Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
maraleia

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

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?"

  • Like 5
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
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 by libgirl2
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
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? 

  • Like 9
  • Sad 19

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

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

If I had to guess, I'd say absolutely possible if not probable given what we now know he was viewing.  

4 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

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

Never would and never could. 

Edited by Tuxcat
  • Like 1
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post

14 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

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. 

We had a murder case acquit because the bottle of antifreeze, hidden in the suspect's closet, didn't have finger prints on the lid.  The hard plastic, ridged lid that doesn't hold finger print impressions at all.   It's super frustrating that we don't have any of the fictional technology that TV does. 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 10

Share this post


Link to post

I feel sorry for the Reibers.   Well Mrs. Reiber.   She is in the cult too so couldn't say no when her husband volunteered them as the custodians of the idiot.   She did say she didn't feel comfortable being alone with him.   Which is as strong as she could get in contradicting her husband in public.

Why couldn't the Idiot go live with his dad somewhere?   Because Mom and Dad were the ones who mishandled it the FIRST time.    Dad had a state trooper friend come in and talk to the Idiot about  how badly he was behaving.   The state trooper must have made an impression on the Idiot.   The Statie is doing time for child porn.   

Unfortunately the release conditions show a very basic misunderstanding of how this family and their cult operate.   The court just really did not understand that Anna has no agency to stop the Idiot.   That they WILL cover for the Idiot rather than report to the authorities because in their world, telling the Church comes before everything else.   Then how the Church decides to handle it is always right, so they won't take it any further.  There was NO release conditions that would get around this short of him having to get an apartment on how own and be ordered to stay away from ALL church members.   

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

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.

This. Anna will NEVER leave while she's surrounded by like-minded fundies. There's too much pressure to stay in the fold.

  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

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.

I am aware of those types of patterns and I don't disagree with you.    

My personal bottom line is I cannot accept or allow sympathy or empathy for any parent to override the reasonable potential of risk to a child.    The wellbeing of a child is always going to win the day with me.  

That's not to suggest in any way that you don't hold a child's wellbeing as sacred and important and I definitely don't think for a moment you don't value a child's safety.   I'm only speaking as to where my own personal line that I will not ever accept trespassing sits. 

Josh has demonstrated finely attuned determination to evade any and all attempts at monitoring and prevention -- both in the aftermath of the initial allegations in 2002 and a recurrence in 2003, and in light of all of the oversight attempts that were in place when the current allegations took place.   He has also demonstrated a predatory compulsion to cross boundaries even fellow predators will not cross regarding age and familial connection.   

For me that tallies out to a sum total of absolutely no more chances.

It is also feasible it is a moot point.   Anna may have reached her limits and we would have no clue.   While the judge's ruling allowed for unlimited visitation if Anna is present, that does not equate to Anna is bound to bring the children to visit upon Josh's demand.   Nothing in that order compels Anna to bring the children for visitation at all, and if she chose not to the court is not likely to order that she must.   If Anna refused Josh's attorney could file a petition with the court to compel visitation, but the best they could hope for is that the judge would order a new visitation monitor be arranged, subject to court approval, and then the unlimited provision would be up for reconsideration.   

ETA   I'm not even sure it's correct that Josh's attorney could file a petition with this court on the visitation matter.   Pretty sure that would fall under the jurisdiction of the family court judge, not the federal judge in a criminal matter.   That would present all sorts of complications that would make his lead criminal attorney want to stick his fingers in his ears and scream really loudly to avoid hearing in the first place.

 

Edited by Tikichick
  • Like 16

Share this post


Link to post

5 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Unfortunately the release conditions show a very basic misunderstanding of how this family and their cult operate.   The court just really did not understand that Anna has no agency to stop the Idiot. 

I do wish this is something the prosecution had addressed, but I suspect perhaps they are also not really familiar with the ins and outs of Duggar beliefs/Gothardism. Hope somebody in that office remedies that between now and the trial. 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 3

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

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.

My mind went down the same bad path. He was born with or brainwashed into a perversion.

He molests his sisters and gets caught so he has to find another way to satisfy his perversion.

He tries the Ashley Madison route and gets caught so he has to find another way to satisfy his perversion.

He tries the dark web route and gets caught so he has to find another way to satisfy his perversion.

 

He is to have no Internet access, yet he has full access to his wife and kids (and Mrs. IDon'tWantHimInMyHouseButMyHusbandSaidSo). He's not cured of his perversion so what could possibly go wrong?

 

  • Like 12
  • Useful 4
  • Sad 16

Share this post


Link to post

Mrs. R doesn't want to be alone with Josh. I think honestly they're about to fall into a pattern where she "encourages" Anna to come over daily with the kids. So Anna shows up daily at 9-10 am or whenever they wake up and stays until 5 pm until Mr. R comes home. Anna likely feels this is best for the kids bc it's just like being home as a family -- except they're in someone else's home. And with that comfort a routine will develop where Anna will put kids down for naps; make lunch; take the kids out to play etc. -- she won't be sitting and staring at Josh watching his interactions with any kid like a hawk. Out of that comfort could stem opportunities for Josh to defy the order and be alone with a kid or two -- in the same house but while Anna is otherwise occupied.

The only way that this doesn't happen is if JOSH is so tired of "family life" and is so looking forward to being away from the kids that HE tells Anna, no you can't come every day; he could spin it as it's too much work for Mrs. R to have guests in the home all day every day (ha like he cares), let's have you come on Fridays only or whatever.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 10

Share this post


Link to post

What the F is Anna going to tell her kids when they are grown, especially the ones born after the sister crimes came out? I wish I could fund lifetime counseling for all the kids. With real therapist trained in this horror. Not anyone in their pathetic circle. 
I hope for their sakes they all break free of Goddardism and from Anna. She does not deserve their love.  

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Zella said:

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. 

 

I agree. I don't think Josh ever expect the 'outside world' (aka the damn law) to ever touch his doorstep. I think if found out, he expected some scolding by JB, maybe another church testimonial, ask Anna for the forgiveness he knows she'll give, perhaps and apology to Mr. Keller (maybe Mrs. Keller but let's be real...) The law hasn't touched him until now even after it was confirmed and discussed in the media nation wide that he committed the crimes as a child. There wasn't even a high profile job for him to lose this time like at the FRC and he was persona non grata on TLC already, to him the worst probably already happened. 

 

 

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, cereality said:

Mrs. R doesn't want to be alone with Josh. I think honestly they're about to fall into a pattern where she "encourages" Anna to come over daily with the kids. So Anna shows up daily at 9-10 am or whenever they wake up and stays until 5 pm until Mr. R comes home. Anna likely feels this is best for the kids bc it's just like being home as a family -- except they're in someone else's home. And with that comfort a routine will develop where Anna will put kids down for naps; make lunch; take the kids out to play etc. -- she won't be sitting and staring at Josh watching his interactions with any kid like a hawk. Out of that comfort could stem opportunities for Josh to defy the order and be alone with a kid or two -- in the same house but while Anna is otherwise occupied.

The only way that this doesn't happen is if JOSH is so tired of "family life" and is so looking forward to being away from the kids that HE tells Anna, no you can't come every day; he could spin it as it's too much work for Mrs. R to have guests in the home all day every day (ha like he cares), let's have you come on Fridays only or whatever.

Don't forget Anna also has to be keeping up with her school age children's education. 

Educational neglect most definitely is an allegation in abuse and neglect cases.   I would think this is a subject she might be familiar with if she's attended a very large homeschooling conference many times.   IDK that is a topic addressed at the conference, I'm just guessing that it's a logical guess amongst a gathering of homeschoolers where many are fundies with an aversion to governmental oversight and how to avoid it.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

37 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

How do we know she does anything "willingly?"

Then even more reason for her to get the F out. She should think of her children and their welfare first.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Freedom (sort of) made possible by Jim Bob's money and influence. All that money that his kids should have received from TLC, is now going toward getting their skeevy older sibling out of trouble. His siblings should be FURIOUS, not just for the safety of their own children who have been around him and WILL have to be around him when the clueless Duggar parents insist that they be forgiving and act like nothing's wrong, but for the income that they should have received, which is now being used to enable his porn addiction and sweep the abuse of children that he condones, under the rug. Fuck Jim Blob and MEEE-chelle and their sweaty, lard blossom, favored son.

Jill has the right idea. Keep your boys FAR AWAY from this bunch of criminally narcissistic whack jobs. 

 

  • Like 21
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is moving so fast that apologies if this has been asked and answered before but I was curious about the judge asking Mrs. R specifically if she would call the authorities first if Josh did something out of bounds. Was that a standard question or was it to have it in the record so she and/or her husband could be found in contempt of court if found that they were looking the other way in their duties to be guardians for Josh? Considering the question was asked in the first place, does the judge/prosecution expect Josh to violate the conditions of his release?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, LexieLily said:

This thread is moving so fast that apologies if this has been asked and answered before but I was curious about the judge asking Mrs. R specifically if she would call the authorities first if Josh did something out of bounds. Was that a standard question or was it to have it in the record so she and/or her husband could be found in contempt of court if found that they were looking the other way in their duties to be guardians for Josh? Considering the question was asked in the first place, does the judge/prosecution expect Josh to violate the conditions of his release?

I believe that was the judge getting on record the fact that both Mr. and Mrs. Reiber knew what they were signing up for with Josh.  The judge made the decision to release Josh with a long list of conditions.  She needs to make sure the people who volunteered to house Josh understand those conditions.  

 

  • Like 11
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

The judge did no one any favors. The children have now been put in a potentially dangerous situation because Anna has been conditioned to obey Josh. If he tells her to leave the room, she'll leave the room. Remember this is a woman so subservient that she, while pregnant, crawled under a kitchen table rather than tell Josh to move so she could get by him. And he let her....in full view of the cameras. He truly doesn't give a shit. What he wants or says goes. She is absolutely powerless and the judge simply doesn't understand the dynamics. 

Josh has proved time and again that he is completely untrustworthy. He lies, manipulates, does whatever he thinks he can get away with because he has gotten away with so much already. There's a good reason he's known as "Smuggar." 

The best we can hope for is that he'll do time for these crimes. He needs to be put away for his own sake, but mostly for the children's sake. He's likely to keep up the pattern of abuse, and, if he hasn't already and is denied his internet depravity, his next victims could well be his own children...and there isn't anything Anna could or would do to stop him. 

Edited by Hpmec
  • Like 11
  • Sad 14

Share this post


Link to post

3 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

The judge did no one any favors. The children have now been put in a potentially dangerous situation because Anna has been conditioned to obey Josh. If he tells her to leave the room, she'll leave the room. Remember this is a woman so subservient that she, while pregnant, crawled under a kitchen table rather than tell Josh to move so she could get by him. And he let her....in full view of the cameras. He truly doesn't give a shit. What he wants or says goes. She is absolutely powerless and the judge simply doesn't understand the dynamics.

 

Unless someone else is there when Anna visits with the kids, chances are extremely high that the kids could be with him unsupervised. She's pregnant and you know pregnant women have to use the restroom more frequently than non pregnant. She'd have to take all the kids to the bathroom with her.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not so sure Josh cares about seeing his children.  Did he personally ask for that in the hearing or did his lawyer?   Is it possibly just a standard item addressed when a suspect in these types of cases has children? 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

That's not to suggest in any way that you don't hold a child's wellbeing as sacred and important and I definitely don't think for a moment you don't value a child's safety.   I'm only speaking as to where my own personal line that I will not ever accept trespassing sits. 

 

Consider that it often takes an abused woman about seven tries to leave an abuser for good - without the added ridiculous trainings and pressures in the fundie community. I'm still of the belief that Anna is living in a perpetual state of not only subserviency, but outright trauma. I can blame Josh as the perpetrator, have sympathy for Anna and still be deeply concerned for the welfare of the children. Do I wish that Anna would be able to see what we see and act in the best interest of her children? Yes. But I am not sure that she sees what we see.

I am honestly most disappointed in our child protection system. The government admirably worked to build their case in the middle of a pandemic. However, why didn't they see what we see?  They didn't see a risk to the children. They didn't send anyone to the home (that we know of). We know the children have not been forensically investigated as said court.  This decision is what swayed the court to order Josh released with visitation. "They knew for 2 years and did not consider Josh a risk to the community." The defense made it clear. The judge used this to justify her decision. So I blame the system certainly more than Anna given the context of her life.

Now if someone goes into the home and presents Anna with all that has been going on and everything that this could mean and offers help and assistance and resources and support and she STILL decides to not act in the children's best interest. Then I suppose I could see blame toward her. 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I find it ridiculous that this piece of garbage will have access to his own children.   Anna wouldn't stop him from doing anything.   If she opposes Josh on anything, then she better have somewhere to go, because Jim Bob will tell her to do what he says, or hit the road.  

 His internet access limitations are a joke, you know his fool wife will just bring him a computer every time he tells her to visit.   Also, what kind of fool judge has this person living on the property of people when the husband works full time, and the wife is afraid to be alone with Josh?    

After reading the two articles on Fox News, with an investigator said that what Duggar had on his computer was in the top five most horrifying, disgusting CP they've ever viewed, tells me a lot.    Any guess on how long until a plea bargain, or bench trial starts?        

The biggest problem with CPS or DCF investigating the Duggars is they are all local people, and there will be tons of pressure on investigators to do nothing, or do a superficial investigation.    I think the only hope is that this offender will be found guilty, and go on the sex offender registry for life, and be prohibited from being around all minors.   That includes his children, and relatives too.  

Edited by CrazyInAlabama
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ijustwantsomechips said:

. Yes, CPS should be involved. Yes, it is traumatic to remove children from their homes, but if it comes to that it comes to that. Please understand that if the Duggars were black, or brown, or poor folks living in the hills, the kids would have already been gone and parsed out to multiple foster homes.

You would be surprised at what it takes to remove kids from a home, there are plenty of people who are all races that are pure trash that get to keep their kids or get chance after chance to have them back. It is sickening what CPS will allow. 

  • Like 7
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Consider that it often takes an abused woman about seven tries to leave an abuser for good - without the added ridiculous trainings and pressures in the fundie community. I'm still of the belief that Anna is living in a perpetual state of not only subserviency, but outright trauma. I can blame Josh as the perpetrator, have sympathy for Anna and still be deeply concerned for the welfare of the children. Do I wish that Anna would be able to see what we see and act in the best interest of her children? Yes. But I am not sure that she sees what we see.

When women leave the big X factor is family support. Not just financial support (although that helps), but the abuser has usually isolated the woman (or man) to such an extent that family often needs to do things like help the abuse victim open a bank account, a credit card in her name, a burner cell phone, a lease to a car, willingness to house her pets (abusers often threaten the lives of pets), a divorce lawyer. All of those things need to be put in place before the woman can leave.

I'm not sure if the Kellers will support Anna in any of this.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 9

Share this post


Link to post

7 minutes ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

 

After reading the two articles on Fox News, with an investigator said that what Duggar had on his computer was in the top five most horrifying, disgusting CP they've ever viewed, tells me a lot.    Any guess on how long until a plea bargain, or bench trial starts?          

The file that Josh downloaded is infamous, and law enforcement is well-versed on it. It's the worst of the worst of the worst, and if the dirty details are laid out in court, Josh is done. Unless his lawyer has some ace in the hole we don't know about, I imagine they'll reach a plea.

  • Like 4
  • Useful 4
  • Sad 6

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Tikichick said:

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. 

Are you answering my question? I'm familiar with the organizational structure of Health and Human Services. I am just wondering if CPS, which is considered outdated and offensive in my neck of the woods, is still used in other states?

Edited by GeeGolly
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

The file that Josh downloaded is infamous, and law enforcement is well-versed on it. It's the worst of the worst of the worst, and if the dirty details are laid out in court, Josh is done. Unless his lawyer has some ace in the hole we don't know about, I imagine they'll reach a plea.

I stumbled across some additional information about it unwittingly on Twitter last night while searching for more information on the hearing, and holy shit, even though what I read was not super detailed, I had a hard time sleeping last night because of it. 

Edited to add: I am glad the Duggar Snark subreddit, for all of its other issues, is trying to be prevent people from stumbling across more info than they want. The people on Twitter are not that conscientious about it. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 7
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, NotthebadVictoria said:

You would be surprised at what it takes to remove kids from a home, there are plenty of people who are all races that are pure trash that get to keep their kids or get chance after chance to have them back. It is sickening what CPS will allow. 

I don’t doubt that for a minute.  I just think money and status played a role here. Had the Duggars still been in that little red brick house, and were only locally notorious for their family size, the kids probably would have been removed.  Or at least some type of family plan would have been initiated. 
 

But the reality is race and socioeconomic status does factor into such situations.  Children are removed for far less egregious things than this.  It’s sad but true.  And that’s speaking as a former DCFS employee, former guardian in a kinship arrangement and potential foster parent.  Best interest of the child my ass!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

Although Josh apparently can have access to his children as often as he wants for as long as he wants (with Anna's "supervision"), I doubt if it will really happen more than once or twice. I don't think Josh had any real interest in engaging with his children when they were all in the same house and he'll probably regard visits with them as a nuisance to be avoided. I think there will be one visit with Jim Bob, Michelle, Anna and all the kids, with Jana or some other Duggar girl along to take pictures of the big emotional reunion. Pictures of them as one big happy, loving family could then be used by the Duggars and their surrogates (like those two fools, Lily and Ellie) to try to turn public opinion back in Josh's favor. Nobody with half a gnat's brain would be fooled, but the leghumpers would eat it up.

After that, I could see Josh telling Anna not to bring the kids again. And I think he'll only tolerate visits from Anna as long as she's useful to him, bringing him his favorite foods and possibly even sneaking him a burner phone so he could get back on the internet.

Edited by Albanyguy
  • Like 18

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, hathorlive said:

My first instinct is to say the sentences are low because 85% of the people sentenced are white males.  LE talks about strong sentences, but I can tell you even when a person is convicted, we usually feel like they didn't get the sentence the crime deserved.  

So please write and call your representatives and demand stronger sentences for these crimes. 

Thanks for your reply. It sure must be frustrating for people like you who see so much disgust with these types of people. and getting such short sentences. So I guess that 'white privilege' is also alive and well in the penal system. I wonder if our Canadian laws are much better. I need to look this up.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post

Would Anna, JB/Michelle, the Rs, or even any adult Duggarlings get in legal trouble if it was proven that they accommodated Josh to violate conditions or rules? I assume the Feds or prosecution is also keeping an eye on Josh and not leaving it solely up to the court-appointed guardian that was suggested by the defendant's father. (Honestly, I would have thought any guardian suggested by Josh and/or his immediate family would be an immediate non-starter because of potential conflict of interest.)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

when will he be released?

Poor Anna I am sure she will be expected to fulfill her wifely duties. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly I doubt there will be photos of any “happy reunion”.  I do think the siblings are all aware of the seriousness of the charges, and aside from Jill and Jessa, who probably just deletes and blocks, they all have limited the comments on their accounts.  Aside from  Kendra selling skincare they have all been very quiet and I don’t see that changing.

I don’t think Josh has any burning desire to see his kids.  Anna will probably bring them over but I highly doubt it will be a daily occurrence.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Zella said:

My general rule of thumb is to give people the presumption of innocence, but I am also not a courtroom, so I don't have to. And in situations where someone has a long pattern of the behavior they are being accused of, well, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over presuming guilty. 

Yeah, I may not love Dr. Phil as much as some do, but I believe him when he says that 'past behavior is a predictor of future behavior", or something like that. How can anyone think he may not be guilty with his past? Just my opinion.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

When women leave the big X factor is family support. Not just financial support (although that helps), but the abuser has usually isolated the woman (or man) to such an extent that family often needs to do things like help the abuse victim open a bank account, a credit card in her name, a burner cell phone, a lease to a car, willingness to house her pets (abusers often threaten the lives of pets), a divorce lawyer. All of those things need to be put in place before the woman can leave.

I'm not sure if the Kellers will support Anna in any of this.

 

She had sibling support in 2015 to leave. Not sure about her parents but one brother specifically said to move in with him. I'd hope the brother would still lend support emotionally but I'm going to assume at this point staying there with 6 kids plus one on the way may not be possible. Though I wonder if the siblings who said to leave back then are the most fed up because they didn't look at him with cult color glasses then were proven right she should have left.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, hathorlive said:

Normally, we list what we find.  In our testimony, we'll discuss the number of images and videos and elaborate if they were organized (I've cases where the downloads are moved into folders by age, act, whatever).  If you move them from folder to folder, that means you can't say "I had no idea that was there).  Also, .LNK files and other OS artifacts like shimcache can show when programs or file were accessed.  Most people don't know about these things and wouldn't know to delete them.  Also, there are cache files that show the image was viewed. 

But even if the AUSA is only charging images from two days, the full total numbers would be mentioned by the forensics people.  

Okay, this might be a very dumb question, but there has been so much to mentally process from all of the information and reading articles, and the passion and frustration involved, I may be nearing PTSD burnout and not thinking straight, so please forgive my stupidity. If his technology was taken away in May of 2019, does that mean he has not had any new technology to use since then? He hasn't been using a computer or phone since may of 2019, so hasn't looked or shared more images? I just can't see him stopping since that raid.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

6 hours ago, hathorlive said:

So basically Josh is free to bounce merrily along in life with few restrictions.  Church is at his parents house.  Kids have a mother who is so fucking stupid she doesn't even know what abuse or grooming is.  Can someone define what Josh's "work" actually is?  Hell, he can go sit in a bar all day because  he doesn't have a job.  It's whatever JB says it is.  And therein lies the problem.  You are trusting the people who created this situation to control and monitor the situation, including the enabler custodians.

Did the judge ever ask him to specify exactly what his “work” entails? Hours, etc?

Edited by Cinnabon
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Consider that it often takes an abused woman about seven tries to leave an abuser for good - without the added ridiculous trainings and pressures in the fundie community. I'm still of the belief that Anna is living in a perpetual state of not only subserviency, but outright trauma. I can blame Josh as the perpetrator, have sympathy for Anna and still be deeply concerned for the welfare of the children. Do I wish that Anna would be able to see what we see and act in the best interest of her children? Yes. But I am not sure that she sees what we see.

I am honestly most disappointed in our child protection system. The government admirably worked to build their case in the middle of a pandemic. However, why didn't they see what we see?  They didn't see a risk to the children. They didn't send anyone to the home (that we know of). We know the children have not been forensically investigated as said court.  This decision is what swayed the court to order Josh released with visitation. "They knew for 2 years and did not consider Josh a risk to the community." The defense made it clear. The judge used this to justify her decision. So I blame the system certainly more than Anna given the context of her life.

Now if someone goes into the home and presents Anna with all that has been going on and everything that this could mean and offers help and assistance and resources and support and she STILL decides to not act in the children's best interest. Then I suppose I could see blame toward her. 

 

First understand that I'm taking what was said in court very differently from the way many other people here are likely taking the comments.   It's sure not because  I've got some sort of special powers, better insight into people or have a molecule of brain power more than anyone else.   I work in a court setting, currently from home, but have spent a significant amount of years now in a court setting five days a week, including criminal, child protective and non financial aspect of probate matters like guardianship.  A lot of what's said in hearings is nothing more than pro forma BS and nonsense to go through the motions for show.   Some of what is said can and often is said in all candor and honesty, but it isn't necessarily to be taken on its face.   I can't play football or basketball or stuff like that either -- but if I sat and watched game after game five days a week, eight hours a day for over a decade is it possible I might start to pick out certain things about the strategy a coach might be using?   I guess if I did that for long enough even I might be able to follow the play with anticipation of what's potentially coming next.

I don't know that it's correct to say that the child protective system didn't see what we see or didn't see a risk to the children.   I think it's likely that this particular case is complicated by additional factors.   The fact the charges are federal and this is happening in federal versus state probably means there's much less routine interaction between prosecutors, investigators and child protective services.  Federal courts don't deal with child custody matters, don't have the mechanisms for any of that.  In local cases it's common to be coordinated to a large degree, with people and agencies familiar with working together and sharing information as routine course of business.   That's part of the reason I mentioned upthread that if Josh's team needed to engage the family court to petition for visitation his attorney would not really be eager to engage.   It's not his normal stomping grounds -- not only because he's from out of state, but he doesn't deal with that.   If it ever did take place however he would be very likely to choose to be the lead on any matters there as well IMO if at all possible.   Criminal attorneys routinely represent their clients in family matters while a criminal matter is pending because they want to make absolutely certain they doggedly protect their client's rights in regards to self incrimination.   CPS was incredibly unlikely to be privy as to what this case was about any more than any of us until the charges were levied.

Are they likely to be on alert now?   Yes.    They also have a history with the family dating back to the original allegations against Josh as a minor.    It seems the coverup and statute of limitations tied their hands there as well, although I can't quite sort out why.   This means it's very likely there is some additional incentive to see to it they will not be stymied this time.   It also means they are likely to be painfully cautious in their approach and might not take any action at all as far as reaching out to the children until there is any potential Josh returns home.   They will not want to risk any opening for being seen as harassing this family or engaging in bias.   It won't mean they aren't collecting evidence with an eye towards building a case.   What Anna chooses to do and how she chooses to do it is going to be important.   If CPS engages with her and she becomes adversarial rather than cooperative it ups the odds they press for removal of the children at some point.  If they present her with a safety plan after engaging with her and she demonstrates cooperation she would put herself in a good position.   So far there does not seem to be any reasonable inference that it is in the children's best interest to be removed from their mother.   Let's hope Anna doesn't make that necessary.

Another factor making this case difficult is the insular nature, with no children attending school or participating in extracurricular activities and no adults working in outside the community or family employment.   That means little to no sources of objective information available.   If and when CPS moves they don't want to risk a court not finding probable cause.   They might get one more bite at the apple maybe, but after that they're going to need a body or video evidence in order not to be deemed as acting on bias, prejudice or malice.   A defense statement or the court stating that authorities haven't considered the children at risk since 2019 under these circumstances doesn't really mean what it seems on its face.

Juvenile matters are also publicly sealed.   The only way we as the public will know anything is via leaks.     

  • Like 11
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post

This article has more information on the Rebers. Looks like their son is friends with Jed, Jer, and Austin through those lame Freedomists. 

  • Useful 8
  • Sad 14

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I need to read a good account of what was said.  I've been working all night and not had a chance to analyze who said what.  Deleted images count.  Images found in thumbcache count.  I really need to look at this before getting too deep into my concerns here.

Please get some well deserved rest! You have spent so much time explaining things to we lay people, and I am sure that we all appreciate it, but remember that self-care is important for you!

  • Like 14

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Are you answering my question? I'm familiar with the organizational structure of Health and Human Services. I am just wondering if CPS, which is considered outdated and offensive in my neck of the woods, is still used in other states?

My apologies if I was unclear.   It is here.   I thought I had said that.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

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.  

I've witnessed exactly one preliminary interview with a child, so limited experience here.  I was observing, not participating.  The child was about 5 and a teacher had reported unusual bruises on his legs.  He told her 'Daddy did it'.  She called DCFS.

The kid was in his own house, his parents nearby but not in his sightline and not participating.  They were there when the two interviewers came into the room and told the boy that these people were going to talk to him and he should tell the truth.

The kid was playing with his legos or similar, seated on the floor at the coffee table.  One interviewer did the vast majority of the talking, the other was just observing (I was watching remotely.)

The interviewer, a young woman was very friendly and open with the child who was a typically chatty 5 year old.  She asked him about his toys, his preschool, his friends, favorite foods, stuff like that and he happily answered.  Eventually, she got around to his relationship with his parents.  Do Mommy and Daddy ever play with you?  Do they get mad if you misbehave?  What happens then?  The kid was kind of funny, 'oh yes, they get really mad.  Daddy chased me with a sword!"  Turns out, they got a new refrigerator and Daddy cut up the box into swords and covered them with foil and they played sword fight.  When it came to the bruises on his legs, 'Daddy did it'.  How?  I was trying to ride my bike without the training wheels and Daddy let go and I fell'.  Obviously, turned out to be a whole lotta nothing, but that's all I know about kids being interviewed.  It was very relaxed and easy from what I saw.  Of course, none of us thought the kid had actually been abused or coached, so that would be a big difference;  

  • Like 12
  • Useful 9

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

Read a Fox News article about the hearing. Nothing we didn’t already know. I was actually reading to see what the comments contained.  How many of you guessed that they think it’s Anna’s fault because she should have somehow been able to monitor Josh better ?  How many of you guessed that they are more worried about other people that they think should be prosecuted for other alleged crimes that have nothing to do with this case  so Josh should be let go. 
 

 

Whataboutism is all they’ve got. 🥵

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Scarlett45

Guidelines for the thread:

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size