Jump to content
IGNORED

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


choralcrusader8613

Recommended Posts

I think the phrase about the “truth” is part of their view that they think they really pursue and value the truth (i.e. the Right Way) in all things.

I also wonder if they are processing through their own betrayal trauma publicly.  I mean Josh has lied to all of them over and over. It is hard to process that in any relationship. I don’t think there necessarily has to be a double message here. Especially before they knew the details they might have been bracing to accept whatever the truth is. 

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reality is we are all responsible for our actions regardless of background. Cult background, brainwashing, etc. may help us trace reasoning behind actions or circumstances that played into it, but it can’t disappear the consequences - natural or external - from actions. It may alter how we as a society want to send out consequences (people who plead insanity or rehabilitative vs. Punitive punishment), but we don’t just throw up our hands and go: it wasn’t their fault. 

If nothing else, fundie doctrine does not give them this pass, so at the very least it’s internally inconsistent. 

 

  • Upvote 11
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading God knows how many pages of debate on Anna's free will or willful ignorance my .02 is that I don't think it's a zero sum game.  I think both Anna and Josh are 100% responsible for the choices they've made in the past and the ones they continue to make but I think there's huge value in examining the culture which helped to create the disgusting pig Josh is and which makes it so much harder for Anna to have any agency.  Mostly I'm galled that Jimboob and Michelle are literally giving lectures on raising Godly children when their version 1.0 is the devil incarnate.  

 

  • Upvote 31
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, countressrascal said:

What ever happen to Bill Gothard? Did he spend time behind bars?

He did not. He is now sulking in poverty. 

  • Upvote 13
  • Disgust 1
  • Haha 4
  • Thank You 10
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I read in the Reddit recap that Josh’s door locked from the outside. Like the Reber’s could lock him in his room. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Confused 1
  • WTF 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, grandmadugger said:

I thought I read in the Reddit recap that Josh’s door locked from the outside. Like the Reber’s could lock him in his room. 

Dumb question, but is that legal?  If the court felt he needed to be physically locked in they would keep him in jail, not leave it up to a fundy who DIYed a lock from the hardware store.

 

 

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I don't know where you are from but incest laws and legal definitions vary wildly from place to place or in the US from state to state. So I'm "uncomfortable" with you making sweeping declarations that incest is only/always defined as 1. heterosexual and 2. intercourse only, since that's simply not accurate. In Arkansas, where the Duggars reside, it includes intercourse or deviate sexual activity (which has a significantly broader meaning, and while I don't know or want to know whether what Josh did to his sisters falls under that definition, it is entirely possible). 

 

Source: AR Code Sect. 5-26-202

I feel that you might be misinterpreting what I was trying to say. I was concerned that under some definitions of incest (one of which I quoted) intercourse is implied and I did not want to have Josh’s sisters who were his victims (and any other of his victims from the molestation scandal) to be tarnished by this. 
I am not from the US so perhaps that is why we are at cross purposes. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the lock comments were more about him not being able to lock them out of his space more than them being able to lock him in.

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Dumb question, but is that legal?  If the court felt he needed to be physically locked in they would keep him in jail, not leave it up to a fundy who DIYed a lock from the hardware store.

 

 

So, locking him in against his will would be false imprisonment. Even if he consented I am sure there is at a minimum a local fire code it would violate. I’m guessing it’s more a they flipped the door handle the inside lock side is now on the outside verses they plan to lock him in.

  • Upvote 9
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, J'Lurker said:

I think the lock comments were more about him not being able to lock them out of his space more than them being able to lock him in.

The last time I had to worry about keeping someone from locking themselves in a room I had toddlers.  

I'll be honest, I think I'd rather stay in jail than live with strangers treating me like I'm the naughty kid sitting outside the directors office at sleep away camp. 

 

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

I wouldn't be surprised if Josh spends the first part of his stay at the Rebers acting the part of an ideal Christian fundie. I can see him being super prayerful, helpful, nonthreatening, and charming, so that they eventually relax and let their guard down. Anyone who would take a predator of this nature into their home has to, at some level, be in denial of the depth of depravity and/or their ability to influence him out of the dark place. In addition, they're going to tire of being on guard 24/7. I see Josh lying in wait for that time, and figuring out how he can use the slack to his advantage. I couldn't say exactly what I think he would do, but this in general seems like the logical course of events. 

  • Upvote 31
  • I Agree 15
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, ILoveJellybeans said:

.... Kindest thing Josh could do right now is to file for divorce himself, promising to pay child support but not attempt to get access to the kids, freeing Anna from the guilt of making this decision herself.

Josh probably wont do this. He would have to have a heart, and judging by his actions and the horrors he gets off to, he does not.

I have a feeling of deja vu.  This was said over and over again during the Ashley Madison thing.  And we know he won’t do it.

I don’t think Josh is capable of thinking about what would be best for Anna and his kids even when he is not under stress.  When under stress and the feeling that his life might as well be over, he is going to be even less capable of thinking what is best for them.

Whatever else we know about Josh, we know he has always been a narcissist.  People for him exist to meet his needs.  If he ever comes to look at divorcing Anna as meeting his needs, he will do it in a flash.

(Joke alert ?)  —- So maybe what we need is a Go-Fund-Me to pay off Josh for divorcing Anna— It has to collect enough money to support her and the kids and provide Josh with a stipend for the rest of Josh’s life. ???

 

Edited by EmCatlyn
Decided quote was too long.
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackberryGirl said:

...the abuse scandal has forever made the Catholic Church an organization to which I can not belong.

It boggles my mind that the pedophilia epidemic in the Catholic Church has not caused more people to turn away. But as you say, brainwashing runs deep and millions of people, billions even, are conditioned from birth to believe and never question. 

 

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Good question. It might also be better written because they waited until after the bail hearing to make it. The others made their statements after the initial charges. Which, TBF, it was immediate, they were likely in shock, and  as far as they knew could have been more open to dispute/possibly accidental/misconstrued etc... than the pure planned horror that was presented at the hearing. 


 

 

I wouldn’t be surprised if Joystin’s statement received “help” from JB & Michelle or Austin’s parents. 

Edited by luv2laugh
  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Petronella said:

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.

I think a better place for a definition of “incest” would be a dictionary of psychology or handbook of social work terms than a legal dictionary.  

My guess is that this particular legal definition doesn’t include homosexual contact because for a long time that was categorized as illegal in its own right. (So this dictionary would be out of date.)

I think also that “incestuous” is a more accurate way to refer to inappropriate sexual contact within families than to call all of it “incest.”   As with “rape,” we weaken the term when we use it too broadly. 

 

  • Bless Your Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Phyllis_Stein said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Josh spends the first part of his stay at the Rebers acting the part of an ideal Christian fundie. I can see him being super prayerful, helpful, nonthreatening, and charming, so that they eventually relax and let their guard down. Anyone who would take a predator of this nature into their home has to, at some level, be in denial of the depth of depravity and/or their ability to influence him out of the dark place. In addition, they're going to tire of being on guard 24/7. I see Josh lying in wait for that time, and figuring out how he can use the slack to his advantage. I couldn't say exactly what I think he would do, but this in general seems like the logical course of events. 

Absolutely agree. And I wouldn't be surprised if he behaves perfectly in prison and gets privileges or a shorter term. I read somewhere that sex offenders usually behave well at prison. People want to believe he's going to suffer behind bars, but things are not that easy.

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, luv2laugh said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if Joystin’s statement received “help” from JB & Michelle or Austin’s parents. 

I don't think JB and M are the right mentors if you want to put out well written, inoffensive statements.

  • Upvote 21
  • Haha 11
  • I Agree 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I think a better place for a definition of “incest” would be a dictionary of psychology or handbook of social work terms than a legal dictionary.  

My guess is that this particular legal definition doesn’t include homosexual contact because for a long time that was categorized as illegal in its own right. (So this dictionary would be out of date.)

I think also that “incestuous” is a more accurate way to refer to inappropriate sexual contact within families than to call all of it “incest.”   As with “rape,” we weaken the term when we use it too broadly. 

 

I get what you are saying but under the definition of incest as per Arkansas law, what Josh did could have been incest (without knowing details I have no interest in hearing, we can't know, but the definition is quite broad) and that's also true with the colloquial understanding of what incest is, which is sexually inappropriate behavior between relatives who share a close degree of affinity. I'm not sure this is analogous to the term rape in the way you are saying it is. That said, I don't have a strong opinion about the validity or accuracy of incest v. incestuous. I agree that a social worker or psychological definition of incest might be more appropriate, but those aren't my fields. Perhaps someone else can weigh in there.

 

1 hour ago, Angelface said:

I feel that you might be misinterpreting what I was trying to say. I was concerned that under some definitions of incest (one of which I quoted) intercourse is implied and I did not want to have Josh’s sisters who were his victims (and any other of his victims from the molestation scandal) to be tarnished by this. 
I am not from the US so perhaps that is why we are at cross purposes. 

That might be what you were trying to say, but it was not what you said. I'm not trying to be mean or rude here, but the definition you used is inappropriately narrow, outdated, and not relevant to the jurisdiction in which Josh resides. Josh's sisters shouldn't feel tarnished no matter what he did or did not do or how we define it legally, socially, or in any other way. They were victims, and being a victim of abuse of any kind does not "tarnish" a person. I want to encourage you to consider that. I said that Josh committed incest, and you provided an outdated and narrow definition of incest and said that that was *the* legal definition of incest, when it is not, in an attempt to say Josh did not commit incest. But more broadly, regardless of the legality or technicality of his behavior, he was sexually inappropriate with a family member of close consanguinity, something that JB wants the death penalty for. I just don't think we should be making any excuses about it and the hypocrisy of this family and cult.

  • Upvote 18
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Yeah, SAHD with parents so fundy they'll take in Josh I assume moving out isn't as simple of throwing some stuff in a duffle and heading to a friends house until they can get their own place.

This brings to mind how very different their baseline for normal is compared to most people.  If I were to apply to house a sex offender on bail in my home not only would my boys pack a few bags and remove themselves (as would my daughter if she still lived at home) but they would be on the phone with each other and my siblings talking about something being very wrong with Mom and they'd all be very concerned and trying to get me to talk to a professional.

Because in our world that behavior would be considered reason to doubt someone capable of making healthy decisions where in their world it's their Christian duty.

And fwiw in my close family there is only one agnostic, everyone else identifies as some flavor of Christian including one fervent fundy-lite who would be the first person to call for everyone protecting society from people like Josh.  I can hear her now...He can pray for forgiveness just as well from a jail cell where he can't hurt anyone else.  If God wants to forgive him he can, but that doesn't mean anyone else has to....if God didn't want us to use common sense he shouldn't have given us brains.  

Honestly, my relative would be MORE angry, if that's possible, that Josh did this claiming to be a Christian.  From past conversations I know she feels that anyone capable of this has to have rejected God and actively in league with Satan - there would be no tolerance for Anna for what she would see as her putting Josh before God.

Sorry...ramble...my point being even within zealous fundy lite people some would be calling for God to smite him and see Anna leaving as her duty to her children and to God. 

Absolutely. 

The idea of putting your (adult) child and spouse in harm's way to shelter a (let's say 'alleged' for the sake of this hypothesis) sex offender is just horrific to any rational human being. You want to minister to criminals? fine. You take yourself to them in their prison cells, you don't bring them into your home and then leave them alone with the people you love. 

  • Upvote 29
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Doesn't that mean giving a pass to all sorts of people who do awful things? The people who beat their kids to death for God. The Trump supporters who staged a violent insurrection because they truly believed what Trump told them? The people who spent years covering up for Gothard because they were true believers? If Gothard actually believed all his stuff do we give him a pass? Do we never hold these people responsible for their actions in your opinion? 

I like to differentiate between “guilt” and “responsibility.”    Guilt is for things done knowingly and deliberately. Responsibility is for things done in ignorance, innocence, or by accident.

If you do something that does damage when you meant nothing but good, you are “responsible,” but not guilty.  A concrete example would be when you crash into another car because the Stop sign was down and you thought you had right of way (responsible but not guilty) versus when you crash into another car because you have been driving drunk (responsible and guilty).

I think Anna is “not guilty” of a lot of things because of her ignorance and upbringing.  But she is still responsible.  She does not get a pass that says, “Oh, it is okay because you didn’t know any better,” but she also doesn’t get the full condemnation that she might get from me if she did something knowing it was wrong (the way Josh clearly did).  She is 100% responsible, but I can have compassion because a lot of what she has done wrong has been out of ignorance and because she has been misled.  She is “guilty” only of what she does knowingly.  That doesn’t diminish her responsibility for the rest.

  • Upvote 37
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Melissa1977 said:

Absolutely agree. And I wouldn't be surprised if he behaves perfectly in prison and gets privileges or a shorter term. I read somewhere that sex offenders usually behave well at prison. People want to believe he's going to suffer behind bars, but things are not that easy.

It just really depends on the prison, more than anything. I believe he'll be in protective custody, for sure.

It's also hard to get stats on what any of this means because "sex offender" is just so vague. Other prisoners really don't like people who are in for sex crimes against children, and that's pretty universal, but how effective protective custody is or how willing other prisoners are to take action isn't. I'm writing a letter to my incarcerated pen pal today, and I mentioned the case, so I'll let y'all know if he has any insight. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

In case it reads like I’m defending them, I’m not. I’m just imagining the horror, and conflict, as a mother. 

Agree completely.  I don’t like the Duggars at all, but if they are not in deep denial, they must be in deep pain.   I have suffered every time my (now grown) children have been in trouble.  I know I would suffer even more if their trouble involved hurting others.

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone find it interesting that no Duggar child has posted a long sappy Mother’s Day message to Michelle?

3 minutes ago, Freejin said:

Does anyone find it interesting that no Duggar child has posted a long sappy Mother’s Day message to Michelle?

Oh wait. Jinger just did. 

  • Upvote 3
  • Confused 1
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Destiny 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.