Jump to content
IGNORED

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


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I would like to respectfully ask that some form of the content warning be put back on this thread. Yes, it was upsetting, but it was good reminder that the content here can be upsetting. Right now this thread is fairly innocuous, which makes it worse, because someday I click here absentmindedly and people will be discussing child sexual abuse in graphic detail.

OK I made a minor change so there's still a CW on this thread, but without the triggering words spelled out. I actuallly typed (CW: Josh Duggar) but chickened out. 

Honestly there shouldn't be graphic discussion of child sexual abuse in this thread, and anything remotely graphic I would hope would be hidden under a spoiler anyway. And the moment something graphic is seen by any Helpmeet the warning would be reinstated anyway.

 I hope this compromise works for now? 

Edited by Alisamer
clarity
  • Upvote 19
  • I Agree 2
  • Thank You 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don’t think any form of graphic description or visual has a place here? That’s kind of bordering the not so grey area in my opinion.

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, just_ordinary said:

I actually don’t think any form of graphic description or visual has a place here? That’s kind of bordering the not so grey area in my opinion.

I agree. There might be links to trial documents with graphic descriptions, but no need for anything truly graphic here IMO. 

Things don't need to be graphic to be triggering though, so I'm hoping this warning as it is will work for as many people as possible without triggering anyone itself, and suggest using the spoiler boxes if you post anything you think might be triggering.

(FYI: I'm learning to be a Helpmeet - not the Debi Pearl kind - and am trying not to screw things up!)

  • Upvote 23
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HereComesTreble said:

Honestly, I'm shocked that a judge would even consider letting Josh have visitation, even supervised, with the M-kids. 

In college, I interned for social services organizations. It seemed to be standard practice to keep people charged with crimes against children away from children. Even if the person charged was found not guilty in criminal court; CPS was usually involved afterwards, to a point. 

How on earth a court could know the charges against Josh, read the warrants, know his history--and still allow him to spend time with the kids--with his wife as supervisor--is insane to me.  Insane and reckless.

 

Side note, I couldn't handle working in social services. God bless anyone who can. Traumatizing, frustrating, exhausting work--for less money than I made waiting tables.  

So far, Josh has only been accused of possessing/ sharing CSA porn.  This is classified as “non-contact.”  

Just as everyone who enjoys regular porn does not imitate the things enacted in the porn, not everyone who watches CSA is going to molest children in his/her environment.

The main reason that possessing/sharing CSA porn is treated as a crime against children even though there is no contact between the children in the videos and the viewer is that the viewer is the market for whom these children are victimize. So even if there is no contact, Josh is participating/complicit in the abuse.  (An analogy would be the person who pays to have a murder committed—he doesn’t kill anyone directly but is responsible for the crime.)

In other words, the court recognizes that Josh may not be a danger to the kids he comes in contact with.  Because his danger to other kids can’t be assumed, the court lets his kids visit him under supervision, not just because as a father he has rights but because it is presumed (and was probably argued) that the kids would miss him.

We who know he molested some of his sisters when he was a teenager may feel that there is a strong possibility that he might molest a child in his environment, but the court can’t take that into account. No charges were brought and he was a minor at the time anyway.

Ideally, the state social services are keeping an eye on Josh and the children have probably been interviewed with no indication that Josh poses a danger. More may come out as time passes.

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 1
  • Thank You 8
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alisamer said:

OK I made a minor change so there's still a CW on this thread, but without the triggering words spelled out. I actuallly typed (CW: Josh Duggar) but chickened out. 

Honestly there shouldn't be graphic discussion of child sexual abuse in this thread, and anything remotely graphic I would hope would be hidden under a spoiler anyway. And the moment something graphic is seen by any Helpmeet the warning would be reinstated anyway.

 I hope this compromise works for now? 

I think this works fine. It's there for those that need it, but for those of us triggered by the words spelled out, it's not so bad. 

Thank you. 

  • Upvote 5
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2021 at 5:27 PM, CarrotCake said:

The unshaven look only works well if you do keep up with the edges and keep it all on similar length. You can say a lot about Jeremy but he keeps nice clean 'beard-lines'. According to my husband, having a short beard is way more shaving work than having no beard at all.

 

I concur older age hormones have given me a short beard and it’s way more plucking/fucking work than when I had no beard at all ba ha ha ha 

  • Upvote 6
  • Haha 20
  • Love 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

So far, Josh has only been accused of possessing/ sharing CSA porn.  This is classified as “non-contact.”  

Just as everyone who enjoys regular porn does not imitate the things enacted in the porn, not everyone who watches CSA is going to molest children in his/her environment.

The main reason that possessing/sharing CSA porn is treated as a crime against children even though there is no contact between the children in the videos and the viewer is that the viewer is the market for whom these children are victimize. So even if there is no contact, Josh is participating/complicit in the abuse.  (An analogy would be the person who pays to have a murder committed—he doesn’t kill anyone directly but is responsible for the crime.)

In other words, the court recognizes that Josh may not be a danger to the kids he comes in contact with.  Because his danger to other kids can’t be assumed, the court lets his kids visit him under supervision, not just because as a father he has rights but because it is presumed (and was probably argued) that the kids would miss him.

We who know he molested some of his sisters when he was a teenager may feel that there is a strong possibility that he might molest a child in his environment, but the court can’t take that into account. No charges were brought and he was a minor at the time anyway.

Ideally, the state social services are keeping an eye on Josh and the children have probably been interviewed with no indication that Josh poses a danger. More may come out as time passes.

Are social services allowed to keep in mind his history of abuse even though it wasn’t prosecuted? Since it’s basically public record?

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that Matthew Waller is a witness ( witness 1 or 3)

Another person called Randall Barry is a witness  (probably 1 as Witness 1 admitted to watching adult porn  and also sleeping overnight at the car lot- sounds like an ex employee)

Witness 2 was in jail at the time of the car lot raid.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Waller household just now as Priscilla and David attempt to reason this through- who is Josh putting the blame on ( apart from Satan)

 

  • Upvote 8
  • Thank You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, closetcagebaby said:

Are social services allowed to keep in mind his history of abuse even though it wasn’t prosecuted? Since it’s basically public record?

As far as I know, social services is concerned with the current situation.  They would question the kids, observe family dynamics, etc.

The “history of abuse” may be something they consider when investigating, but it would not be a valid reason, by itself, to limit visitation.  This is not just because “it wasn’t prosecuted,” but because Josh was a minor and it all happened long ago.

(Consider an analogous situation: Pete stole money from the library club fund when he was in 9th grade. Should that keep him from getting a job with an accounting firm when he is 30?)

My guess is that any social services investigation would focus on determining if Josh has behaved inappropriately with minors since he became a legal adult —with a focus on the last 10 years or so.  If they don’t get any “warning bells,” they may conclude that Josh does not pose a risk to kids.

  • Upvote 9
  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Sops2 said:

We know that Matthew Waller is a witness ( witness 1 or 3)

Another person called Randall Barry is a witness  (probably 1 as Witness 1 admitted to watching adult porn  and also sleeping overnight at the car lot- sounds like an ex employee)

Witness 2 was in jail at the time of the car lot raid.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the Waller household just now as Priscilla and David attempt to reason this through- who is Josh putting the blame on ( apart from Satan)

 

I've gotten confused over whether these are prosecution or defense witnesses.  What are they expected to testify to?

  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they must be witnesses for the prosecution but I'm really not clear about this. 

One of Josh's argumements that the case should be dismissed was that the Government failed to use investigators with enough expert skill to find evidence which may have been on the phones of the 3 witnesses. Evidence that would have shown he was not to blame.

No child pornography was found on any of the 3 phones. The phones of witnesses 2 and 3 were returned to them with no evidence taken.

  • Upvote 4
  • Thank You 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Article linked via Fundie Wonderland FB page:

https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/josh-duggar-news-police-allegedly-tried-downloading-illegal-files-off-devices-169-times-17-hours.html/?fbclid=IwAR02CHcGX886-oN7zK1rsjjIuQ7kXBBZP1lLyb5z33S_EEzJLXMWoA9sN80

Any legal types familiar with the "Franks Hearing" requested by defense?  Any chance an investigator lied to get a warrant?  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2021 at 12:25 PM, HereComesTreble said:

Honestly, I'm shocked that a judge would even consider letting Josh have visitation, even supervised, with the M-kids. 

In college, I interned for social services organizations. It seemed to be standard practice to keep people charged with crimes against children away from children. Even if the person charged was found not guilty in criminal court; CPS was usually involved afterwards, to a point. 

How on earth a court could know the charges against Josh, read the warrants, know his history--and still allow him to spend time with the kids--with his wife as supervisor--is insane to me.  Insane and reckless.

 

Side note, I couldn't handle working in social services. God bless anyone who can. Traumatizing, frustrating, exhausting work--for less money than I made waiting tables.  

I think it changes state to state as well. In my State, SO's are allowed to have visitation with their children, as long as said child is not their victim, and they are supervised. We have some SO's who are actually living in the home with their spouse and kids. 

  • Upvote 2
  • WTF 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Emily D Baker didn't cover Josh Duggar on Coffee and Cursey words today other than to say his motions were denied. The defense asked for a Franks hearing on Motion 37 (the one motion not denied). Do anyone know are we waiting for the judge to rule yes or no to a Franks hearing, or has that decision been made and there will be a hearing? If there is going to be a Franks hearing will it happen and conclude before October 18 (the last day to notify the judge as to change of plea)? 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ms Lucy Fur said:

Has anybody called Mercy as the name of M7?

Many people have. 😀

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marmalade said:

Many people have. 😀

I seem to remember “Mercy” was suggested for the M that Anna was pregnant with during the previous scandal.   I guess Anna just doesn’t like our suggestions. 😉

  • Upvote 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full transcript for the bond hearing has been released and there are further details. Many are very, very upsetting so I think holding onto the CW/TW was a good option. The reddit has a scrubbed summary. We learned further that Josh is really bad at covering his tracks. 

Notably, in between file downloads (!?!? he's so casual in this timeline), he leaves a reviewer for a contractor under the name "Joshua". He also bookmarked a webpage about TOR. The previous summaries we had were pretty detailed, but the transcript just makes the government's case seem stronger than we already knew. 

  • Upvote 4
  • Thank You 33
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today, the Feds also filed a request for the defense to release names, addresses, and phone numbers of any/all people Smuggar plans to use as alibis for the two day period in question. He has 14 days to produce this list. Keep in mind that 14 days from today surpasses the final date for a plea deal (10/18). 

  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 24
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 11:59 PM, Ms Lucy Fur said:

Has anybody called Mercy as the name of M7?

They are probably thinking Miracle hoping he's going to get away with it. 

  • Upvote 6
  • Disgust 1
  • Eyeroll 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Nike said:

They are probably thinking Miracle hoping he's going to get away with it. 

Feeling extra bitchy today: Miracle Myracle (fixed that for you)

  • Upvote 12
  • Haha 22
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps one named after dad's soon-to-be new residence? Medium-security Prison Duggar?

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 21
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.