Jump to content
IGNORED

(CW: Child Sex Abuse) Josh & Anna 29: Left with Nothing but a Flip Phone Full of Shame


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Bolding mine.  JD is Josh's brother, John David.  When people refer to Josh as JD it results in paged of people wondering what JD did.  

We do not need any more work trying to prevent confusion on this thread, please familiarize yourself with these people if you plan on discussing them.

Most people understand what mansplaining is. We need a new term: newbiesplaining? 

  • Upvote 9
  • Haha 30
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Destiny said:

New people, PLEASE look around for more than one family's threads.

I actually did search for "QAnon" but must have done it incorrectly because nothing came up. Even if it had, though, THIS post of mine really is very specifically about JD Josh Duggar [edit - Buffy] and yesterday's revealation of the very young age of his victims, since those are the very victim QAnons are focused on, and the Duggar scandal is the most publicized scandal in the media today.

 

Edited by HerNameIsBuffy
Edited because JD and Josh are actually different people
  • Upvote 1
  • Move Along 2
  • Downvote 3
  • Bless Your Heart 2
  • Eyeroll 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Baby Humanist said:

I'm no computer programmer, but this seems like a pretty easy and obvious thing to do. It's bizarre to me that whoever invented and purchased the Covenant software actually believed it would prevent anyone from doing anything. It's like "My kids, drunk?! No way! I put this little padlock on the door of the liquor cabinet! They could NEVER get in!!"

You heard what went down at the Capitol in Washington DC on January 6, right? The insurrection by Trump supporters? It was about QAnon.

She was being sarcastic because we are typically well informed, educated and up on the news here!

  • Upvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Baby Humanist said:

JD Josh Duggar's

I'm sorry. Understood.

  • Upvote 1
  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FiveAcres said:

Most people understand what mansplaining is. We need a new term: newbiesplaining? 

If I came off that way I apologize.  I am a little frustrated at the moment at us having to police such basic things when things are so hectic right now.  

 

  • Upvote 11
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 29
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

If I came off that way I apologize.  I am a little frustrated at the moment at us having to police such basic things when things are so hectic right now.  

 

You did not come off that way.

Edited by nelliebelle1197
  • Upvote 19
  • I Agree 2
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Baby Humanist said:

I actually did search for "QAnon" but must have done it incorrectly because nothing came up. Even if it had, though, THIS post of mine really is very specifically about JD and yesterday's revealation of the very young age of his victims, since those are the very victim QAnons are focused on, and the Duggar scandal is the most publicized scandal in the media today.

For your convenience, a search of qanon on FJ, gotten by typing same in a search bar:

https://www.freejinger.org/search/?q=qanon&quick=1

The denizens of FJ are generally knowledgable of various types of Christian fundamentalism and the intersection of politics, along with major themes in the political discourse today. 

  • Upvote 16
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, lawyers may decline to represent clients, but most people who go into criminal law understand they will represent those who are guilty and criminal (and not always remotely likable). I think the commonality of these lawyers is that they deeply believe in the American system of law. Another reason that lawyers can defend people regardless of guilt is that our society gives each citizen the right to be vigorously defended in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution assures every citizen due process and the right to legal counsel. Because a defense attorney defends his or her client does not mean they have no scruples. A simpler explanation might be if Josh Duggar (or another reprehensible person) arrived in a hospital, we have an expectation that the nurses and doctors are going to treat the patient because of their professional oaths and obligations. We are very fortunate in America to have our legal system even if it means we have to hold our noses sometimes to believe that everyone is entitled to a defense. The other option is a kangaroo court or lynch mob or potentially police taking justice into their own hands. We cannot want this for the lowest of us because we believe in the Bill of Rights for all. 

18 minutes ago, xenobia said:

I'm not questioning all the public defenders out there (I think that's what they are called in the US), neither am I questioning that everyone has the right to a defence. But as far as I can understand, these are lawyers that JB hired for this specific case.

 

  • Upvote 30
  • Eyeroll 1
  • I Agree 7
  • Thank You 4
  • Love 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, xenobia said:

I'm not questioning all the public defenders out there (I think that's what they are called in the US), neither am I questioning that everyone has the right to a defence. But as far as I can understand, these are lawyers that JB hired for this specific case. They are not public defenders. They didn't have to take this case. They could have turned JB down when he asked, but they didn't. If I'm wrong about this, or if there are aspects of the American legal system that I've misunderstood, I do apologize for that. 

So, in the US you get assigned a public defender only if you can’t afford a private one. Honestly, Josh probably would qualify because he has so many kids and no real income. But I doubt JB would like the optics of that. However, everyone needs to be represented. This means some people have to be willing to represent sex offenders. These people are just ordinary people. By protecting the rights of even the worse in society you protect everyone’s rights. If everyone refused then the defendants would not only lose their cases, but they can do it in ways that set dangerous precedent that everyone else in the country has to live with. 

Edited by Jess
  • Upvote 28
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, EyesOpen said:

I think it’s obvious to many outside of the situation seeing how they treat Jill for asking for fair payment, getting therapy and using birth control/ (actually leaving and cleaving)... versus how they treat a man who obviously has serious and dangerous issues - and it’s obvious that comes down to how it looks for their brand versus what is really important. Once Derrick and Jill got their eyes opened to that I don’t think they’ll every fully go back.

i wish some of the other siblings would quickly draw this same simple conclusion. we’re talking about someone watching children being abused for pleasure. Anyone trying to pretend he’s just a sinner needing grace is culpable in covering up a monster.

Are any of the female Duggar siblings capable of seeing the misogyny of JB’s actions towards Jill vs Josh? He practically disowns Jill because she dares to live her life according to how she as an adult woman wants to live it rather than follow patriarchal bullcrap set forth by her father. In other words, JB is pissed he no longer controls her. Yet there he is handholdng Josh, making sure he gets the supervision required to make bail and dropping bucketloads of cash on pricey lawyer guy. Jill commits no crime but is somewhat shunned; Josh is accused of some of the most heinous of crimes and JB circles the wagons around him. 

While not all the Sibs may turn away from Josh, some will, even if they don’t publicly announce it. There will be a divide among them. Some will be on the fence. As they watch the ones pulling away, it may sway them to follow eventually. Those who turn away will have to figure out how to make a go of life without JB’s financial support. They all gotta work through this shit on their own. 

I’m not sure how the sisters with kids can continue to forge much of a relationship with Anna. Josh has brought Anna so far down. Sadly, she may simply be addicted now to chaos in her life; without it, her life may feel dull and meaningless. Standin’ by her man gives her purpose. 

  • Upvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

So does this mean no one is going to explain to me who Trump is or what happened at the capitol?

I mean, obviously, no one here knows about those things. It's not like we have a whole section of FJ that contains 40+ threads on trump and we weren't communally sharing our horror on January 6th. Nope! ;)

ETA: Maybe I should turn my avatar back to what it was before the inauguration. ?

Edited by Destiny
  • Upvote 4
  • Haha 13
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, fluffy said:

The other option is a kangaroo court or lynch mob or potentially police taking justice into their own hands. We cannot want this for the lowest of us because we believe in the Bill of Rights for all. 

I agree with this, despite what my heart says in this case, I truly do.

And I agree everyone no matter how despicable deserves a vigorous defense.  But when lawyers have such on their websites bragging about getting people off CSA cases I'm going to tag them as scumbags personally.  A defense attorney fighting to hold the government accountable to the law I could have a drink with.  Someone proud of getting child predators off the hook I would not.  

1 minute ago, Destiny said:

I mean, obviously, no one here knows about those things. It's not like we have a whole section of FJ that contains 40+ threads on trump and we weren't communally sharing our horror on January 6th. Nope! ;)

I wish I'd known about that section sooner.  Maybe I should leave the Duggar threads once in a while.

  • Upvote 8
  • Haha 12
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question if a player does get people off because their constitutional rights were violated and it's willing to do stuff for people accused of the very worst what is he supposed to put on his website? There aren't that many lawyers who can do that and many who won't do that so how are you supposed to publicize what you do special if you're good at it? A lot of lawyers will say it's very important to make sure the police are not violating the constitutional rights even of predators. I'm not saying we know he's not a scumbsg but I know lawyers who defend the worst of the worst and I will tell you they are very proud of their ability to make sure the state is not violating rights. If the state violates Josh is right it can violate yours.

  • Upvote 14
  • I Agree 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going back to that People article, the Rebers certainly didn’t come across as close friends of the Duggars? It seemed more ‘people JB knew who were a soft touch in the name of ‘ministry’.

  • Upvote 18
  • I Agree 12
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will pretrial release make surprise visits to Lacunt Reber’s home to ensure Josh follows the rules?

Edited by QuiverFullOfCondoms
  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, browngrl said:

Maybe it is just me but a major part of my disappointment is that justice system seems so unfair.

It's all to do with money. If you can afford to pay the fees for being electronically monitored and have a good enough socioeconomic status that so-called "responsible" members of society can agree to mind you, then you are set. If you are from a poor area OTOH, it's unlikely that you will have access to an "upstanding" member of the community to babysit you nor the money for the electronic monitoring system. It sucks.

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 2
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I wish I'd known about that section sooner.  Maybe I should leave the Duggar threads once in a while.

Apropos of nothing, I just actually looked at the main page of FJ, something I rarely do since I navigate from unread. Useless fun fact, QFoP is actually higher up on the page than QfoDuggars. In fact, all our families that have their own forums are lower than QFoS and QFoP and all. Just a silly little quirk of how the software organizes stuff that I never really noticed before. 

Edited by Destiny
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Destiny said:

, along with major themes in the political discourse today

Ah. Okay. I see the search. And it looks like the most recent reference to QAnon was in mid-April, so no discussion yet on Josh Duggar.

That's okay. I'm sorry for pissing folks off all the time. I can't get the hang of this. Bowing out now & not coming back. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Bless Your Heart 1
  • Rufus Bless 2
  • Eyeroll 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

So does this mean no one is going to explain to me who Trump is or what happened at the capitol?

Trump bad. Trumpists bad. Me good. You good.

  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 11
  • I Agree 3
  • Love 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Galbin said:

It's all to do with money. If you can afford to pay the fees for being electronically monitored and have a good enough socioeconomic status that so-called "responsible" members of society can agree to mind you, then you are set. If you are from a poor area OTOH, it's unlikely that you will have access to an "upstanding" member of the community to babysit you nor the money for the electronic monitoring system. It sucks.

Judges are eager to waive the cost of electronic monitoring. Usually they also do not require a baby sitter.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

But when lawyers have such on their websites bragging about getting people off CSA cases I'm going to tag them as scumbags personally.  A defense attorney fighting to hold the government accountable to the law I could have a drink with.

I can't disagree with this! Law used to be a very respectable and noble profession. Things like "bragging" on a website or advertising in general would be anathema to an older generation of lawyers. In my opinion, that direction in the profession has greatly undermined public respect for lawyers, as have law schools pumping out more graduates than can find work. Law schools are now cash cows for colleges. Much less emphasis on placed on character of those graduates. All of these trends have undermined an important career. 

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 3
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • choralcrusader8613 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.