Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

maraleia

By maraleia
in Counting On

  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Meow Mix

Meow Mix

1 hour ago, Absolom said:

She's had over two years of freedom from Josh's demands.  I hope she's learning to value her at least partial freedom.

This is something I wonder about.  10 years is a long time and it is likely her feelings toward him are going to start changing as she keeps going on alone.  There are a lot of rumors about her relationship with her in-laws, but I'm not sure how many are true.  I suspect JB is still supporting her and she and the kids may have moved into the two dorms.  It is entirely possible that his absence is not making her heart grow fonder.

  • Like 16
Link to comment
  • 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

Shelbie

Shelbie

1 hour ago, Meow Mix said:

This is something I wonder about.  10 years is a long time and it is likely her feelings toward him are going to start changing as she keeps going on alone.  There are a lot of rumors about her relationship with her in-laws, but I'm not sure how many are true.  I suspect JB is still supporting her and she and the kids may have moved into the two dorms.  It is entirely possible that his absence is not making her heart grow fonder.

Sometimes I wonder if simply not being pregnant or postpartum and caring for infants is giving her more clarity in her life.
For the first time since her oldest she has more moments to herself without planning for her next pregnancy and perhaps can enjoy her existing children more without having to cater to Josh.

  • Like 21
Link to comment
Salacious Kitty

Salacious Kitty

14 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

I can only imagine how disgusting lotion time with Josh must be. He's gross!

According to his Ashley Madison profile, he had several kinks. I wonder if he forced Anna. Hopefully not, but this is Smuggar Duggar we're talking about. He seemed to get his way all the time. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 11
Link to comment
YupItsMe

YupItsMe

I still remember how she looked the first time we saw her after their wedding night. Like she was frightened and nauseous and wanted to escape. There’s no telling what he did to her that night, and she had no frame of reference so probably thought that was what all sex is like.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 18
Link to comment
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

I'll never forget a scene filmed in Jill's mcmansion. I don't recall the exact conversation, but Anna, Josh and JB&M were checking it out after Jana and some siblings had cleaned and decorated prior to J&D returning from their honeymoon. Someone said something about how they'd have room for plenty of guests and Anna said, with a big happy innocent smile something like, well they won't want guests for at least the first month. Josh did a quick blush/eye roll/grimace and Michelle did her famous almost gasp-turn into a statue response. And the entire scene went still.

The 'joke' was on Anna. Everyone knew what she was implying wasn't quite the norm for honeymooners. This would have been about a year prior to scandals 1 & 2. So yes, I think at least in the beginning lotion time with Josh was often and inventive, to put it mildly.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
quarks

quarks

John Oliver brought up Covenant Eyes in Last Week Tonight this week (in relation to a political thing); he didn't mention Josh Duggar, but the entire thing reminded me of just how useless Covenant Eyes turned out to be and how easy it was for someone determined - or unable to deal with boredom - to circumvent. 

  • Like 15
Link to comment
quarks

quarks

It appears that Josh may be at least considering to appeal his case to the Supreme Court - the deadline for filing this was December 27th, but his lawyers have asked for and been granted an extension to February 24th. Reddit folks have the link here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a554.html

Technically, this is not an appeal of the entire case - just a further appeal of the ruling that allowed Josh's initial, incredibly damning statements to be allowed into the trial as evidence. Josh and his attorneys are continuing to argue that Josh didn't get a Miranda warning, but the Miranda warning only applies if you are actually arrested, and Josh wasn't arrested until months later. 

The Supreme Court could, I guess, take this up, but leaving aside the fact that Josh is just not a sympathetic figure in any way, this doesn't look like a very interesting legal issue, so I doubt the Supreme Court will review it. 

  • Like 10
  • Mind Blown 1
  • Useful 8
Link to comment
libgirl2

libgirl2

39 minutes ago, quarks said:

It appears that Josh may be at least considering to appeal his case to the Supreme Court - the deadline for filing this was December 27th, but his lawyers have asked for and been granted an extension to February 24th. Reddit folks have the link here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23a554.html

Technically, this is not an appeal of the entire case - just a further appeal of the ruling that allowed Josh's initial, incredibly damning statements to be allowed into the trial as evidence. Josh and his attorneys are continuing to argue that Josh didn't get a Miranda warning, but the Miranda warning only applies if you are actually arrested, and Josh wasn't arrested until months later. 

The Supreme Court could, I guess, take this up, but leaving aside the fact that Josh is just not a sympathetic figure in any way, this doesn't look like a very interesting legal issue, so I doubt the Supreme Court will review it. 

He isn't that special and not worth their time. 

  • Like 14
  • Applause 10
Link to comment
farmgal4

farmgal4

On 10/29/2023 at 7:27 PM, Salacious Kitty said:

Another Anna sighting. This time at her grandfather's (Suzette's father) funeral. Mack has gotten tall! 

Also in the back, Nathan and Nurie. 

 

D4782C2A-6C6C-4E18-B435-117B34B409B9.jpeg.a9ba0805f608b779abaf25742fbd78a0.jpeg

Could David and Priscilla’s son’s suit be any smaller?  It looks about 3 sizes too small.  He must be miserable wearing it. 😢

  • Like 1
  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Tdoc72

Tdoc72

On 1/3/2024 at 6:15 PM, Salacious Kitty said:

Interesting little tidbit about Travis Story.

Good for the Church getting rid of him. Boo to Story. But this Church is annoying me. “Child abuse of any kind is not supported at this church.”  That’s all the Church would need to say. Not sure why they have to have a big production about hiring someone (and spending a lot of money) to help write policies or however they phrased it. 

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Zella

Zella

3 hours ago, Tdoc72 said:

Not sure why they have to have a big production about hiring someone (and spending a lot of money) to help write policies or however they phrased it. 

Per the article, they've already been accused of mishandling multiple sexual abuse cases. That seems to provide a pretty strong incentive of the cover your ass variety.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
CalicoKitty

CalicoKitty

A lot of churches have rules in place.  I was in charge of music at an American Anglican church, and even though my finger prints were already on file for my nursing license and my teaching credential, I had to be finger printed again because there were children on the church premises.  I had no occasion to interact with the kids, but I still had to be printed.  The church had no history or complaints of anything sexual or unethical, but every adult had prints on file. 

The Little Rock church apparently had a history of mishandling several sexual situations, and wisely changed lawyers.  A lawyer who defends sexual misbehavior is probably not exactly a good choice.

  • Like 10
  • Useful 2
Link to comment
LilJen

LilJen

7 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I wouldn't wish that on the child. Can  you imagine how their life would be with these two? And in that environment. 

Well, true. Maybe they'd be merciful and adopt the baby out to a family who would love the child exactly they way they are.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Salacious Kitty

Salacious Kitty

22 minutes ago, LilJen said:

Well, true. Maybe they'd be merciful and adopt the baby out to a family who would love the child exactly they way they are.

 

Nah, they would probably try to shoehorn it into one pre-dertermined sex. 🙄

  • Like 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

Lets hope if this next child or any of their current children are not hetero, they are bold, confident and find everyday heroes to help "walk them through this season of life" as they leave their parents to wrestle with the twisted feelings they've learned and teach. 🌈🏳️‍🌈✨✌🏽️

  • Like 9
  • Hugs 1
  • Thanks 3
  • Applause 1
  • Useful 1
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Meow Mix

Meow Mix

Anna must be seething.  Usually when Pris announces a pregnancy, Anna would start doing pregnancy tests and getting baby fever.  Hard to do that now with her husband in the slammer.

  • Like 5
  • LOL 6
Link to comment
libgirl2

libgirl2

5 minutes ago, Salacious Kitty said:

It's happened. FF has appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Sorry, not sorry but 😂😂😂😂

Unf------ believable. Just who does he think he is? 

  • Like 5
  • Love 2
Link to comment
woodscommaelle

woodscommaelle

(edited)
1 hour ago, Salacious Kitty said:

It's happened. FF has appealed his case to the Supreme Court. Sorry, not sorry but 😂😂😂😂

Apologies as I don't know how any of this works.  Is this something Josh has requested? Or his lawyers?

And if it was Josh, was he like 'hey lawyers, I think this would be a good idea.  Let's take this to the Supreme Court."  How fucking delusional either way!

Edited by woodscommaelle
  • Like 9
Link to comment
Salacious Kitty

Salacious Kitty

52 minutes ago, peppergal said:

For those that wish to follow along, the docket is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-937.html

the petition is here:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-937/301156/20240222141956501_Duggar Petition February 22 2024 EFile.pdf

The government has until the end of March to respond. 

Thanks for posting these @peppergal. I read it on CC McCandless' newsletter, but he put the petition itself behind his paywall. I just knew it was 39 pages! 

  • Mind Blown 3
Link to comment
Cattoy

Cattoy

3 hours ago, woodscommaelle said:

Apologies as I don't know how any of this works.  Is this something Josh has requested? Or his lawyers?

And if it was Josh, was he like 'hey lawyers, I think this would be a good idea.  Let's take this to the Supreme Court."  How fucking delusional either way!

The lawyers could push for a number of reasons. They want the money, they want to try to make a name for themselves, they see a SCOTUS case as a resume enhancer ...  I guess the real question is how long JB's ego overrides his miserliness.

  • Like 6
  • Useful 2
Link to comment
mythoughtis

mythoughtis

Everyone has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. So if they want to, more power to them.  However, what makes them think the court will take them up on it? I can’t see anything controversial about his conviction.  I also don’t think the court sees the need to intervene in his favor.  His civil rights don’t appear to have been violated. 

  • Like 16
Link to comment
quarks

quarks

10 hours ago, woodscommaelle said:

Apologies as I don't know how any of this works.  Is this something Josh has requested? Or his lawyers?

And if it was Josh, was he like 'hey lawyers, I think this would be a good idea.  Let's take this to the Supreme Court."  How fucking delusional either way!

 

I don't think that anyone, including Josh, thinks this is necessarily a good idea. It's just his only legal option right now - other than just giving up.

And although I don't think his attorneys needed to tell him, well, there's this thing called the Supreme Court, they do have to present him with all two of his current legal options. So this idea could have come from them, or Josh could have said, ok, Supreme Court's next, right?

 

 

6 hours ago, Cattoy said:

The lawyers could push for a number of reasons. They want the money, they want to try to make a name for themselves, they see a SCOTUS case as a resume enhancer ...  I guess the real question is how long JB's ego overrides his miserliness.

 

Honestly, I doubt the lawyers are really pushing for this. I think they are just filing the paperwork because Josh asked them to, and he is still their client.

But they seem to be just doing their basic due diligence, nothing else. They aren't even trying to appeal on some of the major motions they raised prior to the trial - just on this pretty narrow thing about what questions they were allowed to ask one witness.

 

6 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

Everyone has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. So if they want to, more power to them.  However, what makes them think the court will take them up on it? I can’t see anything controversial about his conviction.  I also don’t think the court sees the need to intervene in his favor.  His civil rights don’t appear to have been violated. 

This. 

The only real justifications I can see for doing this are:

1. Josh doesn't like being in jail (pull out the microscopic violins, everyone)

2. Josh and possibly other Duggars/Duggarlings (hi, Jim Bob) may feel that not appealing is an admission of guilt - after all, an innocent person would fight all the way to the Supreme Court, right?

 

  • Like 13
  • Useful 2
Link to comment
peppergal

peppergal

14 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

Everyone has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. So if they want to, more power to them.  However, what makes them think the court will take them up on it? I can’t see anything controversial about his conviction.  I also don’t think the court sees the need to intervene in his favor.  His civil rights don’t appear to have been violated. 

In this case their point of appeal is

"Does the exclusion of relevant evidence of an
alternative perpetrator based on a trial court’s
conclusion it is too speculative violate a criminal
defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete
defense?"

Outside of the context of felon's specific case, it is an interesting question and it looks like there may be a possible circuit split on it.  I just don't think their "evidence" was relevant or factual.  Someone with an unrelated criminal background might have done something remotely isn't evidence, it is wild conjecture if not outright fiction. 

I did get quite a laugh that they included the nonsense from that "expert" about universal Plug and Play on the computer meaning that the router was not secured, meaning someone could remote into the computer.  That's like saying that because we found an apple core in the trash, he must have had OJ with breakfast.

 

  • Like 2
  • Useful 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
merylinkid

merylinkid

52 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

The router is being accused again?  How many times can the poor router be charged in this case?

I was going to say this.   That poor router dragged into this mess again.

Yes limiting the right to present a "complete" defense can be grounds for an appeal.   But the defense must be reasonable.   The felon I hired to be the fall guy if I ever got caught  remoted into the hidden partition and downloaded the material is not a reasonable defense.

  • Like 16
Link to comment
CalicoKitty

CalicoKitty

Is this Supreme Court filing what Anna was talking about months ago when she said something about the public not knowing the whole story and that the facts will come out? 

  • Like 3
  • Useful 1
Link to comment
Salacious Kitty

Salacious Kitty

(edited)
36 minutes ago, CalicoKitty said:

Is this Supreme Court filing what Anna was talking about months ago when she said something about the public not knowing the whole story and that the facts will come out? 

I thought Anna said that not long after the first conviction. It was well before any of the appeals. I think it was a promise of the appeals to come. She went dark on SM after that.

Edited by Salacious Kitty
  • Like 4
  • Useful 1
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...