Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

If Anna attends her brother's wedding, we may see that black dress again. It actually looks nice on her, but I think it would be more appropriate for a wedding than for a court appearance. The sheer strips at the hem and the sleeves seem more like evening wear to me. I would have worn black shoes too. I could be wrong. I'm not experienced in accompanying a spouse to a CSAM case.

She might not have much she can fit into comfortably. 

[Churchhoney]

3 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

If Anna attends her brother's wedding, we may see that black dress again. It actually looks nice on her, but I think it would be more appropriate for a wedding than for a court appearance. The sheer strips at the hem and the sleeves seem more like evening wear to me. I would have worn black shoes too. I could be wrong. I'm not experienced in accompanying a spouse to a CSAM case.

They sure like to wear brown shoes with everything.

 

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

If Anna attends her brother's wedding, we may see that black dress again. It actually looks nice on her, but I think it would be more appropriate for a wedding than for a court appearance. The sheer strips at the hem and the sleeves seem more like evening wear to me. I would have worn black shoes too. I could be wrong. I'm not experienced in accompanying a spouse to a CSAM case.

She probably doesn't have a lot of nice clothes that fit her 3 weeks postpartum. I wouldn't be surprised if she just bought this frock.

[libgirl2]

Just now, emmawoodhouse said:

She probably doesn't have a lot of nice clothes that fit her 3 weeks postpartum. I wouldn't be surprised if she just bought this frock.

Agree, though you would think after all these babies, she would have plenty! 

[drafan]

6 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Anna looks like the Yipes Stripes Beechnut Gum Zebra.

The guy (attorney??) marching ahead of the Smuggs could be Joshley's briefcased twin.

[ginger90]

In the video of them leaving the courthouse, Josh’s jacket blew open, He held it closed with his hand (as he is in the picture above) the rest of the walk. I guess he doesn’t  want people to know he hasn’t had any weight loss during all of this. 🤷🏼‍♀️ It was odd.

[coconspirator]

37 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Interesting that Bobye Holt is the other witness. That pretty much confirms what we suspected about the identity of the fifth victim. 

The babysitter?

Is there any possibility that one of his sisters-Jill maybe-would testify for the prosecution regarding his past behavior towards her? The real nail in the coffin would be if Joy testified. She was only 5 when he abused her. I can't see her doing it, even if she believes he is guilty. 

[Panopticon]

4 hours ago, zoomama said:

one superfluous comment ---  her hair looked great!

The one thing I admire about Anna is her skill with hair. Her older daughters often have cute elaborate braids, and the youngest lost girls—Josie especially— tend to look their best when visiting Anna. Good hair happens so consistently around Anna that  I’m giving her, not a “helper,” credit. 
 

*This talent does not offset her wacko decision to continue to have babies with a child molester, etc. 

[SMama]

7 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

In the video of them leaving the courthouse, Josh’s jacket blew open, He held it closed with his hand (as he is in the picture above) the rest of the walk. I guess he doesn’t  want people to know he hasn’t had any weight loss during all of this. 🤷🏼‍♀️ It was odd.

And in typical J&A dynamics she has her hand on his back as they go up the stairs. Geez man, your wife is probably very uncomfortable post partum. Would it kill you to assist her up the stairs? What a worthless POS.

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute ago, SMama said:

And in typical J&A dynamics she has her hand on his back as they go up the stairs. Geez man, your wife is probably very uncomfortable post partum. Would it kill you to assist her up the stairs? What a worthless POS.

Reminds me of their honeymoon when she struggled to drag the luggage into their hotel room just hours after their I do's. 

[galaxygirl76]

7 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Reminds me of their honeymoon when she struggled to drag the luggage into their hotel room just hours after their I do's. 

Didn't she also have the kids and luggage at one of their trips once while he was walking ahead without a care in the world?

[GeeGolly]

Big yikes. I wonder if any of the four Duggar sisters will be called to testify if the evidence is approved by the judge. By filing the court case about the poorly redacted police report, Jinger and Joy have publicly identified themselves and Jill and Jessa did during the interview.

Yesterday Jill posted a picture of a Bible passage on her hand, about anxiety. The timing is a bit suspect. I wouldn't wish that on any of the sisters. If any do testify, every single Duggar better come out in support of them.

Is there anyway JB could take the 5th? Is there anything that could be self- incriminatory about being the parent of the minor child who did this?

Edited November 18, 2021 by GeeGolly

[CandyCaneTree]

Spoiler

 

Can't get rid of the spoiler box. I bet that if they force Blob to testify he will say that every family has a person who does the same thing as Smuggar did.

[Zella]

6 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Is there anyway JB could take the 5th? Is there anything that could be self-discriminatory about being the parent of the minor child who did this?

Definitely going to defer to our resident lawyers, but I think if Jim Bob is subpoenaed, he will be able to evoke the fifth amendment. Because it's a matter of him being required to be there rather than volunteering, essentially, so he has the legal means to protect himself in that way. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Zella

[Westiepeach]

10 minutes ago, galaxygirl76 said:

Didn't she also have the kids and luggage at one of their trips once while he was walking ahead without a care in the world?

While “big pregnant.”

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Definitely going to defer to our resident lawyers, but I think if Jim Bob is subpoenaed, he will be able to evoke the fifth amendment. Because it's a matter of him being required to be there rather than volunteering, essentially, so he has the legal means to protect himself in that way. 

But wouldn't he need something to be protecting himself from? Like he could be charged with something if he testified. I'm thinking he can't plead the 5th just because he's Josh's dad. 

[Churchhoney]

You can only plead the fifth if the question is about something that might incriminate you. But do people manage to use it to avoid saying things that might incriminate the friend or relative who's the defendant? 

I don't see how Jim Bob would face any legal jeopardy himself from questions he might be asked in this trial, really. But he'll be mightily mightily motivated to avoid saying anything that might incriminate Josh.......So is there a good chance he could manage to use the fifth amendment to avoid that.....or not much chance at all? 

I guess my question is -- How good are prosecutors at crafting questions that force you to spill the beans on the defendant while not leaving you room to claim the question might incriminate you? I'd think they'd learn to be quite good at this....but are they? 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Churchhoney

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

But wouldn't he need something to be protecting himself from? Like he could be charged with something if he testified. I'm thinking he can't plead the 5th just because he's Josh's dad. 

I am beginning to think that with all this evasion that he will be named as a hostile witness and be forced to testify.

[Zella]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

But wouldn't he need something to be protecting himself from? Like he could be charged with something if he testified. I'm thinking he can't plead the 5th just because he's Josh's dad. 

My understanding is if you are being compelled to testify, you have the right to not answer any of the questions, regardless of whether they think you have something you need to be protected from. I've read about mobsters taking the fifth on whether or not they were left-handed or what they had for lunch in congressional hearings. From the way I understand it, you may not necessarily know that your answer is going to be self-incriminating, so you have a right to not answer, period, if you don't want to be there. But I gladly defer to what any of our lawyers say! 

[Churchhoney]

4 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I am beginning to think that with all this evasion that he will be named as a hostile witness and be forced to testify.

But wait! Didn't JB and M allow their PR person to write a statement for them saying that all they want -- and they really really really want it -- is for the truth to come out? .... So I'm sure Jim Bob must actually be quite happy to testify fully and completely under oath, since that's the case! 😁

[SusanM]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

My understanding is if you are being compelled to testify, you have the right to not answer any of the questions, regardless of whether they think you have something you need to be protected from.

Jim Bob  can play games in court if he wants but I think most jurors will be unimpressed with non-answers and draw their own conclusions.  Smuggar is really putting his family in a can't win position here.

[BetyBee]

If Jim Bob is hiding from a subpoena, my guess is that he knows that answering questions from the prosecution would be embarrassing to him. JB & Michelle can pretend all they want that they handled Josh's early escapades perfectly. But the reality is that they didn't. Throw in the fact that he is running for office (ridiculous!) and he just plain doesn't want to face questions that make him look bad. He likes to be in control.

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

But wait! Didn't JB and M allow their PR person to write a statement for them saying that all they want -- and they really really really want it -- is for the truth to come out? .... So I'm sure Jim Bob must actually be quite happy to testify fully and completely under oath, since that's the case! 😁

Best joke I've heard all week! 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Churchhoney]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

My understanding is if you are being compelled to testify, you have the right to not answer any of the questions, regardless of whether they think you have something you need to be protected from. I've read about mobsters taking the fifth on whether or not they were left-handed or what they had for lunch in congressional hearings. From the way I understand it, you may not necessarily know that your answer is going to be self-incriminating, so you have a right to not answer, period, if you don't want to be there. But I gladly defer to what any of our lawyers say! 

Where I start to really get confused is on the question of whether this holds in a trial where you're testifying only about the behavior of the defendant and not at all about your own behavior....

I mean, if they ask him about whether Josh did or didn't do something -- in a situation in which Josh acted alone -- seems like the question could be crafted in a way that couldn't possibly be answered in a way that would coerce JB into implicating himself in some crime....and maybe fairly easily crafted in that way.....Or maybe not......

And I assume the judge can tell you whether you have to answer or not......

[Zella]

1 minute ago, SusannahM said:

Jim Bob  can play games in court if he wants but I think most jurors will be unimpressed with non-answers and draw their own conclusions.  Smuggar is really putting his family in a can't win position here.

Honestly, at this point, I think Jim Bob taking the fifth is the least of Josh's problems. As I've said on here before, I'm generally uncomfortable with immediately reading someone doing something they are legally guaranteed (like asking for a lawyer or invoking the fifth) as a sign of guilt, even if they are a human shitstain, like JB and Josh. 

1 minute ago, Churchhoney said:

Where I start to really get confused is on the question of whether this holds in a trial where you're testifying only about the behavior of the defendant and not at all about your own behavior....

I mean, if they ask him about whether Josh did or didn't do something -- in a situation in which Josh acted alone -- seems like the question could be crafted in a way that couldn't possibly be answered in a way that would coerce JB into implicating himself in some crime....and maybe fairly easily crafted in that way.....Or maybe not......

And I assume the judge can tell you whether you have to answer or not......

I honestly don't know, but I would assume that there is always the chance that the witness is still sitting on something that does incriminate them. I really don't know how you could adjudicate whether or not someone will incriminate themselves until you hear what they say, which defeats the purpose of protecting them from self-incrimination. 

[quarks]

5 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't see how Jim Bob would face any legal jeopardy himself from questions he might be asked in this trial, really. But he'll be mightily mightily motivated to avoid saying anything that might incriminate Josh.......So is there a good chance he could manage to use the fifth amendment to avoid that.....or not much chance at all? 

 

I think he could face legal jeopardy if the prosecution or the defense manages to impeach his testimony. That could potentially lead to federal perjury charges. 

So that would to me, at least, offer Fifth Amendment grounds for declining to answer questions.

[AussiesRule]

I’m confused about this pleading the fifth. I’m not from the US and pretty sure you’re not allowed to refuse questions in court here. What is the point of issuing a subpoena and making someone testify if they can just sit there and not answer any questions? Seems pointless really. 

[Churchhoney]

13 minutes ago, AussiesRule said:

I’m confused about this pleading the fifth. I’m not from the US and pretty sure you’re not allowed to refuse questions in court here. What is the point of issuing a subpoena and making someone testify if they can just sit there and not answer any questions? Seems pointless really. 

The thing is, theoretically at least you can't just sit there and refuse to answer any questions unless you're the defendant......The actual criminal defendant can simply refuse to testify in their own trial on this grounds.....But they can't  refuse questions selectively. If you agree to testify, as the defendant, you have to answer every question you're asked......But you can forgo your right to testify at you own trial, period. You just plead the fifth and never get on the stand -- so you have no chance to incriminate yourself, but by taking that out, you also forgo any chance to help yourself. 

By contrast, if you're a witness in somebody else's trial, you can only refuse to testify on a question by question basis. You can refuse to testify on any one question by saying you are invoking your right not to incriminate yourself........

But there are almost certainly going to be questions for which the judge won't see any way that the question could incriminate you so you aren't allowed to shield yourself with the fifth amendment for those questions.....

That's where it gets really confusing. How does the judge decide which questions are answerable by you without risking self-incrimination? And what happens if you say the question would incriminate you and the judge says it wouldn't? ..... (I assume the judge can lock you up or something -- but I have no evidence for that assumption.) 

So in light of all this, I suppose that, earlier this afternoon, Jesus issued an urgent call for JB to go on a two-month-long conversion mission to a non-extradition country. ....

He'll be on his way in an hour or so, as soon as he picks up a bag of off-brand nail polish and generic Dum Dums at an out-of-the-way Walmart. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Churchhoney

[quarks]

3 minutes ago, AussiesRule said:

I’m confused about this pleading the fifth. I’m not from the US and pretty sure you’re not allowed to refuse questions in court here. What is the point of issuing a subpoena and making someone testify if they can just sit there and not answer any questions? Seems pointless really. 

Technically, you can only refuse to answer questions that might incriminate you - that is, suggest that you were involved in the crime in question or another unrelated crime. 

But lying under oath or affirmation in court is also a crime. And this is where Jim Bob might be kinda stuck - there's an entire televised interview with him that the defense and prosecution can easily access. If he says anything that counters that earlier interview, the defense or the prosecution could potentially enter that interview into evidence and use it to impeach his testimony, which would potentially lead to perjury charges.

Any questions about the car lot, however, are fair game - unless for some reason Jim Bob thinks that those answers would implicate him in tax or wire fraud. 

[emmawoodhouse]

I don't see how a line if questioning would incriminate Boob. He's likely to be asked about Smuggar's confessions of the molestations. They don't incriminate Boob, but do lead to the decision process that led to confessions in church and to a state trooper of his acquaintance, but that really just reflects on his shitty parenting. It's nothing criminal. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by emmawoodhouse

[ozziemom]

I would imagine most trial attorneys have ways of questioning witnesses to get the results they are hoping for.  Plus Boob is arrogant enough that he probably thinks he can answer in a way that helps Smuggar. We’ve all seen him in action, making himself and his family out as the bestest most godly Christians. Plus he can explain how it was the devil building a fortress or some such nonsense.

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, ozziemom said:

I would imagine most trial attorneys have ways of questioning witnesses to get the results they are hoping for.  Plus Boob is arrogant enough that he probably thinks he can answer in a way that helps Smuggar. We’ve all seen him in action, making himself and his family out as the bestest most godly Christians. Plus he can explain how it was the devil building a fortress or some such nonsense.

I don't think the court gives any weight to devils and fortresses. 😂

[Dianaofthehunt]

4 minutes ago, ozziemom said:

Plus he [Jim Bob] can explain how it was the devil building a fortress or some such nonsense.

Oh, what I would give to see the Judge’s facial expression if this cockamamie phrase gets used! 

[JoanArc]

Just found out about the name. I'm going to go get drunk to process it.

[CandyCaneTree]

I wonder if after the raid Smuggar thought that he was in the clear because they didn't arrest him right then and there?

[Churchhoney]

I've found every single moment of this saga horrifying up to now. And the baby's name was the worst thing yet. 

The thought of JB dancing around trying to avoid testifying in federal court, though. I'm finding that quite, um, acceptable. For some reason. 🙂

[sue450]

8 hours ago, farmgal4 said:

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?

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

breast feeding offers SOME protection against getting pregnant but not a a guarantee and anna usually only gets pregnant every other year

[CandyCaneTree]

I just commented on that page that I  thought he was fucking stupid and didn't know the real world worked. He will block me in 3 2 1.

[Quilt Fairy]

The intense local news coverage of the pre-trial hearing means that we'll also get in-depth reporting of the trial.  So we don't have to crowdfund @hathorlive to go and sit in the courtroom for us.  (BTW, how is Beau?  Is he getting along with his big sister?)

[emmawoodhouse]

We need some coverage since Katie Joy announced that she won't be going. 😂

[Churchhoney]

9 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

The intense local news coverage of the pre-trial hearing means that we'll also get in-depth reporting of the trial. 

By the time this is over, Josh'll be able to list himself as the Breakout Star of the classic TLC Duggar show lineup. 

Edited November 18, 2021 by Churchhoney

[sue450]

1 hour ago, Westiepeach said:

While “big pregnant.”

is that the one where they had to walk out on the tarmac and climb the stairs into the plane? anna was hugely pregnant and volderjosh couldn't even be bothered to help her up the steep stairs

[Annb67]

32 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

It was yesterday.

Looks like Mrs Keller is already in AR - she's in one of the pics.

So if Mrs Keller is “in da house”; she needs to get her ass in a car and beat the shit out of Josh and talk some sense into that dingus daughter of hers. Of course this is what I would do; so Mrs Keller will probably just blame the devil and sit around with a shit-eating grin. 

[MargeGunderson]

41 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

Just found out about the name. I'm going to go get drunk to process it.

Sadly, it won’t help. You’ll eventually get sober, and that poor baby’s name will still be [I refuse to type it].

[CandyCaneTree]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

But wait! Didn't JB and M allow their PR person to write a statement for them saying that all they want -- and they really really really want it -- is for the truth to come out? .... So I'm sure Jim Bob must actually be quite happy to testify fully and completely under oath, since that's the case! 😁

Yes the truth according to Jim Blob. 

[Jeeves]

Holy macaroni. I have been camping in a state park with sketchy cell coverage plus it's a social event and I have been busy having fun. So just now I get some reception on my phone and take a break to catch up on the posts from Sunday on. And there are pages and pages of SmugAnna developments to plow through

 Wow. Anna is nuts. JB is sleazy and greasy and ducking service of a government subpoena. Silver Dollar City's had a fire. The judge in Josh's case is not amused by some of the defense statements and the defense witnesses are in jail.

Just another week in Duggarworld. And I can rely on this forum on the finest news and commentary on it all. 

[farmgal4]

1 hour ago, JoanArc said:

Just found out about the name. I'm going to go get drunk to process it.

Speaking of getting drunk + baby names, they could’ve named the baby Martini! 🍸👶🏻

[GeeGolly]

They should have skipped a step and just named Madyson, Mortified, because that's what she'll spend her adulthood feeling.

[MargeGunderson]

8 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

Speaking of getting drunk + baby names, they could’ve named the baby Martini! 🍸👶🏻

Martyny 

(I may also be drinking)

[iwantcookies]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

By the time this is over, Josh'll be able to list himself as the Breakout Star of the classic TLC Duggar show lineup. 

Jeremy’s head will explode !