Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Panopticon]

1 hour ago, Tuxcat said:

I guess its possible that the family might secure a "counselor" or "elder" to live with Josh while out on bond, off the property, (in one of their rentals). Perhaps they simultaneously  appease members of the "church" community by stating that Josh will be undergoing intensive "training" during his bond release time. In that way, no phones or computers will also be part of his "treatment."  

I think this might be the solution. Anna has six kids at home. JB and Michelle have multiple kids at home, including one over whom they have guardianship but who is not technically their son. All but two of the married couples have kids. Justin is out because he’s out of state (and still a teenager, which is not great optics for being able to “control” Josh). Jed! has a political career to think of, and I’m sure JB doesn’t want the attack ads next election cycle to portray Jed! as roomies with the pedophile. Jana is a single adult, but it would be a dreadful “look” to foist Josh off on the one grown sister he DIDN’T molest... and I’m sure JB is aware of Jana’s popularity as far as the show goes. There’s Jeremiah, but do you really trust the Sinner Twin with this job? 
 

JB needs to find a middle aged or elderly pillar of the community type who owes him a favor (or wants an in with JB at any cost) rather than looking to immediate family. I suspect he has a list. 

[Normades]

1 minute ago, Panopticon said:

JB needs to find a middle aged or elderly pillar of the community type who owes him a favor (or wants an in with JB at any cost) rather than looking to immediate family. I suspect he has a list. 

That's what concerns me.  The last guy who counseled Josh ended up in prison for CP.  I'm not really impressed with JBoob's counselors. 

[Boston]

2 minutes ago, Panopticon said:

I think this might be the solution. Anna has six kids at home. JB and Michelle have multiple kids at home, including one over whom they have guardianship but who is not technically their son. All but two of the married couples have kids. Justin is out because he’s out of state (and still a teenager, which is not great optics for being able to “control” Josh). Jed! has a political career to think of, and I’m sure JB doesn’t want the attack ads next election cycle to portray Jed! as roomies with the pedophile. Jana is a single adult, but it would be a dreadful “look” to foist Josh off on the one grown sister he DIDN’T molest... and I’m sure JB is aware of Jana’s popularity as far as the show goes. There’s Jeremiah, but do you really trust the Sinner Twin with this job? 
 

JB needs to find a middle aged or elderly pillar of the community type who owes him a favor (or wants an in with JB at any cost) rather than looking to immediate family. I suspect he has a list. 

and i'm sure they are all PILLARS of the community.. NOT.. look at all these Fundies who play with children.  I would not trust ONE of them.  JMO

[Tikichick]

11 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

That is just horrendous. Vigilante justice is very wrong but it’s things like this that  cause it to happen. I am hopeful that since this is federal it will be harsher. He’s  been charged with at least one count of receipt which under federal guidelines has a mandatory minimum of 5 years. The possession count doesn’t have a mandatory minimum but does have a 10 year max. The feds also have conditions where the sentence can be increased. He meets that too because of the ‘under the age of 12’ part.  That said, I doubt he’ll get the 20 years the articles talk about. 

First time I've heard the mandatory minimum mentioned.   That means that charge is definitely the defense's primary target to somehow dismiss.

Do you know if federal sentencing requires concurrent or consecutive sentencing, or if it is decided at sentencing how it will run?  

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, 3girlsforus said:

That is just horrendous. Vigilante justice is very wrong but it’s things like this that  cause it to happen. I am hopeful that since this is federal it will be harsher. He’s  been charged with at least one count of receipt which under federal guidelines has a mandatory minimum of 5 years. The possession count doesn’t have a mandatory minimum but does have a 10 year max. The feds also have conditions where the sentence can be increased. He meets that too because of the ‘under the age of 12’ part.  That said, I doubt he’ll get the 20 years the articles talk about. 

The other day I read through and posted here a very long list of Western District of Arkansas press releases, describing cases from the same initiative Josh is charged under -- the current link to my search on the DOJ site is below.

It appears to show a range of sentences between about 5 and 9 years for people charged with the two specific crimes that he's charged with. Longer sentences seem mostly reserved for people who created or distributed the material or had the material but also enticed or transported a child or something like that in addition. There may be exceptions to that but I didn't see any. 

https://search.justice.gov/search?query=project+safe+childhood&op=Search&affiliate=justice-usao-arw

Edited May 5, 2021 by Churchhoney

[3girlsforus]

6 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

First time I've heard the mandatory minimum mentioned.   That means that charge is definitely the defense's primary target to somehow dismiss.

Do you know if federal sentencing requires concurrent or consecutive sentencing, or if it is decided at sentencing how it will run?  

I don’t know about concurrent vs consecutive. To be clear I got the federal sentencing guidelines from internet research but it seemed consistent from several places. But I don’t have any first hand knowledge since I too have a law degree from Hudson university although I have advanced studies in Dateline and the ID channel. LOL

Jared the Subway got 15.5 years but I don’t know how the time was spread out. He pled guilty rather than a trial. It just said ‘sex crimes and child porn’. His case isn’t an exact parallel even though it’s federal because some of his charges were physical sexual contact with minors/children. But one thing I found interesting was that there was a plea but it didn’t include sentencing amount in the agreement. There was a sentencing hearing. The defense asked for 5 years, the prosecution asked for 12 1/2 but the judge gave him 15 1/2. I thought that was really interesting that he got more than even the prosecutor asked for. 

[3 is enough]

42 minutes ago, SMama said:

I’ve read Anna carried/handled the luggage on their honeymoon. Is that true?

She carried her own suitcase.  We all commented on what a dick he was at the time. Little did we know...

[Tikichick]

3 hours ago, 3 is enough said:

You have to wonder if that Hutchens creep actually introduced Josh to CP instead of "setting him straight".  The fact that he himself was arrested a few years later for CP certainly suggests that that was the case.

You just can't make this stuff up.  What a shit show.

Even if he only reinforced the idea that boys will be boys, it's in their nature, can't be helped, that's problematic for someone at an impressionable age and should have been receiving intensive professional treatment and oversight.

That's on JB and M for not protecting Josh's victims, further abusing some of them even, and for creating ample opportunity for the problem to be ongoing and eventually envelop other victims and bring stress and trauma to the rest of their family as well.  Sure, as a member of the human race I'm completely comfortable with the possibility that it may well be JB providing a list of candidates for potential supervision of his predator son out on bail.    

[cereality]

28 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

First time I've heard the mandatory minimum mentioned.   That means that charge is definitely the defense's primary target to somehow dismiss.

Do you know if federal sentencing requires concurrent or consecutive sentencing, or if it is decided at sentencing how it will run?  

Former federal court law clerk here - judge gets to decide if a sentence is concurrent or consecutive. I've almost never seen consecutive sentences though - 95%+ of the time it's concurrent with credit given for time served (i.e. if Josh were to not make bond today and sit in prison for say 6 months until he pleads and is sentenced, he gets credit for that 6 mos served). 

I think he's never getting the 20 year maximum here -- there's too many arguments re first time offenders, not luring any of the children "just" looking at pics etc. I think if he gets 5-7 years here that's a "win" for society in that he does pay SOME price. From the perspective of his family though, his oldest kid would be what 16-18 by then and the newest baby would be 5-7 - wow that's still a lot of years ahead with kids in his life. If he somehow gets less than 5 years, that's a win for his legal team.

Edited May 5, 2021 by cereality

[JoanArc]

I read the Google reviews at the car lot. Most are quite humorous and it seems like a horrible place. David Waller bought his minivan there!

[3 is enough]

So how long does a bail hearing last?

 

[iwantcookies]

3 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

So how long does a bail hearing last?

 

I know right?

[cereality]

3 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

So how long does a bail hearing last?

 

In this case I'd say 30 min-1 hr minimum. It's interesting bc both sides have argument -- is he or is he not a flight risk; does it matter that his wife is pregnant; what living arrangements work or not etc. Sometimes they take 10 min but I don't see that happening here.

[farmgal4]

9 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

She carried her own suitcase.  We all commented on what a dick he was at the time. Little did we know...

I’m betting that Anna’s wedding night was horrible.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, cereality said:

Former federal court law clerk here - judge gets to decide if a sentence is concurrent or consecutive. I've almost never seen consecutive sentences though - 95%+ of the time it's concurrent with credit given for time served (i.e. if Josh were to not make bond today and sit in prison for say 6 months until he pleads and is sentenced, he gets credit for that 6 mos served). 

I think he's never getting the 20 year maximum here -- there's too many arguments re first time offenders, not luring any of the children "just" looking at pics etc. I think if he gets 5-7 years here that's a "win" for society in that he does pay SOME price. From the perspective of his family though, his oldest kid would be what 16-18 by then and the newest baby would be 5-7 - wow that's still a lot of years ahead with kids in his life. If he somehow gets less than 5 years, that's a win for his legal team.

Very similar to how the sentencing operates at the state level here, including your estimate of sentence.

Judging by the way CPS operates here and knowing that states do have some autonomy regarding how they handle those matters but do actually operate under an umbrella of federal guidelines I don't think it's likely Josh will reside with his minor children again if convicted.   CPS involvement would effectively operate like a routine body cavity search on Josh and Anna's home again and again until they were able to either convince Anna to separate from Josh or they will keep probing regularly until they come up with enough to take before the court and obtain an order to remove the children from the home.   

If I'm not mistaken Josh will wind up on Central Registry if convicted of this, along with needing to register as a sexual offender.       

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, farmgal4 said:

I’m betting that Anna’s wedding night was horrible.

I believe that goes without saying.  I hope somewhere in the last decade Anna learned about lube.  

[Panopticon]

39 minutes ago, Boston said:

and i'm sure they are all PILLARS of the community.. NOT.. look at all these Fundies who play with children.  I would not trust ONE of them.  JMO

Well yes, I meant pillar of the community in a Duggar sort of way. I was trying to get into JB’s head (always dangerous), not expressing a personal opinion that Josh belongs anywhere but prison. 

[iwantcookies]

3 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

I’m betting that Anna’s wedding night was horrible.

I doubt it got better. Ever.

[cereality]

Just now, Tikichick said:

Very similar to how the sentencing operates at the state level here, including your estimate of sentence.

Judging by the way CPS operates here and knowing that states do have some autonomy regarding how they handle those matters but do actually operate under an umbrella of federal guidelines I don't think it's likely Josh will reside with his minor children again if convicted.   CPS involvement would effectively operate like a routine body cavity search on Josh and Anna's home again and again until they were able to either convince Anna to separate from Josh or they will keep probing regularly until they come up with enough to take before the court and obtain an order to remove the children from the home.   

If I'm not mistaken Josh will wind up on Central Registry if convicted of this, along with needing to register as a sexual offender.       

Right totally forgot about the fact that he'll have to register on the child sex offender registry. So yeah he may never end up residing with his kids -- luckily for his kids. IDK Anna and this family seem so messed up that can't you see her moving her kids into the TTH to be "raised by" their "loving" grandma and grandpa -- who BTW did such an excellent job with Josh -- so that she can live with him post prison?? In reality it'd be her oldest daughter (and any Duggar daughters that don't marry) raising the 6 younger siblings. That way it keeps Josh as a part of the family by having Anna still with him and as for the kids hey they're being raised by family, what's better than that?!

[farmgal4]

1 minute ago, cereality said:

Right totally forgot about the fact that he'll have to register on the child sex offender registry. So yeah he may never end up residing with his kids -- luckily for his kids. IDK Anna and this family seem so messed up that can't you see her moving her kids into the TTH to be "raised by" their "loving" grandma and grandpa -- who BTW did such an excellent job with Josh -- so that she can live with him post prison?? In reality it'd be her oldest daughter (and any Duggar daughters that don't marry) raising the 6 younger siblings. That way it keeps Josh as a part of the family by having Anna still with him and as for the kids hey they're being raised by family, what's better than that?!

If Anna were to agree to an arrangement like that, then she’s every bit as f’ed up as her perv husband.

[hathorlive]

15 minutes ago, cereality said:

Former federal court law clerk here - judge gets to decide if a sentence is concurrent or consecutive. I've almost never seen consecutive sentences though - 95%+ of the time it's concurrent with credit given for time served (i.e. if Josh were to not make bond today and sit in prison for say 6 months until he pleads and is sentenced, he gets credit for that 6 mos served). 

I think he's never getting the 20 year maximum here -- there's too many arguments re first time offenders, not luring any of the children "just" looking at pics etc. I think if he gets 5-7 years here that's a "win" for society in that he does pay SOME price. From the perspective of his family though, his oldest kid would be what 16-18 by then and the newest baby would be 5-7 - wow that's still a lot of years ahead with kids in his life. If he somehow gets less than 5 years, that's a win for his legal team.

Exactly!  If I read one more youtube pontificator say he's up for 40 years, I'm going to scream.  I've never seen a concurrent sentence in federal court. I think we'll be lucky if he gets 10 years, but it's rare that federal court gives 5 years for these cases.  In my experience, that is.  

[Tikichick]

Just now, iwantcookies said:

I doubt it got better. Ever.

Since this broke last week I've thought about this and considered that it's very likely this aspect of her marriage has been quite difficult to handle.    The rest of it certainly isn't a bowl of cherries by any means, but I suspect this may have been very dark and disturbing to contend with.    

[CouchTater]

8 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

I’m betting that Anna’s wedding night was horrible.

Ugh.  I just had a flashback to Sansa Stark's wedding night, for any fellow Game of Thrones fans.  It wasn't pretty.

[Nysha]

5 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

To be fair the Nakatsus and Spiveys have nothing to do with this.

I certainly hope neither family is concerned about this anymore than other Duggar friends would be. Their daughters didn't marry Josh. This has nothing to do with them or their families.

They have nothing to do with the crime, but their children married into a family that meets constantly at the TTH for holidays, family game night, and birthdays. Josh has been included in these activities and has had contact with all his nieces and nephews. JB has known this is coming for the last year and a half and I doubt he told the new in-laws. Josh's behavior and the Duggars refusal to protect their children is something they should be rightfully concerned about.

[hathorlive]

9 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

I doubt it got better. Ever.

Considering that if Josh is looking at CP, he's probably not very turned on by a woman. 

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

Exactly!  If I read one more youtube pontificator say he's up for 40 years, I'm going to scream.  I've never seen a concurrent sentence in federal court. I think we'll be lucky if he gets 10 years, but it's rare that federal court gives 5 years for these cases.  In my experience, that is.  

IMO the best you can hope for if convicted on both charges and they run concurrently is that the one charge has a mandatory minimum and the second charge might possibly provide a slight enhancement of the total time served, meaning that he could serve a bit more time than he would if he were only convicted of a single charge.   

[JoanArc]

3 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Considering that if Josh is looking at CP, he's probably not very turned on by a woman. 

He was going to strip clubs and banging hookers, too.  I think he’s more the type that will have sex with anything. He’s just not into that particular woman (Anna).  I doubt he ever really loved Anna. Or if he did, it was more in passing. 

[farmgal4]

8 minutes ago, CouchTater said:

Ugh.  I just had a flashback to Sansa Stark's wedding night, for any fellow Game of Thrones fans.  It wasn't pretty.

That’s exactly what I was referring to when I said that Anna’s wedding night was horrible.

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

IMO the best you can hope for if convicted on both charges and they run concurrently is that the one charge has a mandatory minimum and the second charge might possibly provide a slight enhancement of the total time served, meaning that he could serve a bit more time than he would if he were only convicted of a single charge.   

I never understand the sentencing.   State court handed out 5 years regardless of the case.  In Federal court, I've seen a few images get 7 years and terabytes of images get 10 years.   And I've never had a case where I testified apply enhancement penalties of images that fit the description. I had one case where I told the judge during sentencing that I had a folder of videos for him to watch, as they were the worst I'd ever seen.  He literally said "yes, yes, it's all horrible". .No, it's all bad.  Horrible is a different class of pervert.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Considering that if Josh is looking at CP, he's probably not very turned on by a woman. 

A similar line of thinking is what made me think months ago that his drive or compulsion wasn't children due to the Ashley Madison scandal.  (I think that's the correct name, but for some reason I'm never sure.)   I was operating under the assumption that his initial predation was upon children only because he had little to no access to much of anyone outside his sphere and that his drive had matured with him as he married and went trolling online for women.    I'd dearly love to have been correct and not have to recognize he's a relatively young man likely with years of life ahead in which he may again follow his compulsion to victimize children.   I can't decide if I want to puke, cry or rage at that thought.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I never understand the sentencing.   State court handed out 5 years regardless of the case.  In Federal court, I've seen a few images get 7 years and terabytes of images get 10 years.   And I've never had a case where I testified apply enhancement penalties of images that fit the description. I had one case where I told the judge during sentencing that I had a folder of videos for him to watch, as they were the worst I'd ever seen.  He literally said "yes, yes, it's all horrible". .No, it's all bad.  Horrible is a different class of pervert.

Here enhancement happens by virtue of the scoring on the sentencing guidelines grid.   It leads to big battles when people are sentenced for all types of crimes as some level of habitual offender in addition to the case they may be currently being sentenced for because that habitual status means you slide to a different level of the grid and get additional points on some of the scoring, which means you wind up with higher minimum guidelines and higher maximum guidelines and likely wind up with a longer sentence.

What happens at the corrections level as far as how much of any sentence is served is what I can never understand.   I literally want to dance a jig at the knowledge that one of Josh's charges has a mandatory minimum.  

[iwantcookies]

19 minutes ago, CouchTater said:

Ugh.  I just had a flashback to Sansa Stark's wedding night, for any fellow Game of Thrones fans.  It wasn't pretty.

I barely lasted a few episodes of that show. Too violent for me.

[Mindthinkr]

I’m sure more than just us wants to know the outcome of Josh’s bail hearing today. I thought some news would be out by now. 
*twiddling my thumbs* 

[MargeGunderson]

3 minutes ago, Mindthinkr said:

I’m sure more than just us wants to know the outcome of Josh’s bail hearing today. I thought some news would be out by now. 
*twiddling my thumbs* 

Me too. I may have to actually do some work this afternoon 🤣

Edited May 5, 2021 by MargeGunderson

[libgirl2]

I read somewhere that Jill and Amy were in attendance. It hasn't been confirmed yet. 

Just saw it on the Jill thread. The Sun reported it. 

Edited May 5, 2021 by libgirl2

[Annb67]

Just now, libgirl2 said:

I read somewhere that Jill and Amy were in attendance. It hasn't been confirmed yet. 

I think they were attending by zoom. Is this a good or bad thing that it’s taking so long? Golly...

[doodlebug]

2 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I read somewhere that Jill and Amy were in attendance. It hasn't been confirmed yet. 

Those are 2 of the last people I'd expect to be there.  If they were, I expect they were there to take notes to sell a story to the National Enquirer.  I don't think either of them was there to support Josh.

Maybe by Zoom for curiosity's sake.  We know JBoob wouldn't have invited either one of them.

Edited May 5, 2021 by doodlebug

[Marshmallow Mollie]

I had to plug my phone in. Ran my battery down refreshing everything

[doodlebug]

2 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

I think they were attending by zoom. Is this a good or bad thing that it’s taking so long? Golly...

Our resident experts tell us that this is unlikely to be a quick hearing, most likely, an hour or two.  I think the media won't release anything until it is over.

[GeeGolly]

Just now, doodlebug said:

Our resident experts tell us that this is unlikely to be a quick hearing, most likely, an hour or two.  I think the media won't release anything until it is over.

I know this has been mentioned before but I forgot. What time is the hearing?

[MargeGunderson]

2 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Those are 2 of the last people I'd expect to be there.  If they were, I expect they were there to take notes to sell a story to the National Enquirer.  I don't think either of them was there to support Josh.

Maybe by Zoom for curiosity's sake.  We know JBoob wouldn't have invited either one of them.

I agree that if they were there it wasn’t to support Josh. I wonder if it could be for Jill to see her abuser face his consequences. She might find that powerful. Amy would be there to support Jill.

[Madtown]

Just now, MargeGunderson said:

I agree that if they were there it wasn’t to support Josh. I wonder if it could be for Jill to see her abuser face his consequences. She might find that powerful. Amy would be there to support Jill.

My thinking as well. No way would I ever believe those two were there to support him.

 

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I know this has been mentioned before but I forgot. What time is the hearing?

1:30 central time. It's been going for an hour now.

[all fall down]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I know this has been mentioned before but I forgot. What time is the hearing?

It started (or was scheduled to start) at 1:30 central time, so just over an hour ago. 

[GeeGolly]

Just now, Madtown said:

My thinking as well. No way would I ever believe those two were there to support him.

 

1:30 central time. It's been going for an hour now.

Thank-you!

[Tuxcat]

The judge ordered no social media during the hearing. So anyone in attendance (via zoom or otherwise) is ordered to keep hush until the hearing is completed. If its taking a long time, either there is a delay or it could be a good sign - meaning that the prosecution is arguing firmly that Josh is indeed a flight risk and a danger.

Once over, there will be flurry of reporting I'm sure. The waiting is the worst part.

ETA - you should see the comments on other forums...people are losing their minds waiting for updates - lol.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Tuxcat

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, Madtown said:

My thinking as well. No way would I ever believe those two were there to support him.

 

 

I agree, especially Amy. 

[doodlebug]

2 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I agree that if they were there it wasn’t to support Josh. I wonder if it could be for Jill to see her abuser face his consequences. She might find that powerful. Amy would be there to support Jill.

I hope that this is true and that Jill finds some comfort in seeing Josh finally face some consequences for his behavior.  She and the others deserve that.  

[GeeGolly]

Can the prosecutors 'call witnesses' to oppose his bail? 

For more context, like character witnesses. Maybe that's why Jill and Amy are there. If they are really there.

Edited May 5, 2021 by GeeGolly

[hathorlive]

9 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

Those are 2 of the last people I'd expect to be there.  If they were, I expect they were there to take notes to sell a story to the National Enquirer.  I don't think either of them was there to support Josh.

Maybe by Zoom for curiosity's sake.  We know JBoob wouldn't have invited either one of them.

Maybe they are there to see Josh in handcuffs?

[Tabbygirl521]

35 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

He was going to strip clubs and banging hookers, too.  I think he’s more the type that will have sex with anything. He’s just not into that particular woman (Anna).  I doubt he ever really loved Anna. Or if he did, it was more in passing. 

My brain keeps trying to make a connection between a guy who lives in a culture that keeps women in a childlike condition - sticky-sweet voice, no authority over herself, etc - and being drawn to actual children. It makes a very awful kind of sense to me. These are men who likely have trouble dealing with independent, self-actualized women.

I am not accusing any of the other Duggars; I’m thinking about known offenders like Josh and Toby Willis.