Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
maraleia

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I agree. If kids weren’t involved, I might understand her position. But they have a passel of young kids she need to protect.

I have a hard time with that too. But then again, she has cops who didn't swarm in to protect her kids while they were investigating and a judge who said sure, your kids can be around Josh. I'm guessing Anna wants to believe Josh is innocent.

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post

13 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I have a hard time with that too. But then again, she has cops who didn't swarm in to protect her kids while they were investigating and a judge who said sure, your kids can be around Josh. I'm guessing Anna wants to believe Josh is innocent.

Someone needs to sit down with her and explain that attraction to children is something that really can’t be treated (AFAIK). I have some small amount of compassion for those who are truly attracted to kids because I don’t think we can change our sexuality, who we’re attracted to. But if these guys are able to come forward and try to get help before they offend, then measures can be put into place to try and avoid the chance of offending. Of course, that would mean he couldn’t live with or have contact with kids, without supervision . That would be extremely difficult in this family. He would have to live separately. No computer access and therapy and group therapy. The whole family would have to be aware that he needed supervision. On one hand, this family is already so big on “accountability partners “ that it might be possible. On the other hand, I don’t know if they have the capacity to understand mental health disorders and that they cannot be “prayed away.” At all. Of course, it’s too late now for any of that now that he’s acted out. 

Edited by Cinnabon
  • Like 15

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

On the other hand, I don’t know if they have the capacity to understand mental health disorders and that they cannot be “prayed away.” At all. 

Unfortunately, I think there is also significant pressure within the family to maintain the illusion that they're a wonderful Christian family and role model unto others. I think even if they did understand this isn't something could be prayed away, I'm not sure most of them are willing to admit that. Banishing Josh away from the family would be an admission of failure in their eyes, IMO. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Hpmec said:

I think we have to look realistically at Anna's situation. She has 6 or 7 kids if the latest M has arrived. She has no education and her job prospects are super limited. There's no way she could ever earn enough to support her children, and in her world no one would expect her to.  Her own parents are piss poor. No one in her family seems prepared to take in her brood. That leaves the in-laws. They will continue to put a roof over her head and feed her kids no matter what happens to her disgusting vile husband. What other option does she have? Sure, she's a doormat, but she was raised to be a doormat. She doesn't know anything else. She'll stay in the family because it's all she's got. 

See, if I thought that was where she was coming from, I might have some sympathy for her.  How she'd support her children after a divorce doesn't matter because divorce is not something she wants at all. Until she states otherwise, I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt.

4 hours ago, Zella said:

I have some sympathy for the Anna who married Josh (depending on how much she was told about what he did--I'm not sure she was actually told the full extent of what he did as a teen), and I even have some sympathy for the Anna who got blindsided by the Ashley Madison scandal and still decided to stay. I understand why, even if I disagree with the reasoning myself and think it was a bad decision.

But I don't have any sympathy for the Anna who has continued to double down and post about what a wonderful husband he is--her social media posts fawning over him before the arrest were just pathetic--and who is willing to stand with him through this. My guess is she trying to convince herself as much as anyone that Josh was a good husband when she would post about him, but it made her look like an asshole. I suspect Anna has the same skewed priorities as her in-laws and was as mad about being ousted from the show as anything else. 

In the first Counting On specials, she said that she liked being on the show and being an example of a good Christian. I just...can't see sympathize with her at all. 

  • Like 8
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, lascuba said:

See, if I thought that was where she was coming from, I might have some sympathy for her.  How she'd support her children after a divorce doesn't matter because divorce is not something she wants at all. Until she states otherwise, I'm not giving her the benefit of the doubt.

In the first Counting On specials, she said that she liked being on the show and being an example of a good Christian. I just...can't see sympathize with her at all. 

If they did divorce, I imagine she would get some child support . And she would be eligible for quite a bit of welfare for so many kids. The Duggars might even be compelled to give her one of their many properties to live in. But you’re right, I doubt she would ever consider it. She is too caught up in her image of herself as super special, and quite frankly, she seems like someone who would shy away from any real work outside the home. I’m sure she thinks she is “above “ that.

Edited by Cinnabon
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

4 hours ago, Hpmec said:

I think we have to look realistically at Anna's situation. She has 6 or 7 kids if the latest M has arrived. She has no education and her job prospects are super limited. There's no way she could ever earn enough to support her children, and in her world no one would expect her to.  Her own parents are piss poor. No one in her family seems prepared to take in her brood. That leaves the in-laws. They will continue to put a roof over her head and feed her kids no matter what happens to her disgusting vile husband. What other option does she have? Sure, she's a doormat, but she was raised to be a doormat. She doesn't know anything else. She'll stay in the family because it's all she's got. 

Which is why it's infuriating that she's breeding more foot soldiers for Gothard.  She knows she's trapped.  She knows she can't support her kids, but she'll keep pushing them (jail time aside) so she can hit that supersize family EVEN though she knows she can't feed them. It makes me want to smack some sense into her.  

BTW, since the cult feels that adoption is bad because the child inherits the sins of the parents, what does that say about the M kids?  How is the rest of the fundy world going to treat them if their dad is labeled a pedophile and sent to jail.

  • Like 16
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Thank-you!

A guy like this guy should get life in prison. As should all of them, really.

And yet this guy will be out in whatever 27 years minus 20% is (sorry bad at math and depressed over the loss of my dog to try).  He only has to serve 80% of that 27 years.  This is why I try to remind people that Josh is small potatoes and not getting a big sentence.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 13

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

If they did divorce, I imagine she would get some child support . And she would be eligible for quite a bit of welfare for so many kids. The Duggars might even be compelled to give her one of their many properties to live in. But you’re right, I doubt she would ever consider it. She is too caught up in her image of herself as super special, and quite frankly, she seems like someone who would shy away from any real work outside the home. I’m sure she thinks she is “above “ that.

I don’t think she thinks she is “above” that. I think she believes God made women to raise children. Raising God fearing children is her full-time job, according to the Bible and her religious faith.

Remember, Anna believes that literally everything that happens is God’s will. Right now, God is testing her faith, and she must persevere. In her mind, obeying God means submitting to her husband’s authority and forgiving him for whatever sins he commits. Remember too, all sins are equal in their eyes. So there is no difference between cheating and stealing, for example. Sin is sin, and everyone sins because all humans are born corrupt and easily persuaded by the Devil into sin. In her mind, Josh has once again allowed “Satan to build a fortress in [his] heart,” to quote Joshua’s excuse for the cheating scandal. That’s what she genuinely believes.

When Josh goes to prison, she will accept that his time in prison is all part of God’s plan, and she will pray for Josh every single day. And when Josh lies and tells her that he has been made clean again by the power of Christ, she will rejoice. 

Maybe, just maybe, if her father and Jim Bob turn on Josh and command her to divorce Josh and remarry, she might consider it, but even then, she would have to believe that God wants her to abandon her marriage vows, and I don’t think there is much that justifies divorce in their world. Maybe murder? We know it’s not cheating or even spousal abuse, so I’m not sure what a husband has to do that would justify divorce for these folks.

I just don’t see Anna ever leaving Josh of her own free will; she is far too reliant on the cult for that to happen. She will only leave Josh if the cult (ie the Duggars and the entire IFB/Gothard/Quiverfull movement) gives her permission to do so. 

  • Like 10
  • Useful 1
  • Sad 8

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Fallacy said:

I don’t think there is much that justifies divorce in their world. Maybe murder? We know it’s not cheating or even spousal abuse, so I’m not sure what a husband has to do that would justify divorce for these folks.

I mean, Jesus thinks it's okay to divorce your spouse for sexual immorality. If they were being truly Biblical, there wouldn't be an issue with her divorcing Josh for any of his scandals. 

  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post

More documents are coming! The defense apparently gets a chance to refute the Feds' arguments. They have until next Friday to file. I thought that the Feds would be allowed to make their case, and then the judge would make his rulings. This is running close to the hearing date, which is in early October.

Edited by emmawoodhouse
  • Like 1
  • Useful 6

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, Zella said:

I mean, Jesus thinks it's okay to divorce your spouse for sexual immorality. If they were being truly Biblical, there wouldn't be an issue with her divorcing Josh for any of his scandals. 

I don’t disagree with you at all that Jesus said it was okay to divorce for sexual immorality, but is that how IFB and the Duggars interpret that scripture? I’m not sure

I did a quick Google search and found out that for fundies like the Duggars, the sexual immorality loophole only applies if there is unrepentant, repeated sexual immorality. For Anna, Josh repented of the adultery.  

I also think that we can’t apply common sense or any form of modern, educated thinking to Anna. She’s a thoroughly brainwashed member of a cult. So what seems obvious to us, that Josh is a predator who is a danger to children, wouldn’t cross her mind. She would have to witness him abusing a child to believe that. She doesn’t know that most pedophiles start with the fantasy (cp) before they feel an irresistible urge to make that fantasy a reality. She’s never read a book or been exposed to any conversation about how pedophiles function.

So at absolute worst, the Devil tempted Josh to look at those images. But in her mind, certainly Josh would never harm a child! She couldn’t imagine why anyone would believe he’s capable of such a thing. However, she likely doesn’t believe he even intended to view the cp in the first place, so there is definitely no way he’s a danger to children. He’s just addicted to pornography, and as far as Anna knows, this is a common addiction that many Godly men have fallen victim to. She will continue to pray that God will help Josh overcome the Devil and this addiction.

ETA: To be super clear, I’m not sympathetic to Anna at all. I’m just fascinated by why people believe what they believe. To me, Anna’s religious beliefs explain why she continues to stand by him. 

Edited by Fallacy
  • Like 9
  • Useful 2
  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post

49 minutes ago, Absolom said:

She isn't likely to get child support from Josh for the next 5 to 10 years.  Even if Josh gets out and can find a job, it won't likely pay enough for her to get enough support to live on.  Jim Bob isn't obligated to give her a dime.  I can't see Jim Bob doing anything for Anna if she were to dare file for divorce.  If she plays the game with Jim Bob, he will probably support her and the kids as long as he's alive and may make arrangements for her and the kids in his will.  Financially she's in a big bind.

Absolutely correct. Although I don’t know how much support that JB will actually provide. Anna’s going to be the 21st century equivalent of the poor female relative of the 18th century that got just enough to survive from the male brother, cousin etc. 

If the wives of this group of people  had any sense, they would tell their daughters to do what the rest of us tell our daughters:  get an education, have a career back up, don’t havemore children than you can provide for should your husband die, get disabled, leave or go to jail.  

  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Fallacy said:

I don’t disagree with you at all that Jesus said it was okay to divorce for sexual immorality, but is that how IFB and the Duggars interpret that scripture? I’m not sure

I did a quick Google search and found out that for fundies like the Duggars, the sexual immorality loophole only applies if there is unrepentant, repeated sexual immorality. For Anna, Josh repented of the adultery.  

So at absolute worst, the Devil tempted Josh to look at those images. But in her mind, certainly Josh would never harm a child! She couldn’t imagine why anyone would believe he’s capable of such a thing. However, she likely doesn’t believe he even intended to view the cp in the first place, so there is definitely no way he’s a danger to children. He’s just addicted to pornography, and as far as Anna knows, this is a common addiction that many Godly men have fallen victim to. She will continue to pray that God will help Josh overcome the Devil and this addiction. 

I'm sure divorce is a -okay if Josh is gay or if he listens to music with a beat.  I mean, we have standards in this cult!  Also, if Josh is gay, listening to music outside a store that sells beer, lord almighty, they will rush Anna to the courthouse to file for divorce.

I'm only slightly annoyed by the religious right's priorities.  Child molester, okay.  Drinking beer, highway to hell.

14 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

More documents are coming! The defense apparently gets a chance to refute the Feds' arguments. They have until next Friday to file. I thought that the Feds would be allowed to make their case, and then the judge would make his rulings. This is running close to the hearing date, which is in early October.

Okay, I'm dying to see what the expert has to say.  This is going to be good. 

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, lookeyloo said:

And it is easy for anyone of us to say "If I were in that situation I would do XYX" or "she should dump him".  Easy.  No one knows what they would do in a similar situation unless they have been in a similar situation and have done something.  When Ex Dr lookeyloo left me, I was non functional. Money wasn't the issue.  At least he was good about that.  But everything else was a mess.  Should have, could have, etc. went out the window trying to survive.  It was a slow process of getting shit together.  Anna is in a mess now.  Probably hard to think of "I should leave him".  I still loved Ex Dr lookeyloo even though he was canoodling with the nurse he finally married.  People said to me "he is a B...... - you are lucky he is gone" which left me in tears.  I didn't want him gone.   So whatever Anna is thinking, and I am not a fan of this whole group, and I'm sure all the reports of her being a B.... are true, she still has a misery ahead of her.  

This. Anyone in her situation with a husband in a shitload of trouble, 7 kids to worry about and few resources, may well think advice to just leave him, get out, file for divorce isn't very realistic. Anna was brought up in a culture that frowns on divorce and that teaches that women must be subservient to their husbands. She buys into that. She's not going anywhere. 

 

Edited by Hpmec
  • Like 5
  • Sad 4

Share this post


Link to post

There is a solution to her money problems if she really wanted out. I've said this before about others who wanted out and didn't want to be dependent on JB. Write a tell-all. I don't think she'd do it because I think she's invested so much of herself in this relationship that admitting it was a failure would mean in her mind that she has failed, too, (and because she'd be a social pariah with most people she knows) and nobody wants to read a book where she defends her pervert of a husband. But if the only thing stopping her is she doesn't know how she'd support her kids, she has options that don't even involve working a regular job. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

This. Anyone in her situation with a husband in a shitload of trouble, 7 kids to worry about and few resources, may well think advice to just leave him, get out, file for divorce isn't very realistic. Anna was brought up in a culture that frowns on divorce and that teaches that women must be subservient to their husbands. She buys into that. She's not going anywhere. 

I think she's too deep in the cult to consider divorce. And if she did she would be up against it financially. Josh while in prison won't be earning money to pay child support, although he'd be expected to pay it for any children who are under age 18 when he's released. I assume Anna's lawyer could pierce the Duggar Enterprises shenanigans to locate any assets owned by Josh, and would have them awarded to Anna by the court in light of Josh's inability to pay support. But JB himself wouldn't be under any legal obligation to pay support to Anna or the kids. She's better off by sticking around the TTH, financially and since I don't think she's likely to rethink things at this point.

1 minute ago, Zella said:

There is a solution to her money problems if she really wanted out. I've said this before about others who wanted out and didn't want to be dependent on JB. Write a tell-all. I don't think she'd do it because I think she's invested so much of herself in this relationship that admitting it was a failure would mean in her mind that she has failed, too, (and because she'd be a social pariah with most people she knows) and nobody wants to read a book where she defends her pervert of a husband. But if the only thing stopping her is she doesn't know how she'd support her kids, she has options that don't even involve working a regular job. 

I agree - as to the tell-all option, and the unlikelihood that Anna would exercise it. Especially if JB and Meech not only keep supporting her and the M kids but don't make them feel like red-headed stepchildren while doing it. She couldn't divorce Josh without ripping herself and her kids apart from most of the people she knows; for her, a divorce is a nuclear option in a way it wouldn't be for someone who doesn't belong to such a cultish clannish world. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

How much could she realistically make on a book?  Would it be enough to support her and the kids until M8 is 18?  I rather doubt it.  That's the kind of money she'd need to be assured of getting to make such a drastic departure from her culture and upbringing worthwhile.  

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Absolom said:

How much could she realistically make on a book?  Would it be enough to support her and the kids until M8 is 18?  I rather doubt it.  That's the kind of money she'd need to be assured of getting to make such a drastic departure from her culture and upbringing worthwhile.  

She still has money from the sale of the Siloam Springs house. They made a tidy sum off that property. I forget the exact numbers, but IIRC, they cleared around $300k.

  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Absolom said:

How much could she realistically make on a book?  Would it be enough to support her and the kids until M8 is 18?  I rather doubt it.  That's the kind of money she'd need to be assured of getting to make such a drastic departure from her culture and upbringing worthwhile.  

It's the advance she'd make money on. If she played her cards right, she could invest it and parlay it into speaking opportunities. 

Not saying she'd retire on it, but it would be some money she could build a foundation on that wasn't tied to someone else being expected to support her and that would allow for the fact she may be unable or unwilling to find a regular job.  

Edited by Zella
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

She still has money from the sale of the Siloam Springs house. They made a tidy sum off that property. I forget the exact numbers, but IIRC, they cleared around $300k.

Depending on AR law she might only be able to get half of that in a divorce.  However, if she stays married she can spend it all more than likely.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Absolom said:

Depending on AR law she might only be able to get half of that in a divorce.  However, if she stays married she can spend it all more than likely.  

I would think she needs to negotiate a settlement that includes housing and support for every kid from Jim Bob, legally, not a church promise, or she'll write the book.  And tell ALL the dirt.  It's worth a gamble for a bit of independence, which of course Anna doesn't really want.  She wants to be told what to do.  God, just when my life looks sad, I look at Anna and realize I hit the lottery.

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

So sorry about the loss of your dog @hathorlive.

Thank you.  Jake was 16.5 years old.  I've had him longer than any relationship with a guy.  It's just hard to get used to him not being here.

  • Like 21
  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post

24 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

She still has money from the sale of the Siloam Springs house. They made a tidy sum off that property. I forget the exact numbers, but IIRC, they cleared around $300k.

Really? Wow, that’s real money! I hate that Josh has that kind of money. But I assume that’s money they’ve lived off since the TV money went away. 300K divided by 6 years off TV is only 50K per year in spending money. Of course, they don’t appear to pay a mortgage or even rent, so hopefully, she still has quite a bit of it. Then again, I’m sure he’s paying some of the lawyer fees  Jim Bob is stingy, so while he will certainly not leave Anna penniless after paying for the lawyers, I bet he is making Josh pay some of it  

I wonder if she would still have to give him half in a divorce if he’s in prison for cp though. I mean he will be a convicted sex offender. So does that make her free to go with their collective assets? Maybe I’ll try to ask the YouTube lawyer Emily the next time she livestreams. Lol

Edited by Fallacy
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

@hathorlive, I'm so sorry about Jake. I was a sobbing mess for quite awhile after my dog died and he was only with me for 11 years. I finally got to the place where my memories of him are a comfort, but sometimes I still miss him. And, don't tell anybody, but sometimes I talk to him even now. 

Thanks for all the light you've shed on Josh's case. 

ETA: I think it's interesting to discuss Anna's options if she seeks a divorce. I also think that's astoundingly unlikely to happen.

Edited by Jeeves
  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Zella said:

There is a solution to her money problems if she really wanted out. I've said this before about others who wanted out and didn't want to be dependent on JB. Write a tell-all.

It’s $100,000 it would net her wouldn’t last long.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Thank you.  Jake was 16.5 years old.  I've had him longer than any relationship with a guy.  It's just hard to get used to him not being here.

I'm so sorry for your loss. I still look for my kitty, Hillary, who died two years ago at 19+. Come on over to the small talk thread if you want to talk about Jake.

8 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

@hathorlive, I'm so sorry about Jake. I was a sobbing mess for quite awhile after my dog died and he was only with me for 11 years. I finally got to the place where my memories of him are a comfort, but sometimes I still miss him. And, don't tell anybody, but sometimes I talk to him even now. 

Thanks for all the light you've shed on Josh's case. 

One of the things I did after Hillary died was print and frame a couple of good pictures of her. I have been known (often) to wish her good morning/good night. I look for her begging in the kitchen even now.

Yes, Hathorlive, thank you so much for your expertise on cases like Josh's.

  • Like 10

Share this post


Link to post

Hathorlive, I am also so sorry to hear about the loss of your dog. Within this past year I have lost 2 of my 3 kitties. Our pets become family and it's hard when they pass on. 

  • Like 12

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

It’s $100,000 it would net her wouldn’t last long.

But it's still more than $0 and Jim Bob free. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, Zella said:

But it's still more than $0 and Jim Bob free. 

She would lose access to free housing, free childcare, free food, etc. Takes a lot of money to take care of that many children. Even at Rodriguez family levels.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post

If they stay married (which is likely), I wonder what life will be like when he does get out of jail (assuming he serves time in jail)? Will he be on parole and forbidden to live with children? “Treatment” mainly consists of trying to avoid temptation, so that he won’t offend again. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, JoanArc said:

She would lose access to free housing, free childcare, free food, etc. Takes a lot of money to take care of that many children. Even at Rodriguez family levels.

I understand all that. I was just pushing back on the narrative that seems to be forming that she has no other options. She does have options. Like all options, they have their pros and cons, but it's not like she is completely without a way in the world. Is that probably a very undesirable option to her, even for practical reasons? Of course. But it still remains as a course of action if she really wanted out. 

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

She would lose access to free housing, free childcare, free food, etc. Takes a lot of money to take care of that many children. Even at Rodriguez family levels.

She would likely be eligible for all of those through the state, depending on how many (or how few) assets she really has.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Laugh 1

Share this post


Link to post

@hathorlive sorry to hear about Jake, it’s hard to lose a member of the family and I think pets are generally the best members of the family. Also thanks for sharing your experience and knowledge with Josh type cases.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

If they stay married (which is likely), I wonder what life will be like when he does get out of jail (assuming he serves time in jail)? Will he be on parole and forbidden to live with children? “Treatment” mainly consists of trying to avoid temptation, so that he won’t offend again. 

If he's convicted, won't he have to register as a sex offender?  Do sex offenders have the right to live with minor children?  So many questions.

Thank you for all the kind comments and thoughts about Jake.  I will go over to the small talk thread in a few days.  I'm still in the ugly cry stage right now.  Pets are remarkable things in our lives.

Edited by hathorlive
  • Like 17
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

If he's convicted, won't he have to register as a sex offender?  Do sex offenders have the right to live with minor children?  So many questions.

Thank you for all the kind comments and thoughts about Jake.  I will go over to the small talk thread in a few days.  I'm still in the ugly cry stage right now.  Pets are remarkable things in our lives.

I am pretty sure Josh will have to register as a sex offender, but I think that is just a list to inform the general public and the actual rules regarding how much contact he can have with minor children, including his own, would be part of his probation/parole terms when he is released.  The judge might order him to live apart from the minor children, but might not.  

  • Like 4
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, Fallacy said:

I also did some speculating that those pictures might be some kind of tool the prosecution could be used to threaten Josh with more charges. Emily says no. Those pictures can only be used to establish that it was Josh who did the crime he’s being charged with. She said it would be unconstitutional for them to go back and file different charges based on the information they had at the time at the time of his arrest.

Going back to this because I think it's important.

I listened to the podcast, and I'm aware that the U.S. Constitution prohibits double jeopardy. 

On this specific point, I think she's both wrong and misinterpreting/not listening to the specific speculations that people are making. 

She did correctly note that, after the trial, the prosecution cannot come around and say, well, ok, we didn't get you on charges X and Y, so now we're going to charge you with Z, when Z is a related or lesser offense for the same crime (that is, another count of possessing CSA).

Also, he can't be tried by Arkansas for the same CSA possession charges. 

But before the trial and after the arrest? The prosecution can most certainly add charges, especially if they find more information prior to the trial and/or the person reoffends. 

Her statement that they can only use the stuff they had when he was arrested is just....wrong.

Recent examples include:

Lori Daybell: Arrested on February 20, 2020 for desertion/non-support of dependent children. She was not able to make bail, and has been in custody ever since. On July 9, 2020, the original charges of desertion/non-support of dependent children were dropped; Daybell was then charged with obstruction/concealment of evidence, with a trial scheduled for January 2021. That trial was postponed for various reasons. On May 21, 2021, Daybell was slammed with additional counts of conspiracy to commit murder and grand theft - again, after her arrest, but prior to trial.

Notably, the evidence for the new, serious charges was not found until after her arrest (which, yes, is relevant to something specific regarding Josh Duggar, as I'll get into below.) They still charged her for things that they did not have evidence for when she was arrested.

Chad Daybell: Arrested on June 9, 2020 for obstruction/concealment of evidence; did not post bail. Charged with additional counts of conspiracy to commit murder/financial fraud on May 21, 2021. 

On a federal level: 

Paul Manafort: Arrested on multiple financial/conspiracy charges on October 30, 2017. On February 22, 2018, Manafort was indicted on additional financial/conspiracy charges in a separate federal district. On June 8, 2018, Manafort was indicted on additional charges of witness tampering and obstruction of justice. His trial did not begin until July 31, 2018.

Several courts did, however, say that New York State could not try Manafort on similar charges since that would be double jeopardy and unconstitutional. 

Mossimo Giannulli/Lori Loughlin: Arrested on March 12, 2019 on conspiracy to commit mail fraud/honest services fraud. Indicted on additional charges of money-laundering on April 9, 2019. In this particular case, no new evidence was found between March 12 and April 9; prosecutors just added charges. 

And, perhaps the most pertinent example: 

Larry Nasser: Indicted under state charges of sexual assault of a child on November 16, 2016. Released on bail the same day. He was then indicted on additional federal charges for CSA material on December 16, 2016 - a month after his arrest. He is currently serving time for the federal charges; if he lives that long, he'll then serve out the state sentences.

So, her whole "they can't just add charges - they have to go with what they had on him when he was arrested"  seems.....really off. Like, we can point to several recent examples of this happening off.  

I can only assume that she may be responding to the idea - which I have seen - that they authorities will just add additional charges of possession based on the additional images of CSA material mentioned in the responses, and saying that won't be happening.  And, ok, but that's not the only thing that people are speculating - or the only thing suggested by the responses from the government. They are speculating - or, I would argue, less speculating and more reading the documents - that the government is hinting/noting that they may have the ability to indict Josh on completely new charges - similar to all the examples above, which would not break double jeopardy. From the responses, these new crimes/charges include:  

1. Tax/financial charges, based on the financial records already obtained by investigators. (It seems pretty clear from the footnotes that the investigators thought something was up with the car lot.) Since these are brand new charges, they would not jeopardize the double jeopardy clause. 

2. (Spoiler tagging for CSA speculation)

Spoiler

 

Distribution/potential creation of CSA. 

In another part of the podcast, Emily Baker tried to suggest that the pictures of Josh's hands and feet were taken to help provide evidence that the phones and other devices belonged to him and that's what the pictures would be used for. But this makes no sense - because no one is disputing that these devices belong to Josh. 

 

Spoiler

 

Even if they were, prosecutors don't need to take pictures of anyone's hands and feet to prove that Josh owns these devices. They can easily subpoena Microsoft, Apple, and whoever sold the devices - something easy to trace with the serial numbers on the devices. 

Nor did they take the pictures in an attempt to prove that photos place Josh at the scene of the crime - they already had sufficient evidence for that.

So, why did they take the pictures?

 

Spoiler

 

I don't know.

But others have speculated that prosecutors were hoping to be able to compare the images of Josh's hands and feet to some of the CSA images found on his computer. And this, unfortunately, doesn't just make a lot more sense than "they need to prove that this was his phone," but explains a lot of things: why Josh's defense attorneys (who have direct experience with these sorts of cases) are desperate to get these pictures tossed out; why prosecutors kept pointing out, over and over, how many CSA images were found on the laptop given that most of those images are not being used in these two indictments; and above all, why the pictures were taken in the first place. They were/are investigating to see if Josh was also involved in creating CSA - and they were reminding the defense attorneys that charges on this are still a possibility.

 

So to sum up, yes, federal and state prosecutors absolutely can indict Josh on further charges. That doesn't mean they will, but does mean that people reading/seeing threats in at least three (arguably four) of these responses are probably not wrong. 

I do agree with her, though, that Josh is in major, major legal jeopardy. 

 

  • Like 5
  • Useful 5

Share this post


Link to post

I think they want the picture of the hands because they match pictures of his hands at the time the material was downloaded. It places him at the scene of the crime. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, quarks said:

I do agree with her, though, that Josh is in major, major legal jeopardy. 

Not to diminish the horrific nature of the charges and the terrible spot Smuggar's immediate family is in, but sometimes schadenfreude is so sweet.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Zella said:

It's the advance she'd make money on. If she played her cards right, she could invest it and parlay it into speaking opportunities. 

Anna's a D-List celebrity, and the previous Duggar books didn't sell that well. So I'm not sure she would get that much in an advance. Let's say, generously, $120,000 prior to agency fees, taxes, and paying the ghostwriter, netting to around $60,000 - paid in installments over two years. It's not nothing, but I'm not sure she could support seven kids on that.

She could and should probably start looking into doing speaking gigs, though, to supplement her income. 

29 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I think they want the picture of the hands because they match pictures of his hands at the time the material was downloaded. It places him at the scene of the crime. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. 

Maybe, but a) the prosecution has plenty of other evidence placing Josh at the scene of the crime, discussed in the arraignment and in the various exhibits shown with these motions, and b) that's not exactly what the prosecution is saying.

Again, spoiler for CSA stuff: 

Spoiler

 

The direct quote:

"Law enforcement observed the same scar in images recovered from the defendant's electronic devices seized pursuant to a search warrant in this case."

That is not the same as saying that the scar matches pictures of Josh's hands at the time the material was downloaded - especially since nothing was mentioned about the timing here.

It's specifically saying that the scar matches images not just found, but recovered from Josh's devices.

 

Spoiler

 

And what were those images? Well, according to the Bit Torrent response, those images specifically described as recovered from the defendant's electronic devices were CSA images. No other images are described in the motions. 

So, again: they don't need these pictures to prove that Josh owns these devices. They have other evidence placing Josh at the car lot when the pictures were downloaded. What they did need - and apparently got - was some sort of evidence that the hands with the scar found in the images recovered from the laptop were Josh's hands. And that they got during the time of booking.

Since the prosecutors haven't added new charges, my guess is that they've decided that the matching scars won't be enough to convince a jury. But they sent the images to the defense anyway, partly as part of discovery, and partly to note/warn/threaten the defense that worse charges could be coming.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Anna does have options if she chooses to leave Josh, but I'm guessing they all feel nearly impossible at his point. Maybe sometime in the next 5 years, when the smoke clears and reality hits, she'll consider leaving Josh. She'll never have it financially as good as she has it now, but she also knows living on less is doable.

Anna may be an arrogant bitch, but I don't see her as someone who is not willing to work hard. If she stays within the Fundy community she could clean houses, home school/tutor. If she left the Fundy community and the Duggars she could possibly start by writing a book to kick off an Influencer gig. She doesn't need to make millions, but just enough to get by.

And like others have said, even if her income is near minimum wage, as a single parent of 7 she would qualify for Section 8, SNAP, day care vouchers and health insurance.

I'm guessing right now she's just leaving a state of shock, but is doing a lot of rationalization and is hoping things go back to the way the were. At some point she'll realize that will never be true, no matter the outcome of Josh's charges.

There's also one more option. Live off JB for the next 5 years while squirrelling away money with a plan to leave right before Josh gets out. Mackynzie will be 17 by then and M7 will be 5.  If Josh gets ten years, the three oldest will be adults and M7 will be 10.

  • Like 5
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

@quarks

I don’t want to quote your entire post, but I did want to note that I read it and get where you’re coming from. I think Emily’s point is that if the feds had evidence that Josh was involved in the production of cp at the time of his arrest, they would have to charge him with that then. Now if they found that evidence of that crime in the months since, yes, they could then charge him with it. But they can’t just hold onto that evidence as a threat to suggest that if he doesn’t accept a plea for the receiving and distribution charge, they will then tack on a production charge. That’s my understanding of what she meant. But again, I completely get where you’re coming from, and you may be absolutely correct that they could tack on production charges, but they’re sticking with the receiving and distribution charges for now because that’s what they can 100% prove. But I just can’t imagine that if they had evidence to support a production charge, which comes with a much heavier sentence, that they wouldn’t have started there and negotiated their way down to a plea deal for the receiving and distribution charges. 

Edited by Fallacy
  • Like 2
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post

To me it is simple...Anna cannot function on her own. She can't live without a husband or a responsible adult overseeing things for her. She was not brought up to know  how to do those things in the first place. She also has minimal education or training for anything but taking care of children and her own household. If her parents were worth anything themselves, they would take her and her 7 children in with them. After all, they had 8 children of their own in that mobile home. To me, they stink as parents. Who would not protect their own daughter from this mess? If they believe that God will provide, then God will provide for them to care for their daughter and grandchildren. Shame on the Kellar parents too, IMO. They are abandoning their daughter and grandchildren.

  • Like 22

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, floridamom said:

To me it is simple...Anna cannot function on her own. She can't live without a husband or a responsible adult overseeing things for her. She was not brought up to know  how to do those things in the first place. She also has minimal education or training for anything but taking care of children and her own household.

I think you've nailed it. I'm not saying she's intellectually incapable of functioning on her own.

But as you point out, she was taught (indoctrinated) by her parents that her God-given role in life is as a helpmeet to a man. As far as we know she didn't seriously rebel against that indoctrination, and in late adolescence she married Josh-U-a. She seemed rather starry-eyed about him. I know that one of her sisters did rebel and leave the fundie life. But AFAIK nobody has ever reported that Anna said or did anything to indicate that she wasn't just fine with the Duggar/fundie world she lives in. She always seemed very smug and happy to have joined the Duggar family, which has been a huge step up from her family's double-wide home in Florida. She got to be a TV stah, and for awhile a suburban DC housewife married to the spokesman for the FRC, driving nice cars, and since marrying Josh-U-a I doubt she's had to scrimp and save to feed her growing family. I don't think she's going anywhere, except probably to make faithfully regular visits to Josh in prison.

OTOH, there's Josh. I don't think he's a true believer in the family religion anymore, if he ever was. I wonder if he will eventually return to the family compound once he's a free man again (either after JB's high-priced lawyers win an acquittal or after Josh serves his time and is released). Maybe he'll load up a van and hit the road, leaving Tontitown in the rear view mirror forever. 

Edited by Jeeves · Reason: Need moar coffeeee . . .
  • Like 17

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Fallacy said:

@quarks

But I just can’t imagine that if they had evidence to support a production charge, which comes with a much heavier sentence, that they wouldn’t have started there and negotiated their way down to a plea deal for the receiving and distribution charges. 

And I can, because the entire point of that motion is that they didn't have that evidence when they indicted him. All they had were suspicions. In that one way, this is identical to the Chad and Lori Daybell situation when Lori was arrested - we all had our suspicions, but no one knew until months later when the evidence was found. And even once that evidence was found (June 2020), it still took the state close to a year to charge the Daybells with murder (May 2021). 

Which brings up a related point - it hasn't been all that long since the feds indicted/arrested Josh. Just four and a half months. It took them a year and a half to go from seizing his electronic devices to indicting/arresting them - and in the documents, the prosecutors mention that this was remarkably fast, especially given Covid restrictions.

So, yeah, given that they only got this particular evidence in late April, it's not at all surprising that they didn't bring additional charges at the time and haven't brought additional charges yet. 

I'll also note that, beyond the news reports of the original raid on the car lot, none of us knew that the feds were pursuing an active investigation into Josh until the April announcement of an upcoming indictment. We do know a little bit more now about the hearing/trial stuff. But we don't know about any potential ongoing investigations by the feds or the state of Arkansas, which might have some jurisdiction here depending upon the specifics. Which makes me very wary of any blanket statements assuring us that oh no, they won't be charging Josh with anything else - or, for that matter, oh yes, they will be charging Josh with something else. We just don't know. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Absolom said:

How much could she realistically make on a book?  Would it be enough to support her and the kids until M8 is 18?  I rather doubt it.  That's the kind of money she'd need to be assured of getting to make such a drastic departure from her culture and upbringing worthwhile.  

She would need an agent to make a book deal and the agent would take a big cut plus a percentage of any profits. Boob would never sanction it, anyway, and she needs Boob to keep a roof over her head and her children fed. 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, floridamom said:

To me it is simple...Anna cannot function on her own. She can't live without a husband or a responsible adult overseeing things for her. She was not brought up to know  how to do those things in the first place. She also has minimal education or training for anything but taking care of children and her own household. If her parents were worth anything themselves, they would take her and her 7 children in with them. After all, they had 8 children of their own in that mobile home. To me, they stink as parents. Who would not protect their own daughter from this mess? If they believe that God will provide, then God will provide for them to care for their daughter and grandchildren. Shame on the Kellar parents too, IMO. They are abandoning their daughter and grandchildren.

Anna does have a few siblings who broke away, and I assume they had an almost identical upbringing and (lack of) education.

  • Like 3
  • Useful 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

She would need an agent to make a book deal and the agent would take a big cut plus a percentage of any profits. Boob would never sanction it, anyway, and she needs Boob to keep a roof over her head and her children fed. 

If Anna and kids were ever kicked out, I bet she could rack up tens of thousands with an GoFundMe.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

She would need an agent to make a book deal and the agent would take a big cut plus a percentage of any profits. Boob would never sanction it, anyway, and she needs Boob to keep a roof over her head and her children fed. 

Seeing that Boob and MeShell, as well as the girls have "Written" books, could they possibly have connections to an agent already?  Granted a "Tell All" would probably require a different agent altogether.   Anna is too brainwashed into the cult to even know what to include in a tell-all.  She'd need a ghost writer for sure.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Scarlett45

Guidelines for the thread:

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

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

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

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

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size