Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[WinnieWinkle]

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

Of course, the judge has to decide if being compensated for holding Josh is an important point at all.  

Would it matter if someone was being compensated?  I'm just wondering what difference, if any, it should make.  Probably something super obvious that I am not seeing!

[Rootbeer]

12 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Would it matter if someone was being compensated?  I'm just wondering what difference, if any, it should make.  Probably something super obvious that I am not seeing!

I think the main issue is that if Jim Bob is paying the Rebers to hold Josh, they might be less likely to report any violations of the terms of his release to the courts.  After all, if JB is paying them to keep Josh, then those payments would end if Josh got tossed back into jail.

[WinnieWinkle]

17 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

After all, if JB is paying them to keep Josh, then those payments would end if Josh got tossed back into jail.

Thank you. That makes a lot of sense!  I guess my POV was that you could not pay me enough money to have that slug in my house but of course that's not going to be true for everyone.

[MargeGunderson]

I wonder what was Mrs. Reber’s primary objection - was it being alone with a male that is not her headship, disgust at the charges, or fear of Josh? Probably a bit of both, but I just wonder if the headship thing is more important in her mind, as I suspect it would be for some fundies (combining the whole forgiveness aspect with the it’s not a big deal/it’s the victim’s fault anyway mindset). 

[libgirl2]

I don't know how much to believe but I just saw a headline that Anna doesn't believe the charges and will stick by the sicko. 

[Lsk02]

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-wife-anna-standing-by-him-believes-innocent-source/

[libgirl2]

12 minutes ago, Lsk02 said:

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-wife-anna-standing-by-him-believes-innocent-source/

then the idiot can go visit him in prison. 

[xwordfanatik]

How delusional of her.  No hope for that woman.  I hope he's in prison long enough for her not to conceive any more of his children with that sicko.

[MargeGunderson]

I would love to hear why Anna thinks he’s innocent. What is her explanation for what was found in the computer? I really want to see how she hand-waves this away. I know it will never happen but I wish it would. 

[Tabbygirl521]

Anna’s current state of denial doesn’t surprise me. Josh’s other acts, while disgusting, sort of pale compared to the current charges. I can understand not being able to wrap one’s head around it; hell, I can hardly believe such things exist at all and I’m a lot older and a lot more worldly. She’s been convinced that prayer conquers all, and forgiveness is everything, and Josh has been cured. Now this. It’s going to take her some time to get there, and it certainly won’t happen before the trial. Technically, we’re all supposed to believe he’s innocent at this point (I know, I know...)

Even if/when she does come to believe, of course she’ll stay in the Duggar fold. She has no options. But at least her horrible “headship” will be safely locked away.

ETA: I’d love to know who “a source” is. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Tabbygirl521

[GeeGolly]

I read one line from "a source" about Anna believing Josh is innocent. I didn't read the entire article because it seemed to be a rehash. Is there more to it, or is it likely click bait?

[MsJamieDornan]

4 hours ago, Zella said:

I've not had time to watch the video--I want to!--but my understanding is he is looking at a minimum 5 year sentence for the receiving charge. (I don't know if that would apply to him making a plea deal.) Is that true? 

Take time to watch the video. It explains it all very well.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I read one line from "a source" about Anna believing Josh is innocent. I didn't read the entire article because it seemed to be a rehash. Is there more to it, or is it likely click bait?

It's a rehash of everything.  The "source" also says Anna took the kids to see Josh.  Nothing else that you don't already know, but with multiple pics of Josh and ads.

[MargeGunderson]

2 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I read one line from "a source" about Anna believing Josh is innocent. I didn't read the entire article because it seemed to be a rehash. Is there more to it, or is it likely click bait?

No new information that we haven’t discussed here. No reasoning for thinking he’s innocent. (I’m attending a virtual conference and am bored, so I read it)

[Lsk02]

Sorry about that! I saw People and figured it was at least slightly credible. I didn’t realize until reading past the first paragraph that it was just another rehash. 

[libgirl2]

9 minutes ago, Lsk02 said:

Sorry about that! I saw People and figured it was at least slightly credible. I didn’t realize until reading past the first paragraph that it was just another rehash. 

And I was the one who brought it up in the first place. Sorry! 

[Cinnabon]

57 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I would love to hear why Anna thinks he’s innocent. What is her explanation for what was found in the computer? I really want to see how she hand-waves this away. I know it will never happen but I wish it would. 

My guess is that Anna still hasn’t read or heard about the specifics of the CP Josh viewed. 

[libgirl2]

5 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

My guess is that Anna still hasn’t read or heard about the specifics of the CP Josh viewed. 

Even if she did (and I don't think she did), she wouldn't believe it. I do wonder though, if deep down in there somewhere she does. 

[Cinnabon]

Just now, libgirl2 said:

Even if she did (and I don't think she did), she wouldn't believe it. I do wonder though, if deep down in there somewhere she does. 

And she should be ashamed that she’s too cowardly to read the specifics. She is supposed to be protecting her soon to be 7 children. She needs to know the full, brutal truth about what he viewed.

[Churchhoney]

5 hours ago, Zella said:

I've not had time to watch the video--I want to!--but my understanding is he is looking at a minimum 5 year sentence for the receiving charge. (I don't know if that would apply to him making a plea deal.) Is that true? 

5 years is the absolute minimum -- no matter who you are or whether you plead or don't or what your history is, if you end up guilty and being sentenced. The sentences go up from there based on a lot of very specific factors.  (And the 20 is the maximum anybody can get on this charge, including people who have a string of prior convictions for similar crimes, and so on.)  

What Scott Reisch explains in detail is how the actual sentencing guidelines that judges use to calculate a specific person's sentence depend on plugging in various facts about the defendant, the details of the crime as they committed it and their situation. 

In the video, he shows what facts the federal rules ask the judge to consider in Josh's case, according to the prosecutorial documents, and how those various facts will specifically affect the judge's actual sentence. 

Reisch concludes that, based on the charges and the facts in Josh's case, if he goes to trial and is found guilty, he'll likely get 9 to 10-and-a-half years. 

If he pleads guilty, it'll likely be 7-and-a-half to 9, he calculates.

Those numbers square with the recent sentences I saw on the Western District of Arkansas website about people with the same charges.

A federal judge is actually free to sentence people to more or less time than the standard calculations suggest (within the minimum-maximum limits for the crime) but they have to clearly explain reasons to do so, and the reasons are supposed to be compelling. Doesn't happen very often, therefore. 

The facts of Josh's case mean that he can't get five and that he would be extremely unlikely to get more than 10 and a half, largely because he has no prior criminal convictions for anything in any jurisdiction. 

 

Edited May 24, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

5 years is the absolute minimum -- no matter who you are or whether you plead or don't or what your history is, if you end up guilty and being sentenced. The sentences go up from there based on a lot of very specific factors.  (And the 20 is the maximum anybody can get on this charge, including people who have a string of prior convictions for similar crimes, and so on.)  

What Scott Reisch explains in detail is how the actual sentencing guidelines that judges use to calculate a specific person's sentence depend on plugging in various facts about the defendant, the details of the crime as they committed it and their situation. 

In the video, he shows what facts the federal rules ask the judge to consider in Josh's case, according to the prosecutorial documents, and how those various facts will specifically affect the judge's actual sentence. 

Reisch concludes that, based on the charges and the facts in Josh's case, if he goes to trial and is found guilty, he'll likely get 9 to 10-and-a-half years. 

If he pleads guilty, it'll likely be 7-and-a-half to 9, he calculates.

Those numbers square with the recent sentences I saw on the Western District of Arkansas website about people with the same charges.

A federal judge is actually free to sentence people to more or less time than the standard calculations suggest (within the minimum-maximum limits for the crime) but they have to clearly explain reasons to do so, and the reasons are supposed to be compelling. Doesn't happen very often, therefore. 

The facts of Josh's case mean that he can't get five and that he would be extremely unlikely to get more than 10 and a half, largely because he has no prior criminal convictions for anything in any jurisdiction. 

 

Thanks so much--I appreciate it! I still haven't had time to watch the video, and honestly, it's easier for me to process info through reading rather than watching anyway. 

[tabloidlover]

I pray this is true

 

[libgirl2]

13 minutes ago, tabloidlover said:

I pray this is true

 

I really have a hard time thinking that he didn't do anything to his kids. Gee, even another sibling. 

Edited May 24, 2021 by libgirl2

[quarks]

My sympathy for Anna is pretty limited, given several of her choices in life (not just Josh, but the abortion protests and joining Parler and so on.) 

With that said: 

Denial can be addictive.

And for Anna to admit that Josh is guilty would mean admitting that the one truth she's clung to and presented all of these years - that she's an excellent mother, committed to her children - is a complete lie. She would have to admit that she may have been endangering these kids.

She would also have to admit that the many, many, many people who urged her to leave Josh years ago - strangers and family members alike - were right, and she was wrong. It means accepting that her chances of getting the nice lifestyle that she had back before the first set of scandals are now really gone. (I mean, I think they were gone before this, but I could see Anna convincing herself that Josh would somehow manage to turn things around financially.) It also means questioning whether everything she went through to keep her marriage together the last time was worth it.  And it means having to accept that, far from having the model marriage/family she claims to have, she may very well have the hands down worst marriage of any of her extended clan - including all of the various Duggarling and Keller in-laws. 

And it means accepting that Josh could go to jail.

This is a lot.

And on top of that, she's part of a cult that is not always great with accepting reality, and many of the adults she hangs out with are not necessarily that reality-based either. I mean, she's hanging out with the same group of people that just within the last year thought one of their inexperienced, uneducated kids had an actual shot at a political career. Her only other social interactions appear to be through Parler - again, not a great place for accepting reality - or at large family weddings, which do seem to bring in a few non-cult members (like the secular Kellers and Katey's family) but which are generally not the best places for in-depth discussion.  

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Thanks so much--I appreciate it! I still haven't had time to watch the video, and honestly, it's easier for me to process info through reading rather than watching anyway. 

Me, too. ....

His presentation is quite clear. But even so I could have digested it way faster reading than listening/watching. 

[Temperance]

I don't buy any of these rumors from anonymous sources. I think the tabloids are just printing things to make money. I have no idea what Anna actually believes. 

[floridamom]

My opinion about the Duggar interviews being 'soft' is because these people only agree to soft interviews. They don't have the guts to actually stand up, defend, and logically explain their 'beliefs'. They seem to only quote platitudes, bible verses and don't know how to defent their faith in regular words and conversation. I think they really don't understand it themselves. To actually understand their lifestyle, they would have to admit to themselves that these social customs have no actual Christian/religious basis.

[RedDelicious]

No social media platform is a great place for accepting reality, and Anna probably didn’t have a choice of which to join. There are nutjobs on all of them. Algorithms and suppression of thoughts and ideologies that the owners of any social media site don’t agree with is indoctrination.

Edited May 25, 2021 by RedDelicious

[Ohiopirate02]

3 hours ago, floridamom said:

My opinion about the Duggar interviews being 'soft' is because these people only agree to soft interviews. They don't have the guts to actually stand up, defend, and logically explain their 'beliefs'. They seem to only quote platitudes, bible verses and don't know how to defent their faith in regular words and conversation. I think they really don't understand it themselves. To actually understand their lifestyle, they would have to admit to themselves that these social customs have no actual Christian/religious basis.

I agree that the Duggars would only sit down for a pre-negotiated "soft" interview, but that is true for every celebrity.  When Prince Andrew did that disastrous interview in 2019, he did not expect that to be the result when he sat down.  The journalist and his/her team worked building his trust and then started to lob the hard questions.  Megyn Kelly went soft on JB and Michelle because that was always the plan from the network.  She never asked the hard questions nor did her editing team splice together any damning answers.  That was not the point of the sitdown.  The point was always to rehabilitate JB and Michelle.  

[libgirl2]

6 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I agree that the Duggars would only sit down for a pre-negotiated "soft" interview, but that is true for every celebrity.  When Prince Andrew did that disastrous interview in 2019, he did not expect that to be the result when he sat down.  The journalist and his/her team worked building his trust and then started to lob the hard questions.  Megyn Kelly went soft on JB and Michelle because that was always the plan from the network.  She never asked the hard questions nor did her editing team splice together any damning answers.  That was not the point of the sitdown.  The point was always to rehabilitate JB and Michelle.  

Spot on! 

[BitterApple]

I'm putting this in the J&A thread, because it pertains to Josh. Not sure if any of you saw this on Reddit, but Pickles DM'd Jacob Wilson, demanding to know why his father didn't report Josh to the police. IMO, this is beyond shitty given that Jacob is clearly struggling with his own demons, and was a kid at the time:

[Nysha]

Good god, Pickles is a nasty piece of work. Jacob's father is dead, so he isn't currently supporting Sex Pest's behavior, and Jacob is not responsible for his father's decisions. What good would it do to call out a dead person? Jim Bob has deliberately defended, downplayed, and supported Josh's actions all his life. 

[dariafan]

19 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

Even if she did (and I don't think she did), she wouldn't believe it. I do wonder though, if deep down in there somewhere she does. 

If she did that would be a massive crisis of faith for her, and she has no one around her equipped  to help her

[SunnyBeBe]

Ref. Anna’s disbelief of the charges....I recall when Willis adult children made abuse allegations AND father Willis plead guilty, the wife stood by her husband. Yet, the adult children still embraced their mother!  I still see many loving and positive comments about their mother by the adult children on social medial!  Boggles the mind.   

[libgirl2]

10 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Ref. Anna’s disbelief of the charges....I recall when Willis adult children made abuse allegations AND father Willis plead guilty, the wife stood by her husband. Yet, the adult children still embraced their mother!  I still see many loving and positive comments about their mother by the adult children on social medial!  Boggles the mind.   

But I think she eventually saw the light. 

[SunnyBeBe]

10 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

But I think she eventually saw the light. 

I didn’t realize this. 

[Cinnabon]

4 hours ago, RedDelicious said:

No social media platform is a great place for accepting reality, and Anna probably didn’t have a choice of which to join. There are nutjobs on all of them. Algorithms and suppression of thoughts and ideologies that the owners of any social media site don’t agree with is indoctrination.

She didn’t have a choice? I don’t think anyone forced her to join Parler.

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, Nysha said:

Good god, Pickles is a nasty piece of work. Jacob's father is dead, so he isn't currently supporting Sex Pest's behavior, and Jacob is not responsible for his father's decisions. What good would it do to call out a dead person? Jim Bob has deliberately defended, downplayed, and supported Josh's actions all his life. 

I would still like to know why a mandated reporter didn’t report Josh’s abuse. 🤷‍♀️

[WinnieWinkle]

15 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

She didn’t have a choice? I don’t think anyone forced her to join Parler.

Exactly.  I do get that people brought up in this kind of toxic fundie world may be excused to some extent for the choices they make but there does come a point where we need to acknowledge that a person is an adult and blaming their upbringing can only cover so much.  Josh being a classic example here but Anna too.  I don't really get a "we need to save Anna" vibe based on the things she's said and done in the last couple of years.  I by no means think she condones what Josh did and what he has been alleged to have done but in other respects while I do pity her I also think she is just, frankly, not a particularly nice person.

[Scout Finch]

21 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

And she should be ashamed that she’s too cowardly to read the specifics. She is supposed to be protecting her soon to be 7 children. She needs to know the full, brutal truth about what he viewed.

If I now unfortunately and regrettably know--and can't forget what I read--she fucking well should! Maybe some sort of Clockwork Orange contraption where she can't close her eyes or would that be too brutal?

[RedDelicious]

34 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

She didn’t have a choice? I don’t think anyone forced her to join Parler.

Well, that's your opinion, to which you are entitled. One can assume she's been forced by JB, Michelle and her own husband to do quite a lot of things and maintaining a page on a social media site very well could have been one of them.

I wouldn't know; I no longer have social media. I permanently closed my accounts when it became public that FaceBook and Instagram use algorithms to suppress things they don't agree with. I think that is unfair and I have no interest in supporting it. I also did not and do not agree with how the platforms gather personal information and sell it.

Primetimer is as social as I get. I like the no politics policy.

Edited May 25, 2021 by RedDelicious

[auntieminem]

27 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

would still like to know why a mandated reporter didn’t report Josh’s abuse. 🤷‍♀️

Mandated reporter is a state determination.  Here is part of the section about clergy for Arkansas and it seems to have some outs. 

Quote

Any clergy member, which includes ministers, priests, rabbis, accredited Christian Science practitioners, or other similar functionaries of a religious organization or a person reasonably believed to be so by the person consulting him or her;

Except to the extent that the clergy member has acquired knowledge of the suspected child maltreatment through communication required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith or received the knowledge of the suspected child maltreatment from the alleged offender in the context of a statement of admission.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2021 by auntieminem
specificity

[laurakaye]

I just have to mention that I have been listening to the podcast "I Pray You Put This Journal Away" since reading about it here and I can't believe how riveting it is.  I listen to podcasts while I walk, and at least twice per episode I stop in my tracks, say "WOW" out loud, and rewind a particularly shocking or illuminating section.  I initially thought it was going to be more of a salacious, gossipy podcast but it's not that at all.  I am re-listening to episode three before I move on because the host (Justin) sheds some SERIOUS light on Josh from back in the day.  It makes my jaw drop but it also makes me nod, as in - yup, that all makes sense.

I have also been in the Jeremy thread wondering why Jere is such a poseur and lying to himself about what he believes versus how he wants to portray himself on social media.  This podcast really sheds light on why no one in Fundie circles, particularly the men, want to call out another man on his lies because to expose one man as a liar has the potential to expose many of them as they throw one another under the bus in an effort to save their own hides.  Josh did just that to Justin and Justin's heartbreak is absolutely raw.  I'm sad the podcast only has five episodes but my surface understanding is that telling his story took so much out of him that he could only record so many.

This cult is so, so, SO much more destructive than I really ever understood.

[BradandJanet]

20 hours ago, WinnieWinkle said:

The part of this that's stupid - and makes it clear to most people that this is NOT political - is that the investigation began in 2019.   Aside from which does she really think  any president give a rats ass about some skeevy 3rd rate "celebrity"?  God the Duggars have an inflated idea of their own importance if so!

Sorry, but my mind went back to Joe Exotic, the Tiger King, who hired a limo to take him home from prison the day he was sure his pardon would come.

The limo waited for several hours. Joe's still in prison. 

However, I'm not sure Anna's belief about Josh's getting off has much to do with celebrity. I think it's her acceptance of the myth of the persecuted, white, American Christian. 

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Exactly.  I do get that people brought up in this kind of toxic fundie world may be excused to some extent for the choices they make but there does come a point where we need to acknowledge that a person is an adult and blaming their upbringing can only cover so much.  Josh being a classic example here but Anna too.  I don't really get a "we need to save Anna" vibe based on the things she's said and done in the last couple of years.  I by no means think she condones what Josh did and what he has been alleged to have done but in other respects while I do pity her I also think she is just, frankly, not a particularly nice person.

Yes, I’ve detested her for the last few years because of her actions, not because of anything related to Josh.

1 hour ago, Scout Finch said:

If I now unfortunately and regrettably know--and can't forget what I read--she fucking well should! Maybe some sort of Clockwork Orange contraption where she can't close her eyes or would that be too brutal?

I’m right there with you. I read it, too, and it’s her obligation to do so as well. 

Edited May 25, 2021 by Cinnabon

[Scarlett45]

Mod Announcement- The merits of various social media sites are NOT on topic of the thread. Please keep the focus on Josh & Anna, and their family. If your post is not MAINLY about them it belongs in the Small Talk thread. 
 

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

[Churchhoney]

5 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

I would still like to know why a mandated reporter didn’t report Josh’s abuse. 🤷‍♀️

I think everybody they saw and talked to was pretty deeply enmeshed in their belief group, and they feel loyalty to that and to the norms of operation of that and don't feel loyalty to the public sector or to any laws.

Pastors and the like in their crowd probably believe that things like mandated reporting fly in the face of God's commands -- because they could end up sending one of their own respected and cherished young men-folk, one in whom they all put great hopes, to public-sector juvenile detention....and turn the females over to secular psychological counseling, which they consider an affront to god, really. They wouldn't find any of the possible consequences of mandated reporting acceptable.

The Duggars and the people they've been close with really do live in their own little world, I think, even now -- and they really did back then. And they believe it's far better than the world of the normies. It's the world that God wants. Anybody who was uncomfortable with that closed system just left their churches and their cult after a little while, I think, so they wouldn't have been around to see or report. 

 I'd bet that nobody they were close with actually believed that a mandated-reporter law applied to them because it conflicted with their duties to Jesus and their fellow faithful. The only mandated reporters they ran into were the so-called pastors, weren't they? None of these people went to school, and they didn't consult with doctors or therapists....

Edited May 25, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Future Cat Lady]

I think we should take what the tabloids say with a massive grain of salt. However, it would not be that surprising if Anna (and other Duggars) has become a conspiracy theorist.

[mittsigirl]

On 5/24/2021 at 1:47 PM, libgirl2 said:

then the idiot can go visit him in prison. 

If anyone should see those sick and disgusting images, it should be Anna. She will never believe it otherwise.

[Zella]

I'm a little confused. Are we calling People a tabloid? Because it's not. It's fluffy and superficial and relies on a lot of soundbites spoon-fed from celebrities' publicists, so hard-hitting journalism it is not, but it's really not the same level as The Daily Fail or even The Sun. In fact, I've often found that People usually has fairly reliable true crime reporting when it delves into it. 

Not denying that the recent story they ran is largely repetitive of stuff we already know, and it does have an unattributed source, but I wouldn't necessarily brush off anything reported in People as fake news.