Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Churchhoney]

37 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

Wow. That was an excellent video. 

Have the Duggars ever had sweet friends they haven’t screwed over? 

Magic 8 ball says "Don't count on it." 

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, JoanArc said:

Have the Duggars ever had sweet friends they haven’t screwed over? 

Head Idiot and family are con artists.   There are no friends, there are only marks and non-entities.   You are either actively using someone or they don't exist to you   that's why you don't see people like them with long term friendships.   They use and discard people.  

[SMama]

2 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Do courts elsewhere really order children to be brought to prisons for visitation?    In any protective or divorce matters here where a parent is incarcerated and custody is at issue judges always expressly bar children from being taken to any places of incarceration for visitation.  Contact is via mail or phone only.

I can only speak about CA where I was a CPS SW, and I supervised plenty of visits in jail. Usually the visits were done by Vocational Assistants. But since I was required to meet face to face with parents and children once a month, I’d volunteer to do the visits and get that requirement met in one visit. BTW, I always met with the children in my caseload weekly, but that was just a me thing. The majority of SWs followed the once a month requirement. 

[Tikichick]

27 minutes ago, SMama said:

I can only speak about CA where I was a CPS SW, and I supervised plenty of visits in jail. Usually the visits were done by Vocational Assistants. But since I was required to meet face to face with parents and children once a month, I’d volunteer to do the visits and get that requirement met in one visit. BTW, I always met with the children in my caseload weekly, but that was just a me thing. The majority of SWs followed the once a month requirement. 

Do you think the visits were a good thing for the kids, in their best interest?    Courts here do not think so, so that is why they bar them when the court has authority.

Obviously a parent who has complete custody and their child is not under the jurisdiction of the court in any way can choose to take their child for visits if they wish, but when the courts have power it's a no go.

[xtwheeler]

5 hours ago, Slakkie said:

I mean how can you defend someone who admits to molesting girls (even when YOUNG) then getting caught up in Ashley Madison.  You would look 

 

22 hours ago, mittsigirl said:

Don't all possible jury members get vetted before being chosen to sit on that jury? So would they not be asked if they had a major problem with viewing something so terrible as CP videos, if they could or they just could not watch such a video? You can't have a jury member that closes their eyes or peeks through their fingers while a video such as CP is being played, or how could they be doing their job properly?

Try to imagine saying, under penalty of perjury, "nah, I'm not bothered by looking a CSA videos, even the ones the arresting officer said were in the top 5 of worst he's ever seen." 

Jurors do not get a choice about which cases they serve. It is going to be presumed the photos will gross everyone out, but he's entitled to a jury of his peers. During voir dire most jurors would say they find it sickening and can't stand to see this material. The judge will then inquire with the jurors if, even given being a victim of SA they think they could judge on the evidence. The lawyers will also have asked about personal experience with that in an initial questionnaire. Judges bend over backwards to elicit a "yeah I could be fair" from jurors. I don't think that in 20+ years of litigation that attempt to get bounced ever work (as a for cause dismissal, not one of the lawyers' preemptory exclusions). The lawyers will bounce someone with a personal history if they can, but you only get so many preemptory challenges. 

Think about what the jurors had to see in the OJ Simpson trial, or Casey Anthony, or Scott Peterson. They're horrific images. But you don't get to say "I'm disturbed by images of decapitated homicide victims, or decomposing bodies of children" because of course everyone is. The evaluation is only "can you be fair in deciding guilt" not whether or not you share the same revulsion at such this, as 99.99% of all humans do. 

In these cases judges are extra motivated not to let people off of jury duty because they think the topic is gross--if they did, they'd never seat a jury. Also, you be surprised at how reluctant people are to say "no, I can't be fair" because we all like to think we could fair. It's a weird aspect of trial science. People have a weird ego thing that makes them reluctant to do that. Even if you say you can't be fair, usually the judge will want to know your personal reason for saying that, and guiding potential jurors into saying, "yeah, my experience sucked, but I guess I can be fair."

Imagine if we let all jurors who have been raped or sexually assaulted or molested, or know someone who has off any cases on those topics. You've just eliminated the 1/3 women who have been raped, plus the 10% of people who have been molested in childhood. Now imagine excluding everyone who has a personal connection to anyone who has suffered that. Now you've eliminated virtually 100% of your jury pool. 

TL;DR: Jurors do not get excused for feeling "oh, that's icky." Being excused for cause (like "I can't be fair") is exceedingly rare in my experience. 

[xtwheeler]

3 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Do courts elsewhere really order children to be brought to prisons for visitation?    In any protective or divorce matters here where a parent is incarcerated and custody is at issue judges always expressly bar children from being taken to any places of incarceration for visitation.  Contact is via mail or phone only.

Being incarcerated does not mean you can be deprived of one of the most fundamental human rights--to parent your children. Without extreme extenuating circumstances, that deprivation is cruel and unusual. 

3 hours ago, Tikichick said:

32 minutes ago, SMama said:

I can only speak about CA where I was a CPS SW, and I supervised plenty of visits in jail. Usually the visits were done by Vocational Assistants. But since I was required to meet face to face with parents and children once a month, I’d volunteer to do the visits and get that requirement met in one visit. BTW, I always met with the children in my caseload weekly, but that was just a me thing. The majority of SWs followed the once a month requirement. 

 

Bless you. You are doing the work of angels! 

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, xtwheeler said:

Being incarcerated does not mean you can be deprived of one of the most fundamental human rights--to parent your children. Without extreme extenuating circumstances, that deprivation is cruel and unusual. 

 

I'm well aware of that.   Parents can and do take their children on visits all the time.

My question pertained to cases with an incarcerated parent where children are either subject of a protective matter (ward of the Court), or in a divorce matter where custody is being contested and the parent who is not incarcerated obviously has sole physical custody.   In the case of a protective matter it is simply against policy for the court to order visitation of an incarcerated parent.  In the case of the divorce matter I have never seen a judge order the physical custodial parent to facilitate visitation to an incarcerated parent if they do not want to do so voluntarily.    In both circumstances courts will and do authorize contact by mail and phone in order to allow for a continuation of the parent/child bond, unless and until there is a showing that contact is harmful to the child.   

[merylinkid]

I can tell you in Maryland, the court will NOT order a parent to take the kids to visitation in a jail just because the incarcerated parent has some access.   Incarceration stops the acess.   You have a fundamental right to parent, not an absolute right.   Acting in locus parentis, the court does not feel it is in the children's best interest to have to interact with the parent in that setting.

[Tikichick]

As far as how hard it is to seat a jury on a case regarding sexual abuse of a child, I can tell you that here the general rule of thumb is on most average criminal trials of any type 50 to 75 jurors receive notices to appear on the day jury selection is to begin on each case, with 50 jurors sent up initially when the court messages that they are ready to begin the selection process and more sent up if and when the court indicates they need more candidates.   Usually the max number of candidates pulled in for potential jury service per day is 250, but that's if four to five cases are slated to begin selection that day.

When a matter pertains to sexual abuse of a child and sometimes murder of a child the amount of notices that go out to potential jurors for that single case alone for day one is 250.   As the day goes on and more jurors are sent up for voir dire the clerk's office remains in contact with the courtoom so they are able to decide if they need to pull in the 250 people on deck for day two if it seems selection is not going well.   People with notices to report for jury service have a number to call after 5 p.m. to alert them if their panel number is still required to report.   It's not uncommon to repeat the same process for a possible day three if selection is still problematic.

Murder cases can and do happen with only an initial overall pool of 50 to 75 people called in and two to three hours total of voir dire before a jury panel is seated.   Child sexual abuse cases are notoriously hard to seat juries here.   Judges and lawyers do not want cases bounced on appeal because jurors who indicated they were unable to give the matter full consideration were seated by strong arming.  Jury selection absolutely is reviewed for appellate issues along with all of  the other phases of a trial.

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, JoanArc said:

This is terrible

 

From that article:

Many parents these days would know better than to publicly share some innocuous content.

After all, one never knows what creeps on the internet might find photos and videos of their young children.

 

Even after all of this, the Duggars are STILL posting those photos and videos. 

[BigBingerBro]

A House Divided: The Secrets Josh Duggar and His Family Tried to Keep Are Back to Haunt Them

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, xtwheeler said:

 

Try to imagine saying, under penalty of perjury, "nah, I'm not bothered by looking a CSA videos, even the ones the arresting officer said were in the top 5 of worst he's ever seen." 

Jurors do not get a choice about which cases they serve. It is going to be presumed the photos will gross everyone out, but he's entitled to a jury of his peers. During voir dire most jurors would say they find it sickening and can't stand to see this material. The judge will then inquire with the jurors if, even given being a victim of SA they think they could judge on the evidence. The lawyers will also have asked about personal experience with that in an initial questionnaire. Judges bend over backwards to elicit a "yeah I could be fair" from jurors. I don't think that in 20+ years of litigation that attempt to get bounced ever work (as a for cause dismissal, not one of the lawyers' preemptory exclusions). The lawyers will bounce someone with a personal history if they can, but you only get so many preemptory challenges. 

Think about what the jurors had to see in the OJ Simpson trial, or Casey Anthony, or Scott Peterson. They're horrific images. But you don't get to say "I'm disturbed by images of decapitated homicide victims, or decomposing bodies of children" because of course everyone is. The evaluation is only "can you be fair in deciding guilt" not whether or not you share the same revulsion at such this, as 99.99% of all humans do. 

In these cases judges are extra motivated not to let people off of jury duty because they think the topic is gross--if they did, they'd never seat a jury. Also, you be surprised at how reluctant people are to say "no, I can't be fair" because we all like to think we could fair. It's a weird aspect of trial science. People have a weird ego thing that makes them reluctant to do that. Even if you say you can't be fair, usually the judge will want to know your personal reason for saying that, and guiding potential jurors into saying, "yeah, my experience sucked, but I guess I can be fair."

Imagine if we let all jurors who have been raped or sexually assaulted or molested, or know someone who has off any cases on those topics. You've just eliminated the 1/3 women who have been raped, plus the 10% of people who have been molested in childhood. Now imagine excluding everyone who has a personal connection to anyone who has suffered that. Now you've eliminated virtually 100% of your jury pool. 

TL;DR: Jurors do not get excused for feeling "oh, that's icky." Being excused for cause (like "I can't be fair") is exceedingly rare in my experience. 

I was chosen for a jury about 2 years ago. It was a child rape case. I didn’t expect to be chosen, because I have experience working as a rape crisis counselor, amongst many other similar jobs. But I was still chosen, and despite thinking I would almost always believe the victim, in this case the prosecution simply did not make their case. Our verdict was unanimously for the defense. Being on a jury is a big responsibility, and most of us can handle it and be impartial when the time comes.

[hathorlive]

6 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I was chosen for a jury about 2 years ago. It was a child rape case. I didn’t expect to be chosen, because I have experience working as a rape crisis counselor, amongst many other similar jobs. But I was still chosen, and despite thinking I would almost always believe the victim, in this case the prosecution simply did not make their case. Our verdict was unanimously for the defense. Being on a jury is a big responsibility, and most of us can handle it and be impartial when the time comes.

I'm amazed at how many people try to get out of jury duty.  You don't get to complain about the verdict in the OJ case if you've worked hard to not serve. It's a huge responsibility and an honor that any defendant can be heard and given equal time in our system of justice.  

[Boston]

23 hours ago, mittsigirl said:

When you see that there are 19 kids in this family, and if you look up and find the percentages of any of them being LGBTQ, really heavy in to porn, etc., then I just have to think that there are more secrets with the kids than just with Josh being so extremely sick. Though he may be the sickest, I think that there must be a few more that have much different thoughts than their parents want them to have. I just can't see having 19 kids and they all turn out to be the way their parents want them to be. Just my opinion.

I have always thought this and I agree

[3girlsforus]

3 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I'm amazed at how many people try to get out of jury duty.  You don't get to complain about the verdict in the OJ case if you've worked hard to not serve. It's a huge responsibility and an honor that any defendant can be heard and given equal time in our system of justice.  

I'm always surprised how often some people are called. I've only been called once and I had to decline. I had a 4 week old nursing baby at home which was an exemption listed on the sheet. But since my youngest is now 18 that tells you how long it's been.  But then hear people talking about how they've been called yet again (and are trying to get out of it).  I certainly would go if called again. To be honest I would probably whine about it a little just because I don't like my routine disrupted. I'm a little set in my ways LOL. But I do believe it's really a critical function so I'd do it.           

[hathorlive]

1 minute ago, 3girlsforus said:

I'm always surprised how often some people are called. I've only been called once and I had to decline. I had a 4 week old nursing baby at home which was an exemption listed on the sheet. But since my youngest is now 18 that tells you how long it's been.  But then hear people talking about how they've been called yet again (and are trying to get out of it).  I certainly would go if called again. To be honest I would probably whine about it a little just because I don't like my routine disrupted. I'm a little set in my ways LOL. But I do believe it's really a critical function so I'd do it.           

I literally get called every 4 months.  Sometimes the date comes and goes, with no jury being called to the court house.  Other times I get there and they ask for a bench trial.  And sometimes, they hear what I do for a living and bounce me.   I can count on going to the court house at least twice a year.  And I live in a huge city.

Josh will have a hard time finding a sympathetic jury.  He has been too prominent for his skeevy ways.

[Tikichick]

13 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

I'm always surprised how often some people are called. I've only been called once and I had to decline. I had a 4 week old nursing baby at home which was an exemption listed on the sheet. But since my youngest is now 18 that tells you how long it's been.  But then hear people talking about how they've been called yet again (and are trying to get out of it).  I certainly would go if called again. To be honest I would probably whine about it a little just because I don't like my routine disrupted. I'm a little set in my ways LOL. But I do believe it's really a critical function so I'd do it.           

I have a feeling everybody is about to be talking a lot about receiving a jury summons as courts reopen and attempt to begin holding jury trials again.  The backlog is unbelievable. 

[Kat20]

It's probably going to be a challenge to find a sympathetic jury for Josh. I'm not sure if this is a problem everywhere, but several years ago in Georgia, they had a huge problem with less 50% of the people showing up for jury duty. The newspaper did multiple articles on it, and it came out that many notices were sent to people who had moved or had died. Of course, many said they never got the notice. Judges starting making an effort to settle the cases. It might be worse now after covid.

[madpsych78]

I found that video of the Duggar sister eating the banana on FB. It's not inherently "wrong" in and of itself, but it is creepy in light of who made the video. If it had been anyone else who posted it, it would have not been a big deal. But Josh knows way more about the world and the flesh than most fundies and I wouldn't be surprised if he was aware of the double entendre. 

Honestly, the Ashley Madison scandal is the tamest part of all of Josh's shenagians. Yes, he lied and cheated on Anna, but it was also still legal - with consenting adults who were on the site. Part of me wonders if he was trying to address his addiction to CSAI by channeling it towards adults?

 

 

[libgirl2]

56 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

I'm always surprised how often some people are called. I've only been called once and I had to decline. I had a 4 week old nursing baby at home which was an exemption listed on the sheet. But since my youngest is now 18 that tells you how long it's been.  But then hear people talking about how they've been called yet again (and are trying to get out of it).  I certainly would go if called again. To be honest I would probably whine about it a little just because I don't like my routine disrupted. I'm a little set in my ways LOL. But I do believe it's really a critical function so I'd do it.           

I was called up when I was not only 9 months pregnant with my son but I didn't even live in the county that called me. My son is not 27 and has jury duty next Monday. He has been called up twice! 

[JoanArc]

Just now, madpsych78 said:

Honestly, the Ashley Madison scandal is the tamest part of all of Josh's shenagians. Yes, he lied and cheated on Anna, but it was also still legal - with consenting adults who were on the site. Part of me wonders if he was trying to address his addiction to CSAI by channeling it towards adults?

 

 

 Don’t forget he basically raped a woman. I think it is more about power and control with him, but he is still a pedophile, too.

 The part of Danica Dillon’s account where his eyes went black was telling...

[libgirl2]

3 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

 

Honestly, the Ashley Madison scandal is the tamest part of all of Josh's shenagians. Yes, he lied and cheated on Anna, but it was also still legal - with consenting adults who were on the site. Part of me wonders if he was trying to address his addiction to CSAI by channeling it towards adults?

 

 

Or he is just a perv who was hoping to enact some sick fantasies with these women? 

[3girlsforus]

55 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I literally get called every 4 months.  Sometimes the date comes and goes, with no jury being called to the court house.  Other times I get there and they ask for a bench trial.  And sometimes, they hear what I do for a living and bounce me.   I can count on going to the court house at least twice a year.  And I live in a huge city.

Josh will have a hard time finding a sympathetic jury.  He has been too prominent for his skeevy ways.

Does a bench trial happen often? I have never thought that was a very common thing but then again I don't have any legitimate reason for that opinion.  In relation to finding a jury for Josh, would there be any plus for him to choose a bench trial? I know you said he's screwed no matter what but would a bench trial be any better for him? This is assuming he doesn't plea.

[3 is enough]

39 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

Honestly, the Ashley Madison scandal is the tamest part of all of Josh's shenagians. Yes, he lied and cheated on Anna, but it was also still legal - with consenting adults who were on the site. Part of me wonders if he was trying to address his addiction to CSAI by channeling it towards adults?

And yet that is the thing that really bothered his parents and brothers the most.  Talk about a screwed up sense of right and wrong...  I will never understand these people.

Edited May 14, 2021 by 3 is enough

[sue450]

On 5/11/2021 at 1:57 PM, Churchhoney said:

I guess then it'll become clear to the kids raised by JB and M whether their fantastic parents actually have been the greatest kid raisers and educators ever in world history, as they claim. Or not. 

I'm sure JB has argued that plenty of other people should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. So now it'll be time for his offspring to do exactly that. I'm sure he prepared them for it perfectly, since that's what they all say. 

Show us what you got, Duggarlings. 

does anyone remember when jim bob ran for political office he said that pedophiles should get the death penalty...wonder how he feels about that now..........one other thing when the agents showed up they didn't say WHY they were there...so josh asks why are you here did someone download child porn??????  yes josh really said this to the agents 

[sue450]

On 5/11/2021 at 2:26 PM, Tuxcat said:

Do we know for sure which Duggars "worked" with Josh at his car lot? I've heard speculation but wondering if we actually know who frequented the area.

duggar family friend caleb worked with him....he got arrested for getting a girl pregnant and at the same time they were looking for calebs brother to arrest for doing "something" to some sort of abuse to children

edited to add the girl was under age and the parents filed a  restraining order against him

 

 

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by sue450
spelling and added a sentence

[sue450]

On 5/12/2021 at 4:47 PM, emmawoodhouse said:

Jill's statistic was 2/3 of families. Straight outta Gothard.

exactly this what jill said..now think about the fact that NONE of the local fundy dads would let josh  marry their daughters. duggars got anna from FLORIDA....this is the tip of the iceberg.

    does anyone remember the mini  golf episode...jim bob up against michelles back side trying to help her golf and they start dry humping in front of their kids and THEN  said as they are doing this laughing ha ha you can't do this.....

   remember they follow bill gothard..the word "abuse" does not exist  it is not a big deal in their cult...BUT if you are abused you are to thank the one who did it to you because it made you spiritually stronger

    also PTSD, stress, trauma, depression,  shyness   do not exist, if you suffer from these you are not trusting of god.

    the outside world is evil...if you are a woman and you want to get a job or go to school you will be under Satans influence something terrible will happen (you will be raped or  your child will be murdered).

    women must have sex when ever and how often the husband wants it because the men have no control over themselves....IF the man strays it is the womans  or even the female childrens fault.

    if you leave you will be shunned by family and friends

    now think about this ...Michelle had a somewhat normal; life out in the world  before she married jim bob (the super religion started a couple of years into their marriage)..she went to school was on the   gymnastics team, dated a bunch of guys, wore a bikini when she would mow the front lawn.....so when michelle speaks of how evil and bad the outside world is  it will be that much more believable to anna, and the duggars will do everything and anything to keep her from leaving the bubble

 

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by sue450
spelling and added a sentence

[IndianPaintbrush]

1 hour ago, 3girlsforus said:

Does a bench trial happen often? I have never thought that was a very common thing but then again I don't have any legitimate reason for that opinion.  In relation to finding a jury for Josh, would there be any plus for him to choose a bench trial? I know you said he's screwed no matter what but would a bench trial be any better for him? This is assuming he doesn't plea.

Bench trials can be advantageous in high-profile cases where the jury pool might be tainted or biased. Judges are usually less emotional when making decisions. But there's a trade-off: you might end up with a hardcore judge who is less sympathetic than a jury. Sometimes it's easier to plant reasonable doubt when you have 12 people as opposed to 1. It really depends on the case, the judge and the potential jury pool.

Edited May 14, 2021 by IndianPaintbrush

[Albanyguy]

16 minutes ago, IndianPaintbrush said:

Sometimes it's easier to plant reasonable doubt when you have 12 people as opposed to 1. It really depends on the case, the judge and the potential jury pool.

So far, I've heard at least a dozen people online saying "All Josh needs is one Fundie on the jury and he'll walk". And it's useless to point out how unlikely it is that such a thing will happen. People will believe what they want to believe, especially when their only knowledge of jury trials comes from soap operas and old Matlock episodes.

[Scarlett45]

Friendly reminder that the discussion of judicial process, criminal procedure & child visitation NOT related to the Duggar family is off topic and belongs in Small Talk. 
 

Further off topic posts will be removed and warnings will be issued. 

[Ohiopirate02]

32 minutes ago, Albanyguy said:

So far, I've heard at least a dozen people online saying "All Josh needs is one Fundie on the jury and he'll walk". And it's useless to point out how unlikely it is that such a thing will happen. People will believe what they want to believe, especially when their only knowledge of jury trials comes from soap operas and old Matlock episodes.

If Josh does beat the rap, it will be because of a technicality not because one juror is a fundie.  I know when I was on a jury, we took our instructions seriously.  I assume the same in Josh's case.  There is little room for emotion when you hold a person's life in your hands and are given instructions from a judge.  And I dont think I'm an anomaly in the 21st century.   The jurors will take the case seriously and decide if the prosecution met the burden of proof.

[SMama]

6 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Do you think the visits were a good thing for the kids, in their best interest?    Courts here do not think so, so that is why they bar them when the court has authority.

Obviously a parent who has complete custody and their child is not under the jurisdiction of the court in any way can choose to take their child for visits if they wish, but when the courts have power it's a no go.

I’m taking the answer to Small Talk. That is a great question.

[FizzyPuff]

On Reddit someone posted the side of Josh and Anna’s warehouse, it has at least four windows. 


 

 

Edited May 15, 2021 by FizzyPuff

[Minivanessa]

Oh, and look - a nice loading dock deck with chairs to lounge on and enjoy the views. 

Although TBH if those windows are in bedrooms, it's less scary to think of the family living in that building.

[Zella]

God, even with the windows, it still kind of looks like a warehouse a serial killer keeps for "recreation." 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Zella

[xtwheeler]

4 hours ago, IndianPaintbrush said:

Bench trials can be advantageous in high-profile cases where the jury pool might be tainted or biased. Judges are usually less emotional when making decisions. But there's a trade-off: you might end up with a hardcore judge who is less sympathetic than a jury. Sometimes it's easier to plant reasonable doubt when you have 12 people as opposed to 1. It really depends on the case, the judge and the potential jury pool.

In my practice I've only conducted... I think 1 bench trial (in 24 years). Jurors are just easier to sway, and as you say, judges are less emotional. There are a few categories of cases where you're not entitled to a jury--in equitable cases (asking for the right to do something or not, like Dec relief actions). The number of jurors varies on civil cases, and jurors also don't have to reach a unanimous verdict, unlike criminal cases. 

I wish people were enthusiastic about jury duty! I would LOVE to serve, but they can't get me out of the box fast enough. I don't subscribe to the "but first, let's bounce all the lawyers" philosophy. 

If the judge determines that Smuggar can't get a fair trial, they could move it to a jurisdiction where he is less well known (they did this in the Scott Peterson case and I want to say the trial of the cops who assaulted Rodney King). It is fascinating to me that you can be a sentient human and not have formed an opinion about cases like that before being impaneled. 

Is Josh/JB a big enough deal in NWA that everybody has heard of them/can't be partial? I don't really have a sense of how well-known they are in real life, as opposed to all of us who know their intimate details! At least we know Derrick won't represent him! 

Given Josh's case is set for July, do you think he'll waive his right to a speedy trial? If he does he'll definitely get violated between now and trial! 

[Zella]

19 minutes ago, xtwheeler said:

Is Josh/JB a big enough deal in NWA that everybody has heard of them/can't be partial?

In my personal experience of living here, people usually know who the Duggars are but don't really know a lot about them or have a strong opinion on them. Your average snarker on here knows way more about the Duggars than your average Arkansan and also, in my opinion, way overestimates the family's local popularity.

Usually, when their name has come up in conversations, it's "the people with all the kids," and sometimes also "the people with all the kids whose son molested his sisters."* But the actual NWA Metro area also has a lot of people who are not local and have moved here from other areas. My guess is they would be even less likely to be aware of the Duggars.

I'm sure a jury would have to eliminate some people for knowing the Duggars, but I really don't think it's going to be impossible to seat a jury for him. The NWA Metro area has 1/2 a million people in it, and I'd venture to say most of them don't particularly know or care about the Duggars beyond "the people with all the kids."

*Every now and then, I've heard someone drop a personal anecdote of meeting them or knowing them or someone connected to them, but it's really not as common as you'd assume. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by Zella

[Nysha]

6 hours ago, madpsych78 said:

I found that video of the Duggar sister eating the banana on FB. It's not inherently "wrong" in and of itself, but it is creepy in light of who made the video. If it had been anyone else who posted it, it would have not been a big deal. But Josh knows way more about the world and the flesh than most fundies and I wouldn't be surprised if he was aware of the double entendre. 

TLC filmed a similar video of the four oldest Duggar girls eating huge dill pickles and the show's producers know damn well what that looked like.

[emmawoodhouse]

21 minutes ago, Nysha said:

TLC filmed a similar video of the four oldest Duggar girls eating huge dill pickles and the show's producers know damn well what that looked like.

Are you referring to this picture? It's not from TLC, but it was widely circulated. It came from a Journey to the Heart. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by emmawoodhouse

[Nysha]

That's the one. For some reason I thought it was a filmed piece. It's still kind of icky.

[emmawoodhouse]

Oh, I agree! They had no clue.

[iwantcookies]

At least it wasn’t a picture of them eating bananas 🤣

[CalicoKitty]

8 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I was called up when I was not only 9 months pregnant with my son but I didn't even live in the county that called me. My son is not 27 and has jury duty next Monday. He has been called up twice! 

In the county I used to live in in California, a bench warrant was issued if you didn't show up for Jury duty.  I was called for Jury Duty, and all the prospective jurors had to wait in the jury room because the Judge was using the courtroom to address all the people they had arrested for Jury Duty no-show.  You are given a chance to defer your service to a time that is better for you.  You just have to return the summons and tell them what date you want to be called.  Really no excuses for not showing up.  "I never received the summons" doesn't fly.

[graefin]

There's an interesting recap of someone's encounter with the Duggar kids a few years back here. Some tidbits: Josh was an ignorant, cocky ass, and Joseph could barely write his own name.

[MunichNark]

So, pretty much everybody has known that Josh has issues, major issues, is a creep, acts strangely around young girls. Yet they closed their eyes to it.

Great job, Meeeeechelle and Jim Blob! You must be so proud

[madpsych78]

10 hours ago, graefin said:

There's an interesting recap of someone's encounter with the Duggar kids a few years back here. Some tidbits: Josh was an ignorant, cocky ass, and Joseph could barely write his own name.

I wonder how JD got out of this?

And I wonder whose idea this was if JB (at least) was not there. All of the older girls attended, so no sister-moms at home. If it wasn't JB's idea, then it may have been Josh's.  

 

[Crochetlady]

14 hours ago, graefin said:

There's an interesting recap of someone's encounter with the Duggar kids a few years back here. Some tidbits: Josh was an ignorant, cocky ass, and Joseph could barely write his own name.

That "signature" is so sad. Poor kid probably has a learning disability which will never be diagnosed or get any help. 

Topic? I wonder if they will cop a plea deal for Josh or let it go to trial. 

[BitterApple]

27 minutes ago, Crochetlady said:

That "signature" is so sad. Poor kid probably has a learning disability which will never be diagnosed or get any help. 

Topic? I wonder if they will cop a plea deal for Josh or let it go to trial. 

It almost looks like he wrote "Josepp." That last letter doesn't look like an "H" at all. I've known some guys with atrocious handwriting, but that looked like the work of a small child just learning to write. He most definitely has an undiagnosed learning disability. Even Joy did better.

[crazy8s]

17 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

 Even Joy did better.

well she had less letters to print

[JoanArc]

24 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

It almost looks like he wrote "Josepp." That last letter doesn't look like an "H" at all. I've known some guys with atrocious handwriting, but that looked like the work of a small child just learning to write. He most definitely has an undiagnosed learning disability. Even Joy did better.

There are other pictures of his signature which is much clearer, which he wrote quickly. I think it was just a one off situation, maybe a broken pen or something.

 That’s said not disputing that he is undereducated and kept willfully dumb.