Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[sue450]

On 12/4/2021 at 11:29 AM, CandyCaneTree said:

Am I  losing my mind because I remember Anna saying that she takes care of the top of the babies and Smuggar takes care of the bottom half of the babies. 

yes she said   she take care of the northern (top  breastfeeding , feeding)  and josh takes the south ( lower half diaper changing)   this takes on a a whole new HORRIBLE meaning knowing what we know now

I always thought it was weird he changes diapers, the woman do that ,,and he was always rude to anna made her carry in the luggage on their honeymoon...and another time she was extremely pregnant walking up steep steps to the plane and he didn't even hold her hand to help her

[Jeanne222]

I hope if for no other reason Josh goes to prison to protect those seven little children 

I just can’t forgive Anna if anything at all has happened to any of them!

I have heard so many reasons she stands by Josh but no matter what no decent woman would be there.  

Anna is a fool and I wonder if child protective services have ever questioned the children?

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

I hope if for no other reason Josh goes to prison to protect those seven little children 

I just can’t forgive Anna if anything at all has happened to any of them!

I have heard so many reasons she stands by Josh but no matter what no decent woman would be there.  

Anna is a fool and I wonder if child protective services have ever questioned the children?

It was rumored that CPS tried to meet with the kids, but they were prevented from doing so. I'm not sure where I heard this, but I do remember seeing it in multiple places.

[Lady Jane]

2 hours ago, mittsigirl said:

Can the prosecution ever fix anything in closing arguments, or is it too late to bring up anything that the defense would consider new evidence? Are cases ever won by the prosecution with their closing arguments?

Cases aren't even typically won during the evidence-presentation part. Numerous studies over the years have consistently found that 80% of jurors make up their minds during opening statements, and do not change.

I think there are a few human behavior/psychological reasons for this, the first being that human beings are HORRIBLE at being able to hold two distinct thoughts/feelings/responses in mind. We like conclusions. It is unnatural for a human being to sit with two opposing ideas -- this guy is guilty or he's not guilty--without extreme (psychological discomfort). The problem is confounded by our tendency to confirmation bias -- 80% of jurors make up their minds at opening, and they tend to listen only for evidence that supports their belief. If a juror has decided already that the defendant is not guilty, they will be extremely difficult to sway because they're literally not listening to or valuing information that contradicts the narrative they've bought in to.

Also we should keep in mind that the things stated in the opening statement are not facts. They are theories and a story, but they're not evidence. They're a roadmap they hope the jury adopts. You tend to phrase everything as "the evidence will show . . . "  

If you recall the Casey Anthony case, in the opening statements her lawyer just said HORRIFIC things about Casey's dad -- that he was molesting and raping her, etc., and it was really disturbing to hear. They didn't introduce one shred of evidence to support that theory at trial. Nothing. They never spoke of it again, really. Closing statements is where you tie all the threads together at the end, referencing the specific exhibits and testimony that were introduced into evidence.

Finally, even in the absence of surprising testimony or an unexpected argument, or even a witness you didn't expect, every lawyer working on this case will be working 18+ hour days, including weekends, for the duration of trial, and just slightly less than that for weeks and weeks before the trial.

 

[mittsigirl]

2 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

It was rumored that CPS tried to meet with the kids, but they were prevented from doing so. I'm not sure where I heard this, but I do remember seeing it in multiple places.

How can anyone prevent them from doing their job, when it comes to those types of sick minds living with children? I had no idea that anyone could stop them. I will be spending time on google before bed, see if I can find something out about that. Just so very sad.

[Jeanne222]

3 minutes ago, mittsigirl said:

How can anyone prevent them from doing their job, when it comes to those types of sick minds living with children? I had no idea that anyone could stop them. I will be spending time on google before bed, see if I can find something out about that. Just so very sad.

Personally I’d like to know if you find anything.   TIA

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, mittsigirl said:

How can anyone prevent them from doing their job, when it comes to those types of sick minds living with children? I had no idea that anyone could stop them. I will be spending time on google before bed, see if I can find something out about that. Just so very sad.

IIRC, it was Anna who stopped them. I suppose a parent can do that? Especially a parent in denial.

[mittsigirl]

3 minutes ago, Lady Jane said:

Cases aren't even typically won during the evidence-presentation part. Numerous studies over the years have consistently found that 80% of jurors make up their minds during opening statements, and do not change.

I think there are a few human behavior/psychological reasons for this, the first being that human beings are HORRIBLE at being able to hold two distinct thoughts/feelings/responses in mind. We like conclusions. It is unnatural for a human being to sit with two opposing ideas -- this guy is guilty or he's not guilty--without extreme (psychological discomfort). The problem is confounded by our tendency to confirmation bias -- 80% of jurors make up their minds at opening, and they tend to listen only for evidence that supports their belief. If a juror has decided already that the defendant is not guilty, they will be extremely difficult to sway because they're literally not listening to or valuing information that contradicts the narrative they've bought in to.

Also we should keep in mind that the things stated in the opening statement are not facts. They are theories and a story, but they're not evidence. They're a roadmap they hope the jury adopts. You tend to phrase everything as "the evidence will show . . . "  

If you recall the Casey Anthony case, in the opening statements her lawyer just said HORRIFIC things about Casey's dad -- that he was molesting and raping her, etc., and it was really disturbing to hear. They didn't introduce one shred of evidence to support that theory at trial. Nothing. They never spoke of it again, really. Closing statements is where you tie all the threads together at the end, referencing the specific exhibits and testimony that were introduced into evidence.

Finally, even in the absence of surprising testimony or an unexpected argument, or even a witness you didn't expect, every lawyer working on this case will be working 18+ hour days, including weekends, for the duration of trial, and just slightly less than that for weeks and weeks before the trial.

 

Wow. Thanks so much for explaining all of that, it now makes more sense to me. It's confusing to hear that it is so soon that the jury makes up their mind about a case, but I understand because of how our brains work things through. It's just much easier to be on this side and have my own mind made up and wonder why the jury can't see things the way I see them, the way that we on this board see them. But they never sat and watched every show on TLC, or discussed things with others who have watched this circus over the years, so they won't have the same insights that we would have. Here I was really hoping that closing arguments could fix things if they were going in the wrong direction. Time will tell. Thanks again:)

4 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

Personally I’d like to know if you find anything.   TIA

Yes, I will let you know!

[Scarlett45]

Speculation in potential victims of Josh Duggar IS NOT allowed. 
 

You may discuss anything a now adult victim who has chosen to come forward has stated, but discussion of possible victims (adults or minors) is not allowed. 

[MaryAnneSpier]

I wonder if any of Josh's family think that maybe he accidentally downloaded the images and just looked at pictures out of curiosity one time and never again. Or now that he's a full-grown adult, are they going to throw the curiosity excuse out? I really hope that at least a few of Josh's adult siblings who have children will come to realize how potentially dangerous he is to have around their own kids and put their foot down to exclude him from their lives. 

[ginger90]

CPS cannot enter a person’s home without their permission. They can enter with a court order, or if it is thought a child is in immediate danger., though.

 

[emmawoodhouse]

Uncivil Law discusses the Rule 414 (admission of prior acts into evidence). He's not a Duggar expert at all, but he certainly doesn't like Smuggar. 

 

[mittsigirl]

9 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Uncivil Law discusses the Rule 414 (admission of prior acts into evidence). He's not a Duggar expert at all, but he certainly doesn't like Smuggar. 

 

Thank-you!

[Soup333]

On 12/4/2021 at 4:57 PM, Tabbygirl521 said:

OK, someone on Reddit just said they think it was Ben and Jessa who said they take of different ends of the kids. I hope to God that’s true. 

I'm not a regular viewer but I distinctly remember it being Ben and Jessa. 

[lascuba]

5 minutes ago, Soup333 said:

I'm not a regular viewer but I distinctly remember it being Ben and Jessa. 

It might have been Ben who mentioned changing diapers so a new mom can rest, but it was definitely Anna who said that bit about north and south ends. 

And she said this in one of the last episodes filmed, when she knew that In Touch had the police report and was going to break the story.

[Soup333]

2 minutes ago, lascuba said:

It might have been Ben who mentioned changing diapers so a new mom can rest, but it was definitely Anna who said that bit about north and south ends. 

And she said this in one of the last episodes filmed, when she knew that In Touch had the police report and was going to break the story.

When Jessa made the comment, it was about input and output. She said Ben was in charge of the output since she was nursing, i.e., the input. Anna may have said something similar using directions instead. Seems like a joke they might all make.

 

episdoe recap

[lascuba]

8 minutes ago, Soup333 said:

When Jessa made the comment, it was about input and output. She said Ben was in charge of the output since she was nursing, i.e., the input. Anna may have said something similar using directions instead. Seems like a joke they might all make.

 

episdoe recap

That's Counting On, the episode I'm thinking of was from 19kac.

They've all made comments in the past about dads being in charge of diaper changes the first few weeks. (Except for Jinger, because Jeremy does fuck all .)

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, Lady Jane said:

every lawyer working on this case will be working 18+ hour days, including weekends, for the duration of trial

Apparently we are too.   Even with no court, we've kept this thread hot all weekend.

1 hour ago, mittsigirl said:

Here I was really hoping that closing arguments could fix things if they were going in the wrong direction.

Closing argument is the time to tie things all together.   You cannot introduce new evidence.   if it wasn't introduced during the presentation of evidence, you can't mention it in closing.   So in this case you can't say "The Defense made a big deal out of remote access, but we checked the logs last night, no remote access."   What you can say is "The defense made a big deal out of remote access, but they want you to believe that at the exact moment Josh Duggar was sitting at the computer working away, someone just happened to remotely access the computer and that person just happened to download porn onto it.   Not porn they could watch at that moment, because they were downloading to a computer they were not AT.   The only person sitting at that computer who could see what was on the computer AT THAT MOMENT was Josh Duggar."  

[beckie]

I think deep down Anna knows all the bad, horrible, awful stuff about Josh is true, but she's in deep denial. Because if she admitted or accepted any of it, practically her whole married life would be a lie and a shit storm and I don't think she can accept that. So it's easier for her to check out, rather than face the facts.

[Tabbygirl521]

5 hours ago, sue450 said:

yes she said   she take care of the northern (top  breastfeeding , feeding)  and josh takes the south ( lower half diaper changing)   this takes on a a whole new HORRIBLE meaning knowing what we know now

I always thought it was weird he changes diapers, the woman do that ,,and he was always rude to anna made her carry in the luggage on their honeymoon...and another time she was extremely pregnant walking up steep steps to the plane and he didn't even hold her hand to help her

In all the recent photos I’ve seen, he always looks like he’s dragging her along by the hand. Lovely. 

[js9548]

9 hours ago, kaleidoscope said:

Did Josh have to pay to download the pictures?  If so, is there a money trail?

I would like to know this also. 

[Minivanessa]

8 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Closing argument is the time to tie things all together.   You cannot introduce new evidence.   if it wasn't introduced during the presentation of evidence, you can't mention it in closing. 

That's very well said. I confess, I started writing a post on that point last night but got too rambly and gave up on it, lol. 

[Minivanessa]

8 hours ago, Zella said:

Yeah I could be interpreting this incorrectly--lawyers stop me now--but my understanding is even if the molestations had not been made public before now, that evidence of what he did as a minor would still be admissible, provided someone was willing to testify about it. 

Bringing this over from the Joy/Austin topic. 

That's right. The court order I discussed on the Smugs thread a few days ago, mentioned the lawsuit and publicity as showing the evidence wasn't seriously disputed, but held that Mrs. Holt's testimony was sufficient to prove it.

First the court found that evidence of the molestations is admissible in this trial under Federal Rule 414, and then that the testimony of Mrs. Holt and JB wasn't protected by a privilege (as argued by the defense).

Then the court evaluated whether the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Josh.  One of the factors in that analysis was, how seriously disputed the facts of the molestations are. The court found, "there is no serious dispute about the facts surrounding Defendant’s prior acts of child molestation. Defendant’s father and Mrs. Holt testified to essentially the same facts, and Defendant and four of his sisters filed civil lawsuits in 2017 discussing these same facts and treating the allegations of child molestation as true. Moreover, during the hearing, Defendant’s father testified that he and his wife appeared on a nationally televised talk show in 2015 and openly discussed the acts of child molestation that Defendant committed against the four child victims."

The lawsuit and other publicity work against the defense, but even without them the molestations could be admitted into evidence with appropriate testimony, i.e., Mrs. Holt's. 

That comment by the court about JB and Mrs. Holt testifying to "essentially the same facts" gave me a little chuckle. As we know, the court found JB's testimony to be lacking credibility and just for fun I'll quote from the paragraph devoted to it in the order: "Defendant’s father, Jim Bob, testified at the hearing and largely corroborated the testimony of Mrs. Holt. For example, he agreed that Defendant inappropriately touched at least four children, but he was hazy on the details. . . . . In other words, he admitted the touching was “inappropriate,” but he was unwilling to provide further details, pleading a lack of memory. The Court found Mr. Duggar’s selective lapse in memory to be not credible; he was obviously reluctant to testify against his son. In any event, his testimony is not necessary for the Government to introduce Rule 414 evidence at trial; Mrs. Holt’s testimony is sufficient."  [bolding added by me]

BTW in the section of the order analyzing the defense's argument that the testimony of Mrs. Holt and JB should be excluded because of a clergy ("priest-penitent") privilege, the court dropped this fun little footnote, which tickles me so much I just have to repeat it. Remember, this is on the subject of whether the conversations with Mrs. Holt about Josh's molestations were covered by a clergy privilege. There were multiple fatal weaknesses in the defense position, including that Mrs. Holt didn't hold a position in the church "analogous to that of a minister, priest, or rabbi." That's where the court's footnote puts JB in his place: "Jim Bob Duggar testified clearly that there were only three leaders of their church in 2002 and 2003: himself, Mr. Holt, and another man named Clark Wilson. Later in his testimony, Mr. Duggar claimed that his wife and Mrs. Holt could be thought of as “joint elders” of the church, simply because they were married to elders and would “help with special things.” The Court rejects this testimony as self-serving, contradictory, and lacking in credibility."

Boom.

Recap on how JB did as a witness: No credibility at all on the subject of the position of Mrs. Holt in the church, and not credible as to his claims of memory lapse on the details of the molestations as disclosed to him back in the day. However, hazy as he was on the details he "largely corroborated" Mrs.Holt's much more damaging testimony.

Nice job, Boob. Heh.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Jeeves
Clarity. It's a goal.

[Churchhoney]

8 hours ago, beckie said:

I think deep down Anna knows all the bad, horrible, awful stuff about Josh is true, but she's in deep denial. Because if she admitted or accepted any of it, practically her whole married life would be a lie and a shit storm and I don't think she can accept that. So it's easier for her to check out, rather than face the facts.

Yes, and it wouldn't just be her marriage that would be horribly tainted. Because she's devoted to her particular faith and cult. And because of that her marriage wasn't something she entered after dating some guys and choosing one. She entered marriage fully led by her super-godly parents and by Josh's super-godly parents -- all four pillars of their cult -- and by God himself. I've never even watched much actual Duggar stuff and I've heard her say exactly this.....

That the man she married is the one that God himself gave her and that she knows that. She prayed for the right man for her, but she didn't act herself. Unlike all the heathen marriages out here, her marriage was really made by the prayer and wisdom of those four parents, who could really hear God's word and prayerfully know that Josh was the man for her. I'll bet this is a key part of the wisdom that she's now praised for passing on to other young women in their group. 

What do you think about a huge mess in an aspect of your life that you've always believed was specially arranged for your good by the godliest people you know (as they all say about their parents) and by God himself, when you're a person whose religion is the single center of your life? Looking straight at the Josh mess would threaten the entire foundation of her life and everything she's always believed in, seems to me. Why would your God consciously and deliberately give one of his most faithful followers -- a naive young girl at the time -- a husband who's sexually excited by seeing vicious harm done to small children?  

In her case, I think facing the truth wouldn't just involve disillusion with one person who's very important to her or with her own judgment but disillusion with the entire structure of her world. And she's had hammered into her from birth that that structure s the only good life foundation that exists. Facing the truth would literally call into question everyone she knows and everything she's ever believed. If that prospect didn't put you into massive denial, I don't know what would. 

[GeeGolly]

[Jeanne222]

11 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Uncivil Law discusses the Rule 414 (admission of prior acts into evidence). He's not a Duggar expert at all, but he certainly doesn't like Smuggar. 

 

Very interesting.  Thank you!

[Jeanne222]

Who will be testifying today?

[Zella]

Thanks so much, @Jeeves! That was very helpful! The quotes from the judge's ruling are gold. Lol

[Rootbeer]

4 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

Who will be testifying today?

The prosecution is still presenting.  If they didn't finish up with the computer forensics expert on Friday, he'll be back on the stand.  It is quite possible that Mrs. Holt and Jill will be testifying today, too.  The prosecution is supposedly almost done and expected to wrap it up sometime today, at which time, the defense will present their witnesses.  This is when Josh would testify-but there is no way the defense is going to let that happen because he would have to answer questions about his prior acts and that is nothing but dangerous for him at this point.  Technically, the defendant gets to decide if he will testify, it's not up to his lawyers; but I cannot believe that Josh wants to give testimony and his lawyers sure as hell don't want him on the stand.

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

Derek Dillard as well as Austin and Joy are present

[absnow54]

Derrick with a new haircut, and Anna got a new pair of shoes!

[Rootbeer]

4 minutes ago, Lindsay Loo Hoo said:

Derek Dillard as well as Austin and Joy are present

So, the usual crowd.

Anna's previous shoes were ugly and looked uncomfortable, so I hope she improved on that.  Nice to see she found a new dress too.  Interesting that it is very red.

Derick got what my mom used to refer to as a 'big boy haircut'.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Rootbeer

[absnow54]

2 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Anna's previous shoes were ugly and looked uncomfortable, so I hope she improved on that.

I think they're the same as her brown pair, but in black, so no. They at least match her dress though. 

[Churchhoney]

Wanna buy a used car from this guy? 

Wanna buy a flipped house from this guy? 

Wanna belong to a tiny church where he's the newest but likely most dominant member after decades of walking out of other churches in a huff, pissed because somebody there didn't accept his every word as law?

Wanna marry one of his 20 kids and have him be your domineering in-law? 

Wanna convert to the brand of Christianity he pushes?

Wanna fall in line with his views on women's place, offspring's place, and LGBQT people's place in society? (Hint: it's well below his or, in the case of the third group, banned altogether!)

What could go wrong when the guy on the other side of the transaction is "self-serving, contradictory, and lacking in credibility."

Everything he does in life -- including convincing all 19/20 of his kids that they have to remain completely under his and his wife's thumbs until JB and M both drop dead -- depends on people trusting that he acts in good faith and sensibly. Love the way he helped the judge shoot that notion straight to hell. 

 

 

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Tabbygirl521]

2 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yes, and it wouldn't just be her marriage that would be horribly tainted. Because she's devoted to her particular faith and cult. And because of that her marriage wasn't something she entered after dating some guys and choosing one. She entered marriage fully led by her super-godly parents and by Josh's super-godly parents -- all four pillars of their cult -- and by God himself. I've never even watched much actual Duggar stuff and I've heard her say exactly this.....

That the man she married is the one that God himself gave her and that she knows that. She prayed for the right man for her, but she didn't act herself. Unlike all the heathen marriages out here, her marriage was really made by the prayer and wisdom of those four parents, who could really hear God's word and prayerfully know that Josh was the man for her. I'll bet this is a key part of the wisdom that she's now praised for passing on to other young women in their group. 

What do you think about a huge mess in an aspect of your life that you've always believed was specially arranged for your good by the godliest people you know (as they all say about their parents) and by God himself, when you're a person whose religion is the single center of your life? Looking straight at the Josh mess would threaten the entire foundation of her life and everything she's always believed in, seems to me. Why would your God consciously and deliberately give one of his most faithful followers -- a naive young girl at the time -- a husband who's sexually excited by seeing vicious harm done to small children?  

In her case, I think facing the truth wouldn't just involve disillusion with one person who's very important to her or with her own judgment but disillusion with the entire structure of her world. And she's had hammered into her from birth that that structure s the only good life foundation that exists. Facing the truth would literally call into question everyone she knows and everything she's ever believed. If that prospect didn't put you into massive denial, I don't know what would. 

All of this, plus she seems to have been taught that this is somehow her fault. 

[Quilt Fairy]

19 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

28 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

Who will be testifying today?

The prosecution is still presenting.  If they didn't finish up with the computer forensics expert on Friday, he'll be back on the stand.

They stayed late Friday so that guy could finish his testimony.

[Dianaofthehunt]

Anna's previous shoes were ugly and looked uncomfortable, so I hope she improved on that.  Nice to see she found a new dress too.  Interesting that it is very red.

Derick got what my mom used to refer to as a 'big boy haircut

Can someone post a photo of this fashion extravaganza? I also want to see Dereck’s new ‘do.

[Tuxcat]

Looks like they both went shopping. Defense team probably not happy with Friday's look. Red seems intentional.

1 minute ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

Anna's previous shoes were ugly and looked uncomfortable, so I hope she improved on that.  Nice to see she found a new dress too.  Interesting that it is very red.

Derick got what my mom used to refer to as a 'big boy haircut

Can someone post a photo of this fashion extravaganza? I also want to see Dereck’s new ‘do.

 

[auntieminem]

22 minutes ago, absnow54 said:

Derrick with a new haircut

Jill posted on insta stories she gave haircuts yesterday.  

[Tuxcat]

3 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

Anna's previous shoes were ugly and looked uncomfortable, so I hope she improved on that.  Nice to see she found a new dress too.  Interesting that it is very red.

Derick got what my mom used to refer to as a 'big boy haircut

Can someone post a photo of this fashion extravaganza? I also want to see Dereck’s new ‘do.

 

[CouchTater]

[CandyCaneTree]

Just now, CouchTater said:

They say that red is a power color. 

[Dianaofthehunt]

That is a SHARP dress! That would look good on ME. 
‘Course, I prefer a bit of a plunge in my neckline, to show off my godly charms…
Derek my man, use a blade in your razor next time.

[merylinkid]

53 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

I cannot believe that Josh wants to give testimony

My opinion -- I think Josh WANTS to testify.   Remember, he thinks he is so charming and everyone loves him.   He thinks if he can just turn on the charm, the jury will love him and buy every explanation he throws out there.   And like his Dad, he can just refuse to answer certain questions because he's special.   

Of course his attorneys after dealing with his arrogant entitled ass for MONTHS is practically throwing themselves in front of him to keep him from going up on the stand.   They KNOW how his 'charm" really comes across.   They also know he can't just refuse to answer certain questions (SOL has run on the previous acts, so he is not facing the possibility of self-incrimination on THOSE acts).   They also know he will LIE through his teeth and they can't suborn perjury.   Daddy Duggar ain't paying them enough to risk their law licenses for these idiots.

[Zella]

The Sun is reporting Jessa, James, and Jed as all present today. 

[CouchTater]

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/4174486/josh-duggar-trial-live-updates-child-pornography-arrest-verdict/

This is the link to The Sun's live coverage, if anyone wants to follow.

Latest is that Joy seems upset and Jessa seems in high spirits, talking to Anna and smiling.

[absnow54]

Quote

The Sun reporter at the trial observed that Joy-Anna Duggar seemed upset, while Jessa Duggar is in high spirits and was seen talking to Anna Duggar and smiling.

Peak Jessa right there. 

[Tuxcat]

5 minutes ago, Zella said:

The Sun is reporting Jessa, James, and Jed as all present today. 

Surprising since Jed was supposedly on the witness list. He shouldn't be there. Maybe they are mixed up or maybe he was told he wouldn't be called?

 

1 minute ago, absnow54 said:

Peak Jessa right there. 

lets hope she's making a YouTube video. Did she bring all 4 kids?

Was James part of the Jill/Joy buddy thing?

[absnow54]

3 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Surprising since Jed was supposedly on the witness list. He shouldn't be there. Maybe they are mixed up or maybe he was told he wouldn't be called?

They report that he's there, but not sitting in the courtroom with the rest of the family, so maybe he's being called today?

From the Sun:

Quote

Derick Dillard, James Duggar, Austin and Joy Forsyth, Anna Duggar, and Jessa Duggar Seewald were all seen sitting in the front row in the courtroom today.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by absnow54

[Zella]

1 minute ago, absnow54 said:

They report that he's there, but not sitting in the courtroom with the rest of the family, so maybe he's being called today?

Yeah sounds like he's testifying then. Wonder if Jill is squirreled away in another room after sneaking in the back way or if she's still not been called. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Zella