Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Ohiopirate02]

I cannot see Anna trying to conceive M #8 before Josh's trial.  In her mind, Josh is innocent and will be acquitted, therefore, there is no need for her to rush anything.  She is going to follow Gothard and wait the prescribed 80 days before being joyfully available.  Her trying to get pregnant this soon after giving birth is her admitting Josh is guilty and will be going to prison for years.  No way Anna is thinking this.  She is thinking Jesus will save the day and Josh will go free. 

[sue450]

3 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I doubt it. She will find a way. 

the fundy rule is you have to wait 80 days to get pregnant after having a girl and (I think only 40 days after having a boy)))   will be really interesting if she pops up pregnant again

[GeeGolly]

I don't know about any of you other moms who have given birth, but my hooha was closed for business for the full six weeks after giving birth. So I'm not sure even Anna is ready to get her boink on.

[Kiss my mutt]

I have a hard time believing Josh would wait the allotted Old Testament time and would be on her the first chance he got especially now, since it may be awhile before he gets another chance…with a woman, at least.  

Just now, GeeGolly said:

I don't know about any of you other moms who have given birth, but my hooha was closed for business for the full six weeks after giving birth. So I'm not sure even Anna is ready to get her boink on.

True, but we have a lot more autonomy over out bodies. I waited a good three months! Ha!

[Rootbeer]

24 minutes ago, sue450 said:

the fundy rule is you have to wait 80 days to get pregnant after having a girl and (I think only 40 days after having a boy)))   will be really interesting if she pops up pregnant again

In real life, the average woman who breastfeeds exclusively doesn't ovulate for at around 4 months after giving birth.  Even if Anna isn't breastfeeding, it's not very likely that she's going to be able to get the stars aligned and conceive before Josh goes off to prison.

[mom2two]

I really think that Anna herself is in a bad situation.   If Josh is the way he is, I would not be suprised if he demands a lot of sex with her and makes it all about himself.   She only knows to serve her husband and honestly with 7 kids has no place to go , but under JBs thumb.   She was never given skills to know what is wrong and how to take care of herself. She married so young and to this monster.  AFter the other stuff came out, she was offered help from a brother, but probably "prayed" and was also "coerced" into staying.   Who knows who suggested the name .

[Dianaofthehunt]

AFter the other stuff came out, she was offered help from a brother,

I’d like to know more about this. What kind of help?

Do you think her brother’s offer still stands?

[ginger90]

9 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

AFter the other stuff came out, she was offered help from a brother,

I’d like to know more about this. What kind of help?

 

Here’s an article about it from 2015:

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/people.com/tv/josh-duggar-scandal-anna-duggars-brother-bashes-josh-as-pig-on-facebook/%3famp=true

[libgirl2]

14 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

AFter the other stuff came out, she was offered help from a brother,

I’d like to know more about this. What kind of help?

Do you think her brother’s offer still stands?

She didn't take it then, I doubt she would take it now if he offered. 

[Nysha]

6 hours ago, farmgal4 said:

She is adorable.  Hopefully she’ll be Anna’s last baby.

I do, too, but I'm betting Anna is pushing for a '9 months and counting' scenario that gets her to 8 before Sex Pest is put away until the end of her childbearing years. 

[Quilt Fairy]

52 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

Do you think her brother’s offer still stands?

Doubtful.  It was 3 kids ago, and he didn't have that much himself, except a better moral compass than all of the Duggars combined. 

[BitterApple]

The brother offering to help was nice, but that sort of situation always has an end game. At some point Anna would have to learn a skill, get a job and be a member of the real world. I honestly think she believes it's better to stay with a pedophile and retain the title of housewife, rather than become a single mom.

[JustRosie]

If Josh is convicted, will he go to prison soon afterwards?  If he appeals the conviction, will he remain free while that process happens?  This would give them time to spawn M8… 😬 

[quarks]

More rulings from the judge today, rather rudely interrupting all of this name discussion:

1. The trademark inscription on the HP computer is both self-authenticating AND not hearsay evidence. Win for the prosecution, though quite honestly I can't see jurors getting particularly excited about trademark inscriptions, unless by chance an HP executive is selected to be on the jury.

2. The government will not be allowed to mention the whole Ashley Madison thing and the supposed "porn addiction." The court says it's irrelevant. Win for the defense, although honestly I have a feeling that a jury would have said something similar and focused on other things.

The prosecution will be allowed to discuss Covenant Eyes and mention why someone might install Covenant Eyes on a computer; they just can't mention that Josh (or a PR person) previously confessed to a porn addiction.

BUT, SMALL TWIST:

If Josh takes the stand, and says on the stand that he does NOT have an addiction to pornography or that he does not watch pornography, the government CAN introduce the 2015 statement and use it to impeach the witness.

3. The court has also stated that the defense can continue to point the finger at Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 (and presumably the two other men mentioned in this ongoing WHY DIDN'T YOU SEARCH THE CELL PHONES thing). 

This is technically a win for the defense since it's their main opportunity to establish reasonable doubt. I say technically, because so far their focus on these people has not gone well, and my sense is that bringing any of this up is mostly going to highlight that this appears to be one shady car lot, which is not going to improve anyone's impression of Josh. It would be different if the defense could establish that any of these people were at the car lot that day, but so far that hasn't been going all that well. 

There's also the ongoing issue for the defense that there were physical witnesses around - everyone involved in the nearby car accident, which the government is using to place Josh at the scene of the crime. I doubt that any of them were paying any attention to who was or wasn't at the car lot, but they can verify that they didn't, say, see William Mize at the car lot.

Also, the court has specifically stated that the defense will not be allowed to present "speculative evidence" or make "purely speculative arguments" to the jury.

4. The court also granted the motion from the defense to exclude "improper opinion" testimony - that is, the government can't say that the CSA material in question is worse than other CSA material. 

5.  The sequestration motion, as expected, was mostly granted - but the federal case agent is still going to be allowed to sit with the prosecution and also testify; he just can't discuss his testimony with other witnesses.

6. The court also mostly granted the defense motion to exclude some of Josh Duggar's initial statements to law enforcement, though the court may later allow these statements to be admitted under cross-examination. Since these were the same portions that the government said they weren't planning on using anyway, I feel this was sort of a wash.  

[quarks]

 

16 minutes ago, Namaste said:

If Josh is convicted, will he go to prison soon afterwards?  If he appeals the conviction, will he remain free while that process happens?  This would give them time to spawn M8… 😬 

Josh will have to serve his sentence while going through the appeals process. 

But since he's probably going to have to wait to be sentenced - which is separate from the appeals process, he might not go to prison immediately after conviction. And in some cases, federal courts do allow convicted defendants to remain on supervised release until sentencing. That's what happened with Lori Laughlin, for instance - she pled guilty in May, was sentenced in August, but didn't actually go to prison until October.

In most cases, though, especially with people who have committed violent crimes, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, federal defendants wait for sentencing in jail. That time is then credited towards their sentence as time served. 

I think Josh will be in the second group, but I'm not sure.

[JustRosie]

8 minutes ago, quarks said:

 

Josh will have to serve his sentence while going through the appeals process. 

But since he's probably going to have to wait to be sentenced - which is separate from the appeals process, he might not go to prison immediately after conviction. And in some cases, federal courts do allow convicted defendants to remain on supervised release until sentencing. That's what happened with Lori Laughlin, for instance - she pled guilty in May, was sentenced in August, but didn't actually go to prison until October.

In most cases, though, especially with people who have committed violent crimes, like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, federal defendants wait for sentencing in jail. That time is then credited towards their sentence as time served. 

I think Josh will be in the second group, but I'm not sure.

Thank you. 

[peppergal]

7 hours ago, hathorlive said:

This is assuming that the user id isn't "user" or "car lot" or "go hogs". Most of the computers I get have the generic password that Compaq  or HP sets up.  So, that doesn't necessarily cleared up who was doing what when.  I can't see Josh setting up different accounts since he was too lazy to use a VPN.  This is why I want a trial. I want all the details on the computers, lol.

Right not saying it tells what person was logged in, I was assuming it had just the single basic user ID that can log in (For the purposes of this discussion I'm ignoring all the service user IDs that can't be used to log in).  What I was getting at was unless someone is good at clearing logs, we know every time that user logs in, and we know if it was done from the local keyboard or from the network.  So if there was no evidence of network access, then the potential defense that random unsophisticated criminal hacked the machine remotely gets much harder.  So even if in theory others knew the Linux password because it was the same as the Windows password, the local access logs mixed with the other evidence of who was where and when may show that it was not accessed at times when Josh can alibi himself as being elsewhere.

[LilJen]

5 hours ago, 3 is enough said:

I must admit I was so distracted by the unique spelling that the significance of the name was lost on me.

Part of me wonders if in private Anna is not keeping sweet, is actually furious and scared, and picked the name to remind Josh of his past sins.  

I like the “woman scorned” theory of how the baby came to be named. Likely? I don’t know, but part of me would cheer Anna on if that was the case. Especially if she also said to Josh, “they’re real, and they’re spectacular. And you are NEVER getting them again.” And did other things to add to his misery.

Edited November 18, 2021 by LilJen

[emmawoodhouse]

The middle name cones from Suzette. Apparently, her first name is Lillie.

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, LilJen said:

I don’t know, but part of me would cheer Anna on if that was the case.

The fact a child gets caught as collateral damage in the pissing contest makes it pretty un-cheer-worthy to me if that was the motivation. The kid's the one who's going to have to go through life as "the one named after the cheating service her dad used," not Anna. 

Also, I think Josh doesn't process shame like other people. If Anna thinks she's getting back at him that way, I think the joke's still on her. I really doubt he gives a shit. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Zella

[LilJen]

2 minutes ago, Zella said:

The fact a child gets caught as collateral damage in the pissing contest makes it pretty un-cheer-worthy to me if that was the motivation. The kid's the one who's going to have to go through life as "the one named after the cheating service her dad used," not Anna. 

Also, I think Josh doesn't process shame like other people. If Anna thinks she's getting back at him that way, I think the joke's still on her. I really doubt he gives a shit. 

Yeah, I know you’re right. In a fictional drama in which no real children were harmed, my scenario would fly. In real life, those kids have enough problems and sorrow already.

[Zella]

Just now, LilJen said:

Yeah, I know you’re right. In a fictional drama in which no real children were harmed, my scenario would fly. In real life, those kids have enough problems and sorrow already.

I will admit that I would get a pretty hearty chuckle out of her using Josh's time in prison to use Jim Bob's resources while still quietly plotting her escape and then busting out of there right before he's released. But I don't think she's capable of even thinking that way, let alone doing it. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Pre trial is tomorrow. Will we get a transcript of the proceedings? 

[sagittarius sue]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

n most cases, though, especially with people who have committed violent crimes,  federal defendants wait for sentencing in jail.

I was very glad that when Derek Chauvin was found guilty he was hauled off to prison to await his sentencing.  He had been free on bail for 9-10 months before the trail.

[emmawoodhouse]

2 hours ago, quarks said:

More rulings from the judge today, rather rudely interrupting all of this name discussion:

1. The trademark inscription on the HP computer is both self-authenticating AND not hearsay evidence. Win for the prosecution, though quite honestly I can't see jurors getting particularly excited about trademark inscriptions, unless by chance an HP executive is selected to be on the jury.

2. The government will not be allowed to mention the whole Ashley Madison thing and the supposed "porn addiction." The court says it's irrelevant. Win for the defense, although honestly I have a feeling that a jury would have said something similar and focused on other things.

The prosecution will be allowed to discuss Covenant Eyes and mention why someone might install Covenant Eyes on a computer; they just can't mention that Josh (or a PR person) previously confessed to a porn addiction.

BUT, SMALL TWIST:

If Josh takes the stand, and says on the stand that he does NOT have an addiction to pornography or that he does not watch pornography, the government CAN introduce the 2015 statement and use it to impeach the witness.

3. The court has also stated that the defense can continue to point the finger at Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 (and presumably the two other men mentioned in this ongoing WHY DIDN'T YOU SEARCH THE CELL PHONES thing). 

This is technically a win for the defense since it's their main opportunity to establish reasonable doubt. I say technically, because so far their focus on these people has not gone well, and my sense is that bringing any of this up is mostly going to highlight that this appears to be one shady car lot, which is not going to improve anyone's impression of Josh. It would be different if the defense could establish that any of these people were at the car lot that day, but so far that hasn't been going all that well. 

There's also the ongoing issue for the defense that there were physical witnesses around - everyone involved in the nearby car accident, which the government is using to place Josh at the scene of the crime. I doubt that any of them were paying any attention to who was or wasn't at the car lot, but they can verify that they didn't, say, see William Mize at the car lot.

Also, the court has specifically stated that the defense will not be allowed to present "speculative evidence" or make "purely speculative arguments" to the jury.

4. The court also granted the motion from the defense to exclude "improper opinion" testimony - that is, the government can't say that the CSA material in question is worse than other CSA material. 

5.  The sequestration motion, as expected, was mostly granted - but the federal case agent is still going to be allowed to sit with the prosecution and also testify; he just can't discuss his testimony with other witnesses.

6. The court also mostly granted the defense motion to exclude some of Josh Duggar's initial statements to law enforcement, though the court may later allow these statements to be admitted under cross-examination. Since these were the same portions that the government said they weren't planning on using anyway, I feel this was sort of a wash.  

Was there a ruling on whether his activities with his sisters was admissible? I thought that was still on the table?

[quarks]

12 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Was there a ruling on whether his activities with his sisters was admissible? I thought that was still on the table?

All of the above rulings were in a single document, but I didn't see any mention of the motions about the prior molestations. So I don't think the judge has ruled on that question yet. 

[mythoughtis]

I’m quite sure that name was blessed by Josh.  Anna is subservient to him.  She wouldn’t put a name on the birth certificate if he hadn’t okayed it. But why would either of them think it was ok? Yes the site used that as a last name, but still… 

Edited November 18, 2021 by mythoughtis

[hathorlive]

2 hours ago, peppergal said:

Right not saying it tells what person was logged in, I was assuming it had just the single basic user ID that can log in (For the purposes of this discussion I'm ignoring all the service user IDs that can't be used to log in).  What I was getting at was unless someone is good at clearing logs, we know every time that user logs in, and we know if it was done from the local keyboard or from the network.  So if there was no evidence of network access, then the potential defense that random unsophisticated criminal hacked the machine remotely gets much harder.  So even if in theory others knew the Linux password because it was the same as the Windows password, the local access logs mixed with the other evidence of who was where and when may show that it was not accessed at times when Josh can alibi himself as being elsewhere.

Good points.  Clearing the logs is a pain but most hackers do it on their way out the door.  Most anti-forensic actions like this also leave tell tell tracks behind.  And really, there are so many other artifacts and system files that track this behavior. It's hard, but not impossible for sure.

 But for the defense to use this as an affirmative defense, they have to say how this network access happened.  Then the forensic people can find whatever artifacts tie to that service or program.  They can't just say "oh you know, they came in through the network and downloaded stuff".  They will have to say what program, what date, which suspect, who may or may not have been at the lot during that time.  This defense never works works well in court, if there is a competent AUSA.  Mainly because the defense lawyers and their experts rarely have specifics.  And knowing the defense experts in this case as I do, they will more than likely testify that a virus did it.  They use that all the time.  But any good prosecutor will ask the person testifying to that what the payload of the virus was and how that put CP on the computer.  There's no virus that does that, by the way.  And once they fail to provide the specific code and payload, the judge normally tells the jury to disregard the testimony.  At least that is my experience in 3 federal cases.  Of course, the fact that I have listed on my CV a few malware analysis classes, it usually deters most defense attorneys from going there.  But my coworker was sitting at the table during one attempt at "the virus did it" and the AUSA didn't say anything.  My coworker about crawled across the table trying to question the witness.  

When this expert's firm testified years ago that a virus put the CP on the computer, they couldn't quite explain how the virus then downloaded the CP to a DVD disc and labeled it "My CP,"  and put the disc in a desk drawer.

[GeeGolly]

Is the pre trial hearing tomorrow, at the courthouse? If it is, it makes sense why Anna posted Madyson's birth announcement, as I'm guessing they'll be pictures of them leaving the courthouse and Anna won't be big pregnant anymore.

[Albanyguy]

5 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Is the pre trial hearing tomorrow, at the courthouse? If it is, it makes sense why Anna posted Madyson's birth announcement, as I'm guessing they'll be pictures of them leaving the courthouse and Anna won't be big pregnant anymore.

She wouldn't drag the baby along with her to the hearing to show off what a happy family they are and how impossible the charges against Josh are? Would she?

[GeeGolly]

Could Josh be taking a plea today? Between Jill's anxiety quote, Lauren scrubbing her SM and Anna announcing the baby, it feels like something might be up. Maybe he'll actually plead guilty?

[Westiepeach]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Could Josh be taking a plea today? Between Jill's anxiety quote, Lauren scrubbing her SM and Anna announcing the baby, it feels like something might be up. Maybe he'll actually plead guilty?

God's Favorite Golden Boy? Plead guilty? Never.

[sheshark]

15 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

In real life, the average woman who breastfeeds exclusively doesn't ovulate for at around 4 months after giving birth.  Even if Anna isn't breastfeeding, it's not very likely that she's going to be able to get the stars aligned and conceive before Josh goes off to prison.

Oh, isn’t that just too bad.  ONLY seven children is such a heartbreak.  Poor Anna.  Just thinking of all the women out there who would give anything (and do) for a child. 

[galaxygirl76]

2 hours ago, Albanyguy said:

She wouldn't drag the baby along with her to the hearing to show off what a happy family they are and how impossible the charges against Josh are? Would she?

If they allow newborns in, she 100% would. It would make him look like a good godly family man in her deluded mind. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by galaxygirl76

[farmgal4]

19 hours ago, Lisa418722 said:

I feel like she is ignoring Gothard's wait 80 days rule and even waiting for the general recommendation of six weeks.   I'm sure she is already trying for M8.  Since Josh doesn't have anything else to do, he's probably willing. OK now I need brain bleach. 

Wouldn’t it take a huge toll on a woman’s body to get pregnant almost immediately after just giving birth?!  If she is truly trying to get pregnant right now, she probably shouldn’t breastfeed, right?  Can’t breastfeeding prevent pregnancy for some women?

54 minutes ago, galaxygirl76 said:

If they allow newborns in, she 100% would. It would make him look like a good godly family man in her deluded mind. 

She would and her excuse for doing would be “I’m breastfeeding”.

[merylinkid]

They are not allowing a newborn into the courtroom.   Because babies cry.   Not their fault, they don't know its a courtroom where they have to be quiet.   If Anna brings the baby, she will be told to wait in the hallway.   

Also this is pre-trial, so bringing the child will have ZERO effect on anything.   It's not like the judge will look up and go "oh new baby at home, charges dismissed."   Pre-trial (basing this in my family law cases and the things I've seen sitting around in courtrooms, any criminal law experts can correct anything I got wrong), is really to resolve any outstanding motions, and figure out trial logistics.   Probably going over the voir dire questions.   It's procedural, not substantive.   And its boring as hell.  

But tick, tick, tick, trial is 12 days away.   tick, tick, tick.   Anna won't try to get pregnant because she believes even if he is convicted its just one more trial and the Right Jesus will eventually intervene and he will walk free.   

[Nysha]

23 hours ago, Liddy52 said:

I think possibly, in Anna's mind, Madyson is a totally different name than Madison. I know it isn't but I can see her justifying using the name that way. 

I think this is the most likely explanation for Anna naming her Madyson. Sex Pest couldn't care less about the baby let alone what she's called.

I also think in the teeny-tiny part of Anna's brain that is used for logical reasoning she knows that Pest is going to get some prison time so she's hoping she gets pregnant before the trial ends.

[Sile]

21 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

The name Miranda is looking pretty good to me right now.  

Also, speaking of random letters attached to names, I was watching lawyer Emily on Youtube last night, and one of her posters was a Hollye. 

More likely Myranda...

[iwantcookies]

Hollye would be Holie. Lol which is hysterical.

[CandyCaneTree]

20 hours ago, Lisa418722 said:

I feel like she is ignoring Gothard's wait 80 days rule and even waiting for the general recommendation of six weeks.   I'm sure she is already trying for M8.  Since Josh doesn't have anything else to do, he's probably willing. OK now I need brain bleach. 

Ok here you go. 

[Albanyguy]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

They are not allowing a newborn into the courtroom.   Because babies cry.   Not their fault, they don't know its a courtroom where they have to be quiet.   If Anna brings the baby, she will be told to wait in the hallway.   

Also this is pre-trial, so bringing the child will have ZERO effect on anything.   It's not like the judge will look up and go "oh new baby at home, charges dismissed."   

Oh, I don’t think she’d care about bringing the baby into the courtroom or impressing the judge; it’s the TV cameras outside that she’d want to show off to. I could see her leaving the baby with a J’slave in the corridor and then using it as a prop when she and Josh made their big exit. She probably loved all the attention they got last time and had no idea how tone-deaf they appeared. I’m sure the lawyers have warned them both to wipe the smirks off their faces this time.

 

[SusanM]

1 hour ago, Albanyguy said:

I’m sure the lawyers have warned them both to wipe the smirks off their faces this time.

I'm betting they were told that last time.  I don't think it's possible.  Those smirks aren't going anywhere.

Edited November 18, 2021 by SusannahM

[quarks]

 

30 minutes ago, Albanyguy said:

Oh, I don’t think she’d care about bringing the baby into the courtroom or impressing the judge; it’s the TV cameras outside that she’d want to show off to. I could see her leaving the baby with a J’slave in the corridor and then using it as a prop when she and Josh made their big exit. 

 

 

TV cameras just caught Josh, Anna and their attorneys heading into the courthouse. No baby.

[iwantcookies]

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-wife-anna-arrive-in-court-pre-trial-hearing-child-porn-case/

 

[Cinnabon]

The article managed to get in the Ashley Madison stuff. Anna, it’s not too late to change that baby’s name.

[Absolom]

This article has the brief arrival video.

https://www.nwahomepage.com/northwest-arkansas-news/court-rules-on-multiple-motions-ahead-of-josh-duggar-child-pornography-trial/

[FizzyPuff]

12 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-wife-anna-arrive-in-court-pre-trial-hearing-child-porn-case/

 

Thankfully they didn’t show the video from the front, I’m sure they’d be smiling.

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, FizzyPuff said:

Thankfully they didn’t show the video from the front, I’m sure they’d be smiling.

Smiling and smug. Though she is holding his hand like a good wife. Disgusting! 

[quarks]

It looks like she's wearing a mask.

If she has any sense, she'll keep the mask on while leaving the courthouse.

[libgirl2]

4 minutes ago, quarks said:

It looks like she's wearing a mask.

If she has any sense, she'll keep the mask on while leaving the courthouse.

If she really had any sense, she would have left the sicko years ago.