Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[quarks]

11 minutes ago, greenturtle36 said:

Which one?

Jill.

[Heathen]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:28 AM, Jeeves said:

 

I know. He seemed pretty checked out even early on in his "fatherhood journey" (I can hear that phrase in Michelle's baby voice). Didn't he take a nap while she was in labor in the next room?

There was a scene in the show, either during their engagement or just after their wedding, when Anna smugly said, as to baby names, "We haven't picked our letter yet." IIRC the Duggar daughters present did not go into raptures of delight at that. I believe the remark drew more side-eye than anything else. 

I don't know if they really want to and just don't think it's cool to talk about it, but I never got a feeling that the adult Duggar daughters wanted to compete with Michelle as to the baby-making numbers. Jessa's had the most babies so far, is probably working on #5 or will be soon. Joy and Jill are at three each and Jinger's got two. Except for Jinger, each of them has had at least one miscarriage or stillbirth, and difficulties or complications in labor and delivery. so even if they aspire to huge numbers they may not be able to achieve them anyway. Anna and Kendra seem to be the most like Michelle in the baby-making game. 

Is artificial insemination allowed by their religious doctrines? I think that if it is, and if Anna even had an inkling he'd be convicted and go to prison, she'd have moved heaven and earth to get some of her husband's semen frozen for future use. I think she's that deep into the fabulousness and godliness of her role as babymaker for Jesus. And her status as the Crown Princess of the Holy Duggar Empire.

Well, oops, I think Katey's gonna grab that tiara off Anna's head any time now and plunk it on her own. Because it goes along with marriage to the Crown Prince, and that gig is over for J'inmate.

Jinger also had a miscarriage, an early one. 

Edited September 15, 2023 by Heathen

[Minivanessa]

During Josh's trial I remember reading scuttlebutt on the innernetz that JB was coming down HARD on his kids to support Josh. Going on and on about it, all wrapped up in religion and scripture. And that it wasn't going well for him. There was dissension - or at least skepticism - in the ranks. 

Jill confirmed a certain amount of rumbling in the ranks, without naming names, in her book. She was pregnant when Josh's trial started, and because she was listed as a witness, she couldn't attend the trial until the very end, and had to avoid the news coverage about it. It all brought up a lot of past pain and renewed anxiety. She had support at that time - emotional and practical - from her friends, which she appreciated. It had been part of her healing journey to make friends and learn to trust some of them enough to talk about her family. She said that for the first time, she felt "overwhelmingly supported." And it wasn't just her friends.

Quote

Some of my siblings started to reach out. For the first time it was clear that some of them were beginning to be skeptical of the narrative they’d been hearing at home. As they looked for themselves at the Duggar family spectacle, they started to ask their own questions.

  --- Duggar, Jill. Counting the Cost (p. 248). Gallery Books. Kindle Edition. 

Wow. The scuttlebutt wasn't all wrong. 

[Absolom]

There's something about finding out in open court how much of a control freak jerk your dad is - I don't allow that!  Plus also finding out the actual facts about what a scumbag your oldest brother is and how the control freak has tried to hide and cover that to drop the scales from at least a few eyes.

[CalicoKitty]

Jill blames Josh for the sister's law suit not going through, also.  She named the people who allowed the assault info to be made public in at least 3 places in her book, and I think that has really taken a toll on her emotions.  I really doubt there will ever be any interaction between Jill and Josh ever.  It was sickening to read how much pressure JB has put on his kids to try to "work on" Jill and Derick to accept a fast amount of money.  She did not mention which sibs she is still in touch with, but I'm sure the bridges are burned with some of them.  JB did a really good job of brainwashing his kids.

 

[Zella]

40 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

Jill blames Josh for the sister's law suit not going through, also.  She named the people who allowed the assault info to be made public in at least 3 places in her book, and I think that has really taken a toll on her emotions. 

I don't doubt that was emotionally devastating to her, but that case never had legs and it really had nothing to do even with Josh. I remember the local news here doing stuff on that when the info on Josh first leaked. A U of A professor was interviewed and said that there was nothing illegal in that release. It was badly redacted, but they were not required to redact anymore than they did. The sisters likely would have gotten more mileage out of advocating for a change in the law than suing the people who released it as part of their job and didn't violate any laws in the course of doing that job. 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Zella

[MaryAnneSpier]

Didn't Josh try to get in on the lawsuit too? His privacy was violated along with the girls' technically. I don't know if he dropped out of it and it ended up just with the girls' names or if he stayed on.

[Salacious Kitty]

9 minutes ago, MaryAnneSpier said:

Didn't Josh try to get in on the lawsuit too? His privacy was violated along with the girls' technically. I don't know if he dropped out of it and it ended up just with the girls' names or if he stayed on.

Yeah, I remember him trying to add himself to the lawsuit. I don't think the girls allowed it. 

[all fall down]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I don't doubt that was emotionally devastating to her, but that case never had legs and it really had nothing to do even with Josh. I remember the local news here doing stuff on that when the info on Josh first leaked. A U of A professor was interviewed and said that there was nothing illegal in that release. It was badly redacted, but they were not required to redact anymore than they did. The sisters likely would have gotten more mileage out of advocating for a change in the law than suing the people who released it as part of their job and didn't violate any laws in the course of doing that job. 

The judge found that the release was illegal, but that the sisters did not meet the burden of proof on the invasion of privacy/being harmed. 

The judge noted that the officials were rushing to meet the FOIA deadline and didn't properly research if these records could be released. 

The full summary judgement is here. Excerpt from pp 14-15 in the spoiler. Bolding mine. 

Spoiler

In their sudden rush to release the reports, Defendants failed to adequately investigate the applicable law. Neither report should have been released, even with redactions.

The Arkansas FOIA is not all-inclusive, which is to say, other Arkansas statutes contain provisions that either expressly or effectively allow additional exemptions and exceptions to the FOIA. The individual Defendants were seasoned government officials tasked with the responsibility of deciding which governmental records should be publicly released and which should not.

Yet all individual Defendants were seemingly ignorant of the privacy rights Arkansas affords to sexual assault victims and to families that are identified as “in need of services.”

Under Arkansas Code § 16-90-1104(b): A law enforcement agency shall not disclose to the public information directly or indirectly identifying the victim of a sex offense except to the extent that disclosure is: (1) Of the site of the sex offense; (2) Required by law; (3) Necessary for law enforcement purposes; or (4) Permitted by the court for good cause. (emphasis added).

In the instant case, even though the Springdale Police Report and Washington County Incident Report contained redactions, both reports quite obviously identified the victims of a sex offense.

The redacted reports revealed that the victims were the minor children of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, that the perpetrator of the sexual abuse was also a child of the same parents, and that the victims lived in the same home with the perpetrator. Moreover, the disclosure of the reports was not required by law.

Because the Duggars were the subject of a FINS case, the police reports affiliated with that FINS case were specifically exempted from disclosure under the FOIA, pursuant to the Arkansas Child Maltreatment Act, which states: Any data, records, reports, or documents that are created, collected, or compiled by or on behalf of the Department of Human Services, the Department of Arkansas State Police, or other entity authorized under this chapter to perform investigations or provide services to children, individuals, or families shall not be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of 1967, § 25-19-101 et seq. Ark. Code Ann. § 12-18-104(a).

The Court finds that the two statutes quoted above—§§ 16-90-1104(b) and 12-18- 104(a)—are clear and unambiguous. 

 

 

 

[CalicoKitty]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I don't doubt that was emotionally devastating to her, but that case never had legs and it really had nothing to do even with Josh. I remember the local news here doing stuff on that when the info on Josh first leaked. A U of A professor was interviewed and said that there was nothing illegal in that release. It was badly redacted, but they were not required to redact anymore than they did. The sisters likely would have gotten more mileage out of advocating for a change in the law than suing the people who released it as part of their job and didn't violate any laws in the course of doing that job. 

She is convinced that that was a good case, and says she was told by lawyers and a judge that it was a good case.  She spells out the names of the people she named the the lawsuit very clearly at least three places in the book.  She truly believed that the sisters would win that case.  And states that Josh is the reason the case was not heard in court.  I always thought that the people that got the information were within their rights because M and J did not meet some deadline that would have kept the info sealed---I remember we discussed it here, but I don't remember the deets.  But Jill truly believes Josh's reputation and actions cost them the case.  She also said that Josh showed no remorse for any of his actions.  In one case he was making inappropriate jokes and someone told him to stop.

[quarks]

I'm almost done with the book, and yes, the way Jill names everyone in that lawsuit not once, but several times, is striking, and pure Jill. (I don't think the ghostwriter or the S&S editor would have suggested the continual repeat of the names.) She's clearly still furious. 

She first lists the names on page 111/112, and then continues to say, "But others have accused me of blaming the wrong people. They said I was covering for my parents, that it was Mom and Pops' fault that all this happened in the first place.

It wasn't and I'm not.

I hold Josh responsible for his actions.

And I hold [everyone named in the lawsuit] responsible for illegally releasing and publishing the report, for inflicting on me and my sisters the trauma of a second victimization, a trauma that was made so much worse than the first by the fact that it was so public....the way my parents handled or didn't handle things with Josh does not influence or justify the release of juvenile records and further re-traumatization and exploitation of innocent victims."

The lawsuit discussion starts on page 159/160, where she admits that the first law firm JB approached wouldn't take the case. She also claims that she and her sisters didn't have the money to hire attorneys for this, and needed to find one that would take them on contingency. (She says that JB offered to loan them the money, but says she didn't feel good about taking a loan from him, and then, on the same page, she admits that JB was - correctly, I think - concerned about the impact the lawsuit would have on the show.)

It's not clear how many other attorneys they approached, but it is clear that it took Jill and her sisters a year and a half to find an attorney willing to take on the case on contingency - through a friend of Jeremy's, as it happens. 

This is interesting given her later statement on page 259, where she claims that "Right from the beginning we knew the law was on our side," and then adds that "But what started out as a winnable case--so winnable that the law firm took it on contingency, putting millions of dollars into litigation that spanned five years--suddenly became weak once my brother appeared in court." 

Really, Jill? That winnable, given that it took you and your sisters a year and a half to find an attorney and had to work Jeremy's LA contacts to find one? That winnable, given that you ended up having to switch to another attorney in 2021? Is it possible - barely possible - that the firm took you on contingency not because it was a winnable case, but because if they won, they had the potential of winning a decent payout from Bauer (owner of In Touch)?

That winnable, given that the case was eventually dismissed - not once, but twice?

On page 203, she notes that In Touch was able to get dismissed from the lawsuit, because she and her sisters were "public figures." (The quote marks are in the book.)

On page 259, she argues that her lawsuit got dismissed because of Josh, and adds "Even though we were suing those who the judge agreed had illegally released the reports of our abuse and then exploited us as victims of child sexual abuse, in many people's eyes the court had already declared who the real culprit was -- Josh."

I 100% understand why Jill is furious and upset about this. I would be too. She's not wrong to be furious. But the thing is, in this book I think she is, once again, directly this particular fury at the wrong people. Because the thing is, these people - and the court - were correct. 

The main person at fault here, the main reason why Jill was victimized not once, but twice? Josh. Not random Springdale city officials. Josh. Josh sexually assaulted Jill. Josh. 

And the reason why In Touch published this report? Her parents and Josh. Her parents chose to make her and her sisters public figures, and Josh chose to join a Washington DC lobbying group, making him - as federal courts noted - a legitimate subject of interest to the public and to media outlets. This report would never have been published, by In Touch or anyone else, if JB and Michelle had not agreed to put their family on TV, and if Josh hadn't gone to work in DC.

Based on this book, Jill does not seem to understand this, nor the rather critical distinction between deliberately breaking the law (hi, Josh), and not bothering to research the law/contact an attorney and thus inadvertently breaking the law (hi, city officials).

Or, for that matter, the difference between deliberately exploiting your children on TV and thus turning them into public figures (hi, JB and Michelle) and responding to a FOIA request from a media outlet. 

Edited September 16, 2023 by quarks

[andromeda331]

Did the lawsuit come before the Israel bill or afterwards? I remember one of the reasons the Duggars lawsuit didn't meet the burden of proof was they couldn't prove how much money the loss because of how very little they were paid. I'm wondering if that was part of them realizing they weren't getting paid? 

[CalicoKitty]

28 minutes ago, quarks said:

I'm almost done with the book, and yes, the way Jill names everyone in that lawsuit not once, but several times, is striking, and pure Jill. (I don't think the ghostwriter or the S&S editor would have suggested the continual repeat of the names.) She's clearly still furious. 

She first lists the names on page 111/112, and then continues to say, "But others have accused me of blaming the wrong people. They said I was covering for my parents, that it was Mom and Pops' fault that all this happened in the first place.

It wasn't and I'm not.

I hold Josh responsible for his actions.

And I hold [everyone named in the lawsuit] responsible for illegally releasing and publishing the report, for inflicting on me and my sisters the trauma of a second victimization, a trauma that was made so much worse than the first by the fact that it was so public....the way my parents handled or didn't handle things with Josh does not influence or justify the release of juvenile records and further re-traumatization and exploitation of innocent victims."

The lawsuit discussion starts on page 159/160, where she admits that the first law firm JB approached wouldn't take the case. She also claims that she and her sisters didn't have the money to hire attorneys for this, and needed to find one that would take them on contingency. (She says that JB offered to loan them the money, but says she didn't feel good about taking a loan from him, and then, on the same page, she admits that JB was - correctly, I think - concerned about the impact the lawsuit would have on the show.)

It's not clear how many other attorneys they approached, but it is clear that it took Jill and her sisters a year and a half to find an attorney willing to take on the case on contingency - through a friend of Jeremy's, as it happens. 

This is interesting given her later statement on page 259, where she claims that "Right from the beginning we knew the law was on our side," and then adds that "But what started out as a winnable case--so winnable that the law firm took it on contingency, putting millions of dollars into litigation that spanned five years--suddenly became weak once my brother appeared in court." 

Really, Jill? That winnable, given that it took you and your sisters a year and a half to find an attorney and had to work Jeremy's LA contacts to find one? That winnable, given that you ended up having to switch to another attorney in 2021? Is it possible - barely possible - that the firm took you on contingency not because it was a winnable case, but because if they won, they had the potential of winning a decent payout from Bauer (owner of In Touch)?

That winnable, given that the case was eventually dismissed - not once, but twice?

On page 203, she notes that In Touch was able to get dismissed from the lawsuit, because she and her sisters were "public figures." (The quote marks are in the book.)

On page 259, she argues that her lawsuit got dismissed because of Josh, and adds "Even though we were suing those who the judge agreed had illegally released the reports of our abuse and then exploited us as victims of child sexual abuse, in many people's eyes the court had already declared who the real culprit was -- Josh."

I 100% understand why Jill is furious and upset about this. I would be too. She's not wrong to be furious. But the thing is, in this book I think she is, once again, directly this particular fury at the wrong people. Because the thing is, these people - and the court - were correct. 

The main person at fault here, the main reason why Jill was victimized not once, but twice? Josh. Not random Springdale city officials. Josh. Josh sexually assaulted Jill. Josh. 

And the reason why In Touch published this report? Her parents and Josh. Her parents chose to make you and your sisters public figures, and Josh chose to join a Washington DC lobbying group, making him - as federal courts noted - a legitimate subject of interest to the public and to media outlets. This report would never have been published, by In Touch or anyone else, if JB and Michelle had not agreed to put their family on TV, and if Josh hadn't gone to work in DC.

Based on this book, Jill does not seem to understand this, nor the rather critical distinction between deliberately breaking the law (hi, Josh), and not bothering to research the law/contact an attorney and thus inadvertently breaking the law (hi, city officials).

Or, for that matter, the difference between deliberately exploiting your children on TV and thus turning them into public figures (hi, JB and Michelle) and responding to a FOIA request from a media outlet. 

I totally agree with you.  I hope she can get past this, but mentioning the people she was suing and dismissing any fault by her parents shows that this will be bothering her for a long, long time.  She still can't see the entire picture.

[quarks]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

Did the lawsuit come before the Israel bill or afterwards? I remember one of the reasons the Duggars lawsuit didn't meet the burden of proof was they couldn't prove how much money the loss because of how very little they were paid. I'm wondering if that was part of them realizing they weren't getting paid? 

The timeline, mostly grabbed from the book and Google:

1. Israel born (April 2015)

2. In Touch released the report (May 2015, as per Google)

3. The sisters decided to sue In Touch, but as per Jill in this book, had problems finding an attorney. 

4. At some point during 2016 or in early 2017 Derick started suggesting that it might be nice to get paid for the show. (as per the book; Jill is vague on the exact dates here).

5. The sisters found an attorney in February 2017 (the book) and filed the lawsuit in May 2017 (Google)

6. Samuel born (July 2017); the medical bills presumably started arriving in August/September 2017

7.  The lawsuit against Bauer and In Touch was dismissed in October 2017 (Google) although the lawsuit against the other defendants (the city officials) was allowed to proceed.

8. In 2021 Jill and her sisters obtained new representation.

9. The rest of the lawsuit was dismissed in early 2022; that dismissal seems to have been one of Jill's reasons for writing Counting the Cost.

 

(Edited to reflect the correct date of when In Touch released the report - Salacious Kitty is correct; that happened in May 2015, not June 2015 as I originally erroneously wrote.)

Edited September 16, 2023 by quarks

[Salacious Kitty]

One correction to the timeline. The In Touch article was May 2015. I was on vacation and found out about it while in line at Starbucks. I remember my jaw hitting the proverbial floor. 😃

[quarks]

14 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

One correction to the timeline. The In Touch article was May 2015. I was on vacation and found out about it while in line at Starbucks. I remember my jaw hitting the proverbial floor. 😃

Thanks! I corrected the post!

 

[Salacious Kitty]

Original date of the article appears to be 5/21/15.

 

[Zella]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

I remember one of the reasons the Duggars lawsuit didn't meet the burden of proof was they couldn't prove how much money the loss because of how very little they were paid.

I remember the depositions becoming public, and they all seemed to flail mightily at providing concrete details on how it had impacted them, even beyond income. If I am not mistaken, once pinned down on the subject, all of them admitted they hadn't received therapy for anything surrounding the release. And that's certainly an individual decision, and their right to decide not to pursue that. But it really erodes their ability to ask for compensation for emotional distress and deprived them of a very easy metric of doing so. 

I think some of it speaks to the limited education they received, but none of them seemed to be able to explain in concrete, measurable, and specific terms the impact and effect it had on them.  I don't doubt for a minute that they found it extremely embarrassing and traumatizing, but they seemed unable to explain that in a way that holds up in court. [Just contrast those depositions with the victim impact statements last week from the Danny Masterson trial. I know it's an entirely different setting and trial, but each of them clearly understood the assignment in talking about how his actions had forever changed them in a way that the Duggars didn't seem capable of in this case.]

I am pretty sure those depositions are also where Jeremy's extraordinarily gross comment where he refused to say that Josh was a predator and where he said he wouldn't want to know if there were predators in his neighborhood came from. 

I don't think Jill is knowingly lying, but I think she is overstating how solid of a case this is because she can't step outside of her own role in it, and I think the sinking of it goes well beyond Josh and the government officials. 

Edited September 16, 2023 by Zella

[GeeGolly]

I remember the intense discussions about the In Touch article. Jill and her sisters were devastated. Its sad that In Touch didn't use the same discretion most media outlets use in not naming victims. Whether or not what was done was legal, In Touch could have written the story differently and still outed Josh. There's no reason they had to publish the entirety of the police report. News outlets release stories all the time without even revealing their sources, never mind not cashing in on innocent victims.

If Josh didn't molest Jill there would be no story. But he did. So sure the blame begins there. Michelle didn't need to make a robocall about public bathrooms. But she did. The gay couple could have not sought revenge. But they did. The police report could have been better redacted. But it wasn't. The police report could have not been released. But it was. And finally In Touch could have not published the article. But they did. A really shitty series of events. 

Jill is upset this was made public. IMO, she should be allowed to be angry about the public part separate from the events leading up to it.

 

 

[Salacious Kitty]

Today is Smuganna's 15th anniversary. I wonder if they celebrated in prison? 

[Scarlett45]

21 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Today is Smuganna's 15th anniversary. I wonder if they celebrated in prison? 

Damn it is. If allowed, I could see Anna going to visit him. 

[Salacious Kitty]

Just now, Scarlett45 said:

Damn it is. If allowed, I could see Anna going to visit him. 

It's easy for me to remember, as their wedding date would have been my dad's 80th birthday. 

[Stevie Nicks]

15 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Today is Smuganna's 15th anniversary. I wonder if they celebrated in prison? 

I'm sure she's upset about being married 15 years and only having 7 kids. 

[GeeGolly]

I think this might the first odd year, in the past 15 years, Anna has not had a baby.

Edited September 27, 2023 by GeeGolly

[ginger90]

On their 10th (2018)  anniversary, Anna posted, “The past 10 years have been a wonderful adventure”. 

[Stevie Nicks]

1 hour ago, ginger90 said:

On their 10th (2018)  anniversary, Anna posted, “The past 10 years have been a wonderful adventure”. 

Well that's one way to put it. 

[Scarlett45]

5 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I think this might the first odd year, in the past 15 years, Anna has not had a baby.

It is. 

[Notabug]

5 hours ago, ginger90 said:

On their 10th (2018)  anniversary, Anna posted, “The past 10 years have been a wonderful adventure”. 

And the next 10 are going to be........

[crazy8s]

12 minutes ago, Notabug said:

And the next 10 are going to be........

a no new blessings season of life.

[oliviabenson]

Waiting for her headship to come home and be an unemployable convict?

Keep mooching off JB?

Become a grandma while Joshua is still locked up?

[Quilt Fairy]

Pest's appeal of the denial of his previous appeal has been denied. Twice.  You have to check it out on Reddit, it got too deep in the legalese weeds for me to restate it coherently. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Quilt Fairy

[ginger90]

God’s will?

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2023/09/28/josh-duggars-hopes-for-a-new-trial-again-shot-down-by-eighth-circuit#:~:text=Josh Duggar%2C the former reality,in Fayetteville in December 2021.

Edited September 30, 2023 by ginger90

[BetyBee]

27 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

God’s will?

https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2023/09/28/josh-duggars-hopes-for-a-new-trial-again-shot-down-by-eighth-circuit#:~:text=Josh Duggar%2C the former reality,in Fayetteville in December 2021.

I don't think Jim Bob can believe that God's will could differ from Jim Bob's will. 

[crazy8s]

 

 

[sagittarius sue]

Well I wonder if these spendthrift idiots will now appeal to SCOTUS.  I'm sure they'll be denied.

[Laura Holt]

2 hours ago, sagittarius sue said:

Well I wonder if these spendthrift idiots will now appeal to SCOTUS.  I'm sure they'll be denied.

Is that actually a possibility?  Would the Supreme Court hear cases like this?

[Absolom]

Josh has about the proverbial snowball's chance.

[sagittarius sue]

1 hour ago, Laura Holt said:

Is that actually a possibility?  Would the Supreme Court hear cases like this?

Highly unlikely, they would probably just deny it as the 8th Circuit Court has done.

If they wanted to proceed past this, per what I read on Reddit, they would have exhausted direct appeal, then they'd have to go back to district court and appeal on collateral causes which basically boils down to incompetent, ineffective counsel.  They would have to hire another law firm for that.  I don't think they have reasonable grounds for this either.  They did have competent counsel.

[Notabug]

1 hour ago, Laura Holt said:

Is that actually a possibility?  Would the Supreme Court hear cases like this?

They can ask the Supreme Court to hear it, and then spend an arm and a leg on legal fees to prepare and present their case.  It is extremely doubtful that the Supreme Court would agree to take the case and rule on it, though.  Most likely, they spend a bundle preparing their request and it is rejected out of hand like most petitions to the Court are.

It's generally got to be an issue that might set legal precedent or where there is significant evidence that a big mistake was made by the lower courts before the Supreme Court will take the case.  Josh' case meets none of those criteria as has been shown by the way his appeals in the lower courts have been slapped down pretty quickly.

[Zella]

20 hours ago, sagittarius sue said:

They would have to hire another law firm for that.  I don't think they have reasonable grounds for this either.  They did have competent counsel.

Yep there was a mountain of evidence against Josh, even beyond him stupidly asking them without prompting if they were there about CP during the initial raid. 

After the trial revealed how much evidence was against him, my assumption has always been that they advised him to take a plea deal and not go to trial. That advice was clearly not followed, and there's only so much even a good lawyer can do in that scenario. 

[sagittarius sue]

27 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yep there was a mountain of evidence against Josh, even beyond him stupidly asking them without prompting if they were there about CP during the initial raid. 

After the trial revealed how much evidence was against him, my assumption has always been that they advised him to take a plea deal and not go to trial. That advice was clearly not followed, and there's only so much even a good lawyer can do in that scenario. 

I can't help thinking that if he had taken a plea deal he probably would have received a jail sentence that was no more than half the time he received, possibly even less.

[Zella]

21 minutes ago, sagittarius sue said:

I can't help thinking that if he had taken a plea deal he probably would have received a jail sentence that was no more than half the time he received, possibly even less.

Yes and that's the incentive to do that. Take the plea deal and get out with less time or take your chances at trial, where you either go home or go to jail for a lot longer. 

[GeeGolly]

I can't remember, was Josh offered a plea deal? Its not like he had any collateral info to get bigger criminals. And the case was short and uncomplicated.

[Zella]

14 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I can't remember, was Josh offered a plea deal? Its not like he had any collateral info to get bigger criminals. And the case was short and uncomplicated.

There was reporting before the trial that he did indeed turn down a plea deal. It's not always about snitching on other accomplices. It's about the logistics of not tying up the courts with another trial. 

[Meow Mix]

Josh had competent counsel.  He also had a nonexistent case which made it impossible for anyone to defend.  Perry Mason couldn't have gotten him off.  I suspect his competent attorney strongly suggested a plea deal.  I wonder if JB flipped a coin and thought it was God's will that they go to trial.  

[kaleidoscope]

With a plea deal, Josh would have to admit guilt.  One thing Jill pointed out in her book is that Josh has gone from asking forgiveness to now not taking responsibility for his any of his actions.

[dariafan]

4 minutes ago, Meow Mix said:

Josh had competent counsel.  He also had a nonexistent case which made it impossible for anyone to defend.  Perry Mason couldn't have gotten him off.  I suspect his competent attorney strongly suggested a plea deal.  I wonder if JB flipped a coin and thought it was God's will that they go to trial.  

Perry would have smacked him   And Jim baboon too !

[LilJen]

On 10/1/2023 at 1:01 PM, Meow Mix said:

Josh had competent counsel.  He also had a nonexistent case which made it impossible for anyone to defend.  Perry Mason couldn't have gotten him off.  I suspect his competent attorney strongly suggested a plea deal.  I wonder if JB flipped a coin and thought it was God's will that they go to trial.  

Flipped a coin? More like “I won’t allow that admission of guilt because my golden child would never do anything wrong!”

[Salacious Kitty]

Anna sighting! She was in a picture with Prissy and Meech in front of an RV. Family Camp in Big Sandy was last week, so I am pretty sure that's the origin. 

[Tdoc72]

2 hours ago, Salacious Kitty said:

Anna sighting! She was in a picture with Prissy and Meech in front of an RV. Family Camp in Big Sandy was last week, so I am pretty sure that's the origin. 

Where is this pic?  I’ve seen it mentioned here and another place but can’t find it.