Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[hathorlive]

39 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

He's almost certainly not looking at 10 years, though. One of the biggest things that up your sentence are having previous criminal convictions of any kind.    Josh has zero. So he's not going to be near the top of the range for his charges.     

The difference between a plea and a guilty verdict in his case is more likely to be about a year or so, I think.                                                  

10 years is a goal at this point.  It's the mid range "average" sentence for cases like this. I won't be shocked if he gets 8 to 10 years.  For me, the wild card is the past abuse of his sisters.  It's not a conviction but he admitted to molesting a 5 year old.  The reason judges give for "harsh" sentences for CP possession is that viewing may lead to hurting an actual child.  Here, we have someone who STARTED hurting actual children.  And someone who wasn't put off by the social mores that nearly 99.9% of societies have, which is incest.  If the judge looks at it that way, does he get closer to 15 years?  Is he allowed to consider what the suspect has already publicly admitted to? I don't agree with vloggers who say the content will get him 20 years.  Again, I've had content with victims younger than DD (let that sink in for a minute) and the system barely blinked.  I hope things have changed.  I hope this judge is a hanging judge.  I hope that he will take into consideration enhancers.  I hope Josh gets hit up with 500K in fines and forfeiture.  I've just never seen it happen IN MY cases.  We did have a house given up in forfeiture for a boy scout leader suspect, but he did so as part of a plea agreement.

[Annb67]

The STARTING sentence here in Virginia is 10 years or used to be. I can’t imagine that has changed . I had a friend whose husband got busted for this. No criminal past. Not even a traffic ticket. He accepted a plea deal. Served just a few months shy of 10.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Annb67

[Churchhoney]

36 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

10 years is a goal at this point.  It's the mid range "average" sentence for cases like this. I won't be shocked if he gets 8 to 10 years.  For me, the wild card is the past abuse of his sisters.  It's not a conviction but he admitted to molesting a 5 year old.  The reason judges give for "harsh" sentences for CP possession is that viewing may lead to hurting an actual child.  Here, we have someone who STARTED hurting actual children.  And someone who wasn't put off by the social mores that nearly 99.9% of societies have, which is incest.  If the judge looks at it that way, does he get closer to 15 years?  Is he allowed to consider what the suspect has already publicly admitted to? I don't agree with vloggers who say the content will get him 20 years.  Again, I've had content with victims younger than DD (let that sink in for a minute) and the system barely blinked.  I hope things have changed.  I hope this judge is a hanging judge.  I hope that he will take into consideration enhancers.  I hope Josh gets hit up with 500K in fines and forfeiture.  I've just never seen it happen IN MY cases.  We did have a house given up in forfeiture for a boy scout leader suspect, but he did so as part of a plea agreement.

Here's hopin`!

I'm trying to keep my expectations low! (and in line with what I've seen on the DOJ website for this district. -- only a very very few getting more than 8 on these same charges -- and many in the 6 to 7 range....)

Edited October 19, 2021 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

He's almost certainly not looking at 10 years, though. One of the biggest things that up your sentence are having previous criminal convictions of any kind.    Josh has zero. So he's not going to be near the top of the range for his charges.     

The difference between a plea and a guilty verdict in his case is more likely to be about a year or so, I think.                                                  

Then why plea? Unless there are other factors like a prison close to home or something. I think risking, say, 6 years, instead of 5, with a slight possible outcome of not guilty, is worth taking.

[hathorlive]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

Then why plea? Unless there are other factors like a prison close to home or something. I think risking, say, 6 years, instead of 5, with a slight possible outcome of not guilty, is worth taking.

I agree.  And I've said before that especially in state court, you are going to get 5 years regardless.  I think making me put on a suit and pantyhose means they should at least get 6 years for rolling the dice and being found guilty.  I don't think I'd take a plea deal in state court.  We can only hope that he gets a bigger sentence if he goes to trial.  My federal trials where they didn't take a plea had other mitigating circumstances (one was on a sex offender's registry and was charged with CP).  Their sentences after being found guilty were on the high end but that's due to the mitigating factors not necessarily for making us go to trial.  Who knows.

[Churchhoney]

7 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Then why plea? Unless there are other factors like a prison close to home or something. I think risking, say, 6 years, instead of 5, with a slight possible outcome of not guilty, is worth taking.

Well, I think avoiding an extra year in prison would be worth it for a lot of people, wouldn't it? (not all, obviously....but many)... I mean, it's a year out of your life.....And it's prison. And it's a year when you could be FREE and start getting yourself back on your feet, perhaps.....

And you're not talking a year off a 25-year-sentence, you're talking a year off of 7 or 8 years, where I think that extra year looms pretty large. 

Plus, I think a lot of people, on reflection, would rather not go through the trial and watch a roomful of people see exactly what they've done. .... And in the case of somebody with a family -- have their family see exactly what they've done.....Again, obviously everybody won't feel that way. But I'd think a fair number would in a case like this where, without your trial, your family might never see the stuff you were looking at. ... But with the trial they would...

And then, of course, undue pressures are put on some people. But I doubt that that would really happen in this case...

And if I were famous, like Josh, I'd want fewer media stories....and a trial is certainly going to up that number, I would think! 

But....of course I'm not Josh and Josh isn't me.....Maybe he's looking forward to all the media stories! 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Churchhoney

[GeeGolly]

9 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Well, I think avoiding an extra year in prison would be worth it for a lot of people, wouldn't it? (not all, obviously....but many)... I mean, it's a year out of your life.....And it's prison. And it's a year when you could be FREE and start getting yourself back on your feet, perhaps.....

And you're not talking a year off a 25-year-sentence, you're talking a year off of 7 or 8 years, where I think that extra year looms pretty large. 

Plus, I think a lot of people, on reflection, would rather not go through the trial and watch a roomful of people see exactly what they've done. .... And in the case of somebody with a family -- have their family see exactly what they've done.....Again, obviously everybody won't feel that way. But I'd think a fair number would in a case like this where, without your trial, your family might never see the stuff you were looking at. ... But with the trial they would...

And then, of course, undue pressures are put on some people. But I doubt that that would really happen in this case...

And if I were famous, like Josh, I'd want fewer media stories....and a trial is certainly going to up that number, I would think! 

But....of course I'm not Josh and Josh isn't me.....Maybe he's looking forward to all the media stories! 

I see what you're saying. But 12 months is nothing compared to a possibility of no sentence at all.

As far as his family knowing everything he has done, if he goes to trial, I think its fair to guess they would be seeing it as knowing what he was charged with doing.

And the media stories are here already and they're here to stay. From what I accidently read and from what I hear of what others have read, not much is left up to the imagine. Would taking a plea shave off a couple of months of 6th page 'headlines'? Sure it probably would, but any mention of Josh prior to his arrest included the molestations and Ashley Madison, so I don't see this being any different whether he pleads or not. However, a not guilty verdict would certainly change the headlines.

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I see what you're saying. But 12 months is nothing compared to a possibility of no sentence at all.

As far as his family knowing everything he has done, if he goes to trial, I think its fair to guess they would be seeing it as knowing what he was charged with doing.

And the media stories are here already and they're here to stay. From what I accidently read and from what I hear of what others have read, not much is left up to the imagine. Would taking a plea shave off a couple of months of 6th page 'headlines'? Sure it probably would, but any mention of Josh prior to his arrest included the molestations and Ashley Madison, so I don't see this being any different whether he pleads or not. However, a not guilty verdict would certainly change the headlines.

Yeah, I get what you're saying......The thing is, the main place I'm coming from is having sat on a bunch of juries in different kinds of cases.....So what I'm looking for, when I think about the outcome, is -- Where will the jury's sources of reasonable doubt come from?

Because that's ultimately where your hung jury or not-guilty verdict gonna come from. And as an frequent juror, I can see that there aren't many potential sources of reasonable doubt in this particular case. A lot of is technology-oriented.....and it's kind of black and white -- the LE didn't have to draw a lot of conclusions from the technology to tie this back to Josh. There's pretty clear path, seems like......And so only a juror who really really doesn't trust any technology or really really trust law enforcement at all is likely to find much doubt there. 

There aren't going to be a bunch of eyewitnesses or family members testifying that Josh was some other place than the police say he was or testifying about this, that or the other event or statement by the defendant.  And those witnesses are a big source of juror doubt -- whether the witnesses were confused or lying.....Are there reasons to think they aren't credible? Etc. Doubt from sources like that will be minimal because there won't be a lot of people testifying.

Evidence from a crime scene and the nature of a crime scene or alleged one can also be a big source doubts....But this isn't a case with much physical evidence. So that'll lessen the number of possible doubts.

I think Josh's attorneys' arguments about the car lot being a place where potentially many people other than Josh can have committed this crime could raise doubts. But if the jurors have doubts, they can see pictures of the car lot and see it on a map. Heck, they might even be taken there if they're wondering about that. They might see employee logs......And all that in this case is gonna show that the car lot is pretty isolated, clearly wouldn't have had a bunch of people traipsing in and out as Josh claims, and isn't big enough to have a bunch of employees going in and out.....So that, too, won't raise a whole lot of juror doubt, based on what I've seen. 

Many crimes unfold in numerous stages -- so something that happened at one particular stage of 10 stages can be a source of doubt. But this one really consists of only a few actions. 

So -- based only on my own jury experience, which of course doesn't prove anything, although it's substantial -- I just don't see that this case will raise nearly as many questions for jurors as many cases do......And when the jurors don't have questions, their verdicts are generally pretty clear. ... 

Not that it's impossible that his jury will vote not guilty.

But I've seen in real life how jury deliberations differ in cases that are of limited scope and technical like this and ones that have a lot of elements, lots of moving parts. And it's the complicated ones that can raise numerous doubts and swing the jury to "not guilty," in the trials I've seen.

So, to me, as a constant juror, he looks to have very very very little chance of getting a not-guilty verdict. In my mind, he's risking an extra year in prison for an extremely slim chance at no years in prison.  And with those odds, I wouldn't risk it.

I envision a jury going out, staying out as long as it takes them to look carefully through all the evidence, but not having very much conversation because where are numerous doubts going to come from? And coming back in a relatively short time with a guilty verdict.  

But of course he may well not believe the odds are at all what I think they are....(but if that's the judgment he makes, I think he's wrong!)

Time will tell......... (But not nearly soon enough for Mrs. Reber, no doubt....) 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by Churchhoney

[MargeGunderson]

I strategically selected my desk at work today so that I can check this site for updates without getting busted. Although if I did get caught, I’ll bust out “Satan made me do it.” 

[crazycatlady58]

So a question, will he be able to get time off for good behavior? I think that whatever time he gets will be twice as hard on him than other people because he thinks he is the best ever and most people around him (his parents) seem to treat him that way. He will be in an environment where no one cares who he his and he will literally be a number. I was told once ( and have no idea if it is true) that people in prison do not talk about what put them there because this is their new life. 

[Cinnabon]

Not going to trial would l save a huge amount of money , wouldn’t it? No paying the expensive lawyers for a trial.

[Churchhoney]

58 minutes ago, crazycatlady58 said:

So a question, will he be able to get time off for good behavior? I think that whatever time he gets will be twice as hard on him than other people because he thinks he is the best ever and most people around him (his parents) seem to treat him that way. He will be in an environment where no one cares who he his and he will literally be a number. I was told once ( and have no idea if it is true) that people in prison do not talk about what put them there because this is their new life. 

There is time off for good behavior in federal prison......I'm not sure if I think Josh would behave well or ill. I lean toward "well" because I think he'll ultimately fear to rock the boat. But who knows...

[On the Bias]

1 hour ago, crazycatlady58 said:

So a question, will he be able to get time off for good behavior?

Yes, but it’s not as much as you might think.  In the federal system, if you behave well you serve 85% of your sentence.  Except that the way the Bureau of Prisons calculates 85%, it’s actually 87%.  

[SnapHappy]

1 hour ago, crazycatlady58 said:

I was told once ( and have no idea if it is true) that people in prison do not talk about what put them there because this is their new life. 

They will know who he is and exactly what he was convicted of. 

He won't need to say a word.  

 

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by SnapHappy

[lookeyloo]

Any chances of him getting house arrest?  Being a first time offender and "just looking".  And can the prosecution introduce his molestation accusations?  If they aren't introduced formally, then, they can't be used by the jury even if they know about them?  

[libgirl2]

Just now, lookeyloo said:

Any chances of him getting house arrest?  Being a first time offender and "just looking".  And can the prosecution introduce his molestation accusations?  If they aren't introduced formally, then, they can't be used by the jury even if they know about them?  

I don't know but if so, what house? The Rebers? 

[lookeyloo]

Just now, libgirl2 said:

I don't know but if so, what house? The Rebers? 

Indeed. Mrs. Reber would certainly not be up for that, poor dear, but she will have to because of master of the household.

[Churchhoney]

10 minutes ago, lookeyloo said:

Any chances of him getting house arrest?  Being a first time offender and "just looking".  And can the prosecution introduce his molestation accusations?  If they aren't introduced formally, then, they can't be used by the jury even if they know about them?  

No, there's no house arrest for this. This has a mandatory prison sentence.....

And the minimum is about 5 years.  

Edited October 19, 2021 by Churchhoney

[SusanM]

9 minutes ago, lookeyloo said:

Any chances of him getting house arrest?

Does this ever actually happen for longer sentences?  Assuming he's convicted he's going to get at least 5 years.  

[JustRosie]

If Josh has in fact already accepted the plea deal, would we have any way of knowing this fact?  Will it be publicly announced? TYIA

[hathorlive]

41 minutes ago, lookeyloo said:

Any chances of him getting house arrest?  Being a first time offender and "just looking".  And can the prosecution introduce his molestation accusations?  If they aren't introduced formally, then, they can't be used by the jury even if they know about them?  

Not at all.  Not a single chance.  These are serious felony charges that many consider the worst of the worst offenses.  He's not getting rehab.  He's not getting parole.  He's not getting shock probation.

[libgirl2]

16 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Not at all.  Not a single chance.  These are serious felony charges that many consider the worst of the worst offenses.  He's not getting rehab.  He's not getting parole.  He's not getting shock probation.

I just really want to see him in the orange jumpsuit.... wonder if he would still smirk? Would Anna be there at sentencing holding the newest blessing? 

[quarks]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Then why plea? Unless there are other factors like a prison close to home or something. I think risking, say, 6 years, instead of 5, with a slight possible outcome of not guilty, is worth taking.

Well, for one thing, because he's not just risking a longer sentence - he's also risking a lot of money, since he has to pay the costs of the trial - his own attorneys, to start with, plus court fees and fees for expert witnesses and so on. 

I do think it would be different if Josh were facing life in prison, or if the evidence were less overwhelming, or if the feds only had the BitTorrent information and not the forensic search showing CSA files on his computer, or if the attorneys had managed to get those initial statements to the federal agents thrown out.

But under the circumstances, this seems like a major financial risk.

[beckie]

Sorry to change the subject, but does anyone know if Anna has popped out M7 yet? Poor child may choose to stay put.

Edited October 19, 2021 by beckie

[Quilt Fairy]

Remember a few weeks ago when the prosecution was requesting that the defense provide them with any information about a potential alibi defense?  Did anything ever come of that?  Was there a hard date associated with it? 

[Quilt Fairy]

5 hours ago, hathorlive said:

Again, I've had content with victims younger than DD (let that sink in for a minute) and the system barely blinked.

That really is unbelievable.  I was curious enough to research DD when it was listed on Josh's computer and it brought me to tears.

[Westiepeach]

1 hour ago, lookeyloo said:

Any chances of him getting house arrest?  Being a first time offender and "just looking".  And can the prosecution introduce his molestation accusations?  If they aren't introduced formally, then, they can't be used by the jury even if they know about them?  

For a Federal offense? IANAL but me thinks nope.

[quarks]

22 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Remember a few weeks ago when the prosecution was requesting that the defense provide them with any information about a potential alibi defense?  Did anything ever come of that?  Was there a hard date associated with it? 

The request was made on October 5, 2021. It's available here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.60.0.pdf

They requested a response within 14 days. I'm not sure if that's days days, in which case, presumably the defense should be responding today, or business days, in which case the defense has more time. 

[Cinnabon]

When JB was running for office, didn’t he run on a platform of sentencing pedophiles to death?

[DXD526]

Heads up for anyone interested, it looks like they talk about the Smuggar case on the Dr. Oz show today. I'm not an Oz fan, but will have to check this out. 

[Westiepeach]

1 minute ago, Cinnabon said:

When JB was running for office, didn’t he run on a platform of sentencing pedophiles to death?

Silly. He didn’t mean his Golden Child! He meant everyone else. Duh.

[lascuba]

25 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

When JB was running for office, didn’t he run on a platform of sentencing pedophiles to death?

Incest, specifically. 

[kaleidoscope]

1 hour ago, beckie said:

Sorry to change the subject, but does anyone know if Anna has popped out M7 yet? Poor child may choose to stay put.

I'm wondering if we will hear about it through JillRod?  After all, M7 will be Nurie's new niece, and Nehemiah's cousin!

[On the Bias]

1 hour ago, Namaste said:

If Josh has in fact already accepted the plea deal, would we have any way of knowing this fact?  Will it be publicly announced? TYIA

Yes, because agreeing to plead guilty is just the first step.  The next step is actually pleading guilty in front of the judge.  That will be a public proceeding.  In addition, if there’s a plea agreement, it will be filed with the court just as motions are.

If Josh pleads guilty, the plea proceeding won’t be, or at any rate shouldn’t be, a quick, nothing-to-it hearing.  That’s because the judge is required to question Josh to make sure that he understands what he’s doing, that he understands what the consequences are, and that he’s not being coerced.  There are several parts to that.  

First, the elements of the crime — what a person has to do to be guilty of the crime — will be listed (usually the prosecutor does this), and Josh will be asked if he understands them.  A description will be read of what he himself did that makes him guilty of the crime, and he will be asked if he did those things.  

Next, the mandatory minimum (if any) and statutory maximum sentences will be listed, and he’ll be asked if he understands that he must be sentenced to at least the mandatory minimum and that he could, in theory, be sentenced to as much as the statutory maximum.  If there’s a plea agreement, the judge will ask if he understands that the judge will make an independent decision about what the sentence will be, no matter what’s in the agreement (unless it’s one of those rare agreements that binds the judge, in which case the judge will have to agree to be bound by it).

Josh will then be questioned to make sure that his plea is truly voluntary:  that there are no secret agreements, that he isn’t being forced to plead guilty.  Finally, the judge will ask how he pleads to whatever he has agreed to plead guilty to, and Josh will say, “Guilty.”  And then the judge will accept the plea.  At that point, Josh will have been convicted of whatever crime he has pled guilty to, and the judge will set a sentencing date, typically ten to twelve weeks out. 

[GeeGolly]

11 minutes ago, On the Bias said:

Yes, because agreeing to plead guilty is just the first step.  The next step is actually pleading guilty in front of the judge.  That will be a public proceeding.  In addition, if there’s a plea agreement, it will be filed with the court just as motions are.

If Josh pleads guilty, the plea proceeding won’t be, or at any rate shouldn’t be, a quick, nothing-to-it hearing.  That’s because the judge is required to question Josh to make sure that he understands what he’s doing, that he understands what the consequences are, and that he’s not being coerced.  There are several parts to that.  

First, the elements of the crime — what a person has to do to be guilty of the crime — will be listed (usually the prosecutor does this), and Josh will be asked if he understands them.  A description will be read of what he himself did that makes him guilty of the crime, and he will be asked if he did those things.  

Next, the mandatory minimum (if any) and statutory maximum sentences will be listed, and he’ll be asked if he understands that he must be sentenced to at least the mandatory minimum and that he could, in theory, be sentenced to as much as the statutory maximum.  If there’s a plea agreement, the judge will ask if he understands that the judge will make an independent decision about what the sentence will be, no matter what’s in the agreement (unless it’s one of those rare agreements that binds the judge, in which case the judge will have to agree to be bound by it).

Josh will then be questioned to make sure that his plea is truly voluntary:  that there are no secret agreements, that he isn’t being forced to plead guilty.  Finally, the judge will ask how he pleads to whatever he has agreed to plead guilty to, and Josh will say, “Guilty.”  And then the judge will accept the plea.  At that point, Josh will have been convicted of whatever crime he has pled guilty to, and the judge will set a sentencing date, typically ten to twelve weeks out. 

How likely is it that they'll let him go home while he awaits the sentencing date?

Came back to add - if Josh pleads guilty.

Edited October 19, 2021 by GeeGolly

[ginger90]

8 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

How likely is it that they'll let him go home while he awaits the sentencing date?

Unless Josh does something to break his conditions in the meantime, he’ll be at the Reber home.

[JustRosie]

50 minutes ago, On the Bias said:

Yes, because agreeing to plead guilty is just the first step.  The next step is actually pleading guilty in front of the judge.  That will be a public proceeding.  In addition, if there’s a plea agreement, it will be filed with the court just as motions are.

If Josh pleads guilty, the plea proceeding won’t be, or at any rate shouldn’t be, a quick, nothing-to-it hearing.  That’s because the judge is required to question Josh to make sure that he understands what he’s doing, that he understands what the consequences are, and that he’s not being coerced.  There are several parts to that.  

First, the elements of the crime — what a person has to do to be guilty of the crime — will be listed (usually the prosecutor does this), and Josh will be asked if he understands them.  A description will be read of what he himself did that makes him guilty of the crime, and he will be asked if he did those things.  

Next, the mandatory minimum (if any) and statutory maximum sentences will be listed, and he’ll be asked if he understands that he must be sentenced to at least the mandatory minimum and that he could, in theory, be sentenced to as much as the statutory maximum.  If there’s a plea agreement, the judge will ask if he understands that the judge will make an independent decision about what the sentence will be, no matter what’s in the agreement (unless it’s one of those rare agreements that binds the judge, in which case the judge will have to agree to be bound by it).

Josh will then be questioned to make sure that his plea is truly voluntary:  that there are no secret agreements, that he isn’t being forced to plead guilty.  Finally, the judge will ask how he pleads to whatever he has agreed to plead guilty to, and Josh will say, “Guilty.”  And then the judge will accept the plea.  At that point, Josh will have been convicted of whatever crime he has pled guilty to, and the judge will set a sentencing date, typically ten to twelve weeks out. 

Thank you!

[SMama]

I wonder if Mrs. Reber is beginning to comprehend how seriously screwed she is. 

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute ago, SMama said:

I wonder if Mrs. Reber is beginning to comprehend how seriously screwed she is. 

She's probably known since her husband foisted Smuggar on her last May. 

[ginger90]

The original trial date was in July, now it’s in November. I don’t think any of the Rebers had that in mind.

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, emmawoodhouse said:

She's probably known since her husband foisted Smuggar on her last May. 

Woman should have said hell no. I really have no sympathy for her!

[CandyCaneTree]

1 minute ago, libgirl2 said:

Woman should have said hell no. I really have no sympathy for her!

Just remember what the husband wants the wife wants too. Remember in their religion it is fuck the wife.

[Churchhoney]

7 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

The original trial date was in July, now it’s in November. I don’t think any of the Rebers had that in mind.

And not just November but late November. Yikes. 

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, Cinnabon said:

When JB was running for office, didn’t he run on a platform of sentencing pedophiles to death?

But that's only for real pedophiles, not upstanding Christians with a heart for Jesus like Josh. It's for those transgender who need bathrooms or those hellions who want to buy beer at the local stop and go.  Josh isn't a pedophile.  He's just curious.  

Does anyone really believe what the Duggar's said about the extent of Josh's sexual abuse of his sisters? I'm starting to think it was a lot worse than anyone eluded to.  Or maybe Satan has a corner of my heart and makes me think mean things about Josh?

[Heathen]

8 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

Woman should have said hell no. I really have no sympathy for her!

Do you really think she had any choice?! 

[GeeGolly]

I hope for Mrs Reber's sake, they've settled into an okay routine and Josh pretty much stays out of her way.

 

[Churchhoney]

6 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

Just remember what the husband wants the wife wants too. Remember in their religion it is fuck the wife.

Mrs. Reber may well have gotten a huge indoctrination to the patriarchal-culture thing from her family growing up, too. That can make women sitting ducks for males trying to find a patriarchal marriage. It can be hard to get away from that kind of indoctrination when it's all around you -- and then people tell you that it's not just the only cultural tradition that's correct but that God orders it too. 

[crazy8s]

Isn't the Hannah Reber/David Keller wedding supposed to be early December?

so mrs reber has Josh in her house and most likely anna there a lot and she is planning her only daughter's wedding?

 

[ginger90]

3 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

Isn't the Hannah Reber/David Keller wedding supposed to be early December?

so mrs reber has Josh in her house and most likely anna there a lot and she is planning her only daughter's wedding?

 

If a wedding registry date is correct, they’re getting married on November 19th.

 

Here’s one of the requests:

[Dianaofthehunt]

That’s one of the saddest registry requests I’ve ever seen, name notwithstanding.