger90]

3 hours ago, Rabbittron said:

Why do I have this strange feeling that Smugs is going to go to the federal country club prison in Englewood Colorado?

Possibly, or Texas, or Ohio.

He won’t get to choose.

Edited May 4, 2021 by ginger90

[libgirl2]

13 minutes ago, Marshmallow Mollie said:

I assume currently Anna receives a monthly stipend from Jim Bob. That amount of money might be fine for six kids under 10, but in five years it’s not going to be enough for seven kids including many teenagers. Does she go ask Jim Bob for a raise? I doubt he is going to adjust the stipend on his own. How awkward. Surely the family with their messed up beliefs is laying some of blame at her feet. Add to that the legal expenses and possible fines that Josh will incur. Again, how awkward that Anna is completely reliant on them. We may see the M kids get real, worldly jobs as soon as they are of age out of necessity.

Maybe he will send her back home to the Kellers. 

[crazy8s]

21 minutes ago, Marshmallow Mollie said:

I assume currently Anna receives a monthly stipend from Jim Bob. That amount of money might be fine for six kids under 10, but in five years it’s not going to be enough for seven kids including many teenagers. Does she go ask Jim Bob for a raise? I doubt he is going to adjust the stipend on his own. How awkward. Surely the family with their messed up beliefs is laying some of blame at her feet. Add to that the legal expenses and possible fines that Josh will incur. Again, how awkward that Anna is completely reliant on them. We may see the M kids get real, worldly jobs as soon as they are of age out of necessity.

I assume Anna, Josh, Jana etc have a duggar issued credit/debit card and someone checks all the charges each month. Josh and Anna seem to own no vehicle other than the junker RV. So they drive a car from the Duggar fleet. The only trips they take are with JB and Michelle or other family. Possibly Anna has a bit of money from the LLC property shifting shenanigans to buy household items, but I am not sure how much she would be free to spend.

Enough at least to buy that faux fireplace that doubles as tv storage she claimed JoshUa built.....🤣

[dariafan]

20 hours ago, Tikichick said:

I doubt law enforcement would inform the family per se.   I've started to consider if possibly Josiah was subpoenaed to testify in front of the grand jury, giving some insight into what was happening to the family as a whole, or parts of the family that were unaware, etc. 

ETA  That's awkwardly worded.   Not that Josiah would have testified as to the family, but being subpoenaed and testifying would have offered the family some insight into what was happening regarding the raid. 

With hindsight it's kind of noticeable that within the past couple months there have been some noticeable changes from several of the married couples, or tenseness.  And that last episode that aired, the "Easter" episode, was just Twilight Zone.  JD and Abbie were distinctly there to participate, but not a single comment aired from either one?   The awkwardness was palpable.   Jessa and Ben seem very tense.   Joy and Austin were discussed for a little while, although that also could have been related to their daughter needing to be examined by a specialist.   Jinger and Jeremy have been a trainwreck it seems no one can stop gawking at.

I doubt we'll ever know who knew what when, but it is interesting.      

Honestly as more get married , I think they are finding they don’t like each other as much. Or the spouses are suggesting to them know things in their world aren’t normal.  They may visit inlaws and see how other people act and do around each other.  
 

and i dont think josh has paid attention to anythibf jb has done with money