Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Hpmec]

1 hour ago, Nysha said:

The judge didn't have a choice; she even told the prosecution that they did not make the case that Josh is a danger if he was released. He isn't being accused of actively abusing children, "just" looking at CSA images. Although he did molest his sisters, a case can be made that that was 20 years ago and he hasn't done anything to them since. 

The law is not the same as common sense. Common sense says that Josh has done a, b, c, therefore d is the logical next step. And the law says "prove it", which the prosecution did not.

Surely the judge had a choice as to what the conditions for release would be. Given the nature of the images found on Josh's computer, was it wise to allow visits with his own children with only his wife present? Normally, that would probably be ok, but Anna is in a master/slave sort of relationship with Josh as mandated by her religion. He dictates, she obeys. Who knows what kind of behavior she already tolerates. Wouldn't it have made more sense to mandate a third party be present as an observer any time he interacts with his children? Their safety ought to be paramount. 

[WinnieWinkle]

8 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Does anyone think there’s a tiny possibility that Josh might actually be having an “oh, shit this is serious” moment?

I think even if he's delusional enough to believe he is the almighty Josh Duggar dammit that his fancy pants lawyer has, or shortly will, be spelling out the facts of life in the real world, as opposed to Duggar world.  He may still think he's going to get away with this - but he may finally be made to realise that it's not going to be a cakewalk.

Edited May 6, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[crazy8s]

Just now, Hpmec said:

Surely the judge had a choice as to what the conditions for release would be. Given the nature of the images found on Josh's computer, was it wise to allow visits with his own children with only his wife present? Normally, that would probably be ok, but Anna is in a master/slave sort of relationship with Josh as mandated by her religion. He dictates, she obeys. Who knows what kind of behavior she already tolerates. Wouldn't it have made more sense to mandate a third party be present as an observer any time he interacts with his children? Their safety ought to be paramount. 

I don't think it was with only he wife present - it was only if his wife was present

[doodlebug]

6 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Does anyone think there’s a tiny possibility that Josh might actually be having an “oh, shit this is serious” moment? He’s been King Turd of Shit Mountain for so long that I have to wonder if he didn’t think his only real concern was Anna and JB and since he’d figured out a workaround for that, he was fine. Worst case scenario…more Jesus jail and a head thump from the elders. NBD.

And then the feds showed up…and shit got real. And so did jail.

 

I would hope that Josh' hired gunslinger, the big shot attorney has had a 'Come to Jesus' moment with him and let him know that he is in deep sh** and better mind his P's & Q's.

I could also see Josh being dumb enough to think that authorities wouldn't be able to trace his downloads since Covenant Spy Network couldn't.  He probably figured partitioning the computer and using TOR was enough to keep them from finding him.

[3girlsforus]

I’m wondering about something in terms of the trial. Will the prosecution have to show these horrible photos and videos (or at least some of them) during trial? From my understanding they were described but not shown at the hearing. Obviously having to see that would be horrendous for the jury but I was specifically thinking about Jill and any of the other siblings who decide they want to attend the trial. Since Jill attended the hearing I mention her specifically. I can see her therapist encouraging it to face down her abuser. But what if they show this stuff during the trial? It seems like it could just be so traumatizing all over again. I’m so worried for these poor women having their trauma all over again. To be clear I have no idea if attending the trial or staying away is ‘right’ in situation like this. I’m far from qualified to make any assertion there. In fact it probably depends on the person. I’m just really worried about them and if the photos will be shown at the trial I’m extra worried for those women who choose to attend. 

[Boston]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I think that's a great question. I'm guessing he went right out and bought a new phone and laptop. Well if JB let him. If he was still committing crimes, and if he was still be monitored by DHS, I have no idea.

And I'm with you on the information overload. In addition to all the great and varying opinions there's also graphic information, speculation presented as fact and so many unanswered questions.

God help those that don't believe in God.. DIRTBAGS

[Gigi43]

52 minutes ago, Libby said:

Anna is a brainwashed member of a cult. Her mind is mush.

People in Jonestown voluntarily committed suicide per their leader's order. Manson family members committed murder at the command of their leader. FLDS members gave their 12 year old daughters in marriage to adult men because their leader told them to.

Anna will live in harmony with her child abuser husband and subject her children to him because that's what Gothard said was the right thing to do.

The only hope for Anna and her children is if the legal system puts Josh in jail. In my opinion, Anna is incapable of protecting herself or her children.

 

 

Anna has siblings who are out and tried to help her. Unlike other members she has the public telling her for years to get out and she snaps and gets smug. When they first were on the show Anna seemed to be into marrying a Duggar, not Josh himself. So I think there's room to ask if she was brainwashed completely into being into Josh or was she first young and dumb but also a social climber in their circle. She seems so smug she may not leave not because of Gothard but perhaps because she won't admit to the public she was wrong and put her pride before her kids. Anna and Josh were living in DC for a while probably experiencing the outside world more than most in Gothardville ever get to. 

 

Then of course there's Jill. Jill left. She was an outcast for it but she did it and it seems Anna would have more sibling support than Jill had. I doubt Jill wanted a relationship with Anna to begin with but I'd love to know if Anna was unkind to Josh's victim for daring to speak of her experience and put it out there she's getting actual therapy.

 

I don't have it in me to give Anna the 'it's Gothard's fault she's staying' excuse. 

 

I hope those reporters check out the Duggar home for signs of Josh.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Gigi43

[Ohiopirate02]

Just now, Hpmec said:

Surely the judge had a choice as to what the conditions for release would be. Given the nature of the images found on Josh's computer, was it wise to allow visits with his own children with only his wife present? Normally, that would probably be ok, but Anna is in a master/slave sort of relationship with Josh as mandated by her religion. He dictates, she obeys. Who knows what kind of behavior she already tolerates. Wouldn't it have made more sense to mandate a third party be present as an observer any time he interacts with his children? Their safety ought to be paramount. 

Josh is being prosecuted by the feds and not the state of Arkansas.  Federal courts run separately from state courts and have their own guidelines.  The judge followed the federal rules and regulations as it pertains to Josh being released and made her ruling.  

Josh's ability to see his children is up to the state.

[Boston]

12 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

I don't think it was with only he wife present - it was only if his wife was present

I'm sorry.. not sorry.. but here come the F WORDS.  How DARE THEY LET A FUCKIN PERV ANYWHER NEAR HIS KIDS (Anna or no Anna (i pick NO Anna cause there is nothing left in her fucking head).  I guess I just don't understand this cause i don't have a CP-FUCKIN PERV IN MY FAMILY.. ALCHOLICS, DUMBASSES, YES..  i JUST HAVE NO EMPATHY,

Edited May 6, 2021 by Boston

[JustRosie]

There is a blind on CDAN indicating that Josh is trying to cut a deal for himself by ratting out one of his brothers in law. I don’t know how to link it here. 

[mittsigirl]

Deleted my cautionary story of how it takes a village.

Edited May 6, 2021 by mittsigirl

[Mindthinkr]

3 minutes ago, Namaste said:

There is a blind on CDAN indicating that Josh is trying to cut a deal for himself by ratting out one of his brothers in law. I don’t know how to link it here. 

Anything that leads you to guess which one? 

[WinnieWinkle]

4 minutes ago, Namaste said:

There is a blind on CDAN indicating that Josh is trying to cut a deal for himself by ratting out one of his brothers in law. I don’t know how to link it here. 

If one of the BILs is involved then good.  The more rats that go down the better.  If he thinks just because he says something they will leap to believe it though he's stupider than I think he is.

[Tikichick]

8 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

I’m wondering about something in terms of the trial. Will the prosecution have to show these horrible photos and videos (or at least some of them) during trial? From my understanding they were described but not shown at the hearing. Obviously having to see that would be horrendous for the jury but I was specifically thinking about Jill and any of the other siblings who decide they want to attend the trial. Since Jill attended the hearing I mention her specifically. I can see her therapist encouraging it to face down her abuser. But what if they show this stuff during the trial? It seems like it could just be so traumatizing all over again. I’m so worried for these poor women having their trauma all over again. To be clear I have no idea if attending the trial or staying away is ‘right’ in situation like this. I’m far from qualified to make any assertion there. In fact it probably depends on the person. I’m just really worried about them and if the photos will be shown at the trial I’m extra worried for those women who choose to attend. 

They cannot show the images to the public because then the court is literally publishing child sexually abusive material.   I do realize how absurd that seems first hearing it.   No idea beyond that how they will go about presenting explicit evidence.

We had a murder case here with a young girl who was found mostly nude.   When it came time to present any photographs of her body there were great pains taken to make sure that only jury, judge, pros. and defense attorney and defendant could see them.   The judge actually came down off the bench into the courtroom for presentation of that evidence.

[JustRosie]

4 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

If one of the BILs is involved then good.  The more rats that go down the better.  If he thinks just because he says something they will leap to believe it though he's stupider than I think he is.

I’m not sure it’s related to Josh’s trouble. Sounds like he just has a story to tell about something else?

Could be complete BS too. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Namaste

[Oldernowiser]

So, BIL, not brothers…that’s a smaller pool. Jeremy’s probably out because of distance and I don’t think he gives smuggar the time of day….too unfashionable. Ben doesn’t seem to be the type…neither does Austin…Derrick hates Josh…

and if there are others, I’ve forgotten them completely.

1 minute ago, Namaste said:

I’m not sure it’s related to Josh’s trouble. Sounds like he just has a story to tell about something else?

That makes more sense…

[WinnieWinkle]

3 minutes ago, Namaste said:

I’m not sure it’s related to Josh’s trouble. Sounds like he just has a story to tell about something else?

Only a Duggar would think squealing on someone else would in any way mitigate being accused in a CP case.  Unless he's got someone on murder and cannibalism he's not going to lose the crown for Scummiest Duggar or Duggar-in-law.

Edited May 6, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

They cannot show the images to the public because then the court is literally publishing child sexually abusive material.   I do realize how absurd that seems first hearing it.   No idea beyond that how they will go about presenting explicit evidence.

We had a murder case here with a young girl who was found mostly nude.   When it came time to present any photographs of her body there were great pains taken to make sure that only jury, judge, pros. and defense attorney and defendant could see them.   The judge actually came down off the bench into the courtroom for presentation of that evidence.

Maybe this is regional but I've had full videos played for the jury and court room while I was on the stand.  In federal court, they printed a book of images and gave them to the jury with meta data attached.  If they want a conviction, they need to play the video.  I don't think it's publish CP is you are using it for court purposes because that logic could mean you would arrest me for viewing it during an examination.

[3girlsforus]

2 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

They cannot show the images to the public because then the court is literally publishing child sexually abusive material.   I do realize how absurd that seems first hearing it.   No idea beyond that how they will go about presenting explicit evidence.

We had a murder case here with a young girl who was found mostly nude.   When it came time to present any photographs of her body there were great pains taken to make sure that only jury, judge, pros. and defense attorney and defendant could see them.   The judge actually came down off the bench into the courtroom for presentation of that evidence.

Thanks. It makes sense and yet is very difficult because you think they would need to see what he is actually being accused of doing. It’s a horrible catch 22. I know juries have to see some awful things but I’m glad about this. Those people and anyone else who has to see it could be scarred for life. 

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

Maybe this is regional but I've had full videos played for the jury and court room while I was on the stand.  In federal court, they printed a book of images and gave them to the jury with meta data attached.  If they want a conviction, they need to play the video.  I don't think it's publish CP is you are using it for court purposes because that logic could mean you would arrest me for viewing it during an examination.

So that would at least protect anyone attending the trial from viewing the book but they’d likely see the video? Would they give a warning to spectators about the horrors to come or would the defense call that prejudicing the jury but calling it disturbing?

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, 3girlsforus said:

Thanks. It makes sense and yet is very difficult because you think they would need to see what he is actually being accused of doing. It’s a horrible catch 22. I know juries have to see some awful things but I’m glad about this. Those people and anyone else who has to see it could be scarred for life. 

I'm not saying the jurors can't see it.   I'm saying the public cannot -- in the case of normal times anybody observing in the courtroom in the gallery.

I have zero clue how they will go about presenting explicit material to the jury there. 

[GeeGolly]

22 minutes ago, Boston said:

God help those that don't believe in God.. DIRTBAGS

Not sure what you mean here. Plenty of great and moral folks don't believe in God. And then there's Josh, who likely does believe in God. I don't think anyone can be categorized as good or bad, by if they believe in God or not.

 

[Tikichick]

4 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Maybe this is regional but I've had full videos played for the jury and court room while I was on the stand.  In federal court, they printed a book of images and gave them to the jury with meta data attached.  If they want a conviction, they need to play the video.  I don't think it's publish CP is you are using it for court purposes because that logic could mean you would arrest me for viewing it during an examination.

I work in a state court system, not federal.

I was referring to the public not seeing it, as in observers.    As I said in the murder case, provisions were made for judge, jury, pros, defense and deft. to see all evidence.

[Gigi43]

7 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

So, BIL, not brothers…that’s a smaller pool. Jeremy’s probably out because of distance and I don’t think he gives smuggar the time of day….too unfashionable. Ben doesn’t seem to be the type…neither does Austin…Derrick hates Josh…

and if there are others, I’ve forgotten them completely.

 

BIL could also mean on Anna's side. I haven't seen the article, so I don't know if they specified which side of the family and does it specify he's saying its CP or just something else? 

 

Watch Josh read the 'Derrick killed a guy in South America' story on reddit and is using that. 

 

Even if he were to strike a deal, he would still be admitting guilt and that would come with a mandatory minimum in most cases and also going on the registry. I don't think your deal is going to be that good on CP.

 

I'm skeptical of the rumor. I've said he may blackmail JB with stuff he probably has on him (financial namely) just to make sure JB doesn't cheap out on the defense but even that won't help him with the Feds directly. 

[Tikichick]

7 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

Thanks. It makes sense and yet is very difficult because you think they would need to see what he is actually being accused of doing. It’s a horrible catch 22. I know juries have to see some awful things but I’m glad about this. Those people and anyone else who has to see it could be scarred for life. 

Jury selection for these types of cases is challenging, and extended.   The "celebrity" factor here looms large too.

[libgirl2]

6 minutes ago, Gigi43 said:

 

BIL could also mean on Anna's side. I haven't seen the article, so I don't know if they specified which side of the family and does it specify he's saying its CP or just something else? 

 

 

If he did say that, I wonder if he is throwing the brother that offered Anna help earlier under the bus? Just to get back at him. 

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by libgirl2

[3 is enough]

Given the press coverage I wonder how difficult it is going to be to seat a jury?  Pedophiles are seen as the lowest of the low, and since his previous transgressions have been brought up all over again there will be a bunch of prospective jurors who will just say that they cannot be impartial.  On the prosecution side I bet they would dismiss anyone who is seen to share the Duggars' beliefs, as they would be deemed too sympathetic.

 

[Zella]

4 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

Given the press coverage I wonder how difficult it is going to be to seat a jury?  Pedophiles are seen as the lowest of the low, and since his previous transgressions have been brought up all over again there will be a bunch of prospective jurors who will just say that they cannot be impartial.  On the prosecution side I bet they would dismiss anyone who is seen to share the Duggars' beliefs, as they would be deemed too sympathetic.

 

There are over a 1/2 million people in the NWA metro area. I can see people not wanting to serve on the jury because of the nature of the crime, but I don't think it's going to be impossible to find a dozen people to seat on the jury. 

[Oldernowiser]

Just now, WinnieWinkle said:

Anna does remember who was president in 2019 doesn't she?  I mean assuming there is an iota of truth in the reported story of course.

This. Also, Anna doesn’t strike me as the furious type with anyone in authority over her. Distraught and hysterical, sure. Furious with JimBob, who’s the difference between a roof over her head and…not? Not so much.

[Natalie68]

39 minutes ago, Boston said:

God help those that don't believe in God.. DIRTBAGS

Huh

[3girlsforus]

3 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Anna does remember who was president in 2019 doesn't she?  I mean assuming there is an iota of truth in the reported story of course.

It doesn’t have any kind of ring of truth to me. I don’t think anyone is getting close enough to Anna right to accurately report what she’s thinking or feeling. Frankly any reports right now, even from official Duggar sources, about what Anna is thinking or feeling are questionable to me. JB authors those and he’d never going to tell the truth even if Anna was willing to tell him the truth. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by 3girlsforus

[Gigi43]

4 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

If he did say that, I wonder if he is throwing the brother that offered Anna help earlier under the bus? 

 

I think it's a big if. There are probably people looking to create stories. The trial isn't for two months if it doesn't get delayed. I think there are going to be a lot of rumors -and WOACB will make 3 videos on each rumor and probably start some- to keep the story going. Josh taking people down (especially if they are other cult members or trying to trash Anna's brother who tried to help) sounds better than just waiting it out.  There are probably people who are actively hoping for more fundies going down, too, not thinking about the larger factor that means those poor kids in the CP are further victims with every dl. 

 

I'm taking every Josh rumor with a grain of salt unless multiple reputable sources start to confirm. 

[Tikichick]

4 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

Given the press coverage I wonder how difficult it is going to be to seat a jury?  Pedophiles are seen as the lowest of the low, and since his previous transgressions have been brought up all over again there will be a bunch of prospective jurors who will just say that they cannot be impartial.  On the prosecution side I bet they would dismiss anyone who is seen to share the Duggars' beliefs, as they would be deemed too sympathetic.

 

Very difficult.  These cases always are difficult to seat a jury.

I know if I were called for jury duty and had to go up for voir dire on a murder case I would have to make it completely clear that I would be absolutely unable to serve if it required viewing any autopsy photos or even graphic photos of the body on scene or even on the table prior to autopsy.   Depending on the situation and the discussion I'm likely to be unable to handle even listening to anything testified to about the particulars of the injuries and details of the cause of death.

I wouldn't have the stomach or the ability to remain objective viewing the information in this type of case either.   I would not be very unusual in this regard.   

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

This. Also, Anna doesn’t strike me as the furious type with anyone in authority over her. Distraught and hysterical, sure. Furious with JimBob, who’s the difference between a roof over her head and…not? Not so much.

I don't buy it either. Anna has absolutely no leverage in this situation. If she threatened to leave, I could see Boob saying "Fine, good luck supporting seven kids." He's not legally obligated to give her money and Joshley is unemployable for the rest of his life. Also, any salacious information she could reveal to the press about Boob would likely make her look bad as well. She's got no cards to play.

[hathorlive]

23 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

Thanks. It makes sense and yet is very difficult because you think they would need to see what he is actually being accused of doing. It’s a horrible catch 22. I know juries have to see some awful things but I’m glad about this. Those people and anyone else who has to see it could be scarred for life. 

So that would at least protect anyone attending the trial from viewing the book but they’d likely see the video? Would they give a warning to spectators about the horrors to come or would the defense call that prejudicing the jury but calling it disturbing?

I don't know if they gave trigger warnings to the court room. I guess the logic is that as a spectator, you don't have to be there.  So if it's upsetting and they say "we are going to show videos or images" that's your sign to leave.  The time they handed out the books with images, it was only given to the defense, the judge and the jury. 

As for the video, many of you were freaked out by just the description.  Does the jury have the right to see what the content is? I wouldn't want to find someone guilty without seeing the video.  And trust me, stills from the video don't do it justice.  They need to hear the audio, as horrific as it is.  Because once the jury and judge see the video, they will have a clear idea of what Josh was interested in.  

[louannems]

1 hour ago, Canadian Girl said:

Absolutely, she will never leave. I don't know about "liking it", that might not be the right word, but she would definitely believe that whatever challenges God puts in her path are "opportunities" to show how godly she is in overcoming them. Keeping faithful to your husband and to God are taught as the ultimate accomplishment as a woman. She would believe her eternal salvation depends on her never giving up on her marriage. 

Assuming Josh is going to jail for years, and assuming Anna will never leave him, would she qualify for some sort of monthly welfare money?  And food stamps?

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, louannems said:

Assuming Josh is going to jail for years, and assuming Anna will never leave him, would she qualify for some sort of monthly welfare money?  And food stamps?

Probably not because all of Joshley's assets are in her name. 

[Cinnabon]

4 minutes ago, louannems said:

Assuming Josh is going to jail for years, and assuming Anna will never leave him, would she qualify for some sort of monthly welfare money?  And food stamps?

Yes, as long as she doesn’t have any assets.

[libgirl2]

16 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Anna does remember who was president in 2019 doesn't she?  I mean assuming there is an iota of truth in the reported story of course.

If this is true, WTF is wrong with her? I can't see her furious, but then again, I don't really know her. 

20 minutes ago, TresGatos said:

I just hope this doesn't turn into a Josh Powell situation.

 

That went through my head yesterday. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by libgirl2

[Gigi43]

25 minutes ago, TresGatos said:

 

There is reporting that Anna is furious with Jim Boob and Meechelle and that she blames this on the Biden administration and this never would have happened if Trump were President.

Seriously.

 

That sounds entirely made up, imo,

[GeeGolly]

Not that it matters in Josh's case, because he is relatively unknown, but the celebrity thing is going by the wayside in courtrooms now. With SM and 24 hour news cycles lawyers are finding it hard to argue a town or city a few hundred miles away will make a difference in seating a jury, when its plastered all over the news. They'll just have to believe potential jurors when they say it won't influence their verdict.

[theironwoman]

I'm trying to imagine how I would feel if I committed a far lesser crime (like, financial or something similar) that meant I was released on the condition I had to live with almost strangers while awaiting trial. I would be beyond embarrassed, contrite, and feel like an enormous burden on everyone involved. It might kill me faster than a prison sentence.

If I was Josh's attorney or someone obligated to still care about him (like a parent), my biggest concern is what is this guy going to do with his days? He's not going to pitch in around the house or make himself helpful in any way. He absolutely doesn't strike me as someone who can keep himself busy or entertained in a normal fashion. Given what they found, I would not classify anyone as safe around him. I feel a disaster coming. I dearly hope I'm wrong.

[MargeGunderson]

12 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I don't buy it either. Anna has absolutely no leverage in this situation. If she threatened to leave, I could see Boob saying "Fine, good luck supporting seven kids." He's not legally obligated to give her money and Joshley is unemployable for the rest of his life. Also, any salacious information she could reveal to the press about Boob would likely make her look bad as well. She's got no cards to play.

I agree that she’s not going to leave, but she might have some leverage in the assets that are in her name only. Unless she doesn’t have full control over the LLC or if there isn’t much in the the way of assets. 

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I agree that she’s not going to leave, but she might have some leverage in the assets that are in her name only. Unless she doesn’t have full control over the LLC or if there isn’t much in the the way of assets. 

We'll know for sure when she's forced to sell that junked up indoor pool house to feed her kids. I seriously doubt that the brothers are going to do any more construction for Smuggar as they did when he returned from DC in disgrace.

[GeeGolly]

If Anna comes to believe that Josh did was he's accused of, I think she'll leave him. I'm sure right now she doesn't want to believe he did those things. I hope she attends court and actually listens to the evidence so she can see who Josh really is.

Everyone was impressed when Chauvin's wife divorced him in a hot minute, before he was even charged. It turns out there's some evidence pointing to her doing that to get all the assets in her name in case Chauvin was sued. 

Not that the cases are the same, but no one really knows what goes on in the minds of spouses and family members of the accused.

[GeeGolly]

31 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Very difficult.  These cases always are difficult to seat a jury.

I know if I were called for jury duty and had to go up for voir dire on a murder case I would have to make it completely clear that I would be absolutely unable to serve if it required viewing any autopsy photos or even graphic photos of the body on scene or even on the table prior to autopsy.   Depending on the situation and the discussion I'm likely to be unable to handle even listening to anything testified to about the particulars of the injuries and details of the cause of death.

I wouldn't have the stomach or the ability to remain objective viewing the information in this type of case either.   I would not be very unusual in this regard.   

May I ask what it is that you do? You seem to know a lot about trials, evidence and such. I'm just curious now that you mention you would have difficulty sitting as a juror on a murder trial.

[BitterApple]

19 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I agree that she’s not going to leave, but she might have some leverage in the assets that are in her name only. Unless she doesn’t have full control over the LLC or if there isn’t much in the the way of assets. 

I think whatever money's in those LLC's might be enough to tide her over for several years, but probably isn't "set for life" money. Anna could take off with it, sure, but at some point down the road she'd be back at zero with seven kids to support.

[GeeGolly]

1 minute ago, BitterApple said:

I think whatever money's in those LLC's might be enough to tide her over for several years, but probably isn't "set for life" money. Anna could take off with it, sure, but at some point down the road she'd be back at zero with seven kids to support.

I'm still thinking there's no money in those LLCs. I think they're set up to show a loss to reduce what the Duggars pay in taxes.

[libgirl2]

11 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

If Anna comes to believe that Josh did was he's accused of, I think she'll leave him. I'm sure right now she doesn't want to believe he did those things. I hope she attends court and actually listens to the evidence so she can see who Josh really is.

Everyone was impressed when Chauvin's wife divorced him in a hot minute, before he was even charged. It turns out there's some evidence pointing to her doing that to get all the assets in her name in case Chauvin was sued. 

Not that the cases are the same, but no one really knows what goes on in the minds of spouses and family members of the accused.

We have a case out by us of a Catholic school teacher (and local weather personality) who was caught on camera soliciting a minor, grooming.... well his wife filed for divorce as soon as the news came out last week. 

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm still thinking there's no money in those LLCs. I think they're set up to show a loss to reduce what the Duggars pay in taxes.

Do you think the car lots are part of that? It seems like they hardly sell any of those clunkers.

[Pingaponga]

When Josh's sisters spoke to the police 15 some odd years ago, what was it that prompted that to happen? I can't remember if it was on JB and Michelle's initiative, or the police investigated because someone alerted them that something was wrong.

Either way, the girls appear to have been honest, and did not seem to have been encouraged by their parents to lie.

I don't think JB and Michelle are going to defend Josh to the ends of the earth with this. My guess is the reason Josh and Anna sold their house and are now living in a windowless warehouse was that JB told him he'd have to cover his own legal fees but he'd provide a place for his family to live. The warehouse is definitely the worst of the homes JB has provided for his kids. Josh sold the house so he could hire lawyers if need be, and the family moved into the warehouse to wait and see.

I do believe Josh was not completely upfront with Anna, JB and Michelle about what was on his computer. I have no idea of the details of what was found on the computer - and I really, really don't want to know - but I think there's a very good chance Anna, JB and Michelle had no idea what was downloaded. Josh could easily have said "porn" or "photos of children", but I doubt he went into the details that have repulsed those who have read the details.

I think the past 24 hours have been eye-opening for the Duggars, who likely had very little idea of what Josh accessed online. And may not have known that photos/videos of children being sexually assaulted even existed.

Will JB and Michelle banish Josh from their lives? I have no idea. My guess is no, because he is their child. The one thing I have been harking back to since this all broke was the Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka case here in Ontario about 25 years ago. The married couple were arrested for the abduction, sexual assault and murder of two teenaged girls. The police believed Bernardo was behind it, but had no evidence. Karla Homolka made a deal to testify against her husband in exchange for a shorter sentence. And then told her lawyer where they had stashed the video tapes, which indicated she was just as culpable as he was. And that her youngest sister had also been a victim of theirs, Karla having drugged her and "giving" her to Paul as a Christmas gift, although her death had never been considered suspicious. (Her deal with the courts became known as "The Deal with the Devil" by the Canadian media. Because it well and truly was.) Knowing all of this, her parents and younger sister still accompanied her to court every single day. Every.single.day.  She lived with them and went to court with them every.single.day. I am not excusing JB and Michelle, in any way. But there are times when being a parent is f'ed up. I have no idea if you compartmentalize things or what, but parents often find a way to support a child who has committed unspeakable crimes. Even if the victim was also your child.