Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search
Celebrating 1,000 NCIS-franchise episodes

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

maraleia

By maraleia
in Counting On

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GeeGolly

    1526

  • Churchhoney

    1075

  • JoanArc

    1061

  • Sew Sumi

    1049

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hoosier80
hoosier80

New show title: 10 to 20 Years and Counting 

MargeGunderson
MargeGunderson

Someone on Reddit just described Josh’s face as a glistening glazed ham. I am considering divorcing my husband and marrying that poster. 

doodlebug
doodlebug

Well, for many of us, it's the difference between 'imperfect' and 'non-PC' and being a criminal.  Josh is a child molester and his parents actively intervened in his situation to avoid him being punis

Posted Images

Lisa418722

Lisa418722

(edited)
8 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

'She Didn't Satisfy Him': Josh Duggar's Wife Anna BLAMED By Churchgoers For His Sex Crimes

So who was to blame when he molested his sisters?  I know, his sisters lured him and led him on.  /s/
I'm not an Anna fan by any stretch of the imagination, but she has zero blame for his crimes.  He is the only one to blame, but in this cult we know the man can't take any responsibility for anything. 
I do blame Anna for staying in that marriage and not getting her kids out when she had a Biblical chance to leave (after Ashley Madison). 

Edited by Lisa418722
  • Like 5
  • Applause 7
  • Love 10
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

40 minutes ago, Lisa418722 said:

but in this cult we know the man can't take any responsibility for anything. 

But they are in charge.   All the power, zero responsibility.   Amazing how that combination causes things to go very wrong.   

Anna stood by him.   Defended him.   She followed the Rules of the Cult.   This is her reward -- having the cult turn on her because Golden Boy turned out to be what he was BEFORE HE MET HER.   The sad part is -- this STILL won't get her to leave the Cult.   She will just double down and vow that when Josh gets out she will be better wife.   

  • Like 5
  • Sad 16
  • Applause 3
  • Love 2
Link to comment
satrunrose

satrunrose

(edited)
On 11/17/2022 at 8:33 AM, Lisa418722 said:

So who was to blame when he molested his sisters?  I know, his sisters lured him and led him on.  /s/
I'm not an Anna fan by any stretch of the imagination, but she has zero blame for his crimes.  He is the only one to blame, but in this cult we know the man can't take any responsibility for anything. 
I do blame Anna for staying in that marriage and not getting her kids out when she had a Biblical chance to leave (after Ashley Madison). 

Honestly, I don't even blame Anna for not leaving then. She had five small children, no work history and little, if any, money of her own. I do blame Anna for not bringing the baby train to a screaming halt at that point. With 5 kids and support from her brother (and maybe some sympathetic fans) she might have been able to make it work, but she just dug that hole two babies deeper. 

I mean, seriously, it's not like the FF would have objected to lightening his arduous role as a father by giving him two less names to remember and a few less cracker crumbs (God, if I'm ever in a situation where someone needs to say nice things about me to a judge, let that not be the best they can do.). 

Edited by satrunrose
  • Mind Blown 1
  • Applause 3
  • Love 7
Link to comment
Panopticon

Panopticon

8 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

Prison Or Fun House? Convicted Criminal Josh Duggar's Thanksgiving Includes Turkey Meal, Movies, Bingo & Board Games

I wonder if someone at Radar Online typed this line with a straight face:

Quote

If Duggar wants to work off that Thanksgiving feast, he has a variety of activities to choose from.

(Though come on… it’s not shocking that even disgusting prisoners get to eat and watch a movie on a major holiday.) 

  • Like 7
  • Applause 2
Link to comment
ChristmasCandy

ChristmasCandy

Please help me. I was talking to a friend and we got into a very heated discussion about FF and I want to know whose thinking is correct. I said if Smuggar had the correct type of therapy after what he he did to his sisters he still would of been a pedo and did the unspeakable things he did that got him arrested. My friend said that if he got the treatment when the thing that happened to his sisters then he would never have done the thing he did to get him arrested. Who is right?

Link to comment
  • Popular Post
Iguessnot

Iguessnot

  • Popular Post
43 minutes ago, ChristmasCandy said:

Please help me. I was talking to a friend and we got into a very heated discussion about FF and I want to know whose thinking is correct. I said if Smuggar had the correct type of therapy after what he he did to his sisters he still would of been a pedo and did the unspeakable things he did that got him arrested. My friend said that if he got the treatment when the thing that happened to his sisters then he would never have done the thing he did to get him arrested. Who is right?

Neither is right because it's just a hypothetical and can't be known. Some people change with therapy, some don't.

  • Like 9
  • Applause 3
  • Love 17
Link to comment
Natalie68

Natalie68

3 hours ago, ChristmasCandy said:

Please help me. I was talking to a friend and we got into a very heated discussion about FF and I want to know whose thinking is correct. I said if Smuggar had the correct type of therapy after what he he did to his sisters he still would of been a pedo and did the unspeakable things he did that got him arrested. My friend said that if he got the treatment when the thing that happened to his sisters then he would never have done the thing he did to get him arrested. Who is right?

I personally don't think someone with these inclinations can be helped.  They can be watched and kept away but not helped.

  • Like 6
  • Applause 1
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Notabug

Notabug

9 hours ago, Natalie68 said:

I personally don't think someone with these inclinations can be helped.  They can be watched and kept away but not helped.

I believe there is some research that indicates that a young teen who is given proper therapy as soon as possible after the initial incident is much less likely to have an ongoing issue with acting out on the impulse to molest children.  Doesn't mean he or she might not have thoughts of it, but it certainly seems to make a difference and lessens the chance of actual criminal behavior.

  • Like 3
  • Applause 1
  • Useful 6
Link to comment
Fosca

Fosca

On 11/18/2022 at 11:22 AM, ChristmasCandy said:

 I said if Smuggar had the correct type of therapy after what he he did to his sisters he still would of been a pedo and did the unspeakable things he did that got him arrested. My friend said that if he got the treatment when the thing that happened to his sisters then he would never have done the thing he did to get him arrested. Who is right?

It's possible, but sexual issues are often really hard to treat successfully (and often "successfully" means the urges are still there but they don't act on them).  

  • Like 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

On 11/18/2022 at 5:29 AM, satrunrose said:

Honestly, I don't even blame Anna for not leaving then. She had five small children, no work history and little, if any, money of her own. I do blame Anna for not bringing the baby train to a screaming halt at that point. With 5 kids and support from her brother (and maybe some sympathetic fans) she might have been able to make it work, but she just dug that hole two babies deeper. 

Three babies deeper. She was pregnant with Meredith when the Ashley Madison scandal broke. (That was her 4 child) She then had Mason, Maryella and Madyson was born after his arrest. 
 

Yup three more kids. 
 

Edited to add- I definitely understand where you’re coming from. 

  • Like 2
  • Mind Blown 2
  • Sad 9
  • Useful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

8 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Three babies deeper. She was pregnant with Meredith when the Ashley Madison scandal broke. (That was her 4 child) She then had Mason, Maryella and Madyson was born after his arrest. 
 

Yup three more kids. 
 

Edited to add- I definitely understand where you’re coming from. 

Meredith was born in the month between when the molestations story broke and the Ashley Madison scandal came to light.

But, like you said, three more babies.

Mason was born during a scandal free time, Maryella was born days after the Homeland Security search and Madyson was born a few months after the FF was arrested.

Its unfortunate that Meredith, Maryella and Madyson all have birthdays in and around Josh's scandals.

  • Like 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

6 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Meredith was born in the month between when the molestations story broke and the Ashley Madison scandal came to light.

But, like you said, three more babies.

Mason was born during a scandal free time, Maryella was born days after the Homeland Security search and Madyson was born a few months after the FF was arrested.

Its unfortunate that Meredith, Maryella and Madyson all have birthdays in and around Josh's scandals.

Thanks @GeeGolly, I knew she was pregnant with Meredith when they left DC, but they left DC when the molestations were revealed and THEN Ashley Madison broke. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Salacious Kitty

Salacious Kitty

The Feds have responded to FF's motion for appeal. The defense's arguments were annihilated one by one. The Caleb Williams issue was handled simply with the FACTS: Caleb doesn't need to testify because HE WASN'T THERE when the downloads took place or when the Linux partition was installed. He did not access the computer remotely. Etcetera. 

The issue about the expert witness was also addressed. Everything was on the.up and up, despite FF's claims that Fottrell wasn't qualified to speak on the issues at hand. No, defense attorneys, that dubious distinction belongs to the "expert" your side used. She was a joke and actually helped ruin the defense. 😂

  • Useful 8
  • Love 5
Link to comment
quarks

quarks

The prosecution has responded to the appeal by the defense. A Reddit user put up the documents here:

  https://www.dropbox.com/s/evxzxxe7m4qjg6s/United_States_v._Joshua_Duggar_40.pdf?dl=0

Note: Page 11 contains disturbing material/details.  I would suggest skipping it.

As a refresher, the defense is appealing on the basis that:

1. They should have been able to call Caleb Williams as a witness and suggest that he could have done the crime

2. The court should not have allowed the "is this about child pornography" and Josh's other initial statements to law enforcement to be admitted as evidence in court 

3. The testimony about the geographic metadata.

The prosecution is saying:

1. Caleb Williams is a sex offender, but is/was not a "plausible alternative perpetuator" because he wasn't there at the time of the crime.

(I'll just add that, even leaving aside the whole sex offender thing, post trial, Caleb Williams has not exactly established himself as a trustworthy witness of impeccable moral character. I'm fairly sure the jury would have come to the same conclusion and ignored his testimony.)

2. Josh was not under arrest during this conversation and was free to leave the conversation at any time. 

3. This response is pretty technical/convoluted, but boils down to other courts have recognized geographic metadata and there's no reason not to do so here.

  • Like 2
  • Applause 1
  • Useful 8
Link to comment
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

2 hours ago, quarks said:

2. The court should not have allowed the "is this about child pornography" and Josh's other initial statements to law enforcement to be admitted as evidence in court 

And my I ask “why not???”(rhetorical question)

He chose to run his mouth, he wasn’t under arrest, he didn’t ask for a lawyer, how are voluntary statements from his own mouth not appropriate evidence? (Rhetorical I know) I have never done any type of criminal law (I’m in the financial industry) but that’s a touch comical. 
 

Are they suggesting it’s hearsay?? Josh’s statement wasn’t to PROVE the truth of the matter asserted (that it was about the child sex abuse material), it was to demonstrate Josh had prior knowledge of the bad act (cause he did it!). @Jeeves what do you think? Again this is out of my wheelhouse. 

Link to comment
quarks

quarks

4 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

And my I ask “why not???”(rhetorical question)

He chose to run his mouth, he wasn’t under arrest, he didn’t ask for a lawyer, how are voluntary statements from his own mouth not appropriate evidence? (Rhetorical I know) I have never done any type of criminal law (I’m in the financial industry) but that’s a touch comical. 
 

Are they suggesting it’s hearsay?? Josh’s statement wasn’t to PROVE the truth of the matter asserted (that it was about the child sex abuse material), it was to demonstrate Josh had prior knowledge of the bad act (cause he did it!). @Jeeves what do you think? Again this is out of my wheelhouse. 

The defense is arguing that the conversation was "custodial," and that because agents seized Josh's phone prior to the conversation, Josh was unable to exercise his right to call an attorney - and that loss of that right negates his consent to the conversation, meaning that none of it should have been admitted into evidence. 

The prosecution is arguing that the conversation was not custodial, and that Josh was free to leave the conversation at any time, find another phone, and call an attorney, but failed to do any of that.

I tend to agree with the prosecution on this - I don't think that removing just one phone from the area is exactly equivalent to denying someone the right to speak to an attorney. The district court did too. I have no idea what the appeals court will say. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 1
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Scarlett45

Scarlett45

10 minutes ago, quarks said:

The defense is arguing that the conversation was "custodial," and that because agents seized Josh's phone prior to the conversation, Josh was unable to exercise his right to call an attorney - and that loss of that right negates his consent to the conversation, meaning that none of it should have been admitted into evidence. 

The prosecution is arguing that the conversation was not custodial, and that Josh was free to leave the conversation at any time, find another phone, and call an attorney, but failed to do any of that.

I tend to agree with the prosecution on this - I don't think that removing just one phone from the area is exactly equivalent to denying someone the right to speak to an attorney. The district court did too. I have no idea what the appeals court will say. 

Ah thank you. 
 

I agree with you as well. 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Jeeves

Jeeves

(edited)

I'm late to the party here. I agree with @quarks as to the statements in question being noncustodial in nature.

@Scarlett45, it's been so long since I practiced criminal law, that this stuff is really not in my wheelhouse either. 🙂  Although I can read the pleadings and given enough time and brain activity, probably understand them pretty well. I haven't read the recent appellate filings and probably won't. We have the benefit of @quarks and others who are good at explaining the issues, and I appreciate them!

Edited by Jeeves
  • Love 7
Link to comment
Stevie Nicks

Stevie Nicks

19 hours ago, quarks said:

The defense is arguing that the conversation was "custodial," and that because agents seized Josh's phone prior to the conversation, Josh was unable to exercise his right to call an attorney - and that loss of that right negates his consent to the conversation, meaning that none of it should have been admitted into evidence. 

The prosecution is arguing that the conversation was not custodial, and that Josh was free to leave the conversation at any time, find another phone, and call an attorney, but failed to do any of that.

I tend to agree with the prosecution on this - I don't think that removing just one phone from the area is exactly equivalent to denying someone the right to speak to an attorney. The district court did too. I have no idea what the appeals court will say. 

So my knowledge of the court system and being arrested and or questioned is totally from TV shows. That argument seems to hold no water. At any time, FF could have said basically "I want a lawyer" and stfu. It is that just TV trope? 

Link to comment
quarks

quarks

1 hour ago, Stevie Nicks said:

So my knowledge of the court system and being arrested and or questioned is totally from TV shows. That argument seems to hold no water. At any time, FF could have said basically "I want a lawyer" and stfu. It is that just TV trope? 

No, not just a TV trope, but solid legal advice in any potentially criminal situation. 

And when federal agents show up with a search warrant, it's generally a very safe bet that this is a potentially criminal situation. 

  • Like 2
  • Applause 1
  • Love 8
Link to comment
Zella

Zella

8 hours ago, Stevie Nicks said:

So my knowledge of the court system and being arrested and or questioned is totally from TV shows. That argument seems to hold no water. At any time, FF could have said basically "I want a lawyer" and stfu. It is that just TV trope? 

So, this is a bit of a soapbox topic for me, but TV shows always make it seem like only guilty people ask for a lawyer. That is bullshit. If the police want to question you, you should have a lawyer present. It's not a matter of being guilty or innocent--it's a matter of protecting yourself and your rights. 

Josh indeed could have shut the fuck up and said he wanted a lawyer present and refused any further conversation without one, but he didn't. Instead, he asked if they were there about child porn and continued to volunteer answers that basically were the equivalent of slapping a huge "I'M GUILTY!" sign on his forehead. 

  • Like 12
  • Applause 8
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Jeeves

Jeeves

(edited)

The other day I came across a YouTube channel that made me think of Josh. It's "White Collar Advice." I'm not linking it because AFAIK there's no content specifically related to Josh's case. But the creator of the channel, Justin Paperny, has an interesting life story and a great deal of knowledge about the federal prison system. Not to mention, IMO, terrific insights into what the bleep to do with yourself and your life when you've landed in prison on account of committing a crime. In his case, white collar stuff.  Because - he pled guilty to IIRC attempted fraud and was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. He served his time; you can read about him if you're interested. 

I remember our spirited discussions here about the "character reference" letters submitted by the defense to the court in connection with Josh's sentencing. The "he helped clean up cracker crumbs!" is damn near classic in the annals of Things Better Left Unsaid. I thought about that when I watched Justin discuss the 130(!) character reference letters submitted by Elizabeth Holmes' defense team - the video is titled "Elizabeth Holmes DISASTROUS Character Reference Letters" if you're curious. 

Of course there's a world of difference between white collar crimes like fraud, and the CSAM crimes Josh committed. But Justin P raises some issues that IMO apply to anybody who's incarcerated, including taking responsibility for what you did - or at least showing some empathy for the victims of the crimes - vs. just floating along letting everybody in your world speak out about how haaarrrd all this is on you and your family, i.e., keep on enabling your stupid criminal sh*t behavior. He has a lot of insight into what federal judges are thinking when it comes to imposing sentences, and - surprise! - a criminal's prison sentence of *course* is a hardship on the criminal and their family and friends. Not a novel or persuasive argument, FFS. 

He also talks about deciding how to spend your time in prison - will you float along and complain or will you work at coming to grips with your life and what you're going to do with the rest of it day by day. As in, being someone who does good and useful stuff in the world. 

I don't want to steer this into off-topic details, but if you're curious about what it's like to do time in a minimum security federal prison, from the nitty gritty deets to the bigger picture, you might find Justin's videos informative. He did one on the "Harvard Lawyer Lee" YT channel this week, where they discussed the Chrisleys' sentences. I linked to that in the Chrisley show topic.  

I gleaned from Justin's videos that, as I believe has been mentioned here, Josh would normally be entitled to daily phone calls and also to personal visits although not of course daily. I wonder if anybody on Josh's defense team gave him good advice on how to behave in prison; I assume nobody in his eejit family would have a clue. I keep thinking of JB's apparent belief that Josh's job is now to preach Jesus to everybody inside, and hoping that Josh at least was savvy enough to blow off that plan. Yikes.

So I think this is Josh's first Thanksgiving where he isn't being waited on hand and foot by the subservient wimmin in Duggarland. Couldn't happen to a better guy. 

Edited by Jeeves
  • Like 1
  • Applause 1
  • Useful 6
  • Love 6
Link to comment
sagittarius sue

sagittarius sue

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

So I think this is Josh's first Thanksgiving where he isn't being waited on hand and foot by the subservient wimmin in Duggarland. Couldn't happen to a better guy. 

I bet Mrs. Reber is thankful this year that she doesn't have to deal with him.

  • Like 10
  • Love 10
Link to comment
Jeeves

Jeeves

4 hours ago, ginger90 said:

Just wanted to point out, FF is in a low security FCI.

Good point. Justin, the guy I wrote about above, I believe did his time in a minimum security facility, so I'm sure many details he may relate about life in a minimum security facility will not be the same in a a low security facility. (As I understand it, a "minimum security" facility is the least restrictive type, and a "low security" is one step more restrictive. The other levels are medium, high, and administrative.)

OTOH I think a lot of what he advises about how to behave as a prisoner, would apply fairly generally regardless of the level of security of the facility. 

Link to comment
ScorpioSoul

ScorpioSoul

(edited)

The appeal about the phone call. I agree with the prosecution. Taking a piece of evidence (even a cell phone) didn't take away his right to call a lawyer. I am sure he had access to an office phone or another person's cell phone. They didn't give him that one cell phone because they didn't want him to delete stuff off, clear his search history, or damage the phone.

Edited by ScorpioSoul
  • Love 4
Link to comment
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

Only twenty years ago, no one walked around with phones, so reaching into your pocket to call a lawyer wasn't an option. 

Also, I'm going to guess if law enforcement show up at a home with a search warrant, they begin the search before or during any phone call to a lawyer. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

Holy shit, two weeks from today will be the one year mark for Josh. I'm guessing the past 11 and a half months have passed much faster for all of us than the FF.

So Anna has hit every holiday and birthday without Josh. Only 9 more years to go, or 3285 sleeps. 😁

  • Like 5
  • LOL 3
  • Love 4
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

15 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Wow, I can't believe it's been almost a year since the trial! Seems like yesterday that we were here discussing it in detail. 

And crossing our fingers over the verdict.   We were hitting refresh so many times to see if it was out yet.   

  • Like 5
  • Love 6
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...