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

[Idlewild]

I don’t see Anna relocating to Florida- she may visit but she won’t live there.

Her parents live in very modest housing, she will have 7 children in tow.

Anna likes being at the big house and I see her being firmly entrenched there until Josh returns. She will then carry on as if none of it happened and probably have another baby. JB can’t evict her or refuse to support her - an aggrieved Anna is too dangerous. They’re stuck with each other.

[JenniferJuniper]

Josh isn't going away for 20 years.  Or 10 years.  If he pleads guilty, he'll probably be gone just a few when it's all said and done.  You can google sentencing those for those pleading guilty to similar possession charges under the Project Safe Childhood program and then check their actual sentences at the BOP inmate locator site.   Anywhere from 3 - 7 appears to be the norm, with a 15% possible reduction for good behavior. 

Anna will wait.  

[Not that josh's mom]

1 hour ago, Idlewild said:

I don’t see Anna relocating to Florida- she may visit but she won’t live there.

Her parents live in very modest housing, she will have 7 children in tow.

Anna likes being at the big house and I see her being firmly entrenched there until Josh returns. She will then carry on as if none of it happened and probably have another baby. JB can’t evict her or refuse to support her - an aggrieved Anna is too dangerous. They’re stuck with each other.

Does Anna realize she can be dangerous? Would she even know how to do anything about it? I doubt it.

[socalrules]

Does Anna even want to be dangerous? I think she is hardcore and wants to stay a hardcore fundy. Even if she believes Josh is being railroaded or he just made “mistakes” it doesn’t mean her faith isn’t as strong. She may see this as a test of her faith and she doesn’t intend to fail it. She will be waiting at the gate when he gets out of prison. I think a part of her revels in being the martyr wife. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, socalrules said:

Does Anna even want to be dangerous? I think she is hardcore and wants to stay a hardcore fundy. Even if she believes Josh is being railroaded or he just made “mistakes” it doesn’t mean her faith isn’t as strong. She may see this as a test of her faith and she doesn’t intend to fail it. She will be waiting at the gate when he gets out of prison. I think a part of her revels in being the martyr wife. 

I guess that is all the pleasure she can derive from being married to Josh.  I really feel sorry for the M kids.

[Whipple]

9 hours ago, nokidsmom said:

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. 

 

I agree. There are a million ways that things are already starting to go sideways. With JB losing his grip on his own family and with strained finances making it hard for JB to continue to support his empire, Anna might not have the option to keep doubling down for it is a privilege to be able to take that position. Wasn’t the Braddrick wife returned to her family and remarried pronto? It is possible that Anna will be counseled toward divorce with an eye on quick remarriage to a widower.
It’s late. Am I way off this morning.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

On 6/11/2021 at 7:03 PM, PennySycamore said:

 I was watching Finding Your Roots on Sunday afternoon and Bill Hader was one of the guests.   He is descended from Charlemagne.

Fun fact, everyone of European descent is descended from Charlemagne as well as Bob the Beet Farmer and everyone one else alive in Europe (who reproduced to where their lines still exist today) 900-1000 AD.  They did the math, it's due to pedigree collapse, it's pretty interesting really.

[Nike]

9 hours ago, socalrules said:

Does Anna even want to be dangerous? I think she is hardcore and wants to stay a hardcore fundy. Even if she believes Josh is being railroaded or he just made “mistakes” it doesn’t mean her faith isn’t as strong. She may see this as a test of her faith and she doesn’t intend to fail it. She will be waiting at the gate when he gets out of prison. I think a part of her revels in being the martyr wife. 

Did they not say somewhere that God chose their espouses? She may think that divorcing him would be to contradict God?

[SassyPants]

The thing that makes me question how JB could possibly afford to support all these people is the fact that he doesn’t have the money coming in that he once had, there are more people to support (exponentially) and when the going was good, the 2nd generation got used to having nicer things and more modern gadgets and conveniences. Are they going to be willing to go back to wearing used shoes and clothing or driving beater cars, or perhaps going down to 1 car per family? No trips or date night restaurant meals?  Are Josiah and Lauren and the Vuolos going to be happy living the life of a Duggar pre- TLC? I’m not so sure-

 

No airplanes or flight training? 

Edited June 14, 2021 by SassyPants

[Alisamer]

I think the next few years will be telling all around in Duggar land, especially if Josh goes to prison for a few years. Josie is what, 11? So if he goes away for 4 years, she'll be 15-16 when he gets out, and JB and Michelle will be just a few years away from empty nesting, most likely. 

I'll be interested to see how things go, at that point. The kids have gone from money-maker to money-sink, now, and they seem to be hurrying to marry them off. Will the married kids get cut off from JB's cash? Will the teens get sent off to live with married siblings at some point as mothers' helpers? Will Anna stick around? (Probably.)

I think Jim Bob's primary love is money, and he's got to be brainstorming all sorts of ways to keep what he's got and make even more. I wouldn't be surprised to see another political office run, or new business, or him and Michelle running off to start a "mission" somewhere, publishing a book about their "trials" with Josh followed by a speaking tour, or some other crazy money-making scheme. Preferably one that'll keep his name in the media. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Alisamer

[imokit]

Anna and Josh are for JB the most dangerous ones.

The other kids (Jill) can write a tell all and it will do well and they can talk about the molestation and parental failing around it.  But Josh and Anna would have more to say, about the people Josh was sent to the first time, parental blaming about the environment that led to Josh's issues, about the talks and shipping off after Ashley Madision etc.  Josh (and possibly JD) are also most likely to know about any shady finances from JB.

A tell all from either of them (including Josh) will sell and sell well and bring far more damage to the duggar brand than Jill can do.  JB knows this, Josh probably knows this Anna may not know this.

But even if Anna doesn't know this, if JB pisses her off enough to improve relationships with some of her siblings who've left the cult, then he could push her into the arms of people who know this.  Anna has good proper fundy siblings, she also has divorced siblings and siblings who've been openly critical of the cult.  Her family seems to let quite a few of the improper ones as family events.

Anna may be placid and wanting to be part of the cult now, but JB is going to be scared of pissing her off and that changing.

[quiversR4hunting]

The Sun has a new article about child witnesses will be interviewed in closed court. Here is the meat of the article, full article below the quote. 

Quote

The Sun can exclusively reveal a Protective Order Concerning Child Victim and Witness Privacy was filed on June 11. 

According to court papers, attorneys for the United States are prepared to make discovery, which is evidence, available to Josh’s defense team.

The parties requested the order to “avoid information that identifies or could be used to identify a child victim or witness.”

According to the order, all documents that disclose the name or any other information concerning a child must be in a secure place. 

When the documents are filed with the court, the papers must be placed under seal, which means they are not available to the public, or names must be redacted.

This order applies to the jury, government and court employees connected to the case, as well as Josh and his legal team. 

As for testimony of a child witness and the testimony of any other witnesses who may divulge information concerning a child, those must be taken in a closed courtroom. 

The Protective Order also applies to “Sensitive Information” including, “written documentation, electronic data and video or audio recordings.”

“Sensitive Information” also includes any minor witness or victim’s name, school, social media names, handles or user IDs, home address, birth date, photographs or visual depictions. 

Any documents filed to the public must name the defendant by a generic name, such as “Minor Victim 1.”

According to the court filing, no “Sensitive Information” may be “left with or given to [Josh] outside the presence and supervision of another attorney on the Defense Team.” 

When the case has been closed, the Defense team shall either return all of the “Sensitive Information” discovery to the US Attorney’s Office or destroy it. 

Josh’s attorneys discussed the Protective Order with him and he “agrees to be bound by all its terms.” 

By agreeing to the protective order, Josh and his Defense Team “do not concede - and expressly reserve the right to contest - that any of the United States’ allegations against the defendant are true or that any of Defendant’s actions would have resulted in any person becoming a victim.”

An Arkansas judge signed off on the order. 

wrong link - correct link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/15271288/josh-duggar-child-porn-case-protect-identities-child-witnesses/ 

Edited June 14, 2021 by quiversR4hunting
posted wrong link at first.

[fundiefriday]

I was hoping it would be a closed courtroom during any testimony by minors.  Those poor children have been through hell and testifying has to bring up all sorts of traumatic injuries.

[Satan'sFortress]

35 minutes ago, quiversR4hunting said:

According to court papers, attorneys for the United States are prepared to make discovery, which is evidence, available to Josh’s defense team.

The parties requested the order to “avoid information that identifies or could be used to identify a child victim or witness.”

I do not understand legal stuff at all.  I can see that this order will protect identities of the victims that were in the photos, but who would a child witness be?  A child that saw him viewing CP? 

[quiversR4hunting]

Just now, Satan'sFortress said:

I do not understand legal stuff at all.  I can see that this order will protect identities of the victims that were in the photos, but who would a child witness be?  A child that saw him viewing CP? 

I was thinking maybe testifying who's laptop it might be but I am just guessing. 

Remember he has minor siblings that might work or visit the car lot. 

[Snarkasarus Rex]

Or maybe one of his own children saw him looking at CSA…maybe they mentioned something during forensic interviews?

[Idlewild]

6 minutes ago, Snarkasarus Rex said:

Or maybe one of his own children saw him looking at CSA…maybe they mentioned something during forensic interviews?

Oh I really hope not.

If one of his own kids had given incriminating evidence, surely the bail conditions would be amended?  He would be deemed too risky to have visits from them?

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, quiversR4hunting said:

The Sun has a new article about child witnesses will be interviewed in closed court. Here is the meat of the article, full article below the quote. 

wrong link - correct link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/15271288/josh-duggar-child-porn-case-protect-identities-child-witnesses/ 

Would these be children somehow connected to Josh?  How would that connect to CSA porn charges?  (Note: I think we shouldn’t speculate who these children might be, individually. I am just speaking of them as a category.) 

Or are the children likely to be CSA victims who appeared in the CSA porn that Josh was found to have? (I mean, would they be children he has never really met but whose victimization he is part of because he had the CSA porn videos?)  Needless to say, he is just as much at fault if he has never met the victims in person.

I am just curious because if the children questioned were children who Josh actually has had personal contact with, wouldn’t the questioning refer to possible CSA molestation in addition to CSA porn?   

 

[FiveAcres]

32 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Would these be children somehow connected to Josh?  How would that connect to CSA porn charges?  (Note: I think we shouldn’t speculate who these children might be, individually. I am just speaking of them as a category.) 

Or are the children likely to be CSA victims who appeared in the CSA porn that Josh was found to have? (I mean, would they be children he has never really met but whose victimization he is part of because he had the CSA porn videos?)  Needless to say, he is just as much at fault if he has never met the victims in person.

I am just curious because if the children questioned were children who Josh actually has had personal contact with, wouldn’t the questioning refer to possible CSA molestation in addition to CSA porn?   

 

IANAL, but I would guess this is just routine boilerplate legal language for any trial which involves CSA materials. Josh is not allowed to access the evidence unless his lawyers are present. 

Remember, the Sun is a British tabloid, and is not a particularly reliable source. As an example, in another article, the Sun was ranting in another article about how Josh is now staying in a mansion with the Rebers. Granted, the house is probably an upgrade over the warehouse. But a quick check shows that the house is a four bedroom, three bath single level building with 2400 square ft of living space. Nice, but not a mansion in most parts of the US. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by FiveAcres
typo, dagnabbit

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

Any documents filed to the public must name the defendant by a generic name, such as “Minor Victim 1.”

I hope one of our legal experts weighs in, why would the child be referred to as the defendant?

I am assuming the authorities spoke with the kids to determine whether or not there was abuse, the forensic interview we talked so much about a while back.

If that's the case then no matter what they said, the results of those interviews would be evidence and will go to Josh's team in discovery.  Also not a lawyer, but as @FiveAcres said this sounds like boilerplate verbiage for providing discovery even if there was nothing untoward that turned up in the interviews.  

 

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, FiveAcres said:

IANAL, but I would guess this is just routine boilerplate legal language for any trial which involves CSA materials. Josh is not allowed to access the evidence unless his lawyers are present. 

Yes. I don't see the source material, but it sounds like generic ground rules the parties must abide by.  I wouldn't read too much into anything the Sun reports.

The child victims in this case are the children depicted in the material.  If it were known that Josh shared the material with a minor child, there would be more charges related to this, in addition to possession of porn.  As far as we know, there are no additional charges.

It's my understanding that the material Josh had in his possession has been circulated for a long time, and was actually tagged by LE so they could track down offenders more easily.   It's possible that some of these victims have been identified, and if so, the names of victims in the material would be considered "sensitive information".

[Bluebirdbluebell]

3 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

The Sun has a new article about child witnesses will be interviewed in closed court. Here is the meat of the article, full article below the quote. 

wrong link - correct link: https://www.thesun.co.uk/tv/15271288/josh-duggar-child-porn-case-protect-identities-child-witnesses/ 

The Sun is garbage. This article isn't so bad, but it doesn't actually say anything new about Josh's case specifically. It gives broad outlines of what happens in these sort of cases. Since there are minor victims, they will be referred anonymously. If there were underage witnesses, they would give testimony in a closed courtroom anonymously. The Sun has no knowledge of any such witnesses in this case, they're just saying what would happen if there were/are witnesses.

It doesn't say that there are witnesses in this case. I'm annoyed the article is confusing and might be misleading people. 

[EmCatlyn]

27 minutes ago, JenniferJuniper said:

 

The child victims in this case are the children depicted in the material.  If it were known that Josh shared the material with a minor child, there would be more charges related to this, in addition to possession of porn.  As far as we know, there are no additional charges.

It's my understanding that the material Josh had in his possession has been circulated for a long time, and was actually tagged by LE so they could track down offenders more easily.   It's possible that some of these victims have been identified, and if so, the names of victims in the material would be considered "sensitive information".

Thanks.  That is what I was wondering about/asking.

And yeah, I don’t take the Sun seriously, but they seemed to be quoting actual legal documents.

[Marshmallow World]

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I hope one of our legal experts weighs in, why would the child be referred to as the defendant?

 

I am not an attorney, but I am a career paralegal (a "degreed law professional," if you will ?), and this sentence from the Sun makes no judicial sense to me. I thought it was a line from the protective order itself, but it appears to be the Sun paraphrasing, My guess is that it's a typo, which I understand is pretty on brand for the Sun's level of journalistic integrity.

Protective orders surrounding discovery are pretty standard. I wouldn't read anything into the existence of the order. The illegal material must have directives on how it must be handled during and after the case so that it's not further disseminated or leaked to the press with victim information. The prosecution must show that the material Josh downloaded was indeed CSA imagery, and they must show the material that Josh downloaded.  My guess is that since the material is well-known in CSA criminal investigation and the children in the videos have since been identified, there needs to be a key of sorts to name the victims in the videos and describe the acts on the videos (I feel nauseous writing that), which must be in a safe place and not filed as a public document. I'm glad the protective order exists. It's surprising how easy it is to obtain information on victims in my state, although it is getting better. I would imagine that courts at the federal level have long worked out all the ways to protect victims. 

Also (and I know this is splitting hairs) I don't think that the protective order specifies that there are any child witnesses - just what the procedure would be if there were. I won't speculate on who the witnesses could be or what knowledge they could have because it would be wrong,

Just to be clear, this is just be surmising, as I only work at the state-level courts (district and juvenile) and I welcome any corrections if I am off base. 

Yikes, this put me in a bad headspace. I should probably take a break from these threads. Please enjoy this picture of a puppy (it's not mine, but it's one of my favorites):

Edited June 14, 2021 by Marshmallow World
Clarification

[metheglyn]

Emily Baker just made a quick post about the protective order, pointing out that this is related to the Discovery process and a key factor is that the wording defines "the defense team to particularly exclude Josh Duggar's family" due to "concern that this  [sensitive identifying?] information could get out". This means that Jim Bob should not have any access to information, only Josh himself and his official legal defense team.

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by metheglyn
added a bit about JB.