Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[hathorlive]

8 minutes ago, Zella said:

I've personally always believed that Josh was a predator, ever since the molestations were made public. I never could get over how his attacks on his sisters decreased in age while also increasing in brazenness and level of assault.

Agreed.  He's a creepy predator who goes after those he thinks he can scare or control.  I always try to be very cautious with the term pedophile, though.  I have a friend who calls a certain politician a pedophile.  And it's such a lie and a misuse of the term.  I only use it in serious cases and after great thought. All we can do now is hope that justice is served and he's a marked man for life.  But I do fear that as his world narrows, his children are at risk. I have a friend who is a social worker who works with convicted sex offenders.  She knows that despite their intentions and hard work, the recidivism rate is nearly 70% for sex offenders.  That's depressing.  And an indicator of what we'll be reading in the future regarding Mr. Duggar.

[libgirl2]

15 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I will content myself with the notion that he'll be a registered sex offender for life, bringing all the frustrations of where he can live and work.

The problem is in his fundie world not much will be done. 

[Zella]

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

Agreed.  He's a creepy predator who goes after those he thinks he can scare or control.  I always try to be very cautious with the term pedophile, though.  I have a friend who calls a certain politician a pedophile.  And it's such a lie and a misuse of the term.  I only use it in serious cases and after great thought. All we can do now is hope that justice is served and he's a marked man for life.  But I do fear that as his world narrows, his children are at risk. I have a friend who is a social worker who works with convicted sex offenders.  She knows that despite their intentions and hard work, the recidivism rate is nearly 70% for sex offenders.  That's depressing.  And an indicator of what we'll be reading in the future regarding Mr. Duggar.

I use the word pedophile when it applies, i.e. someone who is primarily attracted to prepubescent children. I don't know that Josh's primary attraction is to children. I think his primary attraction is to hurting people and exerting power over them. But he certainly has no problem in engaging in pedophiliac acts, as is evidenced by what he did in molesting his sisters and the CSAM he was consuming, so I'm not going to lose any sleep over someone applying the term to him. 

[hathorlive]

1 minute ago, libgirl2 said:

The problem is in his fundie world not much will be done. 

They won't report him, but they don't live in a compound.  He will have "neighbors" even if they are 3 miles down the road.  And there always schools being built places.  And let's not forget the long arm of probation and parole officers.  They don't need a search warrant to look at his electronics.  And they do that on a regular basis.

[Churchhoney]

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I'm just angry because these cases never get the sentences they deserve. Based on his prior behavior of abusing children, he should be strung up and beaten with spoons for life. I think he might enjoy that though.  I wish everyone who is offended would write their elected officials for tougher sentencing laws.  I don't even know why we bother to prosecute them. I guess so the next time Josh gets caught perping on a child or downloading CP, he can get 10 years.

Yeah, I agree. There are a lot of sentencing guidelines that seem nuts to me. Drug crimes generally with sentences I think are often way too long. And when it comes to crimes that seriously harm people, a lot of prescribed sentences -- like these -- seem way too short.  I

I was just trying to explain how we got into the confusion we were in! 

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I wasn't confused, I was responding to your explanation of how sentencing guidelines work. 

I didn't mean that you were confused!

I meant that I was confused about what you guys were talking about because of the way the conversation started. Yet another example of how easy it is for confusions to get started! 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Churchhoney

[CandyCaneTree]

I think that Smuggar thinks that the judge will slap him on the wrist and say don't do that again and he is free to go. 

[Annb67]

So who do we call to report Josh violated his parole?

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, Zella said:

I had been willing to see it as "when your parents are this weird and fucked up about sex, you're going to be weird and fucked up too," but reading the actual police report was when I realized that what he did went waaaaay beyond that. 

Even after reading the police report, I still felt that way. I was so focused on JB and Michelle and how they  refused to get Josh any real help, that I kept telling myself that Josh escalated because of that.

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, I agree. There are a lot of sentencing guidelines that seem nuts to me. Drug crimes generally with sentences I think are often way too long. And when it comes to crimes that seriously harm people, a lot of prescribed sentences -- like these -- seem way too short.  I

 

 

A lot of sentencing guidelines are based on the demographics of those arrested for specific crimes rather than actual harm done.

[Minivanessa]

23 minutes ago, Annb67 said:

So who do we call to report Josh violated his parole?

Josh isn't on parole.

[sue450]

10 hours ago, Temperance said:

Josh was allegedly at the wedding on Friday which seems to violate his parole. It's doubtful the prosecution knows, and I don't think anything will come of it.

he is wearing an ankle monitor so wouldn't someone KNOW...if not who do we contact???

 

[YupItsMe]

3 hours ago, Zella said:

I've personally always believed that Josh was a predator, ever since the molestations were made public. I never could get over how his attacks on his sisters decreased in age while also increasing in brazenness and level of assault.

I believe that I’ve mentioned this in the past but my daughter is in her early 30s and we homeschooled all the way through. We would often see the Duggar family at conventions in AR and TX (they were usually speaking or leading workshops). It was an open secret that Josh was to be avoided and we never let our girls get anywhere near him. I never knew specifically what he had done, but the creep factor was huge even then.

[sue450]

1 hour ago, Jeeves said:

Josh isn't on parole.

he was at the wedding..I am sure there were children there he is NOT supposed to be around children...that was one of the stipulations for him to be out before the trial starts

[mythoughtis]

36 minutes ago, sue450 said:

he was at the wedding..I am sure there were children there he is NOT supposed to be around children...that was one of the stipulations for him to be out before the trial starts

But no one knows if he got permission for this one time event, an event where he could  have agreed to be in the company of  others(with someone standing guard at the restroom).   Where was the wedding? 

[sagittarius sue]

48 minutes ago, sue450 said:

he is wearing an ankle monitor so wouldn't someone KNOW...if not who do we contact???

 

I recall in the terms of his release there was mention that he could ask to attend events not specified.  He might have received permission.

[BigBingerBro]

No phones, laptops or recording devices allowed at Duggar child porn trial

[GeeGolly]

I thought Josh wasn't allowed to attend any events where he knows children would be. He had to know Josie would be there.

And they're not going to allow a chaperone. Josh has to police himself.

Edited November 23, 2021 by GeeGolly

[quarks]

Things we don't know:

1. If Josh was actually at the wedding, and if anyone can provide solid evidence that he was at the wedding.

2. If anyone else over 18 was available/able to stay with/supervise Josh at the Reber home during the wedding.

3. If he had permission to be at the wedding. 

4.  If, while at the wedding, he had "contact" with minors. The wording for the conditions of his release on bond is very specific - it's not "stay completely out of the vicinity of minors," it's "no contact with minors including family siblings/members with the exception that he may have supervised visits with his children."

I'm going to guess that if he was there, he had permission. It's not just that he hasn't been proven guilty yet, and that this was his brother-in-law's wedding, but his custodians were the parents of the bride, and two of his sisters-in-law were bridesmaids. Given the options of allowing him to stay unsupervised at a residence that, as per court testimony, does have access to the internet through cell phones, or allowing him to go the wedding with a "don't approach/speak to anyone under 18 who might be there, and leave right after the ceremony, ok?" I can see the bond officer agreeing to option 2.

[beckie]

If he did get say 5 to 8 years, or whatever, could he get out early for good behavior? Or would this be one of those situations where he served every day of his sentence?

[merylinkid]

6 hours ago, hathorlive said:

will content myself with the notion that he'll be a registered sex offender for life, bringing all the frustrations of where he can live and work.

He's going to get out of jail and go right back to working at the "car lot."   Only there won't be an internet hook up on the site or some such.    JB is not going to just let his fat ass sit around.   He has to at least APPEAR to be working.   A car lot if perfect.   Very few minors show up, hell, at that "car lot" very few of anyone show up.   JB can continue to use it to launder  money with the threat if Josh says anything, he will rat him out to his parole officer.   JB will have COMPLETE control over his son.  

[GeeGolly]

13 minutes ago, quarks said:

2. If anyone else over 18 was available/able to stay with/supervise Josh at the Reber home during the wedding.

I don't remember the terms including a babysitter. I thought the Rebers were providing a kid-free, internet-free place to stay while Josh awaits the trial. Its my understanding that the Rebers only had to agree to contact the authorities if they knew of Josh breaking the terms of the agreement, but not actually watch him or never leave him alone.

Edited November 23, 2021 by GeeGolly

[skatelady]

2 hours ago, YupItsMe said:

I believe that I’ve mentioned this in the past but my daughter is in her early 30s and we homeschooled all the way through. We would often see the Duggar family at conventions in AR and TX (they were usually speaking or leading workshops). It was an open secret that Josh was to be avoided and we never let our girls get anywhere near him. I never knew specifically what he had done, but the creep factor was huge even then.

Which, to me, makes Anna even more unlikeable. If she knew "something", and STILL chose to marry him, I truly question her motives. Well.... if ya lie down with dogs, ya get up with fleas.

[JoanArc]

12 minutes ago, beckie said:

If he did get say 5 to 8 years, or whatever, could he get out early for good behavior? Or would this be one of those situations where he served every day of his sentence?

has to serve 80% (85%?) of a federal sentence.

[LilJen]

On 11/21/2021 at 11:16 AM, CouchTater said:

What a terrible design for a custom home, especially considering they were a family of 21!  Even if they wanted to segregate and congregate the boys and girls, why not close up the 2nd floor and make bigger rooms? Or breakout rooms for study, group projects, etc?

It strikes me that the master bedroom—for only two people—is about half the size of each kids’ bedroom, which hosted 19-20 people between them. Even if we figure generously that a few kids were out of the nest before the last were born, it’s clear who JB and M feel is most important: THEMSELVES. (This message brought to you by The Coalition to Prove That Architecture Can Tell You Something About a Person.)

On 11/21/2021 at 10:38 PM, sue450 said:

yes the trifecta!

 

Or the Unholy Trinity, if you prefer.

Edited November 23, 2021 by LilJen

[quarks]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

I don't remember the terms including a babysitter. I thought the Rebers were providing a kid-free, internet-free place to stay while Josh awaits the trial. Its my understanding that the Rebers only had to agree to contact the authorities if the knew of Josh breaking the terms of the agreement, but not actually watch him or never leave him alone.

It's at the top of the bond release document:

"The defendant is placed in the custody of:

Person or organization: LaCount and Maria Reber
Address (only if above is an organization)
City and State: Elkins, AR

who agrees to (a) supervise the defendant, (b) use every effort to assure the defendant's appearance at all court proceedings, (c) notify the court immediately if the defendant violates a condition of release or is no longer in the custodian's custody."

Bolding mine, but no, they aren't just providing a kid-free, internet-free place to stay while Josh awaits trial. They are - at least in theory - supervising him. I think we can all question just how much supervising they are actually doing, but they legally cannot just leave Josh alone at their residence while they head off to a wedding.  From the wording, I'm not even sure if they could leave Josh with another adult.

[drafan]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I thought Josh wasn't allowed to attend any events where he knows children would be. He had to know Josie would be there.

And they're not going to allow a chaperone. Josh has to police himself.

He wouldn't try anything at this wedding. Joshley likes to work on the "sly" (tm: brag from Jessa).

Ugh.

[GeeGolly]

4 minutes ago, quarks said:

It's at the top of the bond release document:

"The defendant is placed in the custody of:

Person or organization: LaCount and Maria Reber
Address (only if above is an organization)
City and State: Elkins, AR

who agrees to (a) supervise the defendant, (b) use every effort to assure the defendant's appearance at all court proceedings, (c) notify the court immediately if the defendant violates a condition of release or is no longer in the custodian's custody."

Bolding mine, but no, they aren't just providing a kid-free, internet-free place to stay while Josh awaits trial. They are - at least in theory - supervising him. I think we can all question just how much supervising they are actually doing, but they legally cannot just leave Josh alone at their residence while they head off to a wedding.  From the wording, I'm not even sure if they could leave Josh with another adult.

Wow, that must have put the Rebers in a bit of a pickle in regard to the wedding.

[merylinkid]

1.  He probably had permission to attend IF he was there.

 

2.  Trial is next Tuesday.  No one is going to go to the effort of revoking a bond over the Thanksgiving holiday over his attending.  IF he had committed a crime sure.  But merely being somewhere he shouldn't well prosecutors have families they want to see.  Not drag some judge back from HIS break just to put Joshie in jail for a couple of days.

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, JoanArc said:

has to serve 80% (85%?) of a federal sentence.

85%

[quarks]

30 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

1.  He probably had permission to attend IF he was there.

 

2.  Trial is next Tuesday.  No one is going to go to the effort of revoking a bond over the Thanksgiving holiday over his attending.  IF he had committed a crime sure.  But merely being somewhere he shouldn't well prosecutors have families they want to see.  Not drag some judge back from HIS break just to put Joshie in jail for a couple of days.

Yeah, this.

On top of that, if he was there, and if he stayed for any part of the indoor reception, then he was just indoors with a number of people who were not wearing masks and may or may not have been vaccinated. 

[Tdoc72]

5 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

No phones, laptops or recording devices allowed at Duggar child porn trial

Forget trial by tweet.  I guess we’ll get updates at lunch and end of day. 

[GeeGolly]

I'm curious. The last two times we saw Josh and Anna leaving the courthouse, they were only masked the second time. Are masks required in all federal courthouses, or do states have discretion? And I wonder if they intentionally kept their masks on the second time to avoid comments on their expressions.

I remember back to the beginning of the pandemic when masks were suggested and then required, many folks found wearing them very challenging. I was grateful I was working from home and didn't need to wear one for 8 hours a day, every day. Now masks feel kind of normal to me, but still challenging after an extended period of time. If masks are required Josh will have to go from barely wearing one, to wearing one all day, for a couple of weeks. I guess he can consider that minor inconvenience an early introduction to the major inconveniences one experiences when locked up.

[Albanyguy]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

 If masks are required Josh will have to go from barely wearing one, to wearing one all day, for a couple of weeks. I guess he can consider that minor inconvenience an early introduction to the major inconveniences one experiences when locked up.

But that’s so unfair! If he has to wear a mask, how will he be able to charm the jury with his innocent, sincere boyish smile? 

[Rootbeer]

10 hours ago, Tdoc72 said:

Forget trial by tweet.  I guess we’ll get updates at lunch and end of day. 

Katie Joy is undoubtedly devastated.  She was no doubt counting on lots of traffic for her instant updates from the courtroom.

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I'm curious. The last two times we saw Josh and Anna leaving the courthouse, they were only masked the second time. Are masks required in all federal courthouses, or do states have discretion? And I wonder if they intentionally kept their masks on the second time to avoid comments on their expressions.

I think they or their legal team saw all the comments about their smug expressions and decided that they should keep the masks up until safely away from the courtroom.

I believe there is still a mask mandate in place for all federal buildings for both employees and visitors.  Since this is a federal case, I expect everyone in the courtroom will be masked.

Edited November 24, 2021 by Rootbeer

[quarks]

All of the court documents for Josh say "Western District of Arkansas."  This July 27, 2021 document from the Western District of Arkansas is the most recent order for that district I could find, and says that masks are required in jury trials. Apart from informing us about masks, it also serves as a friendly reminder that you can have an advanced degree and a respectable government job and still get "its" and "it's" mixed up:

https://www.arwd.uscourts.gov/sites/arwd/files/Administrative Order No 2021-10.pdf

 

[Quilt Fairy]

From the article covering courtroom protocol:

Quote

The judge covered COVID-19 protocol for the trial, noting that members of the public in the gallery will be required to wear masks, but there will be a mask exception for “trial participants in speaking roles.” He added that testifying witnesses will be encouraged to remove masks while talking, but will not be forced to do so.

 

[Tabbygirl521]

On 11/22/2021 at 7:25 AM, Rootbeer said:

Yeah, I would've been hard pressed to come up with half a dozen people to be my wedding attendants back in the day and 4 of them would've been my sisters.  It seems like brides want a spectacle these days and having a massive herd of people tromping down the aisle ahead of them is part of it.  

As I recall, Kate Middleton had exactly one attendant; her sister, and a few flower girls.  And, yet, she still managed to make it down the aisle and get married.

I believe that’s pretty typical of English weddings. The zillion-bridesmaid thing seems to be more American. 

[Tabbygirl521]

19 hours ago, sue450 said:

he is wearing an ankle monitor so wouldn't someone KNOW...if not who do we contact???

 

He may have received permission to attend the wedding. 

[galaxygirl76]

I believe that you are required to wear a mask in all federal buildings.

[merylinkid]

The last holiday and the last weekend for Joshie to be a free man for a good long time ........

[GeeGolly]

10 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

The last holiday and the last weekend for Joshie to be a free man for a good long time ........

If found guilty will they take him right then and there? I see two other possibilities - allowing him to return home until a sentencing hearing or allowing him time to "get his affairs in order", and setting a later incarceration date.

[Rootbeer]

12 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

If found guilty will they take him right then and there? I see two other possibilities - allowing him to return home until a sentencing hearing or allowing him time to "get his affairs in order", and setting a later incarceration date.

With the nature of his crime, I would hope that he would be immediately taken into custody.   

[farmgal4]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:25 AM, Zella said:

I had been willing to see it as "when your parents are this weird and fucked up about sex, you're going to be weird and fucked up too," but reading the actual police report was when I realized that what he did went waaaaay beyond that. 

Where can I find the actual police report?

[SMama]

34 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

If found guilty will they take him right then and there? I see two other possibilities - allowing him to return home until a sentencing hearing or allowing him time to "get his affairs in order", and setting a later incarceration date.

Pedophile should have his affairs in order by now. Also, he can do things from behind bars.

[Zella]

19 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

Where can I find the actual police report?

In Touch Weekly has had it all on Imgur since the story broke in 2015:

https://m.imgur.com/a/zqPMi

[quarks]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

If found guilty will they take him right then and there? I see two other possibilities - allowing him to return home until a sentencing hearing or allowing him time to "get his affairs in order", and setting a later incarceration date.

I think there's only two possibilities with federal courts after a guilty verdict: immediate imprisonment, or a continuance of the bond release/home detention until sentencing. 

I have no idea which one will apply here. On the one hand, these are very serious charges, and the prosecution has already told the judge that these may not be first offenses, even if these are the first charges.  So I think chances are good that he'll be immediately sent to jail after a guilty verdict, with that time credited towards his overall sentence. 

On the other hand, as the defense has repeatedly reminded us, technically, these are computer crimes, and no one is alleging that Josh used a deadly weapon or another type of force to commit these specific alleged charges. The defense has also previously argued, successfully, that Josh isn't a flight risk, and whatever else can or cannot be said about him, he has apparently stayed in Arkansas to await sentencing.

So he might be released until sentencing, but I don't think he should count on it.

[SMama]

The possibility of Mrs. Reber getting stuck with the pedophile makes me laugh. Yes, I’m evil that way. She testified she didn’t feel comfortable alone with the pedophile, now she doesn’t even have Hannah to keep her company. 

[Dianaofthehunt]

I’m sorry that Mrs. Reber might have to continue housing that carcinoma after sentencing, but she should have spoken up and said “NO!” In the first place. 
Yes, I realize in their world, women's’ opinions don’t count for squat.

[beckie]

Stupid question. If no electronic or recording devices are allowed, does that mean the trial cannot be viewed remotely? 

[emmawoodhouse]

16 minutes ago, beckie said:

Stupid question. If no electronic or recording devices are allowed, does that mean the trial cannot be viewed remotely? 

No, it can't. 

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

I’m sorry that Mrs. Reber might have to continue housing that carcinoma after sentencing, but she should have spoken up and said “NO!” In the first place. 
Yes, I realize in their world, women's’ opinions don’t count for squat.

I feel bad for her.   She spoke up as forcefully as she felt she safely could considering her husband was all for it.   The JUDGE who is NOT fundie, did not take her seriously and allowed it.   this is on the Judge.