[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 30: LaCounting On to His Trial Date

[Jencendiary]

@WarriorJane - Is there a certain part of my recounting of the zoom call that you objected to? 

[Giraffe]

1 hour ago, Jencendiary said:

I don't have time to coddle and cosset a grown mother of six's ignorance about the world, or honestly care. What Anna knows is irrelevant. What she doesn't know is a self-inflicted injury. She has google, just like the rest of us.

What does this mean? eta, I know what a self-inflicted injury is. What I'm wondering is what you're insinuating by it. 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Giraffe

[OrchidBlossom]

10 minutes ago, Smee said:

I thought I knew what CSA was, and I know people who have been through it and it is morally reprehensible on every level. Young, innocent children who cannot consent, being groomed and manipulated into becoming someone’s sex toy and silenced through blame and threats. But without putting words into other posters’ mouths, when they say “understand what Josh was watching” they may be talking about the tenth circle of hell depravity of the specific video. I have not read the details and I don’t want to; I know enough from others’ comments about vomiting, being unable to finish the wiki page, warning us not to read etc to understand that this was brutal torture of a kind that Anna fortunately may not have the imagination to understand.

That may be true, but I simply don't understand why Anna would need to imagine or understand that particular video. People have asked repeatedly or stated repeatedly that they don't think or wonder if she "understood child sexual abuse" and the answer is unequivocally yes. I don't think she needs to understand a particular subgenre of CSA that is also torture and murder scenes to have a grasp of the seriousness of the crime and its implications on her as the mother of his children and his wife. 

Maybe she didn't understand or comprehend the depravity of a particular video (although, again, I've heard my fair share of overzealous evangelical pastors describe some pretty horrific things done by "nonbelievers" to scare their church goers) BUT there is no question that she understands CSA, understands why it is bad and horrific, and has the capability to process that. 

She also understands and comprehends molestation, incest, sexual assault, and rape (all things Josh has been accused of) and she has stuck by him for years. We have no indication at all that she doesn't understand these crimes, but tons of indications that she does and that she chooses to stick by him anyway.

[ADoyle90815]

17 minutes ago, meep said:

It is quite common in homeschooling circles to teach children they are being kept from public school because "that's where the pedophiles are." 

That's true, Zsu Anderson once said that on her blog about church nurseries being unsafe because pedophiles might be working there.

[meep]

There is a video on David Waller's youtube channel with Anna & Priscilla being interviewed "Growing up Keller." Priscilla says they (the kids) went to volunteer in the prison ministry one a month or sometimes once a week to "see God change lives." Under "Priscilla's Story" on the Waller site she explicitly says she went into prison with her father regularly, and even hosted bible studies for the girls. They were IN THERE. Their father also wrote a book called "Breaking The Bondage of Addiction" which on the cover specifies "sexual sins."

So very hard to believe fundie homeschoolers + dad with prison ministry where all the kids were very active does not understand the concept of CSA at even a basic level. Sorry not sorry, but I call major BS on that. Just not possible with all the stuff we know about Anna & her family. 

[choralcrusader8613]

27 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

What does this mean? eta, I know what a self-inflicted injury is. What I'm wondering is what you're insinuating by it. 

My read is that she's choosing to be ignorant of Josh's evil, and her choice to be ignorant is her responsibility. She can consult Lord Google like the rest of us.

[OrchidBlossom]

36 minutes ago, Jencendiary said:

@WarriorJane - Is there a certain part of my recounting of the zoom call that you objected to? 

I'm not a mod but thought I'd let you know that you aren't supposed to question votes in the thread (I think there's a separate forum for those queries). I think you're still in the edit window.

[Smee]

22 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

That may be true, but I simply don't understand why Anna would need to imagine or understand that particular video. People have asked repeatedly or stated repeatedly that they don't think or wonder if she "understood child sexual abuse" and the answer is unequivocally yes. I don't think she needs to understand a particular subgenre of CSA that is also torture and murder scenes to have a grasp of the seriousness of the crime and its implications on her as the mother of his children and his wife. 

Maybe she didn't understand or comprehend the depravity of a particular video (although, again, I've heard my fair share of overzealous evangelical pastors describe some pretty horrific things done by "nonbelievers" to scare their church goers) BUT there is no question that she understands CSA, understands why it is bad and horrific, and has the capability to process that. 

She also understands and comprehends molestation, incest, sexual assault, and rape (all things Josh has been accused of) and she has stuck by him for years. We have no indication at all that she doesn't understand these crimes, but tons of indications that she does and that she chooses to stick by him anyway.

Fair. I agree with you, but I think the desire to point out the subgenre is because the Duggar MO has been minimisation. “It was over the clothes!” “They were asleep!” “He was just curious!” “Lots of families deal with this!” There is nothing Anna could tell herself to minimise the severity of this. She can’t pretend Josh was researching children’s swimwear and clicked too many times, or he thought he was watching porn because the heathen girls were wearing lingerie and makeup to look older than they were, or he “stumbled into temptation”. He was getting off on graphic abuse of children as young as her own, and there’s no way around that.

[TheRadleyPorch]

10 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think the question is one I posed in the last thread, at what point are they accountable for their own actions?

...

I'm not being snarky, I think where the line is drawn is interesting and it really forms how we see her actions right now.

I just don't really see the use of "the line" at all. Anna is BOTH a victim and a perpetrator, as is basically everyone in the Duggar circle. I don't know much about JB and Michelle's childhoods but they very likely fall into both categories too. Anna perpetuates abuse and for that she is accountable, but she also was super duper brainwashed and terrorized by the fear of Hell her entire life (which I consider abuse). I can think she is a bad parent and also have empathy for her. In practice, what purpose does knowing exactly who to blame, when to blame them, and how much to blame them serve?

[OrchidBlossom]

20 minutes ago, Smee said:

Fair. I agree with you, but I think the desire to point out the subgenre is because the Duggar MO has been minimisation. “It was over the clothes!” “They were asleep!” “He was just curious!” “Lots of families deal with this!” There is nothing Anna could tell herself to minimise the severity of this. She can’t pretend Josh was researching children’s swimwear and clicked too many times, or he thought he was watching porn because the heathen girls were wearing lingerie and makeup to look older than they were, or he “stumbled into temptation”. He was getting off on graphic abuse of children as young as her own, and there’s no way around that.

That's very true, but I think the whole arrested by the feds thing kinda puts a damper on any ability to pretend she doesn't know. I mean half the headlines highlight that the abuse featured kids under 12.

I'm definitely not disagreeing with you, just saying that my original post was directed at the hand-wringing "poor sweet naive Anna" type comments. 

[Melissa1977]

1 hour ago, OrchidBlossom said:

That may be true, but I simply don't understand why Anna would need to imagine or understand that particular video. People have asked repeatedly or stated repeatedly that they don't think or wonder if she "understood child sexual abuse" and the answer is unequivocally yes. I don't think she needs to understand a particular subgenre of CSA that is also torture and murder scenes to have a grasp of the seriousness of the crime and its implications on her as the mother of his children and his wife.

I think that in that particular case, she should know what the video contains. Because the extreme violence and evil of it. Only very bad and disturbed person can watch something like that. Josh is dangerous and Anna should realise it.

[OrchidBlossom]

Just now, Melissa1977 said:

I think that in that particular case, she should know what the video contains. Because the extreme violence and evil of it. Only very bad and disturbed person can watch something like that. Josh is dangerous and Anna should realise it.

Personally I think all CSA is bad and only a disturbed and bad person can watch it.

That said, I wasn't discussing whether Anna *should* know exactly the level of depravity here while she makes a decision about her marriage and children's safety (I agree with you, she should!) but whether she understands CSA, what it is, what it means, and what Josh was doing.

[SnarkyLawyer]

On 5/7/2021 at 9:42 PM, OrchidBlossom said:

As I understand it, in all of the states I listed above, the judges are allowed to be nonlawyers even if they are criminal court judges. 

 

ETA: For at least misdemeanors, some states appear to require felony cases to be heard by lawyer judges. Still, a misdemeanor can put you in jail.

I'm in one of the listed states. At this point only the smaller counties are allowed to have non-lawyer judges. We currently have four. I think I understand the logistical problem in spread-out, rural areas, but it is concerning that they're allowed to preside over preliminary hearings, restraining orders, and misdemeanors.

 

[seraaa]

4 hours ago, NancyDrewFan1989 said:

I think because Josh was exposed years ago and she is still with him. She fell for his lame excuse of Christ's love when he told her and her family about him assaulting her sisters. She stayed with him after it became public knowledge that he cheated on her and had a pornography addiction during the Ashley Madison scandal. Yet, because he went to Christian rehab and they put safeguards in place she believed he "changed". Yes, I do believe Josh has been lying to Anna for a over a year. But, I do believe some people find it hard to believe Anna what Anna believes because of Josh's past scandals.

Given what we know about IBLP, it’s totally possible that she is staying with him while knowing exactly how horrendous this is. 

She may have bought his reassurances about change, but even if she hadn’t and didn’t it would not matter, because the belief system she buys into says they are not supposed to get divorced. She’s supposed to ‘help’ him change. I can believe she had a lot invested in the idea he had repented and things were different. 

However, one would think that even among this group there would be a line for breaking with the established pattern and we will see what she says and does if and when he is found guilty.

Edited May 9, 2021 by seraaa

[OrchidBlossom]

2 minutes ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

I'm in one of the listed states. At this point only the smaller counties are allowed to have non-lawyer judges. We currently have four. I think I understand the logistical problem in spread-out, rural areas, but it is concerning that they're allowed to preside over preliminary hearings, restraining orders, and misdemeanors.

 

That's good to hear! I know in several of them they do still have criminal judges without law degrees even in larger counties, but that's been under more scrutiny of late so I understand some places are phasing it out? Which is obviously ideal.

Edited May 9, 2021 by OrchidBlossom

[Pleiades_06]

7 hours ago, Jasmar said:

The final sentence about wanting the truth to come to light, can be interpreted to mean they hope Josh is exposed, or that they hope that false accusations are cleared.

This phrase was in JB and M’s and Jessa’s. Anyone know if it’s in reference to a Bible verse or something similar?

 

[Mrs Ms]

@formergothardite Can the fundies squawking about “second chances” not count?

He got his FIRST second chance as a teenager when everything was swept under the rug and he was allowed to carry on living his normal life with the rest of his family. 
He got his SECOND second chance in 2015 when he admitted to porn usage and Ashley Maddison and he kept his wife and kids and normal life with the rest of his family.
Now he is looking at CSA and they want him to have a THIRD second chance? I just can’t! ??

 

On a calmer note, do the Reber family always have to have someone in the house to supervise him? Otherwise they can’t guarantee he doesn’t have visitors he shouldn’t or tries to fiddle with their electronics etc. Because if they do it will get old for them VERY quickly when they realise they can’t go to church together or she can’t go shopping until the husband is home again.

[Angelface]

6 hours ago, OrchidBlossom said:

 Her father-in-law once ran for public office on a policy of murdering people who commit incest, which she has known her husband did since AT LEAST 2015.

I am uncomfortable with this statement. My understanding of the legal definition of incest is:

“unlawful heterosexual sexual intercourse between members of the same family”

source: Collins Dictionary of Law @WJ Stewart, 2006

[Petronella]

15 minutes ago, Angelface said:

I am uncomfortable with this statement. My understanding of the legal definition of incest is:

“unlawful heterosexual sexual intercourse between members of the same family”

source: Collins Dictionary of Law @WJ Stewart, 2006

So, you would say “not incest” if the victim was the same sex as the perpetrator?? This definition seems woefully inadequate. So I’m not persuaded by this source limiting the definition to full intercourse. There are a lot more ways to be sexual than that.

[FunFunFundie]

6 hours ago, ADoyle90815 said:

That's true, Zsu Anderson once said that on her blog about church nurseries being unsafe because pedophiles might be working there.

To be fair, Zsu sees sexual predators literally everywhere (except in her own grown/semi-grown sons as they text about all the sexual preying they want to be involved in). Church nurseries, public schools, babysitters coming to the house (except the ones that will help her for free from the church), gay people, trans people, men who take on women's work, fornicators, etc.).

[Howl]

1 hour ago, Pleiades_06 said:

9 hours ago, Jasmar said:

The final sentence about wanting the truth to come to light, can be interpreted to mean they hope Josh is exposed, or that they hope that false accusations are cleared.

This phrase was in JB and M’s and Jessa’s. Anyone know if it’s in reference to a Bible verse or something similar?

It's from 1 Lawyers 3:14, Standard Version

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Howl

[FunFunFundie]

3 minutes ago, Howl said:

It's from 1 Lawyers 3:14, Standard Version

Ooh, somebody's going to catch fire for not using the KJV.

[Howl]

1 minute ago, FunFunFundie said:

Ooh, somebody's going to catch fire for not using the KJV.

I'm spanking myself right now before heading off to the prayer closet! 

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, Mrs Ms said:

@formergothardite Can the fundies squawking about “second chances” not count?

He got his FIRST second chance as a teenager when everything was swept under the rug and he was allowed to carry on living his normal life with the rest of his family. 
He got his SECOND second chance in 2015 when he admitted to porn usage and Ashley Maddison and he kept his wife and kids and normal life with the rest of his family.
Now he is looking at CSA and they want him to have a THIRD second chance? I just can’t! ??

 

On a calmer note, do the Reber family always have to have someone in the house to supervise him? Otherwise they can’t guarantee he doesn’t have visitors he shouldn’t or tries to fiddle with their electronics etc. Because if they do it will get old for them VERY quickly when they realise they can’t go to church together or she can’t go shopping until the husband is home again.

ITA. Even in the bounds of IBLP dangerous teachings, they have moved through all the “cover up csa and pray he doesn’t do it again” steps and are at the point where they let the law handle him and ponder if God will just kill him.    Even if Anna only relies on IBLP teachings she will know it is time for Josh to be locked up and be punished for his crimes.

Like I said earlier, I think Jim Bob and Michelle’s pride will never let them admit they raised a monster.  Anna is probably in deep denial, not because she can’t understand csa, but because she absolutely does under how bad it is. I won’t be surprised if she makes the decision to ignore all evidence because it is easier than accepting the truth.

I thought the same thing about the Reber family. It sounds like one of them must be with Josh at all times. That is going to get old fast. Especially he he refuses to take a plea deal and this goes on forever. Sitting in the house all day with him would be mentally exhausting. 

[Howl]

6 hours ago, TheRadleyPorch said:

Anna is BOTH a victim and a perpetrator, as is basically everyone in the Duggar circle...Anna perpetuates abuse and for that she is accountable, but she also was super duper brainwashed and terrorized by the fear of Hell her entire life (which I consider abuse).

This does seem like a useful perspective to frame the entire shit-eroo. 

The Duggar's mindless adherence to IBLP beliefs kept them from addressing Josh's abuse for what it was.  Their IBLP beliefs meant that he went off to a useless Jesus Prayer and Labor Camp  instead of spending time with a secular psychiatrist -- which is basically a straight line to where Josh and Anna are now. 

I hope there remains a focus on how utterly toxic the Gothard IBLP belief system is, especially the twisted way it addresses sexual abuse, BECAUSE IT HOLDS VICTIMS AT LEAST PARTIALLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ABUSE. 

The Gothard sons are a one-family crime spree.  That Gothard himself was a sexual predator of girls, with a preferred "look" and target age (mid teens) is not in question.  Steve was also a sexual predator of IBLP women employees, although I don't think that brother preyed on anyone underage.  David, the third brother, is an outright criminal who "engaged in racketeering and fraud, stealing millions of dollars from his victims — primarily elderly people — by means of a Ponzi scheme." [Naples, Fl Daily Nes] He used his brother's credibility to gain the trust of his victims. 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by Howl