Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[cereality]

9 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

Can CPS put a halt to his visitation even though the feds said he can see them?

Loosely speaking the CPS reports will be going to the prosecutors who'll be scrutinizing them. If there's something in those suggesting that Josh should not be around his kids/is a danger to them, the prosecutors go back to court for amendment of release conditions saying -- when you made this decision, you didn't know x.

If CPS makes a clear recommendation that Josh shouldn't be around the kids, that goes to the court with prosecutors not doing anything to sidestep -- they'll 100% agree -- and then I can't see a federal judge overriding CPS as they don't have the "expertise" in child safety to do that.

What I don't know bc law is my area, not CPS -- how does CPS interview little kids? Because don't you think JB, Anna, and Michelle and on the kids' case 24-7 right about Daddy is SOOOO perfect, don't you want daddy to come home, if ANYONE ever asks you about daddy you tell him how great he is and how great of a time you have with him, you don't tell him XYZ. Also does CPS interview kids away from their families? Like most little kids would NOT want to be alone with a strange adult -- they'd prefer mom there; and in many (most?) cases mom is fine with questions being asked and fine with however the kids answer because she too wants to know if dad is up to something with the kids. Here though Anna in the room 100% means the kids will speak the party line.

Edited May 6, 2021 by cereality

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, 3girlsforus said:

Can CPS put a halt to his visitation even though the feds said he can see them?

I wonder about this as well.  I assume an investigation was triggered by Josh's arrest last week and that it is ongoing.  

[3girlsforus]

8 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Yes.    Completely separate matters, completely separate jurisdiction.   The federal judge's ruling was issued at a time when no other matters existed to preclude Josh from visiting his children.   If there had been another action with court orders in place, the federal judge would have respected them.

What happened and how it happened at that bond hearing helps if a child protective matter is opened.   It's not impossible it was intended that way. 

Excellent 

[Ohiopirate02]

2 minutes ago, cereality said:

Loosely speaking the CPS reports will be going to the prosecutors who'll be scrutinizing them. If there's something in those suggesting that Josh should not be around his kids/is a danger to them, the prosecutors go back to court for amendment of release conditions saying -- when you made this decision, you didn't know x.

What I don't know bc law is my area, not CPS -- how does CPS interview little kids? Because don't you think JB, Anna, and Michelle and on the kids' case 24-7 right about Daddy is SOOOO perfect, don't you want daddy to come home, if ANYONE ever asks you about daddy you tell him how great he is and how great of a time you have with him, you don't tell him XYZ. Also does CPS interview kids away from their families? Like most little kids would NOT want to be alone with a strange adult -- they'd prefer mom there; and in many (most?) cases mom is fine with questions being asked and fine with however the kids answer because she too wants to know if dad is up to something with the kids. Here though Anna in the room 100% means the kids will speak the party line.

In matters like this, CPS is trained to question the children in a way that promotes honesty and away from parents like Anna.  They know parents will attempt to coach the kids to keep to a story.  Sadly, Anna is not the first mother nor will she be the last who will choose their spouse/partner over her children.  

[GeeGolly]

Just now, 3girlsforus said:

Can CPS put a halt to his visitation even though the feds said he can see them?

I'm so curious about all this. I'm an LICSW, but I don't work for DCF. I do however work with many parents who have or have had open DCF cases. What Josh is accused of is beyond the realm of anything I've encountered. In similar(ish) types of cases I've encountered, Anna would not be deemed an adequate supervisor. If its thought its unsafe for the perpetrator to live with his/her kids, then its thought they're unsafe to be around them without third party observation.

As far as Feds overruling DCF or vice-versa, I have no idea but I would love to know the answer.

[Tikichick]

In child protective matters where sexual abuse in particular is suspected or possible here CPS does not interview the children.   Because of the way the legal process is conducted it is preferred as few people as possible have interviewed the children.   The way defense attorneys attack that aspect of how a case was handled is not for the faint of heart.   It can legitimately be all but impossible to stifle all instinctive reactions in a hearing when that's going on.

Here children are interviewed by people specially trained in proper techniques to interview children regarding abuse.  It must be conducted in a way where everything, absolutely everything can be attributed to the child and only the child and never approach any hint of suggestion from the interviewer. 

[Spazamanaz]

How do they know that Josh didn't abuse his own kids? Do they interview the children living in the same resident in cases like this? I can't believe (but yes I can) that Jim boob is helping Josh. Omg. I know Josh is his son, and he loves him and blah, blah, blah. Are Jim boob and MEchelle trying to save their reputation somehow by doing this (?) I just don't get it. If it was my kid I would tell him, yes I love you but you're an adult and made your own decision to do this and you have to face the consequences, I'm not bailing you out. Figure it out yourself. It's time to flush the toilet. 

[cereality]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm so curious about all this. I'm an LICSW, but I don't work for DCF. I do however work with many parents who have or have had open DCF cases. What Josh is accused of is beyond the realm of anything I've encountered. In similar(ish) types of cases I've encountered, Anna would not be deemed an adequate supervisor. If its thought its unsafe for the perpetrator to live with his/her kids, then its thought they're unsafe to be around them without third party observation.

As far as Feds overruling DCF or vice-versa, I have no idea but I would love to know the answer.

Feds wouldn't overrule CPS/any child services agency involved here. -Speaking as a fed. lawyer. Feds don't have the "expertise" to do that and they worry (both US Attys Office and judges) that if they were to dismiss a CPS recommendation, a child WOULD be endangered and maybe CPS is seeing something that I think is NBD but from a child safety perspective is a huge red flag of danger.

[WinnieWinkle]

3 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Anna would not be deemed an adequate supervisor. If its thought its unsafe for the perpetrator to live with his/her kids, then its thought they're unsafe to be around them without third party observation.

Would poor put upon Mrs Reber be considered a 3rd party in this respect?  It sounded like she isn't supposed to leave him alone in the house but I wasn't clear if that meant she could leave if Anna and the children were there.

[cereality]

1 minute ago, Tikichick said:

Here children are interviewed by people specially trained in proper techniques to interview children regarding abuse.  It must be conducted in a way where everything, absolutely everything can be attributed to the child and only the child and never approach any hint of suggestion from the interviewer. 

But how? We have so many different professions here -- wonder if there's anyone who has worked in this space and can speak to this. IDK how old Josh's kids are exactly -- 11 down to in utero I guess. But how exactly do you ask a kid - did daddy ever do x - AND trust that that kid is telling you the truth and not just saying no because mommy/grandpa coached him OR not just saying yes because he's mad that daddy didn't buy him ice cream last week or whatever!? Like the litigator in me needs concrete examples of Q&A to understand this - lol.

[Jeanne222]

27 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

It should come at no surprise that Josh has defenders, yet to me it is surprising.

The abuse he's charged with is not about the right to strike your child. Its not about the right to homeschool your child. Its not about the right to make poor medical decisions for your child. Its not about forcing your minor child to carry a pregnancy to term. Its not even about a 'curious brother'.

I don't know how in anyone's mind it is okay to do what Josh has been accused of.

Agreed!  He will always be the evil one no matter what words are uttered through Gothard mouths!

Ben, Derrick, Jeremy and Austin may never allow their families by this monster that molested their wives.

Then the in-laws also have a voice.  The families of these sons in law.

I see him welcomed nowhere and never overcoming this evil!

[Ohiopirate02]

8 minutes ago, cereality said:

But how? We have so many different professions here -- wonder if there's anyone who has worked in this space and can speak to this. IDK how old Josh's kids are exactly -- 11 down to in utero I guess. But how exactly do you ask a kid - did daddy ever do x - AND trust that that kid is telling you the truth and not just saying no because mommy/grandpa coached him OR not just saying yes because he's mad that daddy didn't buy him ice cream last week or whatever!? Like the litigator in me needs concrete examples of Q&A to understand this - lol.

I know someone who used to do this kind of work.  I had to take a class once about how to spot child abuse and she led it.  I don't think you are ever going to find anyone willing to casually give you concrete examples of the techniques used to get honest answers out of an abused child.  They have heard some stories and usually do not have the spoons necessary to fill you in.  You just need to trust that they are trained to do their job, and whatever reasons you have listed here are things they know about.  

[graefin]

21 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Sadly, Anna is not the first mother nor will she be the last who will choose their spouse/partner over her children.  

It's actually not at all surprising given what we've seen about this family and their cult teachings. They've been shown on episodes of their show and in interviews outright stating that their marriage relationship always comes first. Michelle rationalized it as, "I was married before I had children, so my husband comes before my children."

This "wisdom" has been emphasized in various relationship workshops they've been shown participating in as well. This way of thinking is, of course, ass-backwards to the rest of us "normal" folks (your husband is a grown man who can take care of himself, whereas your children depend on you to meet their needs in a way only you can), but it's not like Anna is an outlier among her group.

[Tuxcat]

53 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

While I doubt she did know about the child abusive materials before, she does now. 

Sadly, I think its entirely possible that she did not watch or hear anything regarding the proceedings yesterday. She is likely still operating under the assumption that "a few pictures" were "planted" on the computer or at the least "accidentally downloaded."  I am hopeful that someone, perhaps Jill, contacts her and says, "you need to understand this." But until then she is likely completely isolated from reality. Remember, she is with Jimbob.

34 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The warrant for Josh's arrest was issued last week on April 30th.  We have to give CPS time to investigate.  It's been a week at this point.  CPS needs to do a thorough investigation and not rush it.  

I am hopeful that CPS will be able to secure a safe plan for them going forward. However, its highly likely that the children have already  been coached by Josh or Jimbob - on what to say - which may present a false sense of security to the investigators.  Hopefully the workers will understand that possibility and make a safe plan for them anyway.

[Tikichick]

Just now, cereality said:

But how? We have so many different professions here -- wonder if there's anyone who has worked in this space and can speak to this. IDK how old Josh's kids are exactly -- 11 down to in utero I guess. But how exactly do you ask a kid - did daddy ever do x - AND trust that that kid is telling you the truth and not just saying no because mommy/grandpa coached him OR not just saying yes because he's mad that daddy didn't buy him ice cream last week or whatever!? Like the litigator in me needs concrete examples of Q&A to understand this - lol.

No, you never ask a direct question that posits if X or Y happened, that is suggestive of the matter at hand and offering the defense attorney an easy win.

The conversations can begin as an inquiry based on something a child has disclosed, but not a head on confrontation of the issue.   There is no, did daddy touch ... or anything like that as an opening of the topic with the child.    More like -- what do you do on days mommy goes to work, who takes care of you?   Have you ever been camping, who took you camping, where did you sleep when you were camping, did anyone sleep by you, etc.   Exploration of the subject begins by a gradual circling around the topic, quite often with as much icebreaker topics as it takes to make a child comfortable in the interview situation in the first place -- so they could spend 20 minutes talking about soccer or video games or whatever to give the kid a chance to relax.   The flow is very much affected by the age of the child, the personality and overall condition of the child to begin with, and the nature of the circumstances regarding the allegation.   There is a gradual circling in on the topic and the ability to get to the heart of it is all dependent on the child.

Clearly the above pertains to children who are of an age and maturity to speak and either a disclosure has been made, or some other reason has brought the allegations to light and a conversational interview is possible.  Children too young to speak, or children too young to engage in any depth at a conversational level can make disclosures, sometimes in non verbal ways, sometimes verbally but be able to say so and so hurt my butt, etc.   Those "interviews" are conducted from a play perspective and may eventually involve demonstratives with pointing with dolls, simply engaging in play with dolls or use of drawing and coloring.   It's a grab bag very dependent on the child and their abilities, often fruitless for prosecution purposes but helpful anyway because it can be used to guide therapy providers for the child in any event.

Key is everything must come from the child's spontaneous revelations.       

[GeeGolly]

6 minutes ago, cereality said:

But how? We have so many different professions here -- wonder if there's anyone who has worked in this space and can speak to this. IDK how old Josh's kids are exactly -- 11 down to in utero I guess. But how exactly do you ask a kid - did daddy ever do x - AND trust that that kid is telling you the truth and not just saying no because mommy/grandpa coached him OR not just saying yes because he's mad that daddy didn't buy him ice cream last week or whatever!? Like the litigator in me needs concrete examples of Q&A to understand this - lol.

If you look back at Josh's first scandal the children were interviewed. They were asked general questions and some pointed questions.

During an internship years (and years) ago I observed/assisted with a few DCF investigations. The more pointed questions need to be asked in the same manners as every other question, giving no indication any answer is wrong or right. In investigating one child, lying is hard to discern, although most kids are shitty liars. Investigating a family with multiple children lies are obviously easier to detect.

My concern is even if Josh has never abused his kids, I still think he is unfit to be around them.

[Zella]

2 hours ago, 3girlsforus said:

As far as Josh being both smart and stupid....I’m going to go with all stupid. I figure he he knew to set up the separate partition and other seemingly smart protections from researching instructions. There are how tos everywhere. But those kinds of instructions won’t say ‘don’t make your illegal child pornography password something that identifies you’ because ...well duh.  Also I think it’s likely that his focus was keeping it from Anna, not the feds. In his mind he needed to get around Covenant eyes not the federal government’s technology forensic people. 

1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

I wonder if he was so focused on hiding his dark web activities from his father and wife, that he never gave much thought to the fact that he was committing crimes and risking federal prosecution.

That was my take too. I don't think he ever dreamed of having law enforcement show up at his door. He was just trying to avoid going back to Jesus Jail, basically.

It also wouldn't surprise me that even after Homeland Security showed up, he didn't tell her what they were there for. 

[Liamsmom617]

39 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I know opinions vary on Anna, but I've lost all sympathy at this point. The fact that she went with Joshley to turn himself in is yet another example of her choosing her husband over her children. 

People will make excuses that she's brainwashed, another victim, trapped in the cult, etc., but to me she's no different than the countless "real world" women who allow boyfriends/husbands to get away with abuse because they can't imagine life without a man. I'm done with her. The only ones I feel sorry for are the kids.

  We have to remember just how brainwashed Anna has been. She isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp to begin with, and the edicts of Gothardism, which hold that being "joyfully available" to/prioritizing your husband ABOVE ALL ELSE and ABOVE YOUR CHILDREN are deeply ingrained in her. How else do you think Michelle (and others in this cult) justify handing off the raising of their kids, once they're done breastfeeding them, to their enslaved daughters?

   It's kind of like how we can clearly see how batshite crazy the Q-Anon stuff is, but the cult members have drunk the Kool-Aid to the point that they can't see reason. And Q-Anon is only a few years old. Anna's been programmed into this cult-think her ENTIRE LIFE.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Liamsmom617

[Zella]

38 minutes ago, cereality said:

What I don't know bc law is my area, not CPS -- how does CPS interview little kids? Because don't you think JB, Anna, and Michelle and on the kids' case 24-7 right about Daddy is SOOOO perfect, don't you want daddy to come home, if ANYONE ever asks you about daddy you tell him how great he is and how great of a time you have with him, you don't tell him XYZ. Also does CPS interview kids away from their families? Like most little kids would NOT want to be alone with a strange adult -- they'd prefer mom there; and in many (most?) cases mom is fine with questions being asked and fine with however the kids answer because she too wants to know if dad is up to something with the kids. Here though Anna in the room 100% means the kids will speak the party line.

When I was a kid in the 90s and dealing with DHS (what we called CPS then) as late elementary age--this was in relation being molested by a stepparent, which I thought they did a shitty job of handling--they were always asking me questions away from family. Though I was present when they asked questions of my family. 

[GeeGolly]

I have a general question. In my area they wanted to get away from children's social services being seen as an adversary, so they changed the name to the Department of Children and Families. Is it still called Child Protective Services in other states?

[Zella]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

I have a general question. In my area they wanted to get away from children's social services being seen as an adversary, so they changed the name to the Department of Children and Families. Is it still called Child Protective Services in other states?

I just looked, and in Arkansas, it is officially DCF now, at least on the website telling you how to report child abuse. I still hear people around here call it DHS (Department of Human Services--or Department of Human Suffering, if you're less than impressed with them). I wonder when the name changed. 

[Kellyee]

Quote

In matters like this, CPS is trained to question the children in a way that promotes honesty and away from parents like Anna.  They know parents will attempt to coach the kids to keep to a story.  Sadly, Anna is not the first mother nor will she be the last who will choose their spouse/partner over her children.  

While Josh is horrible, I doubt CPS will yank the kids from Anna unless they find evidence that Josh abused them. Foster care is no walk in the park. Kids are molested and killed in foster care on a regular basis. They really are safer with their family (except Josh).

 

 

 

[Tuxcat]

The nature of the specific material he was viewing combined with the accusations of Danica Dillon is important to consider.  Anna may not only be brainwashed in the normal fundie subservient way. She could have possibly  also experienced direct aggression/absolute control via Josh.

[Tikichick]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

I have a general question. In my area they wanted to get away from children's social services being seen as an adversary, so they changed the name to the Department of Children and Families. Is it still called Child Protective Services in other states?

It is here.   It is under the umbrella of the Department of Human Services.   Child Protective Services and Adult Protective Services for that matter are under that same umbrella.   It also includes many other departments serving many other functions.   When children are removed from care and custody of parents or guardians Foster Care takes over supervision of the case and the monitoring of the children in placement.   There is tremendous interaction between CPS and FC when a case is active.   Once a termination of parental rights has occurred FC still is in place to continue monitoring of the children until any appeal phase is completed and continues until children have either been adopted or aged out of the system. 

[GeeGolly]

Just now, Zella said:

I just looked, and in Arkansas, it is officially DCF now, at least on the website telling you how to report child abuse. I still hear people around here call it DHS (Department of Human Services--or Department of Human Suffering, if you're less than impressed with them). I wonder when the name changed. 

The name change was a process here. It changed a couple times in the last 20+ years. But I think DCF has been exclusively used for about 10 years.

[Zella]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

The name change was a process here. It changed a couple times in the last 20+ years. But I think DCF has been exclusively used for about 10 years.

Okay that makes sense. My experience would have been late 90s. 

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, Kellyee said:

While Josh is horrible, I doubt CPS will yank the kids from Anna unless they find evidence that Josh abused them. Foster care is no walk in the park. Kids are molested and killed in foster care on a regular basis. They really are safer with their family (except Josh).

 

 

 

If it was decided that the M kids could not stay with Anna, they would not immediately be placed into foster care.  Josh has multiple adult siblings who may be willing to take in a kid or two.  Taking the kids away from Anna does not immediately taking them away from their extended family.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, Zella said:

I just looked, and in Arkansas, it is officially DCF now, at least on the website telling you how to report child abuse. I still hear people around here call it DHS (Department of Human Services--or Department of Human Suffering, if you're less than impressed with them). I wonder when the name changed. 

It's semantics.   Here it was technically changed to Department of Health and Human Services several years back.   Aside from occasionally using the updated acronym, DHHS, most people who work with it routinely still call it DHS or Department of Human Services, even the actual employees who work there.

[Future Cat Lady]

20 minutes ago, Liamsmom617 said:

  We have to remember just how brainwashed Anna has been. She isn't the brightest bulb in the lamp to begin with, and the edicts of Gothardism, which hold that being "joyfully available" to/prioritizing your husband ABOVE ALL ELSE and ABOVE YOUR CHILDREN are deeply ingrained in her. How else do you think Michelle (and others in this cult) justify handing off the raising of their kids, once they're done breastfeeding them, to their enslaved daughters?

   It's kind of like how we can clearly see how batshite crazy the Q-Anon stuff is, but the cult members have drunk the Kool-Aid to the point that they can't see reason. And Q-Anon is only a few years old. Anna's been programmed into this cult-think her ENTIRE LIFE.

Exactly! I don’t really sympathize with Anna on this issue, but I understand why she’s acting that way and I don’t really expect her to act differently. 

[Tikichick]

26 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

My concern is even if Josh has never abused his kids, I still think he is unfit to be around them.

Tragically you are entirely correct.

What is Josh's pattern when he has a compulsion and his options to satisfy it are extremely limited?   He preys upon those at hand.

I have to believe professionals who have the opportunity to act will not ever forget that fact.  My brain simply will not accept any other outcome there.

[NoThyme]

How is the local news reporting this? Are they investigating or reporting in detail? I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been some outcry that Josh can visit the children as much as he wants as long as Anna is with them. I would have thought, it if they granted visitation, it would have been in a neutral location with a 3rd party present. I also surprise there isn't any outcry that he has been released. 

[Tikichick]

9 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

Exactly! I don’t really sympathize with Anna on this issue, but I understand why she’s acting that way and I don’t really expect her to act differently. 

Two days ago I was with you.   I do believe Anna did not have an awareness of the children connection to Josh's activities.

As of yesterday however I have no grace to offer her gong forward if she chooses to stand with Josh and/or intends to reunite with him down the road at any time.   I make no allowance for the idea she simply did not observe yesterday's hearing.   As a wife supportive of her husband she absolutely should have kept abreast of yesterday's proceedings.   As a mother yesterday's proceedings was a dealbreaker under any belief system.

[Zella]

9 minutes ago, NoThyme said:

How is the local news reporting this? Are they investigating or reporting in detail? I am a bit surprised that there hasn't been some outcry that Josh can visit the children as much as he wants as long as Anna is with them. I would have thought, it if they granted visitation, it would have been in a neutral location with a 3rd party present. I also surprise there isn't any outcry that he has been released. 

KNWA (local NBC affiliate) seems to be paying the most attention to it, and I would not call their reporting sympathetic to Josh, and I have found the most detail from them, including a recap of all of Josh's history. The comments on the Twitter accounts of the various reporters covering it are also not at all sympathetic to Josh or the Duggars. (Not from the reporters--who have stayed neutral--but from members of the public chiming in.)

I've also gotten a shit ton of push notifications from 40/29 (local ABC affiliate) at least on the day of his initial hearing, but truthfully I've not read their coverage. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Zella

[mythoughtis]

2 hours ago, 3girlsforus said:

I went to the article and read multiple pages of comments. Didn’t see one that said or even implied he was anything but a sick twist who should rot. Not sure what the original poster thought she read. 

I didn’t read pages and pages just the first 20 or so that came up for me.  That was enough for me to get the general flow of the ‘conservative’  base.  There are usually two groups of commenter types on Fox News articles.  The ones that are hiding under conservative and family values slogans  and everyone else.  I’m only discussing the comments from the subset that hides behind ‘values’ to spew their own brand of nonsense. 

Most of the ones I read also couldn’t understand how Josh bypassed the monitoring software without Anna knowing.   Look, my opinion of those comments may differ from yours.  That’s fine - I’m not testifying to facts  in court. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by mythoughtis

[Tuxcat]

16 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Two days ago I was with you.   I do believe Anna did not have an awareness of the children connection to Josh's activities.

As of yesterday however I have no grace to offer her gong forward if she chooses to stand with Josh and/or intends to reunite with him down the road at any time.   I make no allowance for the idea she simply did not observe yesterday's hearing.   As a wife supportive of her husband she absolutely should have kept abreast of yesterday's proceedings.   As a mother yesterday's proceedings was a dealbreaker under any belief system.

While I absolutely understand your position I do still sympathize with Anna.  It was not just the Duggars who organized the brainwashing. This is how Anna was raised. She's been taught that SHE is at fault for anything Josh does. Again, we need to highlight that Josh is not just viewing CSAI. It was far beyond. He also viewed violent pornography against women according to reports. He has a history of aggression via the accusation of Danica. Josh is arrogant. Josh is dominating. Josh is absolutely all about control and asserting his dominance in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure Anna is choosing anything nor is she able.

I absolutely think she should act to protect her children but I wonder if she's too traumatized to move.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Tuxcat

[cereality]

I read somewhere (here? Reddit?) that Josh turned himself in and Anna went with him -- is that what is being said? Because damn there's a woman that'll stand by her man. He's out of prison today (maybe already for all we know). Do we predict the J&A reunion happens today at Mrs. R's house? Do we predict she brings all 6 kids? Or do we think it'll be JB going with her and then stepping aside with Josh to give him a "talking to" -- because we know how effective those are -- and maybe Michelle hugging her baby boy for all he's been through?

[Jeanne222]

11 minutes ago, Zella said:

KNWA (local NBC affiliate) seems to be paying the most attention to it, and I would not call their reporting sympathetic to Josh, and I have found the most detail from them, including a recap of all of Josh's history. The comments on the Twitter accounts of the various reporters covering it are also not at all sympathetic to Josh or the Duggars. (Not from the reporters--who have stayed neutral--but from members of the public chiming in.)

I've also gotten a shit ton of push notifications from 40/29 (local ABC affiliate) at least on the day of his initial hearing, but truthfully I've not read their coverage. 

The Duggers and their cult are not the only residents in Arkansas!

There are good, intelligent people that find him disgusting!

[Tuxcat]

2 minutes ago, cereality said:

I read somewhere (here? Reddit?) that Josh turned himself in and Anna went with him -- is that what is being said? Because damn there's a woman that'll stand by her man. He's out of prison today (maybe already for all we know). Do we predict the J&A reunion happens today at Mrs. R's house? Do we predict she brings all 6 kids? Or do we think it'll be JB going with her and then stepping aside with Josh to give him a "talking to" -- because we know how effective those are -- and maybe Michelle hugging her baby boy for all he's been through?

The police called them and said you have two choices. We are outside right now. You either drive to the station on your own or we will come in. We'd prefer for your children to not be traumatized. Anna/Josh chose to avoid a highly visible arrest in order to shield that from her children. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Tuxcat

[Tikichick]

5 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

While I absolutely understand your position I do still sympathize with Anna.  It was not just the Duggars who organized the brainwashing. This is how Anna was raised. She's been taught that SHE is at fault for anything Josh does. Again, we need to highlight that Josh is not just viewing CSAI. It was far beyond. He also viewed violent pornography against women according to reports. He has a history of aggression via the accusation of Danica. Josh is arrogant. Josh is dominating. Josh is absolutely all about control and asserting his dominance in my opinion. I'm not entirely sure Anna is choosing anything nor is she able.

I absolutely think she should act to protect her children but I wonder if she's too traumatized to move.

I said I have no grace for her going forward if she chooses to be supportive of Josh and intends at any point to reunite with him.    I'll give her all the grace in the world if she has been a crying, shellshocked mess and still cannot formulate a real idea of how she moves forward at this moment.   I cannot imagine going through this with six children and pregnant.   I'll make every allowance for her to grasp at as many straws as she needs to regarding a plan for how she and her children will live and sustain them going forward.   She has no education, no job history, no comprehension of a woman supporting her family.   I'll give her grace for days if it takes her several years and more to sort herself out.

I have no grace for the idea that Josh is ever part of the equation again.

[GeeGolly]

I could simultaneously feel bad for Anna and feel angry/disgusted about how she's handling things. But the fact is, I have no idea how she's handled any of this. I have no idea what she knows or what she doesn't know. I have no idea if she'll watch Josh like a hawk when he's around the children. I don't even know if she wants the kids to see them.

It could be argued that if the kids know nothing and Josh has never abused them, it might be healthier for the kids to see them. I'm not seeing that right now because I can't get past what Josh is accused of doing.

Hopefully a DCF investigation can figure this out and make healthy and sound decisions regarding the kids. 

 

[Boston]

This is utterly disgusting.  I can't believe they would let Smug visit his kids as long as Anna (brainwashed) is present.  Maybe she can make him a sandwich when he's over there. .. Just ugh.

[hathorlive]

2 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

If you've ever watched a trial that concerns computer and other device evidence, you know they can reveal every little click made on said devices.  It's going to be very hard to explain away much based on timestamps, etc.

Did they say that all of the images found were CP?   I'm wondering if he'll try to claim he was using the dark web to access a certain type of porn that may not be illegal but just nasty enough to not be mainstream and that he "accidentally" downloaded the CP images and video?

I would caution people not to think that its that easy.  There are many many times where we can't prove how an image got on a computer.  It's just a fact of life.  That's the difference between possession (having it) and receipt (getting it).  We can do a lot of stuff, but you'd be amazed at what we can't see.  Much of it has to do with the computer OS and what features are enabled or not enabled by default.  Others are limitations of the web or the program used.

[Oldernowiser]

IMO, there are two entities on trial here…Josh…and the Duggar brand. The burden of “proof” for the second is much lower than for the first.

The Duggars have skated by for many years by ignoring or hiding anything that reflected poorly on their brand. Their brand is, “our super duper religious life is so special that we can do all of these things that are completely counter to common sense like having a zillion children without real jobs or the ability to really raise them yet because we are soooo Godly and extra-special we’re rich and so very happy and our kids are fabulous.”

Short form of their brand:

1) children, lots

2) Christian piety, even more

3)  family, happier than anyone else’s.

This kicks that brand right in the teeth on every level. TLC managed the first two scandals by restructuring the show to be more focused on the Duggars 2.0. But then they let Michelle and JB weasel back in. 

I want to believe that child porn is a deal-breaker for all but the most fervent leghumpers and there are now three strikes against “our family is so very very special.” 

TLC may still air the show, but I would have to think that its audience won’t be there in nearly its former numbers, no matter how this turns out for Josh legally.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Oldernowiser
Because I apparently can’t proofread

[CSunshine76]

I have zero sympathy for Anna. She knew he had a problem, to the point she monitored his internet activity. Then after the investigation in 2019, she willingly had another kid with the guy. WTF.

I don’t care how she was raised, if you have any inclination your husband is into CP, get your kids and yourself out of that situation. I’m sorry. As an independent strong-willed woman, I just cannot understand the women in these types of families. Wake up.

[3girlsforus]

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

I would caution people not to think that its that easy.  There are many many times where we can't prove how an image got on a computer.  It's just a fact of life.  That's the difference between possession (having it) and receipt (getting it).  We can do a lot of stuff, but you'd be amazed at what we can't see.  Much of it has to do with the computer OS and what features are enabled or not enabled by default.  Others are limitations of the web or the program used.

It’s the computer version of the CSI effect. Because law enforcement can do amazing things and on TV they can do anything people automatically assume that all of these facts will obviously be in evidence if the person is guilty. It’s just not the case but the tendency is something defense attorneys love to exploit. 

[Tuxcat]

6 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I said I have no grace for her going forward if she chooses to be supportive of Josh and intends at any point to reunite with him

I cannot allege domestic violence or abuse as its not my place.

But I'll say in general cases,  there is a pattern of behavior that is common for both the abuser and the abused. I see similarities. Again, not making accusations here - just patterns to be considered.  It's very common for victims of domestic abuse to stay with their abuser. In such cases we should not blame the victim.  How does this apply to Josh and Anna? I am not at all sure but using this as possible context, I cannot blame Anna.  The perpetrator in this case is Josh.

[Tuxcat]

5 minutes ago, CSunshine76 said:

Then after the investigation in 2019, she willingly had another kid with the guy. WTF.

How do we know she does anything "willingly?"

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

How do we know she does anything "willingly?"

Ugh, but she does believe in being joyfully available. She might not be willing but she would never say that or deny him. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by libgirl2

[Future Cat Lady]

40 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Two days ago I was with you.   I do believe Anna did not have an awareness of the children connection to Josh's activities.

As of yesterday however I have no grace to offer her gong forward if she chooses to stand with Josh and/or intends to reunite with him down the road at any time.   I make no allowance for the idea she simply did not observe yesterday's hearing.   As a wife supportive of her husband she absolutely should have kept abreast of yesterday's proceedings.   As a mother yesterday's proceedings was a dealbreaker under any belief system.

I don't disagree with you, but our brains are wired differently then hers. People expecting her to leave will probably be disapointed. If her non-fundie siblings have access to her, they may convice her. However, I think JB is keeping her on a leash so she won't flee because it would look bad for Josh and their family.

[Oldernowiser]

3 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

How do we know she does anything "willingly?"

She may think that violence is part of normal sex. How would she know any differently?