Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
maraleia

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

Recommended Posts


The ball is Anna’s court. What she does next will show her character. If she stays... 

 

 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post

Even local law enforcement is running online stings for child pornography and child trafficking on a regular basis.   A lot of this work is done via combined efforts of individual municipal departments in conjunction with several other departments in their area, along with federal agents in their area many times as well.   These units will set up fake personas looking to see what kind of predators show up, and they will troll known sites looking to see if they can identify any participants for the appropriate authorities to apprehend.   I do know from time to time I have seen listings mentioning things such as Interpol in the documents, but that's way beyond the type of things handled here so I'm really not familiar with that.  

  • Like 1
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Kbo said:

I can’t stop thinking about his expression in that mug shot. Not only is there no remorse, there’s no shame, either. How does a person grow up in that environment and have no shame upon being arrested for possessing sexually explicit images of children?   You know what I pray, JB and Michelle?  I pray they lock him up under the jail and throw away the key. 

He has no soul. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

If you can get to Cousin Amy’s account...she KNEW something was getting ready to hit. Maybe Jill tipped her off. I would link but yeah, I’m old. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

I would agree if Anna didn't know who she married.  She knew his history, she knew about the raid and she knew he was getting arrested if reports are true the family was expecting it.  She stayed.  She doersn't have the good sense needed to keep kids safe.

Was she informed why the raid happened?   What was she told?   Let's face it, Josh, or Josh and JB could have fobbed her off with several things that would have likely seemed reasonable to her, things that had no correlation to either reality or anything related to sexually explicit content in any way, shape or form.   Nothing happened for over a year after the raid.  No doubt in her mind that means there was nothing to find.  She could have been hearing that evidence was being manufactured against Josh during the delay.   

The telling point is how she reacts going forward in regard to Josh being around the children -- assuming he ever has that opportunity before they are adults.   She's grown up in a cult with little education, little experience and  with a limited exposure to people with different beliefs than her own.   That doesn't mean that she doesn't love her children, doesn't care for them, that they aren't bonded to her and that she would in fact knowingly place them at risk. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

17 minutes ago, christine falls said:

We don't know what triggered the original raid in 2019, do we?

I'd love to find out that one of the girls made an anonymous call to the feds. 

  • Like 8
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if he will be smug after a week in jail? Especially if fellow inmates find out why he is there. I don't think they would have to touch him he will probably crumble if he gets a few dirty looks.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

The bar for that type of action is high, as it should be.  The right of parents to parent their children is one of the most fundamental rights we have as humans.  I can't think of anything I would fight harder to protect.

I am absolutely not advocating that a parent's rights are absolute without exception.   I participate in and advocate for the removal of children from their parents' custody on a regular basis, including the termination of parental rights in many cases.   At this point there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Anna knowingly ignored risk to her children.

I work in a similar field in Canada. I always believe the best place for children to be is with their parents, as long as they are safe and happy. Removing children will always cause harm to children so it should be avoided at all costs. 

And if children can’t be with their parents, they should be with family. However the Duggars have hidden and helped Josh in the past and I’m not convinced they won’t  in the future. So if the children have to go somewhere, I wouldn’t want it to be any of the Duggars.

I’m not saying her brother will be successful either, just that he might try. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Plus, JB and M -- who in my opinion were a strong contributing cause to this by the way they treated Josh and treated their daughters and the other girl when this happened...and by the crap they preach about sex issues and gender roles in general -- have been all over the current show for a long time.

And in their minds, I'm sure both shows have  always been about them being role models. Any show that goes within a million miles of being role models should definitely be off the air after this. 

You're preaching to the choir of money hungry people. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

What is the process of acquiring images and/or videos of child sexual abuse? In other words, are there more steps to follow than for adult pornography? Like, for example, videos on Porn Hub are pretty easy to access, but those have adults.

Just trying to establish that Josh had to work pretty hard to access images of child sexual abuse.  

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cereality said:

Random questions as I try to catch up -- what's this book that people keep referencing that Jer/Jing are writing? What's it about?

Any statements from any siblings besides Jill/Derick yesterday and Jer/Jing today? Anything from the brothers living on the compound or nearby like JD or Joseph or Josiah? Anything from the younger brothers - Justin/Jason/James/Jed/Jer?

I know back in the day JD and Joseph gave some statements re they don't want to be like their older brother/they aren't like their older brother/and Joe views JD has his oldest brother. What was that in response to? The thing with the sisters or Ashley Madison or the fact that he was sleeping with prostitutes while married to Anna?

IDK if we're allowed to ask but People etc. are saying he molested 5 girls back in the day -- I know Jill and Jessa came out and did that interview? Are the others assumed to be Joy, JInger, and ? who would the 5th be? I can't imagine Jana because they're close in age -- I imagine it was easier if his victims were much younger and he could play the older brother card; I feel like Jana has at least always had JD in her corner.

JinJer's book is highly autobiographical, with a dose of Jesus 

The 5th victim was never identified other than being a babysitter. 

  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

2 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

If you can get to Cousin Amy’s account...she KNEW something was getting ready to hit. Maybe Jill tipped her off. I would link but yeah, I’m old. 

I just checked it out. I'm not seeing anything.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, crazycatlady58 said:

I wonder if he will be smug after a week in jail? Especially if fellow inmates find out why he is there. I don't think they would have to touch him he will probably crumble if he gets a few dirty looks.

He is a marshmallow lol he will fold like a cheap umbrella 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Crochetlady said:

The only ones who deserve it are Mooch and Boob. They knew what he was, and did nothing. 

And Anna, and the Kellers

  • Like 2
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, HighHopes said:

I work in a similar field in Canada. I always believe the best place for children to be is with their parents, as long as they are safe and happy. Removing children will always cause harm to children so it should be avoided at all costs. 

And if children can’t be with their parents, they should be with family. However the Duggars have hidden and helped Josh in the past and I’m not convinced they won’t  in the future. So if the children have to go somewhere, I wouldn’t want it to be any of the Duggars.

I’m not saying her brother will be successful either, just that he might try. 

Another factor to consider is the sheer number of children.   Even with loving and willing families there are often not many who are able to take on that many children -- and of course the fact that there are official standards to meet in that regard will bar family members from taking that many children due to things like sleeping space, etc.   If kids can't be with their parents it's hard enough.  If they are then split from siblings the trauma multiplies.   Sure, courts will order sibling visitations in cases like this, but it's not the same and definitely not ideal for kids who are already traumatized from being removed from their home and parents.  

  • Like 2
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

What is the process of acquiring images and/or videos of child sexual abuse? In other words, are there more steps to follow than for adult pornography? Like, for example, videos on Porn Hub are pretty easy to access, but those have adults.

Just trying to establish that Josh had to work pretty hard to access images of child sexual abuse.  

It's not that he had to work hard, those disgusting images are out there on the dark web. But yeah it isn't like adult porn; there's an entire adult porn industry that makes videos etc. by paying consenting adults to film them. It's different with kids -- what makes it illegal is that kids by statutory definition cannot consent. People have all kinds of kinky interests -- so they watch adults; true sick criminal types like Josh are the ones with interests in kids.

  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post

4 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I just checked it out. I'm not seeing anything.

I'm not seeing anything from Amy, either.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

If you can get to Cousin Amy’s account...she KNEW something was getting ready to hit. Maybe Jill tipped her off. I would link but yeah, I’m old. 

Are you talking about a Twitter post about a dream she had?

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

If you can get to Cousin Amy’s account...she KNEW something was getting ready to hit. Maybe Jill tipped her off. I would link but yeah, I’m old. 

This???

25358DDE-6B74-49C4-AB66-17698963C268.jpeg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, ginger90 said:

Are you talking about a Twitter post about a dream she had?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Zella said:

But the reason I was reluctant to just assume his molestations were crimes of opportunity was the fact his attacks on his sisters got increasingly brazen and severe and also the ages of the victims got younger and younger. That's always seemed very damning to me. And I think deep down the Duggars know that because they always lied in public statements to avoid addressing the latter instances. 

 It really blew my mind that everyone tried to write off that story of Josh looking at porn on computers for a political campaign after he had been caught molesting.  The fact that he did that more months after atoning from his molestation crimes pretty much told me everything I needed to know about him.

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, ginger90 said:

Here it is:

0BC8BA70-6E60-4F27-A31D-793BD771F029.jpeg

Sorry, I don't like Amy. What a passive-aggressive post. 

And - this isn't a victimless crime. Fuck you Amy.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Zella said:

Yeah that's a good point. For me, it was really the fact he went after a 5 year old. There's a lot wrong about their "he was just curious about girls" excuse, but if it was actually true, teen boys who are just curious about girls aren't going to be interested in a 5 year old. 

 Oh, that too. I don’t wanna minimize it. But, I think a lot of people would have written that office crime of opportunity given the way they were so insular. 

The asshole never even paused a little, let alone stop doing anything.

I’d be kind of interested to know when he got access to computers after getting out of Jesus jail. I think he had a flip phone for a while? I guess he was spending days in that little car lot office doing God knows what. Jim Bob is an idiot for not building a cell in that warehouse and basically keeping him locked in there, and just dragging him out for pictures with Anna.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

1 minute ago, christine falls said:

Not to defend Amy, but she wrote that before Josh's arrest. 

My apologies to Amy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, IndianPaintbrush said:

Images of minors under the age of 12???? 🤮

His likely defense will be that the images were inadvertently downloaded. A lot will depend on how many they pulled.

I agree. And this is probably not a popular opinion: but if I were on a jury, I’d have a problem sentencing someone to jail for 20 years if they had 1-2 child photos thrown in with thousands of adults photos. One could argue that it was an accident/bad batch/whatever. And I’m definitely not saying that he (or anyone) shouldn’t face punishment.  I don’t know what an acceptable ratio wouldn’t be. 

I am not defending Josh here or anyone’s possession/receiving of inappropriate  illegal child photos.  Just trying to look at it logically.

58 minutes ago, Natalie68 said:

While we walk through fire

through this season of life. 

Edited by Tdoc72
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

No matter what the charges are, children were harmed.

I wonder if this will prompt any of the others in this family to get their kids off SM? Somehow I doubt it 🥲.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, crazycatlady58 said:

I wonder if he will be smug after a week in jail? Especially if fellow inmates find out why he is there. I don't think they would have to touch him he will probably crumble if he gets a few dirty looks.

He might be kept in solitary for the time being. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

He lives in a windowless warehouse and is going to have to live somewhere else and no children.    Not that I expect he did much to help with his own.     He is a gigantic pos.  

Edited by dariafan · Reason: Left out an important word
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Sorry, I don't like Amy. What a passive-aggressive post. 

And - this isn't a victimless crime. Fuck you Amy.

Me neither. If you're gonna say something, say it. All this vaguebooking shit she does is so annoying.

  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt there was one or two. That could be accidental.  It's more likely there were 100s or thousands on his computers. 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Cinnabon said:

I wonder if this will prompt any of the others in this family to get their kids off SM? Somehow I doubt it 🥲.

It should, especially Joy, who regularly posts pictures of her daughter unclothed.

  • Like 12
  • Surprise 2
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, beckie said:

I doubt there was one or two. That could be accidental.  It's more likely there were 100s or thousands on his computers. 

Yes. It’s like we got some details but I need more. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

The bar for that type of action is high, as it should be.  The right of parents to parent their children is one of the most fundamental rights we have as humans.  I can't think of anything I would fight harder to protect.

I am absolutely not advocating that a parent's rights are absolute without exception.   I participate in and advocate for the removal of children from their parents' custody on a regular basis, including the termination of parental rights in many cases.   At this point there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Anna knowingly ignored risk to her children.

Well, sure. But this isn’t a case where someone left the kids in the car for fifteen minutes to run into the grocery store and an overzealous CPS staff member decided to go after them for neglect. It’s not even a case where a parent is being investigated for completely unknowingly letting a child abuser into their kids’ lives. 

Anna knew that as a teenager Josh *sexually abused a five year old* and not only stayed with him, but assisted his family in downplaying his conduct, continued to praise him as a spouse and father, and had more kids with him. She’s either in deep, deep denial or she truly doesn’t think sex abuse is a big deal. Either way, I think it is very unlikely that she is going to have an “ah ha!” moment now and morph into a caring, protective mother.

As I said before, *if* she is appropriately protective, meaning not only that she keeps the kids away from Josh but also that she follows all CPS recommendations regarding interviews, counseling, etc. for them, then I don’t see a reason that they should be removed from her care. I’m just deeply, deeply skeptical that this is what will happen. 

 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, beckie said:

I doubt there was one or two. That could be accidental.  It's more likely there were 100s or thousands on his computers. 

I would assume that's exactly why this took so long to come out - I can't see the feds messing around with someone who may have inadvertantly downloaded an image or two.  If that were the case they'd probably have never taken it to this point.  

Edited to add: and I would assume (I hope correctly) that an adult who isn't sick would immediately delete an image like that and if they personally knew the person that they got it from they'd have reported the person to the authorities themselves.  Or at the very least cut the person who sent it to them out of their life and never looked back.  

Edited by WinnieWinkle
  • Like 20

Share this post


Link to post

6 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

What is the process of acquiring images and/or videos of child sexual abuse? In other words, are there more steps to follow than for adult pornography? Like, for example, videos on Porn Hub are pretty easy to access, but those have adults.

Just trying to establish that Josh had to work pretty hard to access images of child sexual abuse.  

Cases I've seen have come from things like local dating/hookup/meetup sites where officers participate for a while -- sometimes with multiple officers participating over long stretches of time as a certain persona.   Relationships are established, in some ways similar even to the ways people here get to "know" each other, become friends, etc. -- just a whole lot less benign than they do here.   Over time confidence is established and invitations happen -- hookups, media sharing.  Sometimes parents even traffic their own children.  They do a lot of sharing amongst one another of an awful lot of their favorite imagery on these sites too.

I've seen more than one case where a perp's boundaries are crossed and they've actually reported children being trafficked to the authorities.   Sometimes the perps actually have driven multiple states to get here for their "date".   

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, WinnieWinkle said:

I would assume that's exactly why this took so long to come out - I can't see the feds messing around with someone who may have inadvertantly downloaded an image or two.  If that were the case they'd probably have never taken it to this point.  

Yep the feds don't play. They have 96-ish percent conviction rate for a reason. 

  • Like 24

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Me neither. If you're gonna say something, say it. All this vaguebooking shit she does is so annoying.

Yep I agree. Just spit it out Amy.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, realityfan26 said:

The girls have been using Instagram to be influencers so Josh has ruined income opportunities for most of the family.

Then time to get some actual skills so they can get jobs other than exploiting their kids. 🤷‍♀️

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

Jessa hasnt made any type of statement and she hasn't turned off commenting either. At least she's consistent. Jessa don't care.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 5

Share this post


Link to post

From my understanding you cannot “accidentally” download underage abuse pictures. You have to go to the dark web; and it isn’t an oops. 

  • Like 13
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Cinnabon said:

Then time to get some actual skills so they can get jobs other than exploiting their kids. 🤷‍♀️

Kinda hard when the parents didn’t educate them 😞

  • Like 6
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Scarlett45

Guidelines for the thread:

Charges have been made public that specifically name possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material, discussion of charges are allowed. However, discussion of victims, or possible victims (and their identities) related to these charges are NOT ALLOWED
We are not here to provide content for ghoulish rubbernecking- there is no need to discuss the graphic details related to these charges, the moderators are not going to police posts for graphic content- posts will be removed and violators will be warned. Do not attempt to circumvent this guideline with spoiler tags.

You MAY discuss the 2015 scandals, and any statement a NOW ADULT victim has made public as previously instructed, but speculation on unnamed victims or minor victims is NOT allowed. 

Jokes, asides, memes etc regarding the sexual assault of anyone, INCLUDING Josh Duggar are not allowed.

As of May 10, 2021: Please respect the privacy of the Reber family, discussion of their social media postings, public statements to the press/court testimony are acceptable. Discussion of their activities on their property, their schedule, where/how they run their errands not acceptable. Again, discussion of social media/court statements/public statements to the press- FINE, "So and So saw the Rebers standing in their yard/grocery shopping/getting gas"- NOT fine. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size