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

[Cheetah]

2 minutes ago, coffeebean7 said:

Josh’s abuse of his sisters Is probably not going to be allowed in the actual trial it gets to that point as it’s too prejudicial. Just because it came up at a bond hearing or could come up at sentencing doesn’t mean it’s admissible in trial. 

I wonder if they'll be able to find a jury in NWA that hasn't already heard all about Josh abusing his sisters.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

3 minutes ago, Cornelia13 said:

Goodness is it hard to stay caught up ... 

I wonder if the reason Anna, JB and Michelle, Duggar siblings and others that hold the same beliefs, can continue to defend Josh and support him — is because of their absolute belief that all evil is actually Satan attacking their faith and that G*d will bring them through this? That these aren’t “Josh’s actions” but Satan attacking him? 
 

I mean, we can all see that’s ridiculous thinking but Fundamental Christians do believe that G*d will bring you through any troubles and that those troubles are always Satan testing your faith ... 

I thought about this driving home yesterday....how they say Satan does things to lead people away from Christ?  Even my fundy lite family members believed this, like Satan deliberately targets you to seperate you from God.

Not being snarky at all, if this was true and I were Satan I'd use fundies.   Nothing has caused me to doubt my (former?) Christianity nearly as much as the hypocrisy in the name of God.   

(I say former not because I still practice, I don't, but I haven't been able to kill the belief all the way.  I got to agnostic and can't make the final leap, likely because of my own damage but it means I get to keep all the fear and the guilt with none of the comfort.  Excellent plan, my subconscious.  It's like my brain hates me  )

[nausicaa]

58 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

Judging by his smirking and ‘joke’ about the metal stool, Josh never expected any other outcome yesterday. Daddy threw money and influence at the situation and it went away. 

I mean, it didn't go away. He still has a trial this summer. A Federal trial, which has a 96% conviction rate. And he has to abide by the terms of his bond. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, browngrl said:

I have no data to substantiate this assumption but Josh looked like he was on drugs or alcohol at the time of his arrest. Perhaps substance abuse has a role in his crimes?Is there anything in the Judge's orders that specifically advises him to stay away from drugs/alcohol eg orders to pass regular drug tests? Was he assessed for drug/alcohol use? Or is substance abuse not considered to be a factor?

One of the points in his favor in court yesterday was that he'd never done drug or alcohol.  Because those of us who have are more evil than someone who preys upon children, don't you know?

Allegedly, I'm with you if that guy wasn't high as fuck in that mugshot I'll send a love letter to Steve Maxwell.)

[JenniferJuniper]

1 minute ago, Cornelia13 said:

 

I wonder if the reason Anna, JB and Michelle, Duggar siblings and others that hold the same beliefs, can continue to defend Josh and support him — is because of their absolute belief that all evil is actually Satan attacking their faith and that G*d will bring them through this? That these aren’t “Josh’s actions” but Satan attacking him? 
 

I suspect they do.  I also suspect the only Duggar who doesn't believe this is the Pest himself.  

He just doesn't give a shit in general.  I don't have the ability to diagnose him from here (or anywhere for that matter) but he has to at least be a raging narcsissist, if not some sort of sociopath.  I'm still stuck on his joking complaint to the judge about his uncomforatable metal stool, AFTER he'd heard the details of his charges detailed in court.  I would think most men in his situation would keep their heads down and their mouths shut, but not Smuggar.  Still loud and proud as ever.  It's beyond creepy.  

 

[feministxtian]

20 minutes ago, Destiny said:

No one is saying you have to leave. Plenty of people have had a rocky start to FJ and gone on to be beloved posters. That said, your presentation needs some work. There's nothing wrong with discussing the intersection of QAnon with the current Duggar scandal. It's the coming in and acting like we have never heard of QAnon that comes off wrong. The men and women of FJ are smart, savvy, and know this stuff, and it's best to treat them, well, us, like we are. We don't need to be educated on the issues. We want to discuss them. 

I don't want to see you leave. You seem like a smart lady with an interesting perspective. I'd just like to see you stop treating us like you're teaching us something we don't know. 

@The Baby Humanist

I's just a dum unedukated rednek wit no real edukashon. I needs sumone smart to tell me about shit I've been following on media for years. 

Now, if you'd like to have intelligent discourse regarding the issues of the day from QAnon to Josh Duggar to Trump trying to come back to certain congresscritters (and others) not understanding the intent of the First Amendment, then let's go. In addition, if you'd like to discuss nuclear power generation, the current state of the space program, Space X, Blue Origin or even why I hate Colorado, I'd love to discuss with you. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, nausicaa said:

I mean, it didn't go away. He still has a trial this summer. A Federal trial, which has a 96% conviction rate. And he has to abide by the terms of his bond. 

It was debunked a few threads back that it's a 96% conviction rate across the board.  That includes those who plead out.  For those who force a trial there is a 16% non-guilty verdict.  Odds aren't in his favor, but they aren't as good for the prosecution.

[SnarkyLawyer]

21 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

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.

I'll tell you what he/she isn't supposed to put on the website: "Accusations of rape and sexual assault are often made up. Girlfriends and wives often use these allegations to get back at men, for ending the relationship, or as leverage in divorce proceedings."

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but this is actual content that I happened upon, on a private firm's website, about a year ago. I'd like to make it clear that I met a lot of public defenders, who I respected. I had more issues with some of the private practice folks, who had difficulty drawing the line between defending their client, and re-traumatizing the child victims, in the process. Fortunately, the law has come a long way, in terms of protecting children during court proceedings, since 1990.

[Foudeb]

6 minutes ago, coffeebean7 said:

Josh’s abuse of his sisters Is probably not going to be allowed in the actual trial it gets to that point as it’s too prejudicial. Just because it came up at a bond hearing or could come up at sentencing doesn’t mean it’s admissible in trial. 

Oh that's interesting - I was wondering if his sisters would have to testify. While it is relevant, it does feel unfair that they should have to be re-traumatised for this. 

I still doubt it'll come to trial, surely if he has two brain cells to rub together he'll plea deal at this stage? 

[wendy-sparkles]

Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but if the Rebers decide they don't want to host Josh anymore, but it's not because he's breached his bail conditions, does Josh only go back to jail temporarily (until Jim Bob convinces someone else to take him) or does he have to stay there until his trial since he's blown his chance?

[Antimony]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It was debunked a few threads back that it's a 96% conviction rate across the board.  That includes those who plead out.  For those who force a trial there is a 16% non-guilty verdict.  Odds aren't in his favor, but they aren't as good for the prosecution.

I wish we could get a breakdown on the types of crimes and how those rates shake out, only because the nature of the crimes and the details we already have are an emotional slamdunk as far as the jury is concerned. It might be harder to get that kind of emotional slam dunk out of a jury on money laundering, for example. 

[coffeebean7]

One thing I also wanted to explain to the people shocked about him being released on bond is that there are huge pushes to keep jail populations down right now because of covid and also lack of beds in general. He would have most likely been released anyway but there is an extra layer there. It’s impacting sentencing right now too. I just saw someone plea guilty to felony child abuse where a child was severely injured and that guy was sentenced to freaking probation. ? 

[CinnaJen]

44 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?

Do a quick google search for Cheeto Jesus and you’ll find all the answers you’re looking for! 

[Sky with diamonds]

Would it be possible for Josh and Anna to make any kind of statement to the leg humpers today?

Edited May 6, 2021 by Sky with diamonds

[libgirl2]

8 minutes ago, wendy-sparkles said:

Sorry if this is a completely stupid question, but if the Rebers decide they don't want to host Josh anymore, but it's not because he's breached his bail conditions, does Josh only go back to jail temporarily (until Jim Bob convinces someone else to take him) or does he have to stay there until his trial since he's blown his chance?

I was wondering about that too. Are they stuck with him now no matter what? 

[nelliebelle1197]

20 minutes ago, PopRox said:

My ex was a criminal defense attorney, he got into it because it pays well and he likes to argue (beLIEVE me, he likes to argue!). Often, if he was representing someone for domestic abuse (or just a particularly difficult/combative client) he would charge a little higher fee; which he told me he called "asshole tax."

I'm not at all saying that was exactly ethical, but I also don't blame him ("my practice, my rules"). 

I am saying that if he represented the Smuggars, they would be paying through the nose on "asshole tax."

(Sorry. I didn't sleep hardly at all last night, so I hope this was coherent)

You are still recovering from the JRod Striped Skirt Incident of 2021. 

[Howl]

 

[NoKidsAndCounting]

And once again, Josh gets women to cater to him.  His wife and children will visit over at the Rebers, and Mrs. Reber will have to provide all of his meals.

[Destiny]

Just now, nelliebelle1197 said:

You are still recovering from the JRod Striped Skirt Incident of 2021. 

I’m almost afraid to ask, but I’m going to: What the fuck? 

[Antimony]

Okay, I found a document of State and Federal cases relating to CP. I'm not going to count the numbers because the formatting of this document is horrendous but there are about 100 pages of Federal cases, 2-4 cases per page. I've found one "indictment dismissed". Everything else was a guilty plea or a conviction. The document is "Internet Crimes Against Children: A Matrix and Summary of Major Federal and Select State Case Law" and it is from 2009, so it is out of date but worth noting from page 27-169, with at least 2 cases per page but let's average 3 (426 cases) I didn't see a single "not guilty" verdict and some of those rare outcomes (like indictment dismissed) noted that the case could be brought back, or that some motions to dismiss were denied (and no final outcome at the time of writing, I guess.)

[nelliebelle1197]

Just now, Destiny said:

I’m almost afraid to ask, but I’m going to: What the fuck? 

@PopRox has to explain. It is quite personal ???

[SnarkyLawyer]

11 minutes ago, Antimony said:

I wish we could get a breakdown on the types of crimes and how those rates shake out, only because the nature of the crimes and the details we already have are an emotional slamdunk as far as the jury is concerned. It might be harder to get that kind of emotional slam dunk out of a jury on money laundering, for example. 

I found a bit of a breakdown, but not about child sex crimes, specifically. "Trial rates are low regardless of the types of charges faced by federal defendants, but there are some variations across offense types. Fewer than 1% of federal defendants charged with immigration offenses (89 of 25,575) went to trial in fiscal 2018. The same was true of 2% of those charged with drug offenses (499 of 21,771) and 4% of those charged with property offenses (419 of 10,045). The trial rate was slightly higher for those charged with violent offenses (7%, or 192 of 2,879)." I'll see what else I can find. I think it's important to keep in mind that although the overall acquittal rate is 17%, only 2% of all federal, criminal cases go to trial, in the 1st place. Ninety percent are plead out, and 8% are dismissed. Seventeen percent of the remaining 2% is a very low number. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/11/only-2-of-federal-criminal-defendants-go-to-trial-and-most-who-do-are-found-guilty/

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 minutes ago, coffeebean7 said:

One thing I also wanted to explain to the people shocked about him being released on bond is that there are huge pushes to keep jail populations down right now because of covid and also lack of beds in general. He would have most likely been released anyway but there is an extra layer there. It’s impacting sentencing right now too. I just saw someone plea guilty to felony child abuse where a child was severely injured and that guy was sentenced to freaking probation. ? 

I have missed some posts, but I didn't see anyone being shocked.  Disgusted at the system and venting how bond shouldn't be an option for these charges and outrage at how once again a white guy with money is treated differently than others, yes.  

I assumed he would be let out on bail, that's the status quo for this kind of crime.  My outrage is that the judge heard the woman say it was her husband's decision and she was there to support it, and that she was afraid and allowed it anyway.  My outrage is that the judge expressed verbally that there were concerns about letting Anna supervise and allowed it anyway.

The wording of the judge when she said "Don't make me regret this." Means she knew there was a risk in letting him out and chose to do so anyway, with structures in place to try to mitigate that risk with regards to every child but his own.  His own who are most vulnerable not only to danger, but to being silenced due to the parental bond.  

If people were genuinely surprised I can't speak to that....but I hope people aren't confusing outrage with surprise.  I knew it would happen and I knew I would be pissed when it did.

For me presumption of innocence is sacred, but that doesn't mean risk to public safety of children is okay.  This is a country that has incarcerated people for years on low level non-violent drug offenses, but a guy who is clearly a danger to children is allowed to be out where he'll be more comfortable.  Just because we are aware of how the system works doesn't mean we have to agree with it.

 

[JenniferJuniper]

11 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I was wondering about that too. Are they stuck with him now no matter what? 

No, but he goes back to the detention center if the Mrs. freaks out at some point and demands he leave.   (a perfectly reasonable response to having Josh Duggar in your guest room, IMO)  The court then has to agree to a replacement before he could be released again. 

[libgirl2]

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The wording of the judge when she said "Don't make me regret this." Means she knew there was a risk in letting him out and chose to do so anyway, with structures in place to try to mitigate that risk with regards to every child but his own.  His own who are most vulnerable not only to danger, but to being silenced due to the parental bond.  

 

 

I hope she does. I want to see this slime f-up and land his ass back in jail.