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

[PennySycamore]

@HerNameIsBuffy,  I was watching Finding Your Roots on Sunday afternoon and Bill Hader was one of the guests.   He is descended from Charlemagne.  When Ming T'sai was a guest, he found out that he was descended from the first emperor of China, Ch'in Hsieh Wang Ti.  

For those wondering where Josh will serve his time, there are no maximum security federal prisons in Arkansas although there are a couple of medium security prisons in the state.  Ex-USA gymnastics coach, Larry Nasser who sexually assaulted so many young gymnasts,  is serving his time at Coleman II in Florida.  He was sentenced to 60 years to be served in the federal penner child porn and tampering with evidence plus 40 to 175 years for sexually abusing children to be served in a Michigan prison..  He ain't never getting out.  Coleman II is for those inmates who can't be put in the general prison population.  

[Dandruff]

51 minutes ago, PennySycamore said:

Coleman II is for those inmates who can't be put in the general prison population.

Could Josh be put in the general population?

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, PennySycamore said:

 For those wondering where Josh will serve his time, there are no maximum security federal prisons in Arkansas although there are a couple of medium security prisons in the state.  Ex-USA gymnastics coach, Larry Nasser who sexually assaulted so many young gymnasts,  is serving his time at Coleman II in Florida.  He was sentenced to 60 years to be served in the federal penner child porn and tampering with evidence plus 40 to 175 years for sexually abusing children to be served in a Michigan prison..  He ain't never getting out.  Coleman II is for those inmates who can't be put in the general prison population.  

Why would Josh need a maximum security prison?  He is not  violent offender.  I can see why he might need to be separated from the general population though.

(Note: This is not to minimize the severity of Josh’s crime or to suggest he deserves a “lesser” punishment because he is not violent.  I thought since maximum security is more expensive, non-violent offenders who aren’t likely to get into fights or try to escape get put in medium security regardless of how heinous the crime.)

[CyborgKin]

On 6/11/2021 at 2:48 AM, Expectopatronus said:

I guess, technically it could be anyone who had access to the computer especially since he used his birthday as his password but I highly doubt that this would get him acquitted. A question for those of you who know the American legal system; if other employees (including siblings) were called as witnesses, could they refuse to answer the questions on the grounds that they have the right to not incriminate themselves? Academic question, I’m not accusing anyone else of downloading criminal material. 

If I remember the transcript's wording correctly, the last four characters of the password were his birth year.  We don't know the beginning part of the password.

[Four is Enough]

22 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

• For the stuff I recognize it looks like most is below market price.  TIL that people in jail have to buy their own toilet paper.  Really?  I both do and don't want to know what the people do who don't have anyone sending them money.  

In the state prison our child was in, toilet paper, soap, toothpaste,  brush was available to indigent inmates, but it was horrible. Anyone who could afford the "better" soap sold by the commissary would get it.. as you can imagine there was a trade in goods and services. For instance, our child would tattoo people with a guitar string, a 9 volt battery, and an ink pen.. to make money for commissary items.

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Why would Josh need a maximum security prison?  He is not  violent offender.  I can see why he might need to be separated from the general population though.

(

Sometimes the person isn't in the max security prison to protect others. Sometimes he's there to be protected. Borrowing again from my child's experience, they'd call someone on the outside when a new inmate arrived and ask to look up the record. If there was any child shenanigans on the record, his group would have nothing to do with the new person. They might take up a bit of bullying against the person. 

It seems weird to  keep someone incarcerated in isolation to protect him from other inmates. However, it is his right as a human, and it must be served.

[JenniferJuniper]

10 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Why would Josh need a maximum security prison?  He is not  violent offender.  I can see why he might need to be separated from the general population though.

Most Arkansas men with federal possession convictions seem to end up here.   https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/for/  

There are both medium and low security facilities at the location and its about 300 miles from Anna's storage unit home.  He could end up anywhere, depending on space issues, but this prison seems to house a lot of child sex offenders.  This article about the Subway guy quotes a guy who did time at Forrest City,

https://www.vice.com/en/article/jmajby/how-jared-fogle-will-get-treated-in-prison-820

Quote

Child molesters have minimal rights in federal prison," Steve, who was recently released after serving two years at FCC Forrest City—a low-security facility in Arkansas where plenty of sex offenders are incarcerated—tells VICE. Chomos' fellow inmates often "keep them from watching television. They give them a very small amount of space on the recreation yard or in the chow hall, they're not allowed to go in certain areas or be around certain functions. And given the high-profile nature of this case, I'm sure [Fogle's] not going to even have the opportunity to leave his cell or cubicle without being harassed and threatened. His best bet is to do his time in segregation where no one can get to him."

 

[Idlewild]

In the UK they are showing a 3 part drama about a teacher who gets sent to prison for killing a cyclist while drunk driving. The writer served time I believe . It’s a gripping drama and wonderfully acted but so hard to watch. It’s the nightmare- middle class, educated male who’s never been in trouble is plunged into this terrifying world. I’ve been a lawyer for over 30 years and it stopped me in my tracks. One bit that rang true for me was a young kid whose father had done jail time - his dad always said he could do it ‘standing on his head’ and he now realised that was a lie- nobody has it easy.

My point? Wherever Josh ends up, have no doubt it will be a horrible and frightening situation. However unlike his victims he had a choice about ending up there. 

[sixcatatty]

16 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Why would Josh need a maximum security prison?  He is not  violent offender.  I can see why he might need to be separated from the general population though.

(Note: This is not to minimize the severity of Josh’s crime or to suggest he deserves a “lesser” punishment because he is not violent.  I thought since maximum security is more expensive, non-violent offenders who aren’t likely to get into fights or try to escape get put in medium security regardless of how heinous the crime.)

In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where I practice, most sex crimes and CSA are considered violent offenses for which the inmate must serve 85% of his sentence before parole eligibility. Then there's the Sex Offender Treatment Program, which the inmate must successfully complete before he gets out. That includes "admitting" his offenses. If s/he does not, s/he serves every day. CSA also means you're a lifetime Sex Offender registrant.

The federal government has sentencing guidelines and no parole. It does have a sex offender registry.

[Jinderella]

What kind of timeline can we expect for Josh? Will a plea deal have to be made before the trial in july? Or can his lawyers first delay and later still get a plea deal?

And if they are stupid enough to plead not guilty, how long can he postpone trial? 
What I actually want to know is when the pest will be behind bars...

[EmCatlyn]

50 minutes ago, sixcatatty said:

In the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where I practice, most sex crimes and CSA are considered violent offenses for which the inmate must serve 85% of his sentence before parole eligibility. Then there's the Sex Offender Treatment Program, which the inmate must successfully complete before he gets out. That includes "admitting" his offenses. If s/he does not, s/he serves every day. CSA also means you're a lifetime Sex Offender registrant.

The federal government has sentencing guidelines and no parole. It does have a sex offender registry.

Interesting.  I am all for requiring them to serve 85% of sentence, participate in rehabilitation/therapy programs, and placing them on some sort of registry.  But I guess I wouldn’t consider the average CSA offender as “violent” in the sense that they posed a risk to other inmates (all adults), guards etc.    

Definitely CSA is “violent” in its impact on the victim(s), but I always thought the maximum security thing was for people who were violent enough to hurt others in prison.

This is very educational. Thanks.

 

[Mrs. Kravitz]

I've heard there's a high rate of suicide/attempted suicide for those who have been accused of or found guilty of CSA. Perhaps that also factors in?

Edited June 12, 2021 by Mrs. Kravitz
Missing word

[AussieKrissy]

12 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

In the state prison our child was in, toilet paper, soap, toothpaste,  brush was available to indigent inmates, but it was horrible. Anyone who could afford the "better" soap sold by the commissary would get it.. as you can imagine there was a trade in goods and services. For instance, our child would tattoo people with a guitar string, a 9 volt battery, and an ink pen.. to make money for commissary items.

Sometimes the person isn't in the max security prison to protect others. Sometimes he's there to be protected. Borrowing again from my child's experience, they'd call someone on the outside when a new inmate arrived and ask to look up the record. If there was any child shenanigans on the record, his group would have nothing to do with the new person. They might take up a bit of bullying against the person. 

It seems weird to  keep someone incarcerated in isolation to protect him from other inmates. However, it is his right as a human, and it must be served.

It’s also to protect staff. I ain’t getting stabbed in the neck to protect a pedophile. Keep him away from the ones that would kill him and everyone is safe. 

[Smee]

13 hours ago, Mrs. Kravitz said:

I've heard there's a high rate of suicide/attempted suicide for those who have been accused of or found guilty of CSA. Perhaps that also factors in?

I expect there are some especially high risk times for that - after being investigated but before being charged (so no one finds out), after being found guilty but before being sentenced (to avoid prison the only way that is left), within the first few weeks after going to prison (when they get a clearer idea of what the rest of their life will be like). I know someone whose father killed himself shortly after the police seized his computer for CSA images, before he was charged or went to trial. She was abused by him through childhood, told nobody, then as a young adult realised he was grooming her younger cousin, and went to the police. Then came the investigation, computer being taken etc, and the suicide. To this day half her extended family don’t know, they think it was a tragic suicide by a silent sufferer of depression. Even after his death, even after learning what was on his computer and what he had done to her daughter, his wife protected his reputation (or perhaps she saw it as protecting her own). The cognitive dissonance that people are capable of is astounding, and doesn’t give me much hope for Anna.

[nokidsmom]

4 hours ago, Smee said:

The cognitive dissonance that people are capable of is astounding, and doesn’t give me much hope for Anna.

I don't have much hope for her either.  Namely because she has been through so much already, even before this latest scandal involving Josh, and I fear she has learned to live in a state of cognitive dissonance to the point that even another scandal is not going to change it.  

It seems that back when Josh was doing time in Jesus Jail where I could see she was struggling then, but her statement about "wanting things as they were before", pretty much told me that's she wants and she's going to do the necessary mental gymnastics to accomplish that.   She's spent the last 6 years trying to live as "before" including having a couple more kids with Josh.   She was pregnant when the first Joshgates surfaced, and she's going through it again, expecting a baby when her husband got into even more trouble.

More likely, she is desperately hoping to go back to things as they were before.  I doubt she understands that this time her husband faces a lot more than just Jesus Jail.

[Whipple]

15 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

I don't have much hope for her either.  Namely because she has been through so much already, even before this latest scandal involving Josh, and I fear she has learned to live in a state of cognitive dissonance to the point that even another scandal is not going to change it.  

It seems that back when Josh was doing time in Jesus Jail where I could see she was struggling then, but her statement about "wanting things as they were before", pretty much told me that's she wants and she's going to do the necessary mental gymnastics to accomplish that.   She's spent the last 6 years trying to live as "before" including having a couple more kids with Josh.   She was pregnant when the first Joshgates surfaced, and she's going through it again, expecting a baby when her husband got into even more trouble.

More likely, she is desperately hoping to go back to things as they were before.  I doubt she understands that this time her husband faces a lot more than just Jesus Jail.

I have a Texas-sized blind spot when it comes to Anna. I keep holding out hope (perhaps irrational), in part because "the way things were before" appears to to have been pretty bad according to the snippets we have on camera and God knows what it was like without the camera there. Also, the  tone in the home might be a lot calmer without Josh there. Anna might just find after a period of extreme stress and turmoil that she can be more independent than she thought and that her kids might do okay without malignant narcissist Daddy around.

[nokidsmom]

8 minutes ago, Whipple said:

I have a Texas-sized blind spot when it comes to Anna. I keep holding out hope (perhaps irrational), in part because "the way things were before" appears to to have been pretty bad according to the snippets we have on camera and God knows what it was like without the camera there. Also, the  tone in the home might be a lot calmer without Josh there. Anna might just find after a period of extreme stress and turmoil that she can be more independent than she thought and that her kids might do okay without malignant narcissist Daddy around.

@Whipple I thought of this as well.   That maybe things might be a lot calmer without him around.  I took the "way things were before" statement was more about Anna's knowledge about Josh pre-scandals rather than things being hunky dory at home. 

When Josh did time in Jesus Jail it was only for a relatively short period of time.  It was not enough time for Anna to learn to cope without him long term.   If Josh is sentenced to serious time in prison then that means living without him for much longer, possibly all her kids will be adults by the time he gets out.  That's a whole different thing and while it might be difficult at first, she will have enough time to see the difference, in her, in her kids, in their home life.  She'll miss him of course, but over time notices that she doesn't have to worry about him, what he's up to, what he will do next.  

One thing is that I hope she eventually makes her way back home to Florida.   Either because she wants to or JB takes such a serious financial hit, he has to cut dependent family members loose.   While I think Pa Keller seriously failed her in the "transfer of authority" department at the same time, the Kellers have conducted themselves well around the J-Rods.   They haven't shunned their non-fundie kids.   I think they can provide the emotional support Anna would need, far more than her in-laws, who are too worried about their "brand".

[Bluebirdbluebell]

I hold out hope for Anna, because she's really the only parent those kids are going to have. 

I don't know that going back to Florida would be better for her. Her parents are still fundies, and all of the adverse effects of being fundies hasn't gotten to them to a point of reconsidering their beliefs.

[nokidsmom]

Just now, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I hold out hope for Anna, because she's really the only parent those kids are going to have. 

I don't know that going back to Florida would be better for her. Her parents are still fundies, and all of the adverse effects of being fundies hasn't gotten to them to a point of reconsidering their beliefs.

Completely agree on this, going back to Florida will not get her out of fundiedom.   I have no hope that Anna will reconsider her beliefs, she and her still-fundie family members are pretty entrenched.  I don't see her making any sort of radical change at all.

I was thinking more along the lines that Anna will have more emotional support from them as opposed to the emotional desert that is the TTH.   Her in-law family strike me as being very emotionally disconnected, have been shown to be terribly screwed up and for all their faults (and I have criticized Pa Keller quite often) I don't get that sense from the Kellers.   Even if they are fundies, they are nowhere near as messed up AFAIK as the Wholesome Christian Family on TV.

[postscript]

Their marriage dynamic reminds me somewhat of my parents’, back in the early 70s. They married right out of college, my mother stopped working to raise her kids, as was expected in those days, and my father worked and played with us when he felt like it. All was normal until my father was gradually around less and less. Only much later did we learn it was because he was seeing another woman. My mother, who was very religious at the time, tried to hang onto the marriage, but my father eventually opted out, leaving her to raise us and resurrect a career. We were told very little until after the fact. Both parents eventually made new lives for themselves and were happier apart, but the whole thing left me with scars that are still apparent even 40+ years after the fact. 

I see a similar trajectory with Josh and Anna. They married young, and it’s not surprising he’s bored and checked out, even without taking his sexual explorations into account. Anna, on the other hand, seems to be doubling down in the hope Josh will recommit to the marriage. However, that ship has long sailed. I’m betting the kids are being told nothing. The older ones are probably confused and may be blaming themselves. Unfortunately, Anna has more kids and far fewer career prospects than my mother did. 

[nokidsmom]

13 minutes ago, postscript said:

I see a similar trajectory with Josh and Anna. They married young, and it’s not surprising he’s bored and checked out, even without taking his sexual explorations into account. Anna, on the other hand, seems to be doubling down in the hope Josh will recommit to the marriage. However, that ship has long sailed.

Anna will never leave.  She always struck me as being more vested in the marriage than Josh, even when they first married.   She had stars in her eyes, he was, and I know this is putting it crudely, just horny and following the approved fundie script to deal with that. 

Even with Josh doing serious time, she would prefer to remain married, even if it's in name only.   She's vested in being his wife and to her, it's better to be the long suffering, martyred, faithful wife than to divorce him no matter what he's done.   It's a shame in a way because honestly I see her as wasting her life and love on someone who doesn't deserve it.  But it's her choice to make.

[Don'tlikekoolaid]

I find it so tragic how victims have their voices taken away from them.  First by the dirtbag pedo, then by family in denial and then by the legal system who says prove it.  I think I would exact my own form of justice.

[Jana814]

I agree that Anna will never leave Josh.  Not only that but where would be go. If she goes to her parents they will push to go back to Josh. 

[livinginthelight]

On 6/11/2021 at 8:04 AM, JenniferJuniper said:

I don't know the statistics, but Josh's own kids may be safer around him than his nieces and nephews (and before you know it, great nieces and nephews).  I think pedophiles are generally less likely to molest their own children, not that I'd bet more than 10 bucks on Josh.  But his siblings' kids are in grave danger around him, and we can only hope his brothers and sisters grasp this.

I'm a psychologist and I've never heard any statistic that pedophiles are less likely to molest their own children. A lot of times, the important factor in molestation is access. And parents have easy access to their children.

You may be thinking of statistics such as 30 - 35% of abused children are abused by family members, and approximately 60% are abused by acquaintances outside the family. These statistics are accurate. There are many coaches, youth leaders, etc out there who prey on kids. But it's a mistake to read the statistics to mean that pedophiles are less likely to molest their own children. Since easy access is key, the children of a pedophile are in more danger than nieces and nephews, or anyone in a larger social circle.

We can get more detailed about categories of abusers. Some clearly have a "type" preference (e.g., boys ages 6 - 8). Those with strong type preferences for young boys might not molest their own children if they have daughters. But there are a variety of reasons a person might molest. Power and dominance are frequent motivations.

This article from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was published back in 1992 so is dated (with a few dated ideas as well) but overall it gives some very interesting explanations of different types of pedophiles. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/149252NCJRS.pdf

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by livinginthelight

[Idlewild]

Anna does not want a divorce. Having seen her evolve with her SM accounts, particularly the stuff she posted on Twitter, I’m convinced the only thing she’d ever divorce Josh for is if he had an abortion- in her mind that is the only sin worth bothering about.

[nokidsmom]

2 hours ago, Jana814 said:

I agree that Anna will never leave Josh.  Not only that but where would be go. If she goes to her parents they will push to go back to Josh. 

One possibility that I see that she moves back to her parents not because she is divorcing him but more for support, either emotional or financial while he does time.  I know that the Kellers don't have the financial resources that JB does, but if JB finds himself unable to continue supporting eleventy kids/spouses/grandkids that might end up being an possibility especially if Josh does serious time.  Can JB be sure that he can support Anna and 7 kids for 20 years on top of other financial demands and his financial resources are depleted due to defending Josh or TLC cancellation or any other things that might crop up?   He's facing serious financial risks right now and Anna/kids are dependent on him. 

 

Edited June 13, 2021 by nokidsmom