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

[CosmicStardust]

45 minutes ago, LilMissMetaphor said:

I want to know how the survivor(s) is/are now but I don't want to google anything anymore.

I am curious too.  I just can’t even imagine the terror that anyone would feel but especially an innocent child. Like, this is what they were born for? This was their destiny-to be abused in that way?!

[viii]

This is just a personal milestone but I was discussing this with my mother yesterday and my mom is a deeply religious woman. She got sucked into a cult when she was 25 years old and didn't leave until she was 53 years old. She is still very much bound by her faith. I mentioned that Josh Duggar had gotten arrested for CP and she interrupted me to say that she's always hated that term because it puts all porn on the same level, when that's not the case. She said she didn't agree with porn at all but at least it's generally consenting adults participating in it. She said CP should really be called child abuse and it just warmed my heart to see how far she's come because there was once upon a time when she would have been told all sin is equal so all porn is bad, child or adult. 

[formergothardite]

43 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

This is very heartening to me, to hear that even in some fundy circles this isn't being handwaved away.  

I'm very curious to how an adult child having never been truly saved reflects on the parents?  Will they tend to hold JB and M in judgement for raising a child who can resist salvation?  Within ILBP do you think Anna will be shunned for staying, outside of her immediate family and inlaws?  

The IFB fundies I'm still friends with IMO would offer pity towards Jim Bob and Michelle if Josh is convicted and they admit their son is a monster. If they try to go the route of claiming Josh is innocent and this is all some sort of fake news, my impression is that they will be judged pretty harshly. 

The evidence presented at the bail hearing made it pretty clear that Josh did this. It will be hard to convince people it was someone else.. Getting pleasure from watching a baby be tortured is not something most fundies are going to overlook. 

Maybe @3_and_counting can chime in if she has the time or desire since she would have a better perception of how Josh's  actions are being perceived in fundamental communities. 

[Mela99]

I may regret asking this but what news shows have done Duggar specials lately? My Ma needs to see this, I’ve been trying to get her to realize for years they’re monsters

[libgirl2]

Looks like his hearing is set for July.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/josh-duggar-trial-child-pornography-152442799.html

 

[pupper]

4 hours ago, Jrodseyeliner said:

Not sure of this has been covered or not. These threads are moving so fast I can’t keep up. 
 

I hope that somewhere, JB and Mooch are are doubting themselves and their lifetime of choices that have lead to this moment... The fact that they had too many kids to handle and they couldn’t give each one enough time, energy and love. Their stupid modesty standards, their stupid side hugs. But mostly how they preached to the world how godly they were for it for their lifetime.. 

I hope they do reflect on it and realise how much they fucked up. 

Oh no, Josh’s issues are ALL caused by worldly influences and Satan. Jim Bob and Michelle followed God’s (and Gothard’s ) plan perfectly. But that old Satan snuck into Josh when he went through the secular drive through for sweet tea. And that is why we all need to double down and precisely follow (and pay for) JimBob and Michelle’s guidance. After all, if a perfectly raised Godly young man like Josh could be entrapped by Satan, just imagine what will happen to your heathen children!!!!!! 
(This is sarcasm - in case that isn’t obvious.)

[fundiefriday]

57 minutes ago, LilMissMetaphor said:

I want to know how the survivor(s) is/are now but I don't want to google anything anymore.

I read an article that didn't go into detail about the victims now - which is good since they have been through unimaginable horror and deserve privacy.  It did state that they have received help and are all doing well.  I sincerely hope and pray that they are only exposed to everything that is good in this world for the rest of their lives.

[Pleiades_06]

54 minutes ago, bird said:

So I can confirm that it was explained to us that if she had she could have been charged with 2 counts. 1 for creating underage porn in taking the photos and 2 for distributing if she had sent the photos

I’m so sorry you had to go through this. 
Honestly I don’t understand why a young teen would be charged with something like this. Teens are notoriously bad at making dumb decisions. It bothers me this is somehow in the same category as predators and pedophiles distributing CSA material.

[bird]

6 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I’m so sorry you had to go through this. 
Honestly I don’t understand why a young teen would be charged with something like this. Teens are notoriously bad at making dumb decisions. It bothers me this is somehow in the same category as predators and pedophiles distributing CSA material.

Edited May 7, 2021 by bird
My reply went missing sorry....

[SnarkyLawyer]

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That's one of the problems IMO.  She expressed concerns and even said, "don't make me regret this."  Proof she knows he poses a risk and chose to let him out on bail anyway.  She had choices:

1. require evals of the kids, Anna, and the babysitters to help determine risk of harm and get a professional opinion as to the likelihood of Anna and the sitters being capable of holding him accountable and reporting as needed.
2. Order his time with kids be supervised by court appointed social worker.
3. Refused to accept the couple as a fit home after the woman said she was afraid of Josh because he's male and that it was her husband's decision and she was there to support it.  She should have rejected them as suitable due to the fear and now owning the decision alone and forced them to find someone else.  

She did none of those things.  Her concerns are valid, but if anything happens while he's out she needs to take responsibility that it wouldn't have happened had she been more cautious before allowing bond.

 

She may not have had some of those choices. Anna has custody of the children. The court would have to have grounds for removing the children from her custody, due to a present and imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse, and appointing a temporary guardian ad litem. The investigator testified that he found no evidence that Josh had engaged in physical sexual assault, in addition to the porn. Given that the age ranges for both his children and the children in the images are the same, in addition to the violent nature of some of the images, I would have thought there would be a legal presumption, but apparently, there isn't. I was surprised that this hadn't already happened, as part of the initial investigation. If the prosecutor thought he had legal grounds to make this presumption, I can't believe he wouldn't have done so, and saved their office and multi-disciplinary team a lot of headache in trying to convince Anna to agree.

The judge would also have to have legal grounds for ordering Anna to submit to an evaluation, one that didn't infringe on her religious rights, by assuming she won't follow the law, because she believes in patriarchy.

[AuntKrazy]

2 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I’m so sorry you had to go through this. 
Honestly I don’t understand why a young teen would be charged with something like this. Teens are notoriously bad at making dumb decisions. It bothers me this is somehow in the same category as predators and pedophiles distributing CSA material.

The law is supposed to be impartial (blindfolded statue of justice). 

I'm speculating here - as I normally only see records after the fact/convictions; but I would think that the investigator my initiate charges for multiple reasons, perhaps including the following:  1.  to produce evidence during an investigation in a way which is legal and assures the victim has not manufactured items

2.  To communicate the severity of the situation to the teen involved/to reduce risk of recidivism

3.  To determine and negate aforementioned entrapment defense.

I've read way to many CSA convictions where the official statement of the criminal includes statements like (under spoiler because I don't want to accidentally trigger someone who has heard these excuses from an abuser)

Spoiler

 "my 14 year old niece deliberately went topless in the house, provoking me to touch her"  or

"The court reduced the rape charge because I think the judge understood that my having sex with her after she passed out from the drugs I gave her wasn't really rape as she had climbed into the bed willingly"

 

[hauntedoklahoma]

42 minutes ago, CosmicStardust said:

I personally think Anna is hesitant to have the M kids checked out because she either:

A. Deep down thinks something has happened to them

B. Is paranoid because it’s CPS or whoever

What an absolute disgusting & effed up human being! I mean we know there’s people out there that act like this & do horrible, horrible things. But it just blows my mind that anyone could do stuff like that to another human especially a CHILD! 

Probably because it's CPS. I mean... you (general) have to take into account that they genuinely believe that if the Democrats elect a Democrat president then they're immediately going to mobilize a task force to come into their homes and seize their guns and arrest them for smoking and take their kids away for cursing around them.

 

I wish I were being hyperbolic but I'm not. These are actual things I've heard with my own ears from MAGA folks since November. I have no doubt that Anna and the vast majority of her relatives, both married and by birth, absolutely believe that Biden is going to personally walk into their house and take away their things. 

 

I seriously doubt she even believes that the charges against Josh are real in the first place. I don't want to speculate further on victim identity so I'll just leave it at "I doubt she has any deep down feelings about what might or might not have happened because I don't think it has occurred to her that it CAN happen." 

[bird]

10 minutes ago, Pleiades_06 said:

I’m so sorry you had to go through this. 
Honestly I don’t understand why a young teen would be charged with something like this. Teens are notoriously bad at making dumb decisions. It bothers me this is somehow in the same category as predators and pedophiles distributing CSA material.

I'm going to try again! So I think it is simply a case of not wanting pictures of underage girls circulating. I'm not sure how many girls would actually be pursued and prosecuted in reality. However when I asked my daughter how she was able to withstand his persistent manipulation and coercion (he even used her eating disorder in his arguments) she just said: it's illegal. The teachers work very hard on educating the kids about this. I feel for them because it's a losing battle with teens sometimes but I'm glad they keep trying because it sunk in with my daughter. Not that she's really the type of girl who likes to expose her body more than she needs to but when she was pushed into a corner she had the tools she needed. I'm very proud of how far she has come in her little journey. 

[EmmieJ]

10 hours ago, Smee said:

I just spent an hour on the phone to an older friend who was my boss back when I first married my husband *sigh*. Good old religious guilt. He mentioned that men have sexual "needs" and their partners should be present when they need to fulfil those "needs", even if it's not "the whole brass band" (i.e. PIV intercourse), that children are better off raised in happy homes with two parents, and that I have to reconcile my decision with the bible telling me that if he's willing to stay together then I'm called to stay too. With the caveat that if he was abusive then that's different, but also not really defining what "counts" as abuse...

What a load of bullshit, as I'm sure you know.  Hey asshole, women have sexual needs, as well as many other needs, because we are human just as men are.  Yet somehow, women seem mostly able to control those sexual urges and not run wild at the sight of a bare male chest, or men in tight football pants, or (much more swoon worthy to my mind) the sight of Colin Firth emerging dripping wet from a dip in his pond.  (As a hetero female, please excuse my only describing what I can find arousing.)  Furthermore, if my partner, the love of my life, doesn't feel good, or is otherwise not interested in having sex at some particular time, I am not going to insist he "perform" for me -- because I am a decent person and I care about the feelings and needs of my partner.  I'm not an asshole!

Second, children are best off raised in a home where they are loved and cared for - be it by one parent, two parents, another relative like a grandmother or aunt/uncle, a foster parent, older sibling, what have you.  The basic need is for love, protection, security - not two parents, one of whom is an asshole who demands sex no matter what.  

Ugh!  Rant over.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

She may not have had some of those choices. Anna has custody of the children. The court would have to have grounds for removing the children from her custody, due to a present and imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse, and appointing a temporary guardian ad litem.

I wasn't referring to removing the kids from Anna?  Just a eval/screen to try to determine if she were fit to supervise his visits with the kids rather than appoint a neutral third party for visitation.  

 

5 minutes ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

The judge would also have to have legal grounds for ordering Anna to submit to an evaluation, one that didn't infringe on her religious rights, by assuming she won't follow the law, because she believes in patriarchy.

I do see that slippery slope, ,but I think it should be SOP for anyone supervising visits and charged with protecting children from potential danger.  I'm not talking about indepth therapy, but an attempt to assess if she's competent to keep the kids safe as is her charge and if not appoint someone court ordered to be there.   And the court does see that's he's a potential danger to children or they wouldn't have ordered no contact with all other kids but his own.  

I appreciate the information.  I'm learning a great deal about how the court looks at things and what it can and can't take into account.  

[bird]

Sorry I should have said underage children and not specified "girls". I was just in that frame of mind because I was talking about my daughter. 

[emscm]

Coming out of lurkdom finally caught up on the threads. Thank you to everyone who has contributed thoughtfully and eloquently. I don’t have anything new to add. Josh is a monster and although I didn’t read the more graphic spoilers about the content he downloaded, what I did read was enough to make me hug my toddler and baby tighter for the past few days. 
 

Also hoping I didn’t miss out on the pet drift. Here’s my Winston in his wheels for the first time (he’s been paralyzed for about two years) and othercorg is Willow. 
 

 

[nausicaa]

6 hours ago, Smee said:

Hesitating to even bring this up, but... back when the molestation scandal broke, the reports were that Josh had abused four of the five sisters he had at the time. I remember some “why not Jana” with speculation that she was a lighter sleeper, or he had less power over her making her more likely to tell, or even that she HAD been a victim too but had stayed silent the whole time. Now I can’t help but think it’s that Jana was already going through puberty, and his perversion was towards children right from the start. It wasn’t just power or opportunity. It was little girls. 

This always jumped out at me. I am certainly not a specialist on pedophilia so I didn't take a strong stance one way or the other before, but if he were just a very curious teenage boy going through puberty, why wouldn't he have tried to catch glances of post-pubescent girls' and women's naked bodies? It still would not have been okay obviously, but I could understand the initial argument more. 

I've worked in a mixed age setting with 14 year old boys, and I get there is a period of time where they are all hormones and no sense. I've had male students draw pictures of naked women's bodies on desks and papers, "accidentally" touch my butt when I was walking the rows, and I've ignored more hands down pants than I wish to recall, but their focus was always on girls their age and older. They never paid any special attention to little girls, who were just seen as annoying nuisances like the little boys were. In fact, they often seemed more sexually interested in the twenty-something female teachers and celebrities than girls their age who hadn't fully completed puberty. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by nausicaa

[apple1]

2 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

Chips and queso is what I want. A lot of it 

... along with a really good margarita.

[SnarkyLawyer]

15 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I wasn't referring to removing the kids from Anna?  Just a eval/screen to try to determine if she were fit to supervise his visits with the kids rather than appoint a neutral third party for visitation.  

 

I do see that slippery slope, ,but I think it should be SOP for anyone supervising visits and charged with protecting children from potential danger.  I'm not talking about indepth therapy, but an attempt to assess if she's competent to keep the kids safe as is her charge and if not appoint someone court ordered to be there.   And the court does see that's he's a potential danger to children or they wouldn't have ordered no contact with all other kids but his own.  

I appreciate the information.  I'm learning a great deal about how the court looks at things and what it can and can't take into account.  

I know you weren't referring to removing the kids, per se, but as long as Anna has custody, she gets to make the decisions. When you appoint a guardian ad litem, you are transferring custody to that person, to make legal decisions for the children.

[neuroticcat]

Re: the “theology” - it isn’t consistent or even wholly Protestant, because it is a cult. ATI does pull on general fundamentalist/evangelical theology but with all the Gothard add-ins. 
 

Yes, I think they believe that the substitutionary atonement on the cross covers all sin past, present, and future, so in one sense Josh’s salvation is always assured through faith and by grace alone. BUT they also believe true conversion is evidenced in continued sanctification - so becoming more Christlike. So it is faith alone, but you are then inclined toward good works  because - after conversion -you love God and want to obey him. AND they have all the legalistic rules about true Christianity so it really is one mishmash of Christianese wrapped up in Gothard’s  authority.
 

So, a Christian who keeps choosing sin may have never been a true Christian or may be “quenching the spirit” which can lead to apostasy. Similarly if you don’t confess/receive forgiveness (always in private prayer of course) you will become hardened. And if you do that enough you may be “delivered over” to Satan and fall away. 
 

That being said, I also think these groups do understand some vocabulary about addiction so it’s possible they can use that to justify to themselves that Josh *wants* to do good but is under the power of sin/addiction and needs to pray harder, try harder. Certainly with ATI there’s a lot of “principles” in how to control for right behavior so maybe they are dusting off old manuals to see what to do, though perhaps they’ll be confronted there with the reality that Gothard himself molested countless girls.
 

So I think there are theological reasons -even warped nonsensical ones - for them to process this, but I imagine they have intense pressure for Josh to “truly” repent and find victory which would not only exonerate their system but also demonstrate his true salvation - for all to see. What, to me, is so inconsistent in their beliefs is that as far as I know the ATI conclusions (and literal biblical interpretation) of this kind of continual “life dominating sin” is actually to, after warning him, have nothing more to do with him and boot him out of the church.

So shunning basically. But obviously boundaries have never been on the radar with these groups so they will likely keep enabling and controlling. 
 

I do wonder if any of this has the power to shatter the allure of the ATI cult that has entranced them for so long. I’m doubtful, just because they’re so deep in it, but my personal opinion has always been that the adults most drawn to these cults (vs those born into them) have themselves come out of chaotic, abusive homes and love  the rules/consistency as well as the familiarity of being abusive leadership and the power of finally being able to control things. Also, the parenting teaching IS abusive, so even if they were tender to their children back in the day, you have to push through that to beat toddlers and spank for everything and squelch all personhood - including your own. I think the reality is abuse - Josh’s kind of evil as well as others - is much more endemic in these communities than even we here could suspect. 
 

They don’t speak much on it but JB vaguely references his father’s anger (and maybe alcohol but I can’t quite remember) issues as well as neglect/poverty n his growing up years. Michelle has always been uncannily silent about her parents. My speculation is that they both came from abusive backgrounds of some sort and were drawn to the promise of the perfect family. But it’s a pretty big reckoning to, as a parent of grown children, open your eyes to how your parenting formula screwed up with such devastating consequences - all the more if you’ve strived to be perfect parents and in the public eye. 

[SnarkyLawyer]

Just now, SnarkyLawyer said:

I know you weren't referring to removing the kids, per se, but as long as Anna has custody, she gets to make the decisions. When you appoint a guardian ad litem, you are transferring custody to that person, to make legal decisions for the children.

I agree with you about supervised visits, but I think that particular decision comes down to lack of funding and staff at the state level, assuming the feds would farm that out to local state agencies.

[Antimony]

3 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

This always jumped out at me. I am certainly not a specialist on pedophilia so I didn't take a strong stance one way or the other before, but if he were just a very curious teenage boy going through puberty, why wouldn't he have tried to catch glances of post-pubescent girls' and women's naked bodies? It still would not have been okay obviously, but I could understand the initial argument more. 

I am also not a specialist on pedophilia, but I've just dumped a lot of info into my brain. Some of it doesn't align, some of it does, each case is different, yadda yadda. List time, I guess.

• One of the most common types of sexual abuse is child-to-child (above 12 and under 12, respectively, from abuser to victim) and while it isn't "typical" it's considered intervenable.
• Almost every child that victimizes other children has been victimized themselves. (This is not a happy thought. We don't know that this happened, but it wouldn't be statistically unlikely.) 
• Weird Rectangles vs Squares problem: Most people who molest children are not preferential pedophiles.** Much like rape isn't usually about sexual gratification, most child molestations are crimes of opportunity and they're about power. But, a vast majority (somewhere around 90%) of people who download CSAI are preferential pedophiles.

I think a lot of posters feel that Josh is a person that could be been taken off this path by proper intervention, and honestly, the path he ended up on is so common. Bad childhood (by our measure), childhood sexual crimes committed, those ignored, general lack of emotional or mental health resources, to where we are today. The banality of evil and all that - most faces of evil aren't Hannibal Lector with Bach and a dozen rare French cookbooks, they're schmucks with Bud Light in the fridge who can't come up with more than one password. I think it started out as opportunistic -his culture and family isolation prevented any healthy outlet, so it's hard to tell if this is ingrained in him or not - and became pathological.

**There's a lot of discourse about who is or isn't a pedophile, that's all really messy, "preferential pedophile" is the term researchers seem to use for the purpose of describing what we commonly call a pedophile to distinguish them from people who are just simply looking for a victim of any age, etc. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, hauntedoklahoma said:

I seriously doubt she even believes that the charges against Josh are real in the first place. I don't want to speculate further on victim identity so I'll just leave it at "I doubt she has any deep down feelings about what might or might not have happened because I don't think it has occurred to her that it CAN happen." 

I think the moment Anna admits to herself that he might have been capable of this she's going to have a mental break.  I'm not saying forever, but she will shut down because she will have no idea how to process that or what to do.  She will be facing the ultimate conflict for someone like her ....choosing between her obedience to her cult and absolute fear of the unknown and her maternal instinct and love for her kids.

I am no Anna apologist, but I absolutely believe if she could wave a wand and create an ideal world it would be a happy marriage with happy kids.  A happy husband who isn't capable of harming anyone, faithful, and whose sexual needs are fully met in their marriage bed.  In Anna's perfect world the kids are safe, Jesus is happy, headpats all around.

In Josh's perfect world I have no doubt things are far less wholesome.

When she realizes this, that their marriage and soon to be seven kids isn't the dream for him and he was never the man she thought he was she's going to need someone there for her and the kids until she can come to whatever terms she can and start making a plan.  Because that realization will hit her like a truck and her pain will be untenable until she starts to move forward.

People far smarter, stronger, and less brainwashed than Anna have been brought to their knees by discovering this kind of thing.  I will argue all day long that she should have known after the molestation came out in 2015 and I stand by that, but I've known people like Anna and the ability to deny unpleasant truths is like a super power....it really defies credulity, but their blindness is real as much as it is self-imposed.  

If she ever allows herself to contemplate the truth her entire worldview will shatter and that may be enough to keep her in denial for the rest of her life.  She wouldn't be the first.

8 minutes ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

I know you weren't referring to removing the kids, per se, but as long as Anna has custody, she gets to make the decisions. When you appoint a guardian ad litem, you are transferring custody to that person, to make legal decisions for the children.

Thanks.  I was under the impression that they could appoint a social worker or such for visitations without it needing to be a GAL.  

[SnarkyLawyer]

6 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think the moment Anna admits to herself that he might have been capable of this she's going to have a mental break.  I'm not saying forever, but she will shut down because she will have no idea how to process that or what to do.  She will be facing the ultimate conflict for someone like her ....choosing between her obedience to her cult and absolute fear of the unknown and her maternal instinct and love for her kids.

I am no Anna apologist, but I absolutely believe if she could wave a wand and create an ideal world it would be a happy marriage with happy kids.  A happy husband who isn't capable of harming anyone, faithful, and whose sexual needs are fully met in their marriage bed.  In Anna's perfect world the kids are safe, Jesus is happy, headpats all around.

In Josh's perfect world I have no doubt things are far less wholesome.

When she realizes this, that their marriage and soon to be seven kids isn't the dream for him and he was never the man she thought he was she's going to need someone there for her and the kids until she can come to whatever terms she can and start making a plan.  Because that realization will hit her like a truck and her pain will be untenable until she starts to move forward.

People far smarter, stronger, and less brainwashed than Anna have been brought to their knees by discovering this kind of thing.  I will argue all day long that she should have known after the molestation came out in 2015 and I stand by that, but I've known people like Anna and the ability to deny unpleasant truths is like a super power....it really defies credulity, but their blindness is real as much as it is self-imposed.  

If she ever allows herself to contemplate the truth her entire worldview will shatter and that may be enough to keep her in denial for the rest of her life.  She wouldn't be the first.

Thanks.  I was under the impression that they could appoint a social worker or such for visitations without it needing to be a GAL.  

I hope the family law expert on this forum jumps in to correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think the courts can appoint a social worker, for supervised visits, with the custodial parent retaining custody, and therefore, decision-making. Again, I think it comes down to adequate funding, to make it happen for all such cases.