Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

maraleia

By maraleia
in Counting On

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GeeGolly

    1526

  • Churchhoney

    1075

  • JoanArc

    1061

  • Sew Sumi

    1049

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hoosier80
hoosier80

New show title: 10 to 20 Years and Counting 

MargeGunderson
MargeGunderson

Someone on Reddit just described Josh’s face as a glistening glazed ham. I am considering divorcing my husband and marrying that poster. 

doodlebug
doodlebug

Well, for many of us, it's the difference between 'imperfect' and 'non-PC' and being a criminal.  Josh is a child molester and his parents actively intervened in his situation to avoid him being punis

Posted Images

FizzyPuff

FizzyPuff

(edited)
On 5/22/2021 at 5:44 PM, iwantcookies said:

Anna will probably say daddy went on a trip as a missionary to a different country. And he will be back in 10 years.

Even though I can imagine Anna saying this I doubt she will, I’ve got a feeling she’ll wanna take herself and the kids to visit Josh sometimes.Does anyone know if you’re allowed to take your kids to see their father if he gets done for child abuse?

Edited by FizzyPuff
  • Love 2
Spazamanaz

Spazamanaz

1 hour ago, MsJamieDornan said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG2H8G-4KE8&t=852s

This is very interesting. He breaks down just how many years Josh could serve when found guilty, or if he takes a plea. There's not much wiggle room with the feds.

Only about the first 12 minutes are about Josh.

I watched it a few nights ago. He explains it so well and the chart he uses makes it easy to understand how they figure out how much time behind bars is given.  It gives me hope that Josh will spend more than a couple of years in jail. 

  • Love 16
monkeypox

monkeypox

Quote

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG2H8G-4KE8&t=852s

This is very interesting. He breaks down just how many years Josh could serve when found guilty, or if he takes a plea. There's not much wiggle room with the feds.

Informative video. Josh sentencing is discussed from about the 6 minute mark through about minute 14.

This guy says that the federal minimum sentencing guidelines means that, if found guilty, Josh is facing from 12 - 20 years, which may be reduced if he takes a guilty plea before trial, or the judge is lenient for a reason that they have to justify. 

  • Useful 8
  • Love 4
hathorlive

hathorlive

On 5/21/2021 at 9:45 AM, NotthebadVictoria said:

@hathorlive I was wondering about this too...... that is technically compensation.... ?

I would call that compensation.  I'm looking to buy a house and I need a fence for my dogs.  Fences are expensive.  So, I would view it as compensation.  But judges are weird cats.  The things they let slide shocked me.  Of course, the judge has to decide if being compensated for holding Josh is an important point at all.  

  • Useful 2
  • Love 10
WinnieWinkle

WinnieWinkle

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

Of course, the judge has to decide if being compensated for holding Josh is an important point at all.  

Would it matter if someone was being compensated?  I'm just wondering what difference, if any, it should make.  Probably something super obvious that I am not seeing!

  • Love 2
Rootbeer

Rootbeer

12 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Would it matter if someone was being compensated?  I'm just wondering what difference, if any, it should make.  Probably something super obvious that I am not seeing!

I think the main issue is that if Jim Bob is paying the Rebers to hold Josh, they might be less likely to report any violations of the terms of his release to the courts.  After all, if JB is paying them to keep Josh, then those payments would end if Josh got tossed back into jail.

  • Useful 7
  • Love 15
WinnieWinkle

WinnieWinkle

17 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

After all, if JB is paying them to keep Josh, then those payments would end if Josh got tossed back into jail.

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense!  I guess my POV was that you could not pay me enough money to have that slug in my house but of course that's not going to be true for everyone.

  • Love 13
MargeGunderson

MargeGunderson

I wonder what was Mrs. Reber’s primary objection - was it being alone with a male that is not her headship, disgust at the charges, or fear of Josh? Probably a bit of both, but I just wonder if the headship thing is more important in her mind, as I suspect it would be for some fundies (combining the whole forgiveness aspect with the it’s not a big deal/it’s the victim’s fault anyway mindset). 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 3
Tabbygirl521

Tabbygirl521

(edited)

Anna’s current state of denial doesn’t surprise me. Josh’s other acts, while disgusting, sort of pale compared to the current charges. I can understand not being able to wrap one’s head around it; hell, I can hardly believe such things exist at all and I’m a lot older and a lot more worldly. She’s been convinced that prayer conquers all, and forgiveness is everything, and Josh has been cured. Now this. It’s going to take her some time to get there, and it certainly won’t happen before the trial. Technically, we’re all supposed to believe he’s innocent at this point (I know, I know...)

Even if/when she does come to believe, of course she’ll stay in the Duggar fold. She has no options. But at least her horrible “headship” will be safely locked away.

ETA: I’d love to know who “a source” is. 

Edited by Tabbygirl521
  • Love 20
MsJamieDornan

MsJamieDornan

4 hours ago, Zella said:

I've not had time to watch the video--I want to!--but my understanding is he is looking at a minimum 5 year sentence for the receiving charge. (I don't know if that would apply to him making a plea deal.) Is that true? 

Take time to watch the video. It explains it all very well.

  • Love 4
Ohiopirate02

Ohiopirate02

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I read one line from "a source" about Anna believing Josh is innocent. I didn't read the entire article because it seemed to be a rehash. Is there more to it, or is it likely click bait?

It's a rehash of everything.  The "source" also says Anna took the kids to see Josh.  Nothing else that you don't already know, but with multiple pics of Josh and ads.

  • Useful 2
  • Love 6
MargeGunderson

MargeGunderson

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I read one line from "a source" about Anna believing Josh is innocent. I didn't read the entire article because it seemed to be a rehash. Is there more to it, or is it likely click bait?

No new information that we haven’t discussed here. No reasoning for thinking he’s innocent. (I’m attending a virtual conference and am bored, so I read it)

  • Love 11
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

57 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I would love to hear why Anna thinks he’s innocent. What is her explanation for what was found in the computer? I really want to see how she hand-waves this away. I know it will never happen but I wish it would. 

My guess is that Anna still hasn’t read or heard about the specifics of the CP Josh viewed. 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 6
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

Just now, libgirl2 said:

Even if she did (and I don't think she did), she wouldn't believe it. I do wonder though, if deep down in there somewhere she does. 

And she should be ashamed that she’s too cowardly to read the specifics. She is supposed to be protecting her soon to be 7 children. She needs to know the full, brutal truth about what he viewed.

  • Love 21
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)
5 hours ago, Zella said:

I've not had time to watch the video--I want to!--but my understanding is he is looking at a minimum 5 year sentence for the receiving charge. (I don't know if that would apply to him making a plea deal.) Is that true? 

5 years is the absolute minimum -- no matter who you are or whether you plead or don't or what your history is, if you end up guilty and being sentenced. The sentences go up from there based on a lot of very specific factors.  (And the 20 is the maximum anybody can get on this charge, including people who have a string of prior convictions for similar crimes, and so on.)  

What Scott Reisch explains in detail is how the actual sentencing guidelines that judges use to calculate a specific person's sentence depend on plugging in various facts about the defendant, the details of the crime as they committed it and their situation. 

In the video, he shows what facts the federal rules ask the judge to consider in Josh's case, according to the prosecutorial documents, and how those various facts will specifically affect the judge's actual sentence. 

Reisch concludes that, based on the charges and the facts in Josh's case, if he goes to trial and is found guilty, he'll likely get 9 to 10-and-a-half years. 

If he pleads guilty, it'll likely be 7-and-a-half to 9, he calculates.

Those numbers square with the recent sentences I saw on the Western District of Arkansas website about people with the same charges.

A federal judge is actually free to sentence people to more or less time than the standard calculations suggest (within the minimum-maximum limits for the crime) but they have to clearly explain reasons to do so, and the reasons are supposed to be compelling. Doesn't happen very often, therefore. 

The facts of Josh's case mean that he can't get five and that he would be extremely unlikely to get more than 10 and a half, largely because he has no prior criminal convictions for anything in any jurisdiction. 

 

Edited by Churchhoney
  • Useful 12
  • Love 5
Zella

Zella

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

5 years is the absolute minimum -- no matter who you are or whether you plead or don't or what your history is, if you end up guilty and being sentenced. The sentences go up from there based on a lot of very specific factors.  (And the 20 is the maximum anybody can get on this charge, including people who have a string of prior convictions for similar crimes, and so on.)  

What Scott Reisch explains in detail is how the actual sentencing guidelines that judges use to calculate a specific person's sentence depend on plugging in various facts about the defendant, the details of the crime as they committed it and their situation. 

In the video, he shows what facts the federal rules ask the judge to consider in Josh's case, according to the prosecutorial documents, and how those various facts will specifically affect the judge's actual sentence. 

Reisch concludes that, based on the charges and the facts in Josh's case, if he goes to trial and is found guilty, he'll likely get 9 to 10-and-a-half years. 

If he pleads guilty, it'll likely be 7-and-a-half to 9, he calculates.

Those numbers square with the recent sentences I saw on the Western District of Arkansas website about people with the same charges.

A federal judge is actually free to sentence people to more or less time than the standard calculations suggest (within the minimum-maximum limits for the crime) but they have to clearly explain reasons to do so, and the reasons are supposed to be compelling. Doesn't happen very often, therefore. 

The facts of Josh's case mean that he can't get five and that he would be extremely unlikely to get more than 10 and a half, largely because he has no prior criminal convictions for anything in any jurisdiction. 

 

Thanks so much--I appreciate it! I still haven't had time to watch the video, and honestly, it's easier for me to process info through reading rather than watching anyway. 

  • Love 4
  • Popular Post
quarks

quarks

  • Popular Post

My sympathy for Anna is pretty limited, given several of her choices in life (not just Josh, but the abortion protests and joining Parler and so on.) 

With that said: 

Denial can be addictive.

And for Anna to admit that Josh is guilty would mean admitting that the one truth she's clung to and presented all of these years - that she's an excellent mother, committed to her children - is a complete lie. She would have to admit that she may have been endangering these kids.

She would also have to admit that the many, many, many people who urged her to leave Josh years ago - strangers and family members alike - were right, and she was wrong. It means accepting that her chances of getting the nice lifestyle that she had back before the first set of scandals are now really gone. (I mean, I think they were gone before this, but I could see Anna convincing herself that Josh would somehow manage to turn things around financially.) It also means questioning whether everything she went through to keep her marriage together the last time was worth it.  And it means having to accept that, far from having the model marriage/family she claims to have, she may very well have the hands down worst marriage of any of her extended clan - including all of the various Duggarling and Keller in-laws. 

And it means accepting that Josh could go to jail.

This is a lot.

And on top of that, she's part of a cult that is not always great with accepting reality, and many of the adults she hangs out with are not necessarily that reality-based either. I mean, she's hanging out with the same group of people that just within the last year thought one of their inexperienced, uneducated kids had an actual shot at a political career. Her only other social interactions appear to be through Parler - again, not a great place for accepting reality - or at large family weddings, which do seem to bring in a few non-cult members (like the secular Kellers and Katey's family) but which are generally not the best places for in-depth discussion.  

  • Useful 4
  • Love 48
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Thanks so much--I appreciate it! I still haven't had time to watch the video, and honestly, it's easier for me to process info through reading rather than watching anyway. 

Me, too. ....

His presentation is quite clear. But even so I could have digested it way faster reading than listening/watching. 

  • Love 13
  • Popular Post
floridamom

floridamom

  • Popular Post

My opinion about the Duggar interviews being 'soft' is because these people only agree to soft interviews. They don't have the guts to actually stand up, defend, and logically explain their 'beliefs'. They seem to only quote platitudes, bible verses and don't know how to defent their faith in regular words and conversation. I think they really don't understand it themselves. To actually understand their lifestyle, they would have to admit to themselves that these social customs have no actual Christian/religious basis.

  • Love 33
RedDelicious

RedDelicious

(edited)

No social media platform is a great place for accepting reality, and Anna probably didn’t have a choice of which to join. There are nutjobs on all of them. Algorithms and suppression of thoughts and ideologies that the owners of any social media site don’t agree with is indoctrination.

Edited by RedDelicious
  • Love 5
  • Popular Post
Ohiopirate02

Ohiopirate02

  • Popular Post
3 hours ago, floridamom said:

My opinion about the Duggar interviews being 'soft' is because these people only agree to soft interviews. They don't have the guts to actually stand up, defend, and logically explain their 'beliefs'. They seem to only quote platitudes, bible verses and don't know how to defent their faith in regular words and conversation. I think they really don't understand it themselves. To actually understand their lifestyle, they would have to admit to themselves that these social customs have no actual Christian/religious basis.

I agree that the Duggars would only sit down for a pre-negotiated "soft" interview, but that is true for every celebrity.  When Prince Andrew did that disastrous interview in 2019, he did not expect that to be the result when he sat down.  The journalist and his/her team worked building his trust and then started to lob the hard questions.  Megyn Kelly went soft on JB and Michelle because that was always the plan from the network.  She never asked the hard questions nor did her editing team splice together any damning answers.  That was not the point of the sitdown.  The point was always to rehabilitate JB and Michelle.  

  • Useful 2
  • Love 23
libgirl2

libgirl2

6 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree that the Duggars would only sit down for a pre-negotiated "soft" interview, but that is true for every celebrity.  When Prince Andrew did that disastrous interview in 2019, he did not expect that to be the result when he sat down.  The journalist and his/her team worked building his trust and then started to lob the hard questions.  Megyn Kelly went soft on JB and Michelle because that was always the plan from the network.  She never asked the hard questions nor did her editing team splice together any damning answers.  That was not the point of the sitdown.  The point was always to rehabilitate JB and Michelle.  

Spot on! 

  • Love 4
BitterApple

BitterApple

I'm putting this in the J&A thread, because it pertains to Josh. Not sure if any of you saw this on Reddit, but Pickles DM'd Jacob Wilson, demanding to know why his father didn't report Josh to the police. IMO, this is beyond shitty given that Jacob is clearly struggling with his own demons, and was a kid at the time:

Screenshot_20210525-080537_(1).thumb.png.61e4c54d85e8f934ef8d5ff3d68fb642.png

  • Useful 5
  • LOL 1
  • Love 3
  • Popular Post
Nysha

Nysha

  • Popular Post

Good god, Pickles is a nasty piece of work. Jacob's father is dead, so he isn't currently supporting Sex Pest's behavior, and Jacob is not responsible for his father's decisions. What good would it do to call out a dead person? Jim Bob has deliberately defended, downplayed, and supported Josh's actions all his life. 

  • Love 49
SunnyBeBe

SunnyBeBe

Ref. Anna’s disbelief of the charges....I recall when Willis adult children made abuse allegations AND father Willis plead guilty, the wife stood by her husband. Yet, the adult children still embraced their mother!  I still see many loving and positive comments about their mother by the adult children on social medial!  Boggles the mind.   

  • Love 4
libgirl2

libgirl2

10 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Ref. Anna’s disbelief of the charges....I recall when Willis adult children made abuse allegations AND father Willis plead guilty, the wife stood by her husband. Yet, the adult children still embraced their mother!  I still see many loving and positive comments about their mother by the adult children on social medial!  Boggles the mind.   

But I think she eventually saw the light. 

  • Useful 3
  • Love 4
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...