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

[HerNameIsBuffy]

33 minutes ago, Galbin said:

I am not diagnosing anyone, but given my educational background in psychology/therapy, I strongly suspect Josh has narcissistic personality disorder. People with NPD always think they are above the law. He honestly thinks he will get away with this.

My ex-husband was diagnosed with BPD-NPD (not internet diagnosis, real doctors over time.  More than one) and I've got no problem slapping the NPD label on Josh but I think there is something else going on as well.

He has a total disregard for others as actual people and his behavior shows they (children) are objects for his use, not living breathing people with their own humanity and pain.

That said, NPD absolutely causes them to see other people in similar ways, but none of the cluster B PDS make you a pedophile.  They can cause one to act due to the lack of empathy (more complex than that in reality) but cluster B PDS won't cause an attraction to children that isn't there.

I know no one said that, just putting it out there so I'm clear, my children's father had a lot of issues dealing with cluster B but thank Christ this wasn't one of them.  

[Coconut Flan]

1 hour 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.

I've been being quiet in my cave because I have too much real life going on at the moment to engage people who waltz in and try to school the congregation, but this goes too far.  I put QAnon into search and got nine pages of results.  We have entire threads about this and they came up in search.  Try pulling the other leg.  

JD refers to John David as has been pointed out.  I'm restating it for clarity for future readers.  

Edited May 6, 2021 by Coconut Flan

[JenniferJuniper]

Just want to stress that Josh isn't "free on bail".  He's essentially on home arrest, albeit in someone else's home.  Yes, he can see his kids but he can't be alone with them, and he cannot be near other children. 

If Josh's charges involved allegations of him physically harming children, there's a much greater chance he would have been held.  But as the judge said, his admission that he "touched" the girls was a couple of decades ago when he was a minor and there was nothing in front of the court to indicate he was still doing this.  So although the judge said it was a "close call",  I actually think his release was a foregone conclusion. 

[formergothardite]

32 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 ... 

They also believe that bad things happen to you when you leave your hedge of protection. Josh for sure left that hedge of protection! One of Gothard’s big things was that awful things would happen if you left your hedge of protection. That is how the whole secret sin thing came about, to explain why bad things happened to people who were seemingly inside their hedge. They clearly had a secret sin and were actually outside the hedge.

My opinion is that Jim Bob and Michelle’s pride won’t let them admit they raised a monster. Hard to get even IBLP speaking events if they accept their son is a predator. 

 

[BlackberryGirl]

My sweet Sylvia, gone at age 20, and our rescue Blair who was horribly tortured when we found him.

[Cornelia13]

1 minute ago, formergothardite said:

My opinion is that Jim Bob and Michelle’s pride won’t let them admit they raised a monster. Hard to get even IBLP speaking events if they accept their son is a predator. 

 

Exactly ... they’ll never admit their own fault or even Josh’s fault in his actions ... it’s why I think Anna can “excuse” his actions and still look at herself in the mirror. The belief that if your faith is strong enough, you can resist temptation for evil and sin. 
 

That’s why the Rebers think they can help Josh ... they can preach to him and strengthen his faith. There is no personal responsibility for actions... 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Yes, he can see his kids but he can't be alone with them, and he cannot be near other children. 

He can be alone with them with Anna.  I see that as a distinction without a difference.  

I would think the judge would be concerned about what he's going to do with all of those urges without his porn outlet.  Also, stress can make some people really need their escapist behavior more than ever.  Why not at least order a psychological evaluation to try to determine the risk level to the kids before just releasing him where the only thing standing between them and harm is Anna?  Why not order a psychological evaluation of Anna and the babysitters even a light screen to see if they are likely to put safety before him?  

 

[Galbin]

9 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That said, NPD absolutely causes them to see other people in similar ways, but none of the cluster B PDS make you a pedophile.  They can cause one to act due to the lack of empathy (more complex than that in reality) but cluster B PDS won't cause an attraction to children that isn't there.

Oh yes, I agree with that. Having NPD does not mean a person is a paedophile. However, to someone with NPD, people are only fuel sources/objects, so they don't care if their actions hurt them. Therefore, a paedophile with NPD is dangerous indeed. That being said, to my knowledge, Josh has not been dx with NPD. If he does have it though, it would explain his joking and loafing around at a hearing like this.

[Coconut Flan]

1 hour ago, Sullie06 said:

Yes it does happen. I had a teenager on Probation for possessing child porn that he received through a group chat on Snapchat. Someone sent a link. He opened the file and didn't immediately report or erase it. He was no seeking child porn and he only looked at the file once but they were able to track it to his IP and because he did't do anything to report, he was charged. 

Like you said, We all know this is not the case for Josh though. He intentionally sought it out. He had software to mask his movements online. I'm sure he paid for it to be honest. 

It can be much easier than many people think to inadvertently encounter illegal images.  It isn't all on the dark web.   Although yes, for sure Josh went looking for it so he needs to be absolutely held to account finally.  

[Snarkasarus Rex]

Although leaving him in jail would be personally satisfying, I actually think allowing him to be released was the better option. His lawyers won’t be able to claim bias and he has juuust enough rope to hang himself (figuratively of course).

This will also significantly damage their relationship with the Rebers...there was likely money and/or coercion involved. I think even some like-minded fundies will distance themselves after all is said and done. 

[SnarkyLawyer]

44 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 this, but it's from 2016:

"While also increasing over time since 2004, the number of child pornography offenders has remained relatively stable since the Commission’s 2011 Mandatory Minimum Report, decreasing slightly from 1,675 offenders in fiscal year 2010 to 1,565 in fiscal year 2016. The percentage of child pornography offenders convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty, however, has generally increased, from 50.2 percent in fiscal year 2010 to a high of 61.2 percent in 2014, before leveling off to 59.6 percent in fiscal 2016."

[MrsFoxx]

HOW DID I NOT KNOW THAT THE COP WHO GAVE JOSH A TALKING TO BACK IN THE DAY ALSO WAS ARRESTED ON CP CHARGES?!

*ahem* Carry on. 

[hand holder]

4 hours ago, FiveAcres said:

I listened to the first half hour and then bailed. I didn't think I could handle even semi-graphic descriptions. 

I'm not sure if you saw in my original post but it is currently timestamped so you can skip the hour long segment with descriptions. 

 

2 hours ago, Jinderella said:

I have two questions after a night with not enough sleep...

1. The evidence seems very strong, if the Duggars are going to court, their only chance will likely be a legal technicality. But if the Case drops because of a technicality, won’t the damage to the public image of the Duggars not suffer worst? Everyone knows he is quilty and avoiding his accountability again will not make the public more sympathetic to the Duggar-brand. Would it not be best for JB to push the Pest under the bus?

2. Is Anna obligated to take the M’s to the Pest? I can imagine after hearing all the horrific details yesterday she is at least a little disgusted. I hope she is spitting mad. If she doesn’t feel like visiting the Pest, can he demand her to see his children? And because she is the only one allowed to supervise such visits, can he demand to see her?

RE: bolding. Yes, she is obligated to take them to see J*sh. Parental rights are a very big deal, however I would like to see a third party supervisor. Currently they will be permitted to see him with Anna serving as supervisor. 

[nelliebelle1197]

53 minutes ago, Cheetah said:

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

My mom had to live in NWA for years for work. She claims the Duggars are not as well known or as big a deal as you might think.

[FiveAcres]

1 minute ago, hand holder said:

I'm not sure if you saw in my original post but it is currently timestamped so you can skip the hour long segment with descriptions. 

 

Thank you. I saw that and I plan to go back and perhaps see how well I can handle it this morning. I didn't want to try right before my bedtime.  I have some nice fluffy fiction to follow as a chaser, if needed. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

9 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

They also believe that bad things happen to you when you leave your hedge of protection. Josh for sure left that hedge of protection! One of Gothard’s big things was that awful things would happen if you left your hedge of protection. That is how the whole secret sin thing came about, to explain why bad things happened to people who were seemingly inside their hedge. They clearly had a secret sin and were actually outside the hedge.

My opinion is that Jim Bob and Michelle’s pride won’t let them admit they raised a monster. Hard to get even IBLP speaking events if they accept their son is a predator. 

 

I had to look up the exact wording and passage but what about this...

Quote

Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it.  Proverbs 26:6

To me this means if you impart your values to your children as you raise them you can trust them to follow them even when they are independent adults.

For example, I've "trained" (their words) my kids from infants about respect for animals.  Don't pet one without permission, don't play rough, that they deserve love, compassion, and care just like we do.  As adults they are all kind to animals.  I don't monitor who they hang out with, where they work, or who they date to make sure they aren't going to become pro-animal cruelty.  They won't.  I raised them a certain way when it comes to animals and now being kind to them is part of who they are.

Obviously it doesn't work with everything and I wasn't trying to raise stepford kids, just an example of a non-religious value to illustrate my point.

So if Gothard is so bible focused why did he leave that part out?  That if you teach them well as children they will carry that with them? 

[Sullie06]

48 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. ? 

Unfortunately a lot of sex offenders are on Probation. They usually get 10 years felony Probation, have to register as sex offenders, cannot have access to electronics, etc. The push to keep people out of incarceration is stronger than ever. We have a teenager on Probation right now for Attempted Murder. 

[Jacked]

20 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

Just want to stress that Josh isn't "free on bail".  He's essentially on home arrest, albeit in someone else's home.  Yes, he can see his kids but he can't be alone with them, and he cannot be near other children. 

If Josh's charges involved allegations of him physically harming children, there's a much greater chance he would have been held.  But as the judge said, his admission that he "touched" the girls was a couple of decades ago when he was a minor and there was nothing in front of the court to indicate he was still doing this.  So although the judge said it was a "close call",  I actually think his release was a foregone conclusion. 

I get that bail is almost a given in just about every case. But why then was the term “presumptive detention” tossed around so often during the hearing? It seems like the court may have regarded the slimy bastard’s money & fame as more important than the safety of human beings who could be harmed as the result of Josh’s presence.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, Galbin said:

If he does have it though, it would explain his joking and loafing around at a hearing like this.

I agree with this as some of them react this way.  Mine would have been outraged anyone dare accuse him of anything less than being awesome so he wouldn't have been smug.  He'd have been haughty and offended af no matter what it was.  And if it were these charges and he was innocent (which he would have been) holy hell the righteous anger would be a site to behold.  Although if I were wrongly accused of this I would be no different, so no judgement there.)

(and mine was capable of feeling shame on some level, I don't think Smuggar is.)

[FiveAcres]

2 minutes ago, Sullie06 said:

Unfortunately a lot of sex offenders are on Probation. They usually get 10 years felony Probation, have to register as sex offenders, cannot have access to electronics, etc. The push to keep people out of incarceration is stronger than ever. We have a teenager on Probation right now for Attempted Murder. 

One thing that stands out to me is that Josh is not accused of a crime of impulsivity, like some attempted murder charges. Although installing Linux takes about a half hour, it takes much more time to learn how to do so, and then do it the first time. (I am always astonished about how short a time it takes to actually install Linux from media, as opposed to how long it takes to restore all my backed up files and ending up with the previous status quo.) 

[2AnimalCrackers]

1 hour ago, QuiverFullOfCondoms said:

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

I also only see LaCunt Reber.  I already hate him!  

 

[Sullie06]

15 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

He can be alone with them with Anna.  I see that as a distinction without a difference.  

I would think the judge would be concerned about what he's going to do with all of those urges without his porn outlet.  Also, stress can make some people really need their escapist behavior more than ever.  Why not at least order a psychological evaluation to try to determine the risk level to the kids before just releasing him where the only thing standing between them and harm is Anna?  Why not order a psychological evaluation of Anna and the babysitters even a light screen to see if they are likely to put safety before him?  

 

However, he is limited in where he can visit with the children. He can't go to them, they have to come to him. And he is on house arrest, so he either has to visit with them at The Reber's home where his "custodians" are or in a public place with permission from his Probation Officer. 

We also do not know what CPS's involvement is, what involvement the federal officers had with Anna/M Kids and what evaluations they are doing or have done on Anna and the children. 

[Iamtheway]

2 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

I will say all of this has made me slightly relieved to know that we do apparently have somewhat competent ways to “ban” CSA material from the regular internet.

I think my own ignorance plus things like N Kristoff’s Pornhub expose this summer had me thinking CSA material was more easily accessible. 
 

I think, though, that also reveals that this must have been going on with Josh for some time as you can’t just accidentally slip into it...

I find it really hard to believe you could stumble upon CP with prepubescent children on the regular internet. Pictures or videos of teenagers that are not 18 can probably be found on accident though. Because it’s not that easy to see if someone is 16 or 19. But it’s really hard to confuse a 10 year old with an adult. 

2 hours ago, CuttySark said:

He obviously intended to save things, and that was more important to him than erasing more of his tracks.

Or he’s just not that smart. It’s good that he wasn’t better at hiding what he was doing because then it would have been harder to catch him. 

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It's all about impression and branding, I am sure his is very successful in appealing to some people and off putting to me.  But as I will never need his services I am not his target audience.  

Imagine having to do that search. How can JB search for the best defender of people that sexually abuse children for his son and not see that he fucked up somewhere in his child raising? 

@HerNameIsBuffy Sorry about making your work harder by naming the file! I thought initials was ok since I saw them so many times, but that might have been on Reddit.? You and the other mods have done a great job keeping the threads up and running these last few days! 

[JenniferJuniper]

14 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

He can be alone with them with Anna.  I see that as a distinction without a difference.  

I would think the judge would be concerned about what he's going to do with all of those urges without his porn outlet.  Also, stress can make some people really need their escapist behavior more than ever.  Why not at least order a psychological evaluation to try to determine the risk level to the kids before just releasing him where the only thing standing between them and harm is Anna?  Why not order a psychological evaluation of Anna and the babysitters even a light screen to see if they are likely to put safety before him?  

 

Anna's not accused of anything and I can't see a court ordering her to do anything relative to her own mental state.  I think the assumption is that she's their mother and he isn't going to harm his own children with their mom in the room.  Maybe it's not a wise assumption to make given the headship shit, but that's almost certainly where the judge is coming from.  And let's face it, we know the Duggars waaayyy better than the judge does.

I did note that the court wants the M kids to undergo forensic examinations, which I believe includes medical exams.  I read somewhere that the Duggars are objecting to this.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, Sullie06 said:

We also do not know what CPS's involvement is, what involvement the federal officers had with Anna/M Kids and what evaluations they are doing or have done on Anna and the children. 

No, and we shouldn't.  But to my knowledge the judge didn't reference any psychological evals of Josh, or even basic psyche screens of Anna or the babysitters so he was released to their supervision without any attempt to determine if they were fit to uphold what they are being tasked with.  

That has nothing to do with CPS, it should be part of the process before releasing him.