[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 33: Ohhh Honey It Is Already a Disaster.....

[Idlewild]

5 minutes ago, SPHASH said:

I wonder what kind of "houseguest" Josh is.  

The worst. An entitled oaf who has been surrounded by subservient women all his life. 

[Gobsmacked]

I think Anna will either have a warehouse home birth with Josh present in body but not spirit. Or a hospital birth with Josh present and escorted by a court ordained person. In either scenario Josh won’t be in the room with Anna.  He would have to be escorted by Mr Reber and or someone appointed by the court to prevent him from trying to gain internet access or see his kids with Anna. He is only allowed to see them with her present in the room.  After a quick glance at M No7 he will be quickly escorted back to the Reber house. I don’t think he is interested either way to be honest. He is already well over adding to the M collection. (IMO).

[Idlewild]

I think for the purposes of relaxing his bail conditions and his case generally, we’ll start hearing about what a devoted father and supportive husband Josh is- even though we all saw him snoring on the couch while Anna labours

[Expectopatronus]

I keep reading M7 as MI7 which is kinda appropriate given that from what I know, MI7 dealt with propaganda during the First World War. If there was ever a family that specialized in propaganda……

[Bobology]

It probably doesn't matter what kind of a birth Anna prefers; she'll have the kind of birth JB and Josh decide she'll have.

Any sane person would not want Josh and/or not allow Josh to see his newborn daughter naked. I wish the judge had set rules about Josh and the nudity of his children, like baths and dressing and stuff. Not that Josh would ever deign to parent in that way, but it would have been nice to see it in writing that he is forbidden to be in the room while they are dressing, being diapered, etc.

[Bad Wolf]

I remember M sending Jackson out of the room when she was changing Jordyn's diaper. Were they trying to prevent Jackson from going down the same path as Josh? They knew about the molestation of their five year old daughter. That's not just a curious boy.

[Bethy]

2 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

I remember M sending Jackson out of the room when she was changing Jordyn's diaper. Were they trying to prevent Jackson from going down the same path as Josh? They knew about the molestation of their five year old daughter. That's not just a curious boy.

No speculation on what you mentioned, but I do know the ATI materials surrounding sexual abuse include a testimonial allegedly written by a teenage boy who "fell" into sin involving his youngest siblings, who blamed his parents for expecting him to care for said younger siblings, and his sisters for allowing the toddlers to run around half-dressed after their baths, because if they had held to "Levitical modesty standards" he wouldn't have "fallen" into this sin. So it's possible that even beyond the Josh situation, she was just obeying the materials she'd had doled out to her.

Or do we think that testimonial was actually ABOUT Josh? Hmm...

 

ETA No, I think it came up on one of these threads already and although the comparisons are striking (a teenage brother who offends, sister-moms bathing toddlers) and the attitude smacks of Josh (victim-blaming with a side of extra Christianese language) the publication date on that Wisdom Booklet or whatever it was was before he was old enough to be the offender in question.

Edited June 25, 2021 by Bethy

[Expectopatronus]

3 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

I remember M sending Jackson out of the room when she was changing Jordyn's diaper. Were they trying to prevent Jackson from going down the same path as Josh? They knew about the molestation of their five year old daughter. That's not just a curious boy.

To me, that is beyond ridiculous and harmful. Jackson would have been approximately 4 when Jordyn was a baby. Poor little guy; he barely got time with his parents and then to be banished so that a preschooler didn’t see a baby naked sends all the wrong messages. Small children don’t have body shame or see the body as anything other than the body. A penis or vagina is no different than toes to the under five crowd. 

[nelliebelle1197]

2 hours ago, Bethy said:

No speculation on what you mentioned, but I do know the ATI materials surrounding sexual abuse include a testimonial allegedly written by a teenage boy who "fell" into sin involving his youngest siblings, who blamed his parents for expecting him to care for said younger siblings, and his sisters for allowing the toddlers to run around half-dressed after their baths, because if they had held to "Levitical modesty standards" he wouldn't have "fallen" into this sin. So it's possible that even beyond the Josh situation, she was just obeying the materials she'd had doled out to her.

Or do we think that testimonial was actually ABOUT Josh? Hmm...

 

ETA No, I think it came up on one of these threads already and although the comparisons are striking (a teenage brother who offends, sister-moms bathing toddlers) and the attitude smacks of Josh (victim-blaming with a side of extra Christianese language) the publication date on that Wisdom Booklet or whatever it was was before he was old enough to be the offender in question.

This was a Gothard- approved publication so it may not have even been a real testimonial. IBLP is not exactly honest and its major families definitely know how to lie. The Duggars are bad enough but current IBLP leader Gil Bates and family have taken truth spinning to a professional level.

[Mama Mia]

10 hours ago, Bobology said:

It probably doesn't matter what kind of a birth Anna prefers; she'll have the kind of birth JB and Josh decide she'll have.

Any sane person would not want Josh and/or not allow Josh to see his newborn daughter naked. I wish the judge had set rules about Josh and the nudity of his children, like baths and dressing and stuff. Not that Josh would ever deign to parent in that way, but it would have been nice to see it in writing that he is forbidden to be in the room while they are dressing, being diapered, etc.

Disturbingly now, in his particular situation, but on one of the last episodes of 19 kids and counting, there was a weird awkward scene where the married couples were sitting around and Josh was giving either Derrick or Ben advice on fatherhood ( I think both Jill and Jessa were pregnant ) . Josh told the expectant dad/s that once the baby was born the dad should be in charge of diapers - because mom had to be in charge of feeding. 
 

This was right before the scandal broke, and the whole episode was weird and stilted with a lot of low-key hostility. Much like the extremely weird and hostile Easter special they just did- right before Josh’s arrest. Makes you wonder how much everyone knows before the news breaks. 

[CyborgKin]

On 6/25/2021 at 5:14 AM, Alisamer said:

No, she hasn't. I just meant if she came out and said something like that, I'd believe it. But Josh? I don't think he thinks much past how to get away with whatever he's doing with the least trouble possible. 

You have to examine your faith to lose it, IMO.

How long until the tabloids start reporting this as news?  

[DottyC]

I need the brain bleach please... I just had an awful thought that someone will suggest Josh attend the birth via Zoom ?

[EmCatlyn]

On 6/25/2021 at 10:48 AM, Meggo said:

I wonder if the Reber's realized, when signing up to be his babysitter, that they might actually have to handle a home birth too.

Aren’t we getting ahead of ourselves here?  I don’t think either Josh or Anna are going to be particularly interested in having him present through the birth.    Unless there is some Gothardite thing about fathers witnessing the birth of their kids, I doubt there will be a problem with Anna having a home birth without Josh in her own house.  But maybe I am missing something?

 

[EmCatlyn]

12 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Disturbingly now, in his particular situation, but on one of the last episodes of 19 kids and counting, there was a weird awkward scene where the married couples were sitting around and Josh was giving either Derrick or Ben advice on fatherhood ( I think both Jill and Jessa were pregnant ) . Josh told the expectant dad/s that once the baby was born the dad should be in charge of diapers - because mom had to be in charge of feeding. 
 

This was right before the scandal broke, and the whole episode was weird and stilted with a lot of low-key hostility. Much like the extremely weird and hostile Easter special they just did- right before Josh’s arrest. Makes you wonder how much everyone knows before the news breaks. 

I have never believed that Josh really changed diapers if he could possibly avoid it.  For that matter, I doubt JB changed many diapers.  It’s probably the sort of thing they say on camera to sound good, no more.

If we are going to worry (but definitely not speculate) about opportunities Josh might have to see nude children, I think bathing and dressing/undressing should be more of a concern than diaper-changing, which is “yucky” work.  

[Expectopatronus]

I also strongly suspect that he makes a distinction between his kids and the children in the images he viewed. He certainly would not be the first man to do this. 

[EmCatlyn]

51 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

I also strongly suspect that he makes a distinction between his kids and the children in the images he viewed. He certainly would not be the first man to do this. 

We can only hope.

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, Expectopatronus said:

I also strongly suspect that he makes a distinction between his kids and the children in the images he viewed. He certainly would not be the first man to do this. 

Those other poor children obviously didn't have umbrellas of protection against men like...

[marmalade]

13 hours ago, DottyC said:

I need the brain bleach please... I just had an awful thought that someone will suggest Josh attend the birth via Zoom ?

He's not allowed internet access, so Zoom is out. 

[DottyC]

1 hour ago, marmalade said:

He's not allowed internet access, so Zoom is out. 

I wasn't sure if it was not allowed at all or not allowed unaccompanied. Hopefully it is the former.

Edited June 27, 2021 by DottyC
I can string a sentance together honestly...

[patsymae]

On 6/8/2021 at 9:46 AM, 2sweet4me said:

I don't have a clue about how long they can get continuances as this is federal court and I have no clue about how anything runs in federal court.  I do know that in state courts there is something called an "Alford plea" which is "a guilty plea in which a defendant maintains their innocence but admits that the prosecution's evidence would likely result in a guilty verdict if brought to trial". This is all subject to the federal judge accepting said plea.  If judge does not accept plea, for any reason, then it's back to the drawing board for the lawyers and Josh to determine his plea.

I know it's Wikipedia, but I don't have time (ie., don't feel like) to do more thorough research. An Alford plea actually would fit perfectly into their mindset--I admit nothing but Joe Biden stacked the cards against me and so I'm becoming a martyr for my family, blah blah bla

tinyurl.com/ks8ay48a

[Expectopatronus]

Can a judge refuse to accept an Alford plea? Would he still have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life with this plea? 

[Mrs. Kravitz]

44 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

Can a judge refuse to accept an Alford plea? Would he still have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life with this plea? 

From what I understand, it's all up to the judge. The judge decides whether to accept that plea and would still decide sentencing. 

[JenniferJuniper]

13 hours ago, patsymae said:

I know it's Wikipedia, but I don't have time (ie., don't feel like) to do more thorough research. An Alford plea actually would fit perfectly into their mindset--I admit nothing but Joe Biden stacked the cards against me and so I'm becoming a martyr for my family, blah blah bla

tinyurl.com/ks8ay48a

With an Alford plea the prosecution would have to agree first, and I see no reason why they would, given that this appears to be a straightforward child porn possession case with strong forensic evidence indicating Josh downloaded the material. 

[Sullie06]

 

On 6/21/2021 at 10:35 AM, Mama Mia said:

Can a prison require treatment for sex offenders? Including with medication? Or make it enough of a carrot and stick for release dates and movement restrictions upon release that Josh would find it worth it? 

 

It might be a requirement of post release supervision if he does not complete treatment while incarcerated. When we have sexual offenders on Probation they are required to complete approved specialized sexual offender treatment. I know at our local treatment facility, they are very strict, you can't just show up, You have to participate and follow your treatment plan (which is often 10-12 pages long) to a tee and there is a requirement for family to participate as well. 

[Expectopatronus]

Are some restrictions just standard? A man I used to volunteer with through a safer communities organization had a conviction possession of child pornography and one of his conditions was a lifelong ban from buying, serving or consuming alcohol or entering an LC. The man was anaphylactic to alcohol and hadn’t had a drink since he was 18. Is this just a standard condition or did the judge forget to take into account the fact that no alcohol had been involved in the crime?