Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Tdoc72]

19 hours ago, SMama said:

Jill and Jessa were upset about being re victimized by the disclosure of their molestation by the media. Yet not a word about their godly (🤮) parents dragging them to do an interview to absolve their abuser of any responsibility. Meanwhile their abuser was shielded from public accountability while he was screwing around on Ashley Madison. 

The lawyer for the city or sheriff or whoever should put this in his argument. 

[emmawoodhouse]

I saw a portion of a video from a guy I *think* is the son of Clark Wilson, the contractor who helped Boob in the early stages of construction of the TTH. He does have a son who flew the IBLP coop, so his message makes sense. He addresses Boob, telling him that everyone knew a long time ago that Smuggar was a "pervert" and "pedophile." He advises Boob to stop paying for lawyers and let Smugs rot in prison; of all people, Boob should know Smuggar is guilty. 

It was pretty brutal. It's interesting to see old (former) friends coming out of the woodwork to denounce Smuggar and the Duggars' lifestyle.

Edited May 14, 2021 by emmawoodhouse
Rogue comma!

[Jeanne222]

3 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I saw a portion of a,video from a guy I *think* is the son of Clark Wilson, the contractor who helped Boob in the early stages of construction of the TTH. He does have a son who flew the IBLP coop, so his message makes sense. He addresses Boob, telling him that everyone knew a long time ago that Smuggar was a "pervert" and "pedophile." He advises Boob to stop paying for lawyers and let Smugs rot in prison; of all people, Boob should know Smuggar is guilty. 

It was pretty brutal. It's interesting to see old (former) friends coming out of TBE woodwork to denounce Smuggar and the Duggars' lifestyle.

That guy was beat up pretty bad.  Per Katie a fight with his brother!

[emmawoodhouse]

7 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

That guy was beat up pretty bad.  Per Katie a fight with his brother!

Doctrinal issues? 😂

[BitterApple]

Here's the video:

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CO0WKyHF62m/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

He won me over at "Bill Gothard belongs in hell."

 

Edited May 14, 2021 by BitterApple

[3 is enough]

Oh wow.  That guy was not holding back.  

[emmawoodhouse]

55 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Here's the video:

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CO0WKyHF62m/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

He won me over at "Bill Gothard belongs in hell."

 

Thanks for posting the IG link. Better than giving WOACB hits. 😁

[GeeGolly]

4 hours ago, BitterApple said:

Here's the video:

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CO0WKyHF62m/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

He won me over at "Bill Gothard belongs in hell."

 

That's some solid advice. JB should listen.

[Kellyee]

Has anyone else noticed that no one in Josh's family is coming to his defense in public? The only person saying he didn't do this is his lawyer. All his siblings are either silent or making vague comments about hoping the truth comes to light. If you really thought your brother was framed or didn't do it, wouldn't you say so?? They all seem to be distancing themselves. 

[farmgal4]

8 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I saw a portion of a video from a guy I *think* is the son of Clark Wilson, the contractor who helped Boob in the early stages of construction of the TTH. He does have a son who flew the IBLP coop, so his message makes sense. He addresses Boob, telling him that everyone knew a long time ago that Smuggar was a "pervert" and "pedophile." He advises Boob to stop paying for lawyers and let Smugs rot in prison; of all people, Boob should know Smuggar is guilty. 

It was pretty brutal. It's interesting to see old (former) friends coming out of the woodwork to denounce Smuggar and the Duggars' lifestyle.

Do you mind telling me where I can find that video, please?

**ETA: I watched it.**

Edited May 14, 2021 by farmgal4

[Slakkie]

6 minutes ago, Kellyee said:

Has anyone else noticed that no one in Josh's family is coming to his defense in public? The only person saying he didn't do this is his lawyer. All his siblings are either silent or making vague comments about hoping the truth comes to light. If you really thought your brother was framed or didn't do it, wouldn't you say so?? They all seem to be distancing themselves. 

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 delusional.

[ginger90]

9 minutes ago, Kellyee said:

Has anyone else noticed that no one in Josh's family is coming to his defense in public? The only person saying he didn't do this is his lawyer. All his siblings are either silent or making vague comments about hoping the truth comes to light. If you really thought your brother was framed or didn't do it, wouldn't you say so?? They all seem to be distancing themselves. 

I would think the family has received instruction from Jim Bob probably via the defense lawyer.

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Kellyee said:

Has anyone else noticed that no one in Josh's family is coming to his defense in public? The only person saying he didn't do this is his lawyer. All his siblings are either silent or making vague comments about hoping the truth comes to light. If you really thought your brother was framed or didn't do it, wouldn't you say so?? They all seem to be distancing themselves. 

Not necessarily.   If they really believe in Josh they're probably willing to follow any instructions his legal team is giving.   I doubt a lawyer wants a bunch of (ill educated) family members speaking and potentially offering up any kind of comment the defense doesn't want to have to defend against.

Personally I'm not reading anything into comments being made or silence at this point -- even from JB & M.   JB may or may not even be footing the entire cost of legal bills.   There is presumably value in some of the assets stashed in Anna's name.   If JB helped put the team in place and funded the retainer in hopes of staving off charges he may have decided or yet decide not to keep throwing good money after bad in the face of the charges and decide not to fund the defense and attempt to salvage whatever remains of the family reputation and the potential of some TV presence for some of them by publicly denouncing Josh after plea or trial.  JB is pragmatic and all about his empire and his image.   Josh is a millstone, always will be to the general public.   The only way not to go down is to publicly separate.   Things are still very much in flux regarding what Josh will do and whatever negotiations his team is capable of.   No doubt JB is waiting for decisions to be made before committing to a public stance either way.  

[GeeGolly]

32 minutes ago, Kellyee said:

Has anyone else noticed that no one in Josh's family is coming to his defense in public? The only person saying he didn't do this is his lawyer. All his siblings are either silent or making vague comments about hoping the truth comes to light. If you really thought your brother was framed or didn't do it, wouldn't you say so?? They all seem to be distancing themselves. 

I'm thinking the reasons not to publicly stand by Josh outweigh the reasons to stand by him. The Kelly interview with Jill, Jessa and the parents didn't go over very well on its own and was made worse by Josh secretly looking for hook-ups on Ashley Madison. Also making any comments will likely bring out more negative publicity, making it harder for the siblings to have some sort of normal life between now and the trial.

And then of course is the more likely reason - the Duggar 18 aren't sure he's innocent. I'm guessing everyone from Joy and up has serious doubts that Josh is innocent, or at least totally innocent.

The twins were toddlers during the first scandal and were around 15 when Scandal 1 became public and Scandal 2 happened, so I'm not sure how aware Jed, Jer and the younger siblings are of everything, unless they have secretly been on the internet. But they might know enough to have some doubts as well.

[Jeeves]

I'm also not reading much into silence by the family.  This is something way worse than the 2015 scandals. This time Josh is charged with serious (and nasty) federal crimes. As @Tikichick said, Josh's lawyers have probably told the family in no uncertain terms, that they all need to STFU. Josh is in the kind of trouble that's not going to be fixed by PR juju. 

As @hathorlive pointed out a few pages back, Josh was arrogant enough to send texts [and a photo!] from the toll-booth aka car lot office while downloading the child sexual abuse content on the computer. Bam.  

Besides that evidence (every now and then law enforcement just gets a GIFT like that from a criminal, hee hee), all you have to do is look at that tiny toll-booth sized "office" [shed] building to know that the "some other dude did it" defense is DOA. 

It's got to be hard for anyone when a sibling is charged with a vile crime like Josh has been. Throw in the f*cked up dynamics of the Duggar herd including the toxic bullsh*t from IBLP/Gothard that has been hammered into their heads all their lives, and I don't even want to think how stressed, conflicted, and confused Josh's sibs might be about all this. I think JD was OVER Josh back in 2015 based on his TH in the show when 19K&C returned to the air under its new name. I mean, they were so vague on the show about what Josh had done to "disappoint" them, that if you didn't know you'd think he'd lost his driver's license for too many speeding tickets. But still, JD was DONE with this "big brother." (Anna was all sad in her TH and I don't remember how many other sibs didi a turn before the camera to do the "sad about Josh" thing.)

Edited May 14, 2021 by Jeeves

[merylinkid]

10 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

It was pretty brutal. It's interesting to see old (former) friends coming out of the woodwork to denounce Smuggar and the Duggars' lifestyle.

Yeah if only they had spoken up before.   The Duggars really weren't all THAT even in Arkansas.   They never had as much power as they thought.   Folks could have said "yeah your kid is not allowed around our kids."   Even when the Head Idiot ran his own church, the others could have opted out and had their own church without the Fame Strumpet Duggars involvement.   

If someone had questioned why is everyone covering this up alllllll the way back when, maybe Josh would have been held accountable long before this.   Maybe we wouldn't have this show STILL on and they would have slithered back into obscurity.

[hathorlive]

10 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I saw a portion of a video from a guy I *think* is the son of Clark Wilson, the contractor who helped Boob in the early stages of construction of the TTH. He does have a son who flew the IBLP coop, so his message makes sense. He addresses Boob, telling him that everyone knew a long time ago that Smuggar was a "pervert" and "pedophile." He advises Boob to stop paying for lawyers and let Smugs rot in prison; of all people, Boob should know Smuggar is guilty. 

It was pretty brutal. It's interesting to see old (former) friends coming out of the woodwork to denounce Smuggar and the Duggars' lifestyle.

The funny thing is that nobody wants a pedophile in their group or neighborhood. The fundies have apparently had enough.

[Tikichick]

53 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

The twins were toddlers during the first scandal and were around 15 when Scandal 1 became public and Scandal 2 happened, so I'm not sure how aware Jed, Jer and the younger siblings are of everything, unless they have secretly been on the internet. But they might know enough to have some doubts as well.

Do you think maybe the brothers in this age range may have been influenced by JD's attitude or behavior about Josh?   I'm not sure how Joe's age fits in, but I think with his apparent quiet personality that if he were to have kept his distance with Josh that might have said a lot to the other brothers without saying a word, too.

4 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

The funny thing is that nobody wants a pedophile in their group or neighborhood. The fundies have apparently had enough.

From your lips ...

[Tabbygirl521]

I haven’t been able to figure out if Anna is obligated to bring the kids to visit Josh if he requests it. Legally, I mean. It’s interesting to me that apparently no one has spotted her making that visit. Surely some nosy journalist is keeping an eye out.

This is so infinitely worse than the Ashley Madison thing that I’m sure it’s taking all her mental energy to cope right now, and same for the rest of the family. I don’t expect them to have much to say publicly, and  with any luck maybe plans are being made for Anna and the kids to achieve some independence from Josh. It’s not like she needs to have that plan in place right this minute; he’ll be away until July at the very least, and hopefully for many years more. 

[WinnieWinkle]

1 minute ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

I haven’t been able to figure out if Anna is obligated to bring the kids to visit Josh if he requests it. Legally, I mean.

I was wondering about that too.  I mean it's not like a divorce situation where the courts may compel the custodial parent to allow visits with the other parent - even if those visits are in prison for instance!  I don't think, but am open to correction, that Anna can be forced to do anything.  Moot point of course since likely what Josh wants, Anna will do.

[Albanyguy]

29 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The Duggars really weren't all THAT even in Arkansas.   They never had as much power as they thought. 

It's interesting, though, how many of the Duggars' fans accept them at their own valuation and are convinced that they really are all THAT. Those of us who post here have a pretty realistic (i.e., skeptical) view of the Duggars, but other message boards are being flooded with posts declaring "Jim Bob is so rich that he can buy off all the judges in Arkansas" and "Jim Bob has very powerful political connections and he'll use them to get the charges dropped before Josh goes to trial". Totally unrealistic, of course, but it shows how many people really have bought into the phony image Jim Bob has constructed.

[Tikichick]

16 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

I was wondering about that too.  I mean it's not like a divorce situation where the courts may compel the custodial parent to allow visits with the other parent - even if those visits are in prison for instance!  I don't think, but am open to correction, that Anna can be forced to do anything.  Moot point of course since likely what Josh wants, Anna will do.

The federal court judge does not have jurisdiction over Anna or the children, therefore cannot order visitation.   Supposing Anna was refusing visitation and Josh wanted it, he would have to file with the family court judge in their area.    I'm not suggesting that Anna is refusing visitation, merely explaining what would happen in that circumstance. 

Josh's defense team may have very well told Josh and Anna no visitation with the children simply so there can be no public buzz suggesting anything untoward is currently going on with the children.   They wouldn't have wanted to publicly tell the judge that at the bond hearing because it could be considered suggestive of admitting a problem exists.   As ordered visitation is unlimited but not mandatory.  They don't have to say anything to anyone about how much visitation is or isn't occurring.

As far as no pictures surfacing to show visitation this is Arkansas, not Hollywood.   It's easier for law enforcement to keep an eye out for journalists doing surveillance on the family and shut it down.   The people that took Josh in have no reason to be stalked, nor does any of the rest of the family.   I think it would be especially wrong to be laying in wait to capture a picture of the children.   They are suffering enough I have no doubt.

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.

Edited May 14, 2021 by Tikichick

[Gigi43]

Josh had been falsely built up by JimBob and I think this is a huge reality check for him. When he was rubbing elbows in DC I would bet most of the people he met didn't really know who he was beyond a FRC worker who was on a reality show, it's not a given all of the people he worked with and took pictures with really knew or cared who the Duggars are.

 

JimBob has pull with other Gothards and maybe some more in their town directly with non-Gothards but the Duggar reach does not extend to the state as whole or the Feds. TLC managed to get a gag order on Jon Gosselin when J&K was a cash cow but no way are they going to help Josh. Josh is at the mercy of the lawyers, no one is stepping in to save him.

 

I don't know why I think this but I think Josh and Anna weren't living completely Quiverful while in DC. They were rubbing elbows with women who wear pants, men who marry wives with careers, at events with alcohol and in a diverse area that's not their insulated AK town. They may have adapted at the time more than we know. Probably had some drinks. Maybe Anna blames DC for Ashley Madison, who knows, but they had a good dose of exposure to the outside world. Which is part of why I think Anna knows more of the outside world and knows this is wrong more than people credit her with. If she stays, imo, the Duggars are paying her too or she just won't admit to being so wrong, not because she 'doesn't know any better being a fundie.'  

Edited May 14, 2021 by Gigi43

[cmr2014]

29 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

I haven’t been able to figure out if Anna is obligated to bring the kids to visit Josh if he requests it. Legally, I mean. It’s interesting to me that apparently no one has spotted her making that visit. Surely some nosy journalist is keeping an eye out.

This is so infinitely worse than the Ashley Madison thing that I’m sure it’s taking all her mental energy to cope right now, and same for the rest of the family. I don’t expect them to have much to say publicly, and  with any luck maybe plans are being made for Anna and the kids to achieve some independence from Josh. It’s not like she needs to have that plan in place right this minute; he’ll be away until July at the very least, and hopefully for many years more. 

I really don't see Josh asking to see the kids. He really doesn't seem all that involved or all that interested in the lives of his children (probably a good thing).

[Ohiopirate02]

The only reason I can see Josh demanding Anna to bring over the kids is because he is an asshole who wants to force pregnant Anna to load up all of the kids and drive over to see him.  It would be a power move and a way for him to exert his dwindling control over someone.  

[3girlsforus]

1 minute ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

The only reason I can see Josh demanding Anna to bring over the kids is because he is an asshole who wants to force pregnant Anna to load up all of the kids and drive over to see him.  It would be a power move and a way for him to exert his dwindling control over someone.  

Either that or JB demands that Josh ask to see the kids. JB needs access to Anna to make sure he can keep up the pressure to be the 'good wife' and he needs Josh to continue to put on that pressure as well. 

[Tabbygirl521]

39 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

(Snip)

As far as no pictures surfacing to show visitation this is Arkansas, not Hollywood.   It's easier for law enforcement to keep an eye out for journalists doing surveillance on the family and shut it down.   The people that took Josh in have no reason to be stalked, nor does any of the rest of the family.   I think it would be especially wrong to be laying in wait to capture a picture of the children.   They are suffering enough I have no doubt.

Oh, yeah, I wasn’t suggesting they should be stalked! I just wouldn’t be surprised if some enterprising person were lying in wait, thinking they’ll get a sighting/photo/story for People Mag or something. This may be Arkansas but the initial bust was deemed newsworthy even outside the US. 

[Tikichick]

6 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Oh, yeah, I wasn’t suggesting they should be stalked! I just wouldn’t be surprised if some enterprising person were lying in wait, thinking they’ll get a sighting/photo/story for People Mag or something. This may be Arkansas but the initial bust was deemed newsworthy even outside the US. 

I realize you're not wishing for them to be stalked.  

If some enterprising person were lying in wait trying to get a sighting/photo/story about me I'd consider that stalking.   I'd imagine given the situation Duggar family residences are getting some drive bys from local law enforcement to keep an eye out for people looking to capture a photo and chasing off people lurking for that reason. 

[lilwhitelion]

1 hour ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

I haven’t been able to figure out if Anna is obligated to bring the kids to visit Josh if he requests it. Legally, I mean. It’s interesting to me that apparently no one has spotted her making that visit. Surely some nosy journalist is keeping an eye out.

This is so infinitely worse than the Ashley Madison thing that I’m sure it’s taking all her mental energy to cope right now, and same for the rest of the family. I don’t expect them to have much to say publicly, and  with any luck maybe plans are being made for Anna and the kids to achieve some independence from Josh. It’s not like she needs to have that plan in place right this minute; he’ll be away until July at the very least, and hopefully for many years more. 

The guy who posted on Reddit that ran in the same circles as the Duggars had something interesting to say about Anna's behavior after Josh got out of Jesus jail.  He said that he was at Fort Rock Family Camp the same time that the Duggars were there, including Josh and Anna.  Josh was jovial and joking.  The guy posting said he went fishing early one morning at the pond.  Anna was there, walking around and around the pond, sobbing.  I think he said she circled the pond about fifteen times, crying the whole time.  I don't know how she can keep sweet for the sake of her children.  It must be exhausting.

[JoanArc]

Wow. That was an excellent video. 

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

[Gigi43]

Josh will ask to see the kids to look good to the court. He has to present himself as the devout husband and father, which will be hard to do if he does months without asking to see the kids. I suspect he'll make sure the Rebers are in earshot for witnesses any time he mentions wanting to see the kids and talk a good game to them about Anna/the kids. But, actually, I don't think Josh ever wanted to have the kids, or get married for that matter, and has little interest in being a father. If Josh ever has a real psychiatric analysis I wouldn't be surprised if he's diagnosed with a personality disorder. He goes through the motions of family life because he knows he's supposed too, but I never got the vibe he had the slightest bit of affection for anyone be it his parents, siblings (yeah, I know), Anna, or the baby that was born on TLC. He played the protective big brother role in TV with smuggness, zero sense he was shamed of something and he had something huge to be ashamed of. 

 

I think JB in his own deranged way cares about the family more than Josh cares. 

[kaleidoscope]

Is the man in the video the same man reading the journal entries?

[skatelady]

14 minutes ago, kaleidoscope said:

Is the man in the video the same man reading the journal entries?

I don't think so. Completely different voice.

[Jeeves]

18 minutes ago, kaleidoscope said:

Is the man in the video the same man reading the journal entries?

 

4 minutes ago, skatelady said:

I don't think so. Completely different voice.

Agreed. The guy with the journal entries has identified himself as Justin. The man in the video is Jacob Wilson. 

[JoanArc]

This is terrible

Quote

The video was captioned "How to eat a banana quickly."

In it, one of Josh's sisters, only 10 years old at the time, ate a banana in just a few bites.

While we are not identifying that sister, Josh's post did identify her by name.

 

[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.