Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[msblossom]

^^^Will she, though? Regardless of Josh's crimes and the media attention, and now the lawsuit from the 5th victim, it seems that Anna is devoted to Josh and to adding to their quiverful as much as ever. I think it's more likely that Josh puts the kibosh on adding to the family more so than Anna.

[Sew Sumi]

I agree. If Anna really knew about this (and she will be subpeonaed to ascertain what she knew and when) and still decided to marry him, she's all-in. I have a feeling what she knew was more vague, and she may well have had a crisis of faith, but she appears to be putting up a unified front, at least for the time being. 

 

If she did know the full extent of this before they married, I have absolutely no sympathy for her, regardless of what she may believe about forgiveness and redemption. I can't imagine what it's like living with Josh now. I doubt he's totally brushing this off as old news, although that's what he wants the leghumpers to believe with his forays into social media. 

[Quof]

I agree. If Anna really knew about this (and she will be subpeonaed to ascertain what she knew and when)

 

Anna can't be subpoenaed to testify against her spouse. And what she knew is irrelevant anyway, since it was years after the fact.  I don't recall the timeline of the 5th victim compared to the others. If she was the first, it really doesn't matter what people knew after the fact. If she was number 2, 3, 4, or 5, then it becomes relevant who knew about the earlier victims and could have taken steps to prevent it from happening again. 

[Zahdii]

The woman who is suing was, according to the police report, the last known victim of Josh.

 

If this suit goes forward, who all will be deposed? 

 

JB&M

Josh

Jill

Jessa

at least one other Duggar daughter

possibly some of the older children?

The cop that's in jail?

The cop that took the statements for the police report?

The CSD workers who may have spoken with the family?

The church 'Elders'?

The guy who Josh worked for, and called it 'therapy'?

Anyone who was in church the day that Josh supposedly 'confessed'?

Of course the fifth victim and probably her parents.

 

Who else?  That's already a lot of people to track down and depose.  Unless the Duggars settle, this could go on for quite a while.

[CofCinci]

The woman who is suing was, according to the police report, the last known victim of Josh.

If this suit goes forward, who all will be deposed?

JB&M

Josh

Jill

Jessa

at least one other Duggar daughter

possibly some of the older children?

The cop that's in jail?

The cop that took the statements for the police report?

The CSD workers who may have spoken with the family?

The church 'Elders'?

The guy who Josh worked for, and called it 'therapy'?

Anyone who was in church the day that Josh supposedly 'confessed'?

Of course the fifth victim and probably her parents.

Who else? That's already a lot of people to track down and depose. Unless the Duggars settle, this could go on for quite a while.

https://imgflip.com/i/nouno

[Lemur]

My experience is that you can announce your intent to file to start the ball rolling toward a settlement.  I'm not saying that is the case here, but it seems to be how it goes. 

[Satchels of gold]

I hope the victim is actually going to file, but even if the story is false it keeps the Duggars misdeeds in the media and I'm ok with that. I hope stories keep coming out until this family goes away. I'm sure they thought the Fox interview would be the end of this scandal.....little did they know they would be pouring gasoline on the fire.

[Seashell Lover]

Lets say this is true I wonder when they question Smuggar will he answer the questions like he did in the past by saying you have to ask my dad?

[NEGirl]

He will have to answer the questions himself - he is an adult. I believe he will also have to have a different attorney than JB and MeChelle - it would be a conflict of interest to have the same attorney.  Hope she wins a ton of money - that's the only way to hurt JB.

Edited July 2, 2015 by NEGirl

[OhioMom]

I agree. If Anna really knew about this (and she will be subpeonaed to ascertain what she knew and when) and still decided to marry him, she's all-in. I have a feeling what she knew was more vague, and she may well have had a crisis of faith, but she appears to be putting up a unified front, at least for the time being. 

 

If she did know the full extent of this before they married, I have absolutely no sympathy for her, regardless of what she may believe about forgiveness and redemption. I can't imagine what it's like living with Josh now. I doubt he's totally brushing this off as old news, although that's what he wants the leghumpers to believe with his forays into social media. 

That is, assuming any of them tell the truth under oath.

[BitterApple]

I have mixed feelings on the civil suit. For one, this woman's name hasn't been made public so it's not like millions of people have figured out her identity the way they did with the Duggar girls. For another, I find it distasteful to sue for money when the family didn't bother to press criminal charges a decade ago. So it was no big deal when it happened, but now that the Duggars are worth millions and there's gold to dig, she's coming out of the woodwork. It just rubs me the wrong way.

[Fuzzysox]

^^^Will she, though? Regardless of Josh's crimes and the media attention, and now the lawsuit from the 5th victim, it seems that Anna is devoted to Josh and to adding to their quiverful as much as ever. I think it's more likely that Josh puts the kibosh on adding to the family more so than Anna.

Once Josh has NO job and is not hire-able anywhere I'm sure their life plan will have to be altered. *Gasp* Anna might have to go on.....birth control.........or Josh needs to get the big V going otherwise they will just be another poor family with lots of kids.

[Skittl1321]

I have mixed feelings on the civil suit. For one, this woman's name hasn't been made public so it's not like millions of people have figured out her identity the way they did with the Duggar girls. For another, I find it distasteful to sue for money when the family didn't bother to press criminal charges a decade ago. So it was no big deal when it happened, but now that the Duggars are worth millions and there's gold to dig, she's coming out of the woodwork. It just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm very much of the opinion that she may feel she has a lot more information now than she did then.

 

Hearing the family pass it off as if nothing was wrong might have made her rethink the "forgiveness" the church probably made her offer to Josh. 

 

Or she may not have known that it was a KNOWN ISSUE by the parents when she was put in the position of sleeping on the couch at their house (away from the "locked in a separate room" safety the other girls got.)  She now knows that these "safeguards" were put in place, but not for her.

 

Or perhaps she was just really pissed off that Josh is, once again, getting away with no repercussions. After all he was "sly". The people he molested didn't even know he had done something wrong.  Time gives victims a chance to process what happened. What maybe as a child she thought was "no big deal, the church elders are saying it was fine" she has realized was NOT okay.

 

I have no problem with her choosing to go after the Duggars.

[Cherrio]

I hope she brings suit too.    I hope the Duggars lose everything.   Maybe child protective services can rescue the little kids.

            I will buy the TTH at auction, have a haz-mat crew come in to clean it and turn it into an LGBT community center.

[galax-arena]

I find it distasteful to sue for money when the family didn't bother to press criminal charges a decade ago. So it was no big deal when it happened, but now that the Duggars are worth millions and there's gold to dig, she's coming out of the woodwork.

But why should that be a problem, if this woman really is being motivated by money? Why do we demand that molestation victims be saints who have no monetary or materialistic motives? Does that make them less worthy of consideration?

 

Aside from that, I think you're making some big assumptions about why criminal charges might not have been filed. Chances are, back then, she was part of their fundie IFB world and under the control of other people like her parents, church elders, etc. So maybe bringing criminal charges simply wasn't an option back then. Perhaps she's more independent now and in charge of her own decisions. I think it's unwarranted to say that she must have thought that it was no big deal because criminal charges weren't filed.

 

And yeah... maybe she was pissed off at seeing the Duggars handwave away her pain. I definitely would be. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by galax-arena

[Nysha]

 

Once Josh has NO job and is not hire-able anywhere I'm sure their life plan will have to be altered. *Gasp* Anna might have to go on.....birth control.........or Josh needs to get the big V going otherwise they will just be another poor family with lots of kids.

This assumes a level of responsibility and self-awareness that I haven't seen from any of the Duggars. I would bet that Josh & Anna continue having "all the children God gives us" believing that God will provide for their family. While I think they're thisclose to worshiping the Almighty Dollar as much as they worship the Almighty Father, I do think they still believe everything they've been taught by Gothard and their parents.

[Quof]

Or she may not have known that it was a KNOWN ISSUE by the parents when she was put in the position of sleeping on the couch at their house (away from the "locked in a separate room" safety the other girls got.)  She now knows that these "safeguards" were put in place, but not for her.

 

How did they explain to the babysitter that the girls' bedroom door was to remain locked???

[Cherrio]

That is, assuming any of them tell the truth under oath.

Truth?     

 Ok, children.....let us all spell perjury.  P E R J U R Y            

 

    19 Cells and Counting.     

[Cherrio]

I have mixed feelings on the civil suit. For one, this woman's name hasn't been made public so it's not like millions of people have figured out her identity the way they did with the Duggar girls. For another, I find it distasteful to sue for money when the family didn't bother to press criminal charges a decade ago. So it was no big deal when it happened, but now that the Duggars are worth millions and there's gold to dig, she's coming out of the woodwork. It just rubs me the wrong way.

How do you know it was no big deal years ago?     She was and is a victim of molestation.  It can affect people in a million different ways.  At least for me I have read numerous times that victims of abuse often do nothing or years later take action.   

        I would never ever call a victim of sexual molestation a gold digger.   Now, that's highly distasteful.     

        All power to victims.      

[Lemur]

I don't find it distasteful either.  There are quite a few victims of childhood molestation who experience a sort of delayed trauma once they stop rationalizing away the behavior.  Also, there is a school of thought in regards to throwing off the "rape shield" and claiming the experience as a way to get past it and fully recover.  And lastly, I'm with Suz.  I'm not going to shame this person by calling her a gold-digger.  The fact that these people have evaded justice angries up my blood to no end.  If this is the only justice this person can get is in the form of a monetary pay-out, so be it.  Circumstances dictated earlier that she be denied, so let her have at it now. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by Lemur

[kokapetl]

In her 2006 police interview, the babysitter said she was informed 3-4 years prior that Josh had touched her breasts while she slept, and that she remembered spending the night at the Duggar house, but she didn't remember the assault. The statute of limitation is 3 years from discovery of the injury. It looks like an uphill battle to me.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Lemur]

In her 2006 police interview, the babysitter said she was informed 3-4 years prior that Josh had touched her breasts while she slept, and that she remembered spending the night at the Duggar house, but she didn't remember the assault. The statute of limitation is 3 years from discovery of the injury. It looks like an uphill battle to me.

 

In cases of sexual abuse/molestation the statute of limitations starts when the victim begins to experience the effects of abuse.  That's different from discovery of injury. Or at least that's what various lawyer-types commenting on the case are saying.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Lemur

[zenme]

I have mixed feelings on the civil suit. For one, this woman's name hasn't been made public so it's not like millions of people have figured out her identity the way they did with the Duggar girls. For another, I find it distasteful to sue for money when the family didn't bother to press criminal charges a decade ago. So it was no big deal when it happened, but now that the Duggars are worth millions and there's gold to dig, she's coming out of the woodwork. It just rubs me the wrong way.

 

I am related to a person who was molested as a young boy and never said anything.  He kept it in and wound up abusing drugs for over 20 years just to numb the pain.  One day, while watching a story about molestation on a news program he broke down crying and finally revealed to his mother what had happened.  I think this was freeing for him.  I don't know if it's a coincidence that he was finally able to combat a serious drug problem after that, despite several previous rehab stints. 

 

I say she deserves to have her say, and Josh has to be made to pay for whatever damage he's done.  Maybe this woman has finally found the courage to speak up, as this type of abuse can affect one's self-esteem.  Or maybe she's married now, and it affects her sexual relationship with her husband.  Who knows? Maybe she's just tired to seeing her abuser and family on tv and acting so high and mighty and judgmental.  Jessa had no business speaking for this lady, so I'm glad this woman will have her voice heard.  What would Josh do if, God forbid, someone did this to one of his children?

[kokapetl]

In cases of sexual abuse/molestation the statute of limitations starts when the victim begins to experience the effects of abuse. That's different from discovery of injury. Or at least that's what various lawyer-types commenting on the case are saying.

Here's a link to the code. Based on that and the police report, I still think this person has their work cut out for them. I'm not a lawyer, so there's a fair chance I'm wrong on this. Edited July 2, 2015 by Kokapetl

[Lemur]

Here's a link to the code. Based on that and the police report, I still think this person has their work cut out for them. I'm not a lawyer, so there's a fair chance I'm wrong on this.

 

We'll see how it plays out, if the suit ever gets filed.  I'm sure there will be a finding of fact as to whether or not the court has jurisdiction.

[Ljohnson1987]

Jill, Anna and Jessa are teaching their children that inappropriate touching should be swept under the rug, rather than looked at as a crime. That's sad. They all need to wake up! What Smugs did was wrong, and they should want justice.

[GEML]

Again, I don't think this person may be upset so much as angry that she has lost the right to her own story. The civil suit may be less about money and more about keeping them from speaking about the events that happened as if she has agreed to their version of events.

[galax-arena]

I agree that it's more likely about something other than the financial compensation, I'm just saying that even if she were being solely motivated by money, it wouldn't change how I feel (which is that she deserves each and every last cent she can wring out of them).

[barbedwire]

Good points!  I wonder if she also saw the BS of JimBoob and MeeShell saying that they put "safeguards in place" but yet we know he still was able to roam at night.  I have said it before, he should have been sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor of their room.  But nooooooooooooooooooooo, that would prevent further baby making.

[Calamity Jane]

Here's a link to the code. Based on that and the police report, I still think this person has their work cut out for them. I'm not a lawyer, so there's a fair chance I'm wrong on this.

Doesn't statute of limitations apply only to criminal action?  This is a civil lawsuit -- I'm not a lawyer, either, but do statutes of limitation apply also to those?  I don't think they do, with the caveat again that I'm not an expert in the field.  Also, the burden of proof in civil cases is much lower than in criminal court, which is how OJ got nailed for that big judgment in the death of Nicole, even though he was acquitted in criminal court.  It may be difficult, but I don't think the lack of a criminal conviction is fatal. 

I agree that it's more likely about something other than the financial compensation, I'm just saying that even if she were being solely motivated by money, it wouldn't change how I feel (which is that she deserves each and every last cent she can wring out of them).

Whatever the motivation, civil suits are about money.  That's all you can sue for. 

[kokapetl]

Doesn't statute of limitations apply only to criminal action? This is a civil lawsuit -- I'm not a lawyer, either, but do statutes of limitation apply also to those? I don't think they do, with the caveat again that I'm not an expert in the field. Also, the burden of proof in civil cases is much lower than in criminal court, which is how OJ got nailed for that big judgment in the death of Nicole, even though he was acquitted in criminal court. It may be difficult, but I don't think the lack of a criminal conviction is fatal.

Whatever the motivation, civil suits are about money. That's all you can sue for.

What I linked is the statute that sets time limits on civil actions based on sexual abuse. I think.

[Lemur]

Whatever the motivation, civil suits are about money.  That's all you can sue for. 

 

Not necessarily.  Not to wander too far off-topic, but civil suits are very commonly used by victims of sexual assault/abuse/molestation to get some form of justice after the criminal statutes of limitation have expired due to the fact that so many people are abused as children and had no recourse (for whatever reason) at the time and continue not to have it for a decade or more after the fact.  It's why states such as California have no statute for such cases. Ultimately, if the complainant wins they do get a monetary award, but that doesn't necessarily mean they keep it.  It's not uncommon for them to donate their award.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Lemur

[GEML]

It may come down to money, but it might not be "about" money. The settlement itself can involve almost anything. Including details saying that the Duggars do not speak for her and they will pay more money if they say publicly that they do, such as Jessa came very close to saying in the Fox interview.

[Calamity Jane]

Not necessarily.  Not to wander too far off-topic, but civil suits are very commonly used by victims of sexual assault/abuse/molestation to get some form of justice after the statutes of limitation have expired due to the fact that so many people are abused as children and had no recourse (for whatever reason) at the time and continue not to have it for a decade or more after the fact.  It's why states such as California have no statute for such cases. Ultimately, if the complainant wins they do get a monetary award, but that doesn't necessarily mean they keep it.  It's not uncommon for them to donate their award.

I understand that, I'm just saying when you bring a civil suit, you are suing for money because there's nothing else you can sue for.  So the victims may want other things (institutional changes, better policies, etc.),  but the only thing they can do is make the behavior prohibitively expensive.  Sometimes this makes people look "greedy," but that's because they have no other recourse.  This is often misunderstood and misinterpreted, from what I read.

It may come down to money, but it might not be "about" money. The settlement itself can involve almost anything. Including details saying that the Duggars do not speak for her and they will pay more money if they say publicly that they do, such as Jessa came very close to saying in the Fox interview.

Yes, but you can't bring a suit just to do that.  People get upset sometimes that victims seem to "only want money," but that's the only thing can do in a civil suit.  Other things may get put in, but they can't of themselves be the lawsuit. 

[Oldernowiser]

Again, I don't want to speculate too much, but this woman could well have been under enormous pressure as a young teen in a fundie community to accept the Duggarization of her molestation when, in fact, it was traumatic for her.

Now having the Duggar girls out there sweeping away her molestation with a wave of a manicured hand so that the money train will roll on, she might well be thoroughly pissed and justifiably so.

I hope she gets a ton of money and uses it to go to college and grad school and ends up with a career and a life that isn't just measured by pregnancies.

[Julia]

If the victim can't take away sanctimony, I can't imagine anything that would punish the Duggars, parents and eldest son, more than losing money. It's what they care about.

 

I think, too, it's important to remember that before this came out, the Duggar family was being protected by local authorities and apparently using their position to punish people who pissed them off (remember the renters who were threatened with eviction from someone else's property if they didn't put up a Duggar sign during an election?). This woman, whoever she is, was essentially prevented from getting justice while justice was still available. Let her have some money instead.

 

Besides, it's not as if Josh or his parents have honor or reputation to lose.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Julia

[GEML]

I don't know how much this person would have been "punished" by local authorities. It's pretty clear they have some local enemies, and she could have gone to the media at any time. The newspaper reporter clearly says this was a known but unable to be verified story. She could have verified it, or essentially asked for some sort of "settlement" in exchange for her silence if she only wanted money.

Which is why I think it's more internal. I think people close to her are close to the Duggars, but she herself is not. And why it's not just about the money.

[Sew Sumi]

It may come down to money, but it might not be "about" money. The settlement itself can involve almost anything. Including details saying that the Duggars do not speak for her and they will pay more money if they say publicly that they do, such as Jessa came very close to saying in the Fox interview.

Jessa didn't just "come close" to speaking for the 5th victim. She flat out said the person was "fine" with all of this. Just because she may have been (likely) forced to forgive Josh at church, it doesn't mean that she ever really forgave or forgot what he did. Even if she managed to push it to the back of her mind, I don't know how the events of the past 6 weeks couldn't have triggered her. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by Sew Sumi

[JoanArc]

Jessa didn't just "come close" to speaking for the 5th victim. She flat out said the person was "fine" with all of this. Just because she may have been (likely) forced to forgive Josh at church, it doesn't mean that she ever really forgave or forgot what he did. Even if she managed to push it to the back of her mind, I don't know how the events of the past 6 weeks couldn't have triggered her. 

Exactly! Jessa was spewing so many lies in rapid fire during the interview she let this go. She really should've only spoken for herself.

[GEML]

I didn't see the interview, so I can't speak definitively about it. So I appreciate others' knowledge.

[MrsMommy]

I don't think the 5th victim wants her name out there or else I'd think she would have already said something. My cousin who is 10 now accused my husband of touching her over the clothes and our lawyer and their lawyer said that if Mt husband requested it then my cousin would have to testify which puts the identity out there. I assume that Josh would request the victim to testify as well.

Btw my cousin came out and told the victims advocate that her grandma (my aunt) made her say my husband touched her that why I'd divorce him and get half his money. My aunt doesn't like me being married to him bc he is 30 years older than I am, and for some reason my aunt thinks we are rich when we arent. Smh

[barbedwire]

MrsMommy - that must have been awful to go through.

 

I too didn't see the interview.  I agree that Jessa should NOT have spoken for anyone else.

[Sew Sumi]

I didn't see the interview, so I can't speak definitively about it. So I appreciate others' knowledge.

No problem! Jessa definitely crossed the line w/r/t who she spoke for. She actually cut off Jill and said, "I can speak for them. They're all fine with it." 

 

A 10 year old victim is much different than one who is now in her mid-20's (if it's who I think it is, she's now 27). If she's willing to go this far, I'm pretty sure she's aware of the risks involved. 

Edited July 2, 2015 by Sew Sumi

[neece26]

 

I find it distasteful to sue for money when the family didn't bother to press criminal charges a decade ago. So it was no big deal when it happened, but now that the Duggars are worth millions and there's gold to dig, she's coming out of the woodwork.

 

Well the flip side of this argument is many people find it distasteful that the Duggars pimped themselves out for those millions pretending to be this wholesome Christian family when they knew they had a creepy hidden secret.  

[NikSac]

EDITED to add: I've realized that it's possible that IF JB had homeowner's insurance back then, the liability coverage might extend to Josh's molestation of a child. OTOH given JB's tight-fisted methods toward his family at that time (spending $200K in a failed political race while shoehorning his family into a much too small house), who knows if he carried homeowner's liability insurance? (Generally mortgage companies require the property to be insured, and most homeowner policies also include liability coverage, but I assume you could go cheap and minimize or exclude the liability coverage.)

 

That's assuming they had a mortgage. If not, I don't think he had to have homeowner's insurance at all. (I'm not 100% sure on that, but I think that's the case)

[Cherrio]

''If the victim can't take away sanctimony, I can't imagine anything that would punish the Duggars, parents and eldest son, more than losing money. It's what they care about.''

 

Yes !      That is their religion. Money.   So, this statement should be repeated often.

[GEML]

And I'd add that keeping her name out of it may, again, have been more a kindness to her family than because she herself is afraid of the scrutiny. As someone who left the community but has family in it (who would pay a price if I were to - purely hypothetically- raise a stink about something in my childhood) I can understand her possible reluctance on their behalf as easily as I can see her as a victim who doesn't want to relive it, or doesn't want the media coverage.

The first would actually give me the most pause. But that's me.

[3 is enough]

Maybe the victim did not have a say in what actions were taken regarding her molestation all those years ago.  Maybe she does not subscribe to the same beliefs anymore, and has decided that it is time for her to get some sort of closure.  Given that a lot of church members knew the story back then she may be concerned that her identity will be revealed with or without her consent, so she has chosen to take control of the situation.

 

And yes, maybe she just wants Josh, Jim Bob and Michelle to face some sort of consequences.  Hitting them were it hurts seems to be an obvious choice.

Edited July 2, 2015 by 3 is enough

[GeeGolly]

No matter what her circumstances are, Survivor #5 is very brave to even consider filing a law suit. It is hard for survivors under the best of circumstances, and without the eyes of many watching. I hope if she does file, they settle of out court for her sake.

[SoSueMe]

How did they explain to the babysitter that the girls' bedroom door was to remain locked???

I don't remember hearing how that worked. Did the girls lock themselves in or was the door locked from outside?