Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!

[iwantcookies]

Can anyone make me a frito pie 😂. I never had one.

[louannems]

45 minutes ago, CountryGirl said:

Would that be tea in your cup, Derrick?

This photo of Derick was used in Sun magazine.  The caption under it said Derick Dillard entered the court looking dapper.  I think he looks good but I'm not sure if I'd call him dapper looking!

[CountryGirl]

Just now, louannems said:

This photo of Derick was used in Sun magazine.  The caption under it said Derick Dillard entered the court looking dapper.  I think he looks good but I'm not sure if I'd call him dapper looking!

He was one pocket square and some hair product short of being dapper. 

[iwantcookies]

Jeremy Vuolo is jealous that D made it into the magazine 🤣. D does look nice. Was he wearing his brown elf shoes?

 

 

 

[iwantcookies]

35 minutes ago, louannems said:

This photo of Derick was used in Sun magazine.  The caption under it said Derick Dillard entered the court looking dapper.  I think he looks good but I'm not sure if I'd call him dapper looking!

Snorts. Thanks for making me laugh. 

[crazycatlady58]

1 hour ago, skatelady said:

Whoa. WHOA. Back the f*** up.

Frito pie is a thing? Whaaaaat?

Frito pie is fantastic! Put Fritos in a bowl cover with chili and shredded cheese. Most people put onions on it but I don't like raw onions. Now I want Frito pie.

45 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

Can anyone make me a frito pie 😂. I never had one.

You can make one super easy.

[SnapHappy]

8 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

Jeremy Vuolo is jealous that D made it into the magazine 🤣. D does look nice. Was he wearing his brown elf shoes?

 

 

 

Jeremy is busy shaking hands with the cream of the conservative California religious crop, not his disgusting, perverted, scumbag brother-in-law. 

I think for these proceedings, Jeremy is probably fine without being photographed or featured in any capacity. 

But I vote "yay" on Dillweed wearing scuffed brown shoes.  

[Ijustwantsomechips]

Derrick looks better with the extra weight on. And I guess, understandably so, not having the stress from law school probably helps as well.    

[Zella]

I was really weirded out by the reported Josh/Derick interaction yesterday. But in retrospect, Josh and Derick both seem to like to play games with people. I could see Josh thinking it's some sort of flex to try to shake hands with him--because they are in public in court--and Derick responding with his own version of a flex--to not display any irritation or surprise since that might have been what Josh hoping for. If so, it's actually pretty funny. And I say this as someone who is not a Derick fan.

[Ijustwantsomechips]

Okay think for all of Derrick’s asshattery, and there is plenty, he was raised well enough to know not to make a scene in court of all places, especially with some press there.  He’s got enough of an understanding of the media to know anything unusual would just be fodder.  If he snubbed Smuggar the speculation about doing so because of what Smuggar did to Jill would be the talk of the town and that’s not what this is supposed to be about. 

[Absolom]

6 hours ago, Jeeves said:

^^This. Wish I could "like" it more than once. I have a busload (seriously, they could probably fill one) of cousins in a state next door to Arkansas, who are almost all Southern Baptists. Some of them are more devout than others but they are all out in mainstream lives, from big cities through small towns and even still a few living on farms. Almost everyone has at least one college degree; there are [active or retired] nurses [male and female], social workers, teachers, bankers, farmers, small biz owners, and oh yeah one CPA (and SHE's a married mother of two). They don't live apart from their neighbors, dress strangely, or shun the world. These are, I'm sure, the kind of people Derick grew up with in his neighborhood, public schools, and church.

I've always thought that while he was sitting at his laptop in Nepal getting acquainted with JB and then Jill, Derick projected onto Jill the attributes he'd observed in his contemporaries at church. Young women who lived mainstream lives, went out shopping alone or with friends, held jobs, dated, got educations, weren't sequestered onto a family compound where they were taught to despise and fear the big bad outside world. Of course, Jill's life experience was quite different from the lives those young women led.

Jill has indeed made a leap. A leap in religion and a leap into a much more mainstream kind of life.

Yes, thank you!!  I'm so happy someone else gets what a difference there is between the two denominations and the two situations.  

[Jeanne222]

The young men marrying Dugger girls have certainly had their hands full supporting their wives during these troubled times.

I admire Derrick and Austin attending this horrific trial of this scum of the earth brother in law.

Can you imagine viewing those CP pictures shown to the jury?  Even Anna wasn't there for that!C

These are good Christian men sitting in a courtroom supporting their wives.

[Tikichick]

On 12/1/2021 at 9:10 AM, GeeGolly said:

One of the speculations about Jill that has turned into fact is that she has been working on the trauma of the molestations. Personally, I see no evidence of this. Jill mentioned seeing a counselor, with Derick about two years ago. We have heard nothing about therapy at all since then. This speculation also assumes Jill is experiencing trauma symptoms, which I've seen none of. Although Jill does occasionally use the word anxiety, it is always in regard to an event.

With that said, if Jill does have any residual or compartmentalized feelings from the molestations, testifying has the potential to cause more harm than good. Being a witness in this trial to say yes, Josh molested me and my sisters is not putting Jill in control of her narrative. Jill will not be asked any questions on how the molestations affected her or her sisters. She will only be asked if it happened.

To me, that is very different than a victim testifying in a trial against their abuser for crimes committed on them. 

 

What is it that you would be looking for to conclude that she is or has sought treatment for trauma?   Plenty of people seek treatment for trauma, make progress and simply live their lives without disclosing the trauma, the treatment for it, or make comments to others about it.

Just as you've suggested we don't know whether she is or was experiencing trauma symptoms we similarly don't know whether she would necessarily reveal anything about struggling or treatment publicly.  

My personal belief is that, if nothing else, she likely struggled with her experience being made public.   That should have been entirely her choice. 

[emmawoodhouse]

2 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

These are good Christian men sitting in a courtroom supporting their wives.

I think any husband who loves his wife would support her, regardless of religious affiliation. Even atheists would support their wives faced with this heinous situation.

[CountryGirl]

9 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

What is it that you would be looking for to conclude that she is or has sought treatment for trauma?   Plenty of people seek treatment for trauma, make progress and simply live their lives without disclosing the trauma, the treatment for it, or make comments to others about it.

Just as you've suggested we don't know whether she is or was experiencing trauma symptoms we similarly don't know whether she would necessarily reveal anything about struggling or treatment publicly.  

My personal belief is that, if nothing else, she likely struggled with her experience being made public.   That should have been entirely her choice. 

Excellent points, especially the bolded.

Jill had zero agency in the abuse, itself, happening, the aftermath/cover up, the outing of the very personal, private, and painful details, nor in the narrative (aka lies) spouted by her father and endoctrinated in the rest of the family.

Like Jill or not, she as a CSA survivor has every right to at least have agency in her process of coping, whatever that looks like for her. She owes no one any details about that. 

Seeing so much scrutiny of her perceived actions or lack thereof in this regard...it's no wonder survivors remain silent. 

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

The young men marrying Dugger girls have certainly had their hands full supporting their wives during these troubled times.

I admire Derrick and Austin attending this horrific trial of this scum of the earth brother in law.

Can you imagine viewing those CP pictures shown to the jury?  Even Anna wasn't there for that!C

These are good Christian men sitting in a courtroom supporting their wives.

They were likely there to support their wives, but I’m not sure about the “good Christian” part 🤷‍♀️

28 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

What is it that you would be looking for to conclude that she is or has sought treatment for trauma?   Plenty of people seek treatment for trauma, make progress and simply live their lives without disclosing the trauma, the treatment for it, or make comments to others about it.

Just as you've suggested we don't know whether she is or was experiencing trauma symptoms we similarly don't know whether she would necessarily reveal anything about struggling or treatment publicly.  

My personal belief is that, if nothing else, she likely struggled with her experience being made public.   That should have been entirely her choice. 

She also cried and was obviously distraught during the Megyn Kelly interview (unlike emotionless bot Jessa).

[Cinnabon]

23 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I think any husband who loves his wife would support her, regardless of religious affiliation. Even atheists would support their wives faced with this heinous situation.

Most atheists I know have far better moral compasses than those who claim to be “Christian.” Just my experience.

[ginger90]

[MargeGunderson]

I finally figured out who Jill reminds me of with her new look: Sheryl Crow. Just me?

[emmawoodhouse]

Young Carly Simon.

[GeeGolly]

I see a touch of a young Joni Mitchell. 

[Nysha]

2 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

She also cried and was obviously distraught during the Megyn Kelly interview (unlike emotionless bot Jessa).

Disassociation is also a survival reaction to trauma. My SIL called me tough as nails b/c I didn't cry at my mom's funeral, but what she didn't know is that I had cried every night since she died and still cry for her. What I don't do is show emotions that aren't pleasant or happy b/c it was drilled into me for 18 years that negative emotions are bad & punishable. 

[emmawoodhouse]

I don't see Jessa as a cryer. She's a stoic. I think she truly believes the family party line that she parroted on Megyn Kelly that it was "no big deal."

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

They were likely there to support their wives, but I’m not sure about the “good Christian” part 🤷‍♀️

She also cried and was obviously distraught during the Megyn Kelly interview (unlike emotionless bot Jessa).

Jill, according to her own words, was upset over the In Touch story, not her abuse.

27 minutes ago, Nysha said:

Disassociation is also a survival reaction to trauma. My SIL called me tough as nails b/c I didn't cry at my mom's funeral, but what she didn't know is that I had cried every night since she died and still cry for her. What I don't do is show emotions that aren't pleasant or happy b/c it was drilled into me for 18 years that negative emotions are bad & punishable. 

I'm sorry that happened to you. There's not correct way to be victim, and it's disturbing that victims hare expected to act a certain way to get compassion.

[Kiss my mutt]

I’m wondering if Derrick has copies of his CV with him to pass out. 

[beckie]

I have the feeling that Jill, if testifying, will be for Josh, not against him. AND get back in Daddy's good graces at the same time. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a feeling I have.

Edited December 3, 2021 by beckie

[mynextmistake]

3 minutes ago, beckie said:

I have the feeling that Jill, if testifying, will be for Josh, not against him. AND get back in Daddy's good graces at the same time. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a feeling I have.

If Jill was going to be testifying for Josh she’d be on the defense witness list, not the prosecution’s.

[Zella]

16 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

If Jill was going to be testifying for Josh she’d be on the defense witness list, not the prosecution’s.

She's only on a witness list. Nobody publicly knows which side. Though I don't think it makes any sense for her to be testifying for the defense. 

[emmawoodhouse]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

She's only on a witness list. Nobody publicly knows which side. Though I don't think it makes any sense for her to be testifying for the defense. 

No way she's testifying for the defense. She's there to give life to Bobye Holt's testimony.

[mynextmistake]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

She's only on a witness list. Nobody publicly knows which side. Though I don't think it makes any sense for her to be testifying for the defense. 

Oh, my mistake. I thought she and Bobye Holt were added to the prosecution list after the judge ruled that the propensity evidence is admissible.

[Zella]

11 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

Oh, my mistake. I thought she and Bobye Holt were added to the prosecution list after the judge ruled that the propensity evidence is admissible.

Yeah I think she is totally being used by the prosecution in lieu of Jim Bob. I noticed Jim Holt is also on the list, and I'm really curious what his testimony will cover as well.

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah I think she is totally being used by the prosecution in lieu of Jim Bob. I noticed Jim Holt is also on the list, and I'm really curious what his testimony will cover as well.

From what I've read, Jim Holt will refute the defense of poor education/lack of computer knowledge by testifying that Smuggar discussed Linux partitions with him when he was still a teenager.

[GeeGolly]

Depending on how the cross examination of Bobye goes, I'm guessing there's still a chance Jill won't be called. If the defense doesn't poke holes in Bobye's testimony, the prosecutors may feel Jill isn't needed.

[Zella]

14 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

From what I've read, Jim Holt will refute the defense of poor education/lack of computer knowledge by testifying that Smuggar discussed Linux partitions with him when he was still a teenager.

"Josh was the top IT guy for my campaign until divine vengeance for his porn habit manifested itself."

 

13 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Depending on how the cross examination of Bobye goes, I'm guessing there's still a chance Jill won't be called. If the defense doesn't poke holes in Bobye's testimony, the prosecutors may feel Jill isn't needed.

Yes that's quite true! 

[Rootbeer]

7 hours ago, beckie said:

I have the feeling that Jill, if testifying, will be for Josh, not against him. AND get back in Daddy's good graces at the same time. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a feeling I have.

What could Jill possibly contribute that would help Smuggar?  She has never worked at his car lot, never used his computers.  She has publicly discussed the fact that he assaulted her when she was a kid.  There is nothing she could say that would be helpful to his defense.

[Churchhoney]

7 hours ago, beckie said:

I have the feeling that Jill, if testifying, will be for Josh, not against him. AND get back in Daddy's good graces at the same time. I hope I'm wrong, but like I said, it's a feeling I have.

I don't see how a person who acknowledges they were molested as a child by a defendant could possibly seem like a valuable witness for the defense in a case about that defendant accessing CP, though.

The reason the prosecution is talking about the molestations is to make the point that Josh has been motivated in the past by some kind of sexual interest in young girls. And -- they're arguing -- since he had that motivation once, that makes him a likely candidate for still having that motivation, but now satisfying his interest in a different way -- via video. 

Just having a young girl he once showed sexual interest in come forward and say, "Oh, it didn't bother me at all. It was no big deal! I totally forgive him" does nothing at all to refute the idea that he did have that sexual interest. And that he acted on it.

Whether it bothered her or not is completely beside the point for the prosecution's purposes in this trial. Her appearing on the stand would just put a face on the sexual motivation that Josh did, in fact, have and that she wouldn't be denying, even if she now testifies that he's the best person on the planet. 

 

 

[lascuba]

41 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

I don't see how a person who acknowledges they were molested as a child by a defendant could possibly seem like a valuable witness for the defense in a case about that defendant accessing CP, though.

The reason the prosecution is talking about the molestations is to make the point that Josh has been motivated in the past by some kind of sexual interest in young girls. And -- they're arguing -- since he had that motivation once, that makes him a likely candidate for still having that motivation, but now satisfying his interest in a different way -- via video. 

Just having a young girl he once showed sexual interest in come forward and say, "Oh, it didn't bother me at all. It was no big deal! I totally forgive him" does nothing at all to refute the idea that he did have that sexual interest. And that he acted on it.

Whether it bothered her or not is completely beside the point for the prosecution's purposes in this trial. Her appearing on the stand would just put a face on the sexual motivation that Josh did, in fact, have and that she wouldn't be denying, even if she now testifies that he's the best person on the planet. 

 

 

I suppose the defense could make the argument that Josh stopped abusing young girls by the time he was 15 and therefore that's unrelated to his current charges...Jill could testify that the abuse stopped once her parents sought "treatment" for him and he never abused them or otherwise acted inappropriately since.  But any one of the sisters could testify to that if that's what the defense is going for, so I agree that Jill has to be a witness for the prosecution.

[Picture It. Sicily]

It would be a huge (and foolish) risk for the defense to put one of his victims on the stand. 

[farmgal4]

The Sun states that Jill and Jedidiah will be called on to testify.

[laurakaye]

20 hours ago, ginger90 said:

In the midst of all the awfulness, this picture is so sweet.  Jill - newly blonde for whatever reasons she wants - looking fantastic given the cesspool of crap that is swirling around her POS brother.  And maybe she looks happy because she's got this little guy and his big brother supporting her in little ways like this, even if they don't realize they're helping.

And Sam is just too adorable for words.

[Almost 3000]

Why, oh why is Derrick spending so much time sitting by Anna and behind Josh looking like he's supporting them? Such bad optics. 

I don't get it!

 

[Cinnabon]

7 minutes ago, Almost 3000 said:

Why, oh why is Derrick spending so much time sitting by Anna and behind Josh looking like he's supporting them? Such bad optics. 

I don't get it!

 

If Jill ends up testifying , she can look right at Derick. It will appear that she’s looking directly at Josh.

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, Cinnabon said:

If Jill ends up testifying , she can look right at Derick. It will appear that she’s looking directly at Josh.

But she's not testifying now. She hasn't been scheduled to testify yet. He has no reason to sit next to Anna 3 days in a row other than wanting to show support to her and Josh. 

[Lady Whistleup]

8 hours ago, lascuba said:

I suppose the defense could make the argument that Josh stopped abusing young girls by the time he was 15 and therefore that's unrelated to his current charges...Jill could testify that the abuse stopped once her parents sought "treatment" for him and he never abused them or otherwise acted inappropriately since.  But any one of the sisters could testify to that if that's what the defense is going for, so I agree that Jill has to be a witness for the prosecution.

I'm not a lawyer but ... anyone know if before Jill testifies any kind of prep she'll get from the prosecution? I imagine that calling witnesses who were victims of molestation (even if the people are now adults) has to be extremely delicate.

[coconspirator]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

But she's not testifying now. She hasn't been scheduled to testify yet. He has no reason to sit next to Anna 3 days in a row other than wanting to show support to her and Josh. 

Or just Anna. She didn't download CSAM or molest her siblings. Nobody from her family has bothered to travel from Florida to be by her side. From all reports Anna is well loved by the Duggars.  I don't think it's strange that he sits with her and I don't see it as an endorsement of Josh.

[quarks]

33 minutes ago, Lady Whistleup said:

I'm not a lawyer but ... anyone know if before Jill testifies any kind of prep she'll get from the prosecution? I imagine that calling witnesses who were victims of molestation (even if the people are now adults) has to be extremely delicate.

Based on the testimony of the other witnesses so far and all of the ongoing arguing/motions about the cell phones, I think she's probably at least been interviewed by both sides, so she should have a general idea of what sort of questions she'll be asked.

Anything more than that, I have no idea. 

[Rootbeer]

24 minutes ago, quarks said:

Based on the testimony of the other witnesses so far and all of the ongoing arguing/motions about the cell phones, I think she's probably at least been interviewed by both sides, so she should have a general idea of what sort of questions she'll be asked.

Anything more than that, I have no idea. 

Since she's a prosecution witness, they will probably walk her through exactly what they're going to ask and what her responses might be.  They will probably tell her to answer only the question asked and as briefly as possible,  Yes or no is ideal.  They will tell her what sorts of questions the defense might ask and help her answer.  They won't tell her what to say but might suggest phrases or terminology she might use if she wants, to be sure her answer is as clear as possible.  They'll let her know it's ok to cry and probably suggest she take some kleenex and some water up on the stand with her.   They'll probably even provide those things if needed.

They'll tell her to eat a good breakfast and get a good night's sleep before her testimony.    I would expect that there is a victim's advocate of some sort who will talk to her before she testifies and be in the courtroom as her supporter as well as being available after she's done.  The courts try to be sensitive to victims of assault and will do their best to make sure she is aware of what will happen and minimize any surprises.  They may suggest what to wear, especially comfortable shoes and also tell her how to avoid the press by coming and going through a different entrance to the courthouse.  She's going to be the witness that the press is going to pursue for comment, after all.

I would be surprised if the defense asks her much, if anything.  Her role is to let the jury know that Josh has a history of being interested in young girls sexually.  There's nothing they can ask that will change that fact or mitigate it in any way.  The defense would look like bullies if they questioned her extensively and there really is nothing she could possibly say that would help Josh' defense.  It doesn't matter how much she remembers, if she forgives him, if it was only over her clothes or if it happens in other families.  The only point of her testimony is to show a propensity on Josh' part towards sexual abuse of children.  She is one of a bunch of people, including Josh, who have publicly admitted the molestation; the defense can't unring that bell.

Edited December 4, 2021 by Rootbeer

[YupItsMe]

2 hours ago, coconspirator said:

Or just Anna. She didn't download CSAM or molest her siblings. Nobody from her family has bothered to travel from Florida to be by her side. From all reports Anna is well loved by the Duggars.  I don't think it's strange that he sits with her and I don't see it as an endorsement of Josh.

I wonder why her parents, or at least her dad, aren’t there. They were just in AR for her brother’s wedding.

[Churchhoney]

27 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

I wonder why her parents, or at least her dad, aren’t there. They were just in AR for her brother’s wedding.

For a cult founded to promote the critical importance of viewing your parents as your primary leaders and moral counselors and founts of wisdom and umbrellas of protection throughout as much of your life as they're alive for, the two first-generation Gothard couples who are parents of the primary players in this mess are conspicuous by their absence, are they not? 

That may be the most telling irony in the whole story: Four of Gothard's truest believers demonstrate by their actions that everything they've always claimed to believe in is pure crap. Yet again.   

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by Churchhoney

[ChiCricket]

42 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

I wonder why her parents, or at least her dad, aren’t there. They were just in AR for her brother’s wedding.

Maybe they would be there for her if she was their son.

She's just a lowly female, after all. 🙄

It made me flashback to watching TLCs "My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding"  series and how, after the (very young) daughter was married off, 

she was then considered now be totally "of the groom's family" , and they didn't really interact with their own daughter anymore.

It was like she wasn't their "problem" now.  Maybe it's like that with Anna's family? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(why yes, I watched that show too... I love train-wreck TV)  

Sorry,  I kind of wandered off there.  😁

Ps The Learning Channel did teach me *one* thing...that the words "Gypsy & Gyp"  are considered racial slurs now. The correct terms are Romany and/or Travelers.