(Possible CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 35: Embattled in Spiritual Warfare!

[nolongerIFBx]

On 10/16/2021 at 6:21 PM, Bluebirdbluebell said:

She has to right to make her own decisions, but her reasoning isn't sound. It's based on false information.

https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2006/PSCF9-06Sullivan.pdf The science is that they can't prove/disprove that the thinning of the endometrium has the potential to cause a breakthrough conception to unsuccessfully implant. And, yes, this is an article published in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith but is known for its non-doctrinal focus and it references other non-faith-related medical journals such as The Archives of Family Medicine, an official publication of the American Medical Association from 1992 through 2000.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10693729/- This article evaluates the available evidence for the postfertilization effects of oral contraceptives and concludes that good evidence exists to support the hypothesis that the effectiveness of oral contraceptives depends to some degree on postfertilization effects. However, there are insufficient data to quantitate the relative contribution of postfertilization effects. Despite the lack of quantitative data, the principles of informed consent suggest that patients who may object to any postfertilization loss should be made aware of this information so that they can give fully informed consent for the use of oral contraceptives.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by nolongerIFBx
hadn't looked over the article in a few years and forgot it was in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith so had to look up the article in Archives of Family Medicine that inspired the article in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.

[gustava]

Does anyone have an estimate of how much this is costing JB?  Wouldn't a substantial upfront retainer been required, and another if it goes to trial?

[Idlewild]

The Rebers are in thrall to JB- why else would you give your house over to a man you apparently hardly know, who is accused of despicable crimes meaning your daughter’s career is disrupted and jeopardised? I doubt they’d ever report anything without checking in with JB first- that’s why they were put forward.

[Alisamer]

I hope JB is planning to give the Rebers' daughter a really nice wedding present. 

I still wonder if the Rebers truly realized they were going to be hosting/babysitting Josh for months and months. I would expect JB probably told them Josh was innocent, it was all a misunderstanding, and can you let him live in your spare room just while we get this mixup sorted out? I'm sure the judge was more specific with them, but if they truly believed that this wasn't that big a deal, they could still have been a little surprised. I think they, along with most of the Duggar clan, still don't quite get what the big deal is.

[Howl]

Never forget that Mrs. Reber did the submissive fundie wife version of "on hell no, f**k no, over my dead body" when asked if it was OK for them to host an accused pedophile in their home, when Ms. Reber and Josh would be in the house alone for many, most, all of the hours Mr. Reber was at work (all day probably from 7 am to 6 pm or so) and was probably responsible for feeding his smug face three square meals a day.   Her wishes, of course, were 100% ignored. 

You can bet she's quietly counting down the seconds until she see's Josh's ass leaving their driveway for good. 

[Cheetah]

Wouldn't it be something if Anna had the baby today or tomorrow while they are trying to decide whether to take the plea bargain.  

[fundiewatch]

I really feel like Josh is eating frozen meals in the mother in law suite, and that the Rebers have little contact with him. 

[Alisamer]

55 minutes ago, Cheetah said:

Wouldn't it be something if Anna had the baby today or tomorrow while they are trying to decide whether to take the plea bargain.  

Hey, it could be like flipping a coin! Baby born in the AM hours, take the plea. Baby born in the PM hours, go to trial. 

Not really, because they'd probably end up blaming the baby if they made the "wrong" choice. Though at this point it's looking more and more like plea deal conviction or trial conviction. But you can never tell with juries, so maybe they're hoping a radiant softly weeping Anna sitting in the courtroom cradling her infant while looking lovingly on at her poor, satan-besieged husband will sway the jury in favor of leniency. 

Me, as a juror, even if I'd never heard of the Duggars... I'd probably be like "he was watching a video of WHAT now? And he has how many kids? Around the same ages as the kids in the video? Lock him up!"

[Snarkasarus Rex]

7 minutes ago, Cheetah said:

Wouldn't it be something if Anna had the baby today or tomorrow while they are trying to decide whether to take the plea bargain.  

His plea, if he takes one, was due yesterday, so it’s a done deal at this point. We just won’t know about it until it’s filed (deadline is tomorrow) or there is a hearing scheduled.

Or if there is no change in plea, grab a beverage of choice and start the popcorn…

[Jess]

5 hours ago, gustava said:

Does anyone have an estimate of how much this is costing JB?  Wouldn't a substantial upfront retainer been required, and another if it goes to trial?

A lot. Every motion adds up. I have no idea how much his lawyer charges an hour or how much boilerplate their office already has, but he has to be in the tens of thousands. 

1 hour ago, Snarkasarus Rex said:

His plea, if he takes one, was due yesterday, so it’s a done deal at this point. We just won’t know about it until it’s filed (deadline is tomorrow) or there is a hearing scheduled.

Or if there is no change in plea, grab a beverage of choice and start the popcorn…

The judge really is very unlikely to say he can’t take a plea deal later. People take plea deals very late in the process all the time. I wouldn’t really be convinced he will see a trial until opening arguments. Some people really just don’t grasp the reality of this is happening to them until they see a jury pool. The judge just wants to try and prevent wasting time by setting this date, but I wouldn’t take it as firm as some people seem to think. 

[ifosterkittens]

20 minutes ago, Jess said:

The judge really is very unlikely to say he can’t take a plea deal later. People take plea deals very late in the process all the time. I wouldn’t really be convinced he will see a trial until opening arguments. Some people really just don’t grasp the reality of this is happening to them until they see a jury pool. The judge just wants to try and prevent wasting time by setting this date, but I wouldn’t take it as firm as some people seem to think. 

Emily D Baker covered the judge's rulings in Josh Duggar's case today on Coffee and Cursey Words. She pulled up the plea schedule, if Josh chooses not to notify court of change of plea by Oct 18, and submit signed plea by Oct 20 he can do an "open" plea after Oct 18, unless the court grants an exception. Exceptions must be submitted in writing at least 10 days prior to trial. An "open" plea means no deal would be on the table. 

My speculation (Emily did not say this), but the judge seems to have had it with Josh and his lawyer's nonsense, so I doubt Josh and his attorneys would think an open plea would be in Josh's benefit. 

[Bobology]

15 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

peodophiles are crafty. It isn’t just about sexual penetration it’s about power. 
controlling children bending them to their will grooming them to respond the way they want Unnoticed by others can be enough to get them off and violate children. 
 

Oh my goodness, this sums up JB's "parenting" method, minus the violating children part. It has never been suggested, nor am I hinting, that JB has ever violated any child sexually.

Whether or not Josh was born for his behavior, he absolutely could have learned all the things you listed from his dad alone. And JB always brags (maybe it's Michelle bragging, I don't know) about his, JB's, way being so great.

[luv2laugh]

I don't see any way of JB having Josh plea guilty to this crime after spending loads of money. I believe he'd see a son pleading guilty to this as more of a smear to his Christian reputation than negative news media coverage over a trial.  They prefer the persecuted Christian act. When/"if" he goes to jail, I wonder if they will do the persecuted act or remain silent and in a few years, say that Josh has repented and is forgiven. Although, the persecuted act might not go over well even with other fundies. This is a crime that crosses the line for them too.

I'm guessing that JB has been paying to consult with legal counsel for himself as well, just to advise him on "the brand".

Edited October 20, 2021 by luv2laugh

[byzant]

Please don't speculate or make statements implying named underage children(removed name)  have been victims of  sexual abuse of minors. That's majorly not ok. 

We can talk about his actual crimes without implying children who were not involved in any of this have been abused on camera

Edited October 20, 2021 by byzant
Autocorrect named to nude

[QuiverFullofBooks]

7 hours ago, Idlewild said:

The Rebers are in thrall to JB- why else would you give your house over to a man you apparently hardly know, who is accused of despicable crimes meaning your daughter’s career is disrupted and jeopardised? I doubt they’d ever report anything without checking in with JB first- that’s why they were put forward.

You do know that the Rebers’ daughter is engaged (or practically engaged) to Anna’s brother? 

[Grandma D]

34 minutes ago, byzant said:

Please don't speculate or make statements implying naked  underage children (Name redacted) have been victums of  sexual abuse of minors. That's majorly not ok. 

 

We can talk about his actual crimes without implying children who were not involved in any of this have been abused on camera

I'm just saying what I saw happen on a video put out by the Duggars, responding to the other poster"s comment. Let's not sugar coat what Josh is. And the person who put up.the video noted the same thing saying what hypocrites the Duggars are because they said one of their safety measures was no little girls sitting on boys laps. This video proved them to be liars. I did not say anyone was naked or abused. Just saying what I saw and the hypocrisy of it related to this case.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Alisamer
Removing name of child

[EmCatlyn]

13 hours ago, Hazelbunny said:

My best friend (and her sisters) were molested by her father from very early childhood to early teens and my friend hates her mother more for not doing anything about it and leaving her children in his presence than she hates her father for doing it. He doesn't admit any guilt, just claiming "the devil" made him do it. Yes  fundie family. All the children are now Atheists. My friend confided in me a few years ago - I knew she was in therapy, but I didnt know why. We were on the phone for hours and I spent the rest of that night alternately crying and throwing up. 

So those chidren could end up resenting Anna more than their father some day... 

To the bolded:  this is incredibly unfair and it suggests that your friend may not have entirely overcome the training that gives a “pass” to men but puts a great burden on women.  Two parents knew those kids were being abused but only one of them was doing the abuse.  The one who deserves the greater resentment is the abuser, not the parent who failed to protect the children from abuse. (Both, of course, are to blame, and if she blamed them equally, I’d say, “okay.”)

The thing is we expect so much of mothers.  We have much less tolerance for the mistakes mothers make than the mistakes fathers make. (I am speaking generally here of the kinds of mistakes any parent can make — not abuse.)  Kids pick up on that expectation that mothers must be all-wise and near-perfect, and when mothers fail, kids are much harder on them.

I don’t know what your friend’s mother’s situation was, but I would guess that Anna’s children might blame her for being a doormat and for having so many children. (Let us continue to hope that they have nothing worse to blame her for.)  Yet is Anna more to blame than others in their lives?

As I have said before, Anna should be held responsible for the way her choices have impacted her children’s lives.  However, it would be very sad if she were blamed more than Josh (whose really bad choices have messed up all their lives) or JB and Michelle who also share responsibility.

[byzant]

12 minutes ago, Grandma D said:

I'm just saying what I saw happen on a video put out by the Duggars, responding to the other poster"s comment. Let's not sugar coat what Josh is. And the person who put up.the video noted the same thing saying what hypocrites the Duggars are because they said one of their safety measures was no little girls sitting on boys laps. This video proved them to be liars. 

Im happy to talk about sexual offenders, pedophilia,  recidivism , programs , punishment, rehabilitation and the evidence around success or failure. Also what safety precautions people take 

It's not ok for you to allege (redacted child named ) has been sexually abused by her brother based on speculation on a video which doesn't from what you say show sexual assault . And I believe breaks the rules about speculating about sexual abuse of minors who have not made their abuse public. 

 

you are literally publishing speculation about the abuse of a prepubescent child- why?  what does that add to the discussion. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by byzant
Spelling goes when cross

[Grandma D]

24 minutes ago, byzant said:

Im happy to talk about sexual offenders, pedophilia,  recidivism , programs , punishment, rehabilitation and the evidence around success or failure. Also what safety precautions people take 

It's not ok for you to allege (name redacted) has been sexually abused by her brother based on speculation on a video. And I believe breaks the rules about speculating about sexual abuse of minors who have not made their abuse public. 

 

you are literally publishing speculation about the abuse of a prepubescent child- why?  what does that add to the discussion. 

Ok fair enough. I edited my response to remove the name. Thanks for your concern.

Edited October 20, 2021 by Alisamer
Removing name

[byzant]

8 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

To the bolded:  this is incredibly unfair and it suggests that your friend may not have entirely overcome the training that gives a “pass” to men but puts a great burden on women.  Two parents knew those kids were being abused but only one of them was doing the abuse.  The one who deserves the greater resentment is the abuser, not the parent who failed to protect the children from abuse. (Both, of course, are to blame, and if she blamed them equally, I’d say, “okay.”)

The thing is we expect so much of mothers.  We have much less tolerance for the mistakes mothers make than the mistakes fathers make. (I am speaking generally here of the kinds of mistakes any parent can make — not abuse.)  Kids pick up on that expectation that mothers must be all-wise and near-perfect, and when mothers fail, kids are much harder on them.

I don’t know what your friend’s mother’s situation was, but I would guess that Anna’s children might blame her for being a doormat and for having so many children. (Let us continue to hope that they have nothing worse to blame her for.)  Yet is Anna more to blame than others in their lives?

As I have said before, Anna should be held responsible for the way her choices have impacted her children’s lives.  However, it would be very sad if she were blamed more than Josh (whose really bad choices have messed up all their lives) or JB and Michelle who also share responsibility.

That's an excellent point. There's some interesting research from folks who work with non offending parents about the fact the parents  feel guilty for not being super human. That they couldn't kind read/leave their abuser/protect their children ect. When in survival mode often we neglect ourselves and others to try to get through Alive

 

I'm not saying it applies to Anna who by all accounts had knowledge and has continued to bring more children into the situation but I do think it's hard to imagine 

Edited October 20, 2021 by byzant
G

[VeryNikeSeamstress]

How has Anna not had that baby yet?!

[Dandruff]

39 minutes ago, VeryNikeSeamstress said:

How has Anna not had that baby yet?!

My guess is she has.  I don't see anything they have to gain by announcing the birth. 

[ToriAmos]

I think she has too. Can't think how they would announce it, or who would. It's not likely to be up on the Duggar blog, and Anna's not going to say anything.

[Idlewild]

5 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

You do know that the Rebers’ daughter is engaged (or practically engaged) to Anna’s brother? 

Yes- but this seems to have come about since Josh moved in. At the bail hearing Reber claimed the Duggar family were acquaintances from church- it would surely have been salient if his daughter was in a relationship with Josh’s brother in law.

[indianabones]

3 hours ago, VeryNikeSeamstress said:

How has Anna not had that baby yet?!

Duggar Data made the "extremely speculative" (their words) prediction that Anna is due November 20th. Once we're past that date and nothing has been announced, I'm going to assume she's had the baby.