(Possible CSA Warning) Josh & Anna 36: Waiting for the Trial

[JermajestyDuggar]

19 minutes ago, HeartsAFundie said:

Speaking of "Beverly Hills 90210", and naming people after celebrities/fictional characters,  a co-worker of my sister's was pregnant in the early 90s at the height of 90210's popularity.  She did not know what she was having, but if it was a boy, it was going to be "Dylan McKay".  The first and middle name would both be in honor of Luke Perry's TV character.  I kid you not. 

Thankfully, she had a girl and didn't realize "Dylan" could be gender-neutral.  

Dylan McKayla for a girl 😂

[ifosterkittens]

My vision of Jim Bob on the stand if he ends up having to testify. When asked a question by the prosecutor JB replies "I do not recall", this goes on for several questions. Prosecutor then asks JB is your name JB Duggar? JB will says I do not recall, there will be a giggle from someone in the audience, a gotcha look on the prosecutor's face, defense shaking their head, pause, oh wait, yes my name is JB Duggar.

[OldFadedStar]

So, I think that the only reason a public announcement was made about My Dyson is because Anna has every intention of going to the trials to support her husband. She was seen on camera and knew there would be comments if they hadn’t announced. 
I’m so confused by Anna. I could see not wanting to leave because of all the difficulties she would have, especially knowing that there is a chance he will be in jail for years, but to actively and publically be supporting him? Ew

Edited November 19, 2021 by OldFadedStar

[EmCatlyn]

As quoted by The Sun, this is what the defense is saying in their argument to exclude the molestation scandal in the case against Josh.

Quote

The court documents continued: “If the jury were to hear about the allegations lodged against Duggar when he was a minor, an unacceptable risk exists that the jury would convict him in this case, not because the Government has proven him guilty of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but because the jury would improperly conclude that the prior allegations against Duggar somehow make it more likely that he committed the charged offenses in this case.”
 

The Sun 12/15/21

I am not a lawyer, but I can see that the judge might grant this because the judge already ruled against the “porn addiction” and Ashley Madison adultery for similar reasons.  I hope I am wrong.

My guess for the delay in the decision is that the judge doesn’t want to exclude the molestation, but the judge may feel that he has to.  The hope may be that the threat of having to testify in court may persuade JB to stop paying for Josh’s defense which would surely force Josh to plead guilty.

Maybe one of the lawyers in our group can comment on this.

 

[TuringMachine]

Duggar Data's take (who I believe has said they are a lawyer in real life)

https://duggardata.tumblr.com/post/668238269511794688/judge-calls-for-evidentiary-hearing-during-josh

Quote

The Prosecution is fighting very hard to be allowed to introduce evidence that Josh has molested underage girls in the past.

Legally, this is a very tricky issue. Evidence like this is generally inadmissible. If it’s admitted here, it will be an exception to the general rule that forbids using prior bad acts against a Defendant. The Prosecutor will have to prove that the prior bad acts evidence is truly relevant to the case at hand; they can’t simply point to past wrongs and say, “Look! He’s the type of scumbag who does stuff like this!” Putting on my lawyer hat, I believe that Josh’s prior history *might* be relevant to show that he has a deviant, sexual interest in children—and thus, would potentially be motivated to seek out CSA images.

Again, this is a tricky issue. It’s absolutely not cut–and–dry. And, even if the evidence was deemed admissible, it will likely remain contentious at trial, since the Prosecution is going to be very limited in how they can use the evidence. If the Prosecution pushes the boundary of the judge’s order, the Defense will object. A lot. As they should.

Apparently, the Prosecution is prepared to call two witnesses to testify related to the molestation. One is Jim Bob, apparently—but, the Prosecution hasn’t yet managed to serve him a subpoena. (Thinking it through, I believe the relevant information Jim Bob may have is Josh’s admission to the molestation… Which would be an exception to the hearsay rule for reasons that are too legal–y to go into.) The identity of the other witness wasn’t disclosed, but the article mentions that they’ve already been served. Duggar Data wonders if it might be one of Josh’s victims…. Pure speculation, though.

The judge didn’t decide the issue yet. They’re going to have another hearing.

 

[zee_four]

19 hours ago, Expectopatronus said:

I haven’t had body part names either and I’ ve taught kids with what I would consider awful names. In my 13 years of teaching, the worst names were often  from affluent, white familles. I’ve never understood the stereotype that stupid names are ghetto because that hasn’t been my experience. I worked retail going through university and one costumer who was lovely had the last name of Terrible. I’m sure that Terrible was probably a phonetic, anglocized version of her last name but we all commented on how much she did not suit her name. 

Absolutely agree. My name is Native Hawaiian in origin and I have taught Head Start preschool with all first generation Latine students all the way to subbing in the public school especially for private ski club kids whose parents pau $20k in tuition. They were all white ofc.

A lot of Sages, Snows, and yuppie hippie pretentiousness.

I'd say the group with the worst track record of strange names are Utah Mormons, hands down. Not just LDS, I have ohana who are LDS but Polynesian. Its specifically a white Utah Mormon culture. They started "replacing all vowels with Ys in names" trend way before it caught on in suburbia everywhere. 

TyLynn, BrynLee, LuWynn ,Briggs LeRoy, Payzlei, Zayleei, Kirtlyn, Taeber, it truly goes on forever like this. 

Gold medal to them for making what were formerly stripper names, Temple ordained and holy. (I say this as a former stripper myself)

 

 

 

 

[quiversR4hunting]

1 hour ago, Not that josh's mom said:

And it would make sense that the Kellers are in Arkansas now because the Reber Keller wedding is this weekend, I believe.

Oh please Rufus can Jim Bob please, please be served at the Reber/Keller wedding?!? 

And who will be babysitting Josh during the wedding?

[Giraffe]

3 hours ago, Howl said:

Josh and Anna holding hands, supporting him, could very well be at the direction of and orchestrated by Josh's legal team.  It's a way to influence perceptions of Josh prior to the trial.  Like, "Yes, it's a terrible crime, but he's a family man whose wife still loves him!"

I have no doubt she's been prompted by the legal team to support him. She's still a horrible person for standing by him. (You're not saying she's not, just wanted to point out she could still leave him even when all the "professionals" are telling her to stick with him)

Edited November 19, 2021 by Giraffe
Clarifying

[Mama Mia]

5 minutes ago, quiversR4hunting said:

Oh please Rufus can Jim Bob please, please be served at the Reber/Keller wedding?!? 

And who will be babysitting Josh during the wedding?

My understanding of home confinement with electronic monitoring is that generally the person isn’t required to have supervision 24/7. They can’t be living independently, especially in cases like this where there’s severe restrictions on internet usage and contact with minors — but whoever is monitoring them can leave when needed. 

[Satan'sFortress]

I'd kinda love to see Jim Bob on the stand with federal prosecutors asking hin questions. One of my least favorite JB moments was when he was soooooo smugly trying to explain why carbon dating/aging of fossils was wrong.  As if he were smarter than all of the scientists in the world. I want to see him trying to "outsmart " the prosecutors and fail, badly. 

It is beyond all comprehension that this is happening.  No plea, Anna standing by him, JB running for office, them putting the sisters through this yet again. What the actual fuck.

The only punishment that would ever satisfy me is to have JB, Michelle,  Josh,  and Anna fully realize what they have done.  I wish for a Star Trek style hologram to stick them in. And let them stay there until they truly feel the true weight of their crimes/sins/delusions. 

[Cults-r-us]

20 hours ago, Skyline said:

Weirdest name I ever heard was Osprey. Very hippy mom, had a dream about an osprey before she found out she was pregnant so naturally that is what she named the child. 

Very close second are sisters named Willow and Birch. I am terrified I'm going to mispronouncing the second girl's name one day 😬

I had a Toeknee, a Pepsi and a child called Speedy Jack on his birth certificate.

[theotherelise]

Wasn’t Josh still betrothed to Kayleigh Holt when some of the abuse happened? Maybe he would have confessed to her parents? 

Although I’m unclear where we are getting the info that Bobye Holt is the witness. 

[onekidanddone]

22 minutes ago, quiversR4hunting said:

Oh please Rufus can Jim Bob please, please be served at the Reber/Keller wedding?!? 

And who will be babysitting Josh during the wedding?

Maybe JRod?

[detroitrockcity]

10 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Maybe JRod?

She would LOVE to babysit the precious Duggar/Duggar adjacent grandchildren. Or at least say she was as her kids did all of the real work……

Edit- didn’t read the original post properly.  But she would STILL do it- allowing her kids around that POS

Edited November 19, 2021 by detroitrockcity
Not enough caffeine

[Idlewild]

JB ran an article about ‘cancel culture and his family. They are clinging to the Christian persecution argument and hope enough people believe them. 
Josh may well have been advised that having his wife support him would look good. However I think we need to stop giving Anna a pass. This is the woman that turned up in an old skirt and sweater to her brothers wedding (check the pictures of Nurie/Nathan wedding) yet here she is in a frankly glamorous dress with their matching masks (when they both normally avoid wearing them ) simpering over her depraved husband. 3 weeks post partum is the perfect excuse to don an old maternity dress and go through the motions. 
I bet Anna wishes she could be on the campaign trail with JB, since she thinks she was unfairly cancelled too. 

[TuringMachine]

35 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

JB ran an article about ‘cancel culture and his family. They are clinging to the Christian persecution argument and hope enough people believe them. 
Josh may well have been advised that having his wife support him would look good. However I think we need to stop giving Anna a pass. This is the woman that turned up in an old skirt and sweater to her brothers wedding (check the pictures of Nurie/Nathan wedding) yet here she is in a frankly glamorous dress with their matching masks (when they both normally avoid wearing them ) simpering over her depraved husband. 3 weeks post partum is the perfect excuse to don an old maternity dress and go through the motions. 
I bet Anna wishes she could be on the campaign trail with JB, since she thinks she was unfairly cancelled too. 

I mean saying it's all just a leftist attack worked for Trump even after he released the transcript of him explicitly blackmailing a foreign leader so why wouldn't it work JB? And as for Anna, yeah the attorneys might have advises them to put up a united front, but they're not the judge. If Anna didn't want to she could just not.

[EmCatlyn]

25 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

….
Josh may well have been advised that having his wife support him would look good. However I think we need to stop giving Anna a pass. This is the woman that turned up in an old skirt and sweater to her brothers wedding (check the pictures of Nurie/Nathan wedding) yet here she is in a frankly glamorous dress with their matching masks (when they both normally avoid wearing them ) simpering over her depraved husband….

I can’t make up my mind about Anna.  On the one hand, I want to shake her. On the other hand, if she truly believes that God wants her to “stand by her man,” should we blame her just because we don’t agree?

People of limited education who are brought up with very narrow beliefs can’t always overcome their indoctrination. Abused spouses, even when they have education and were not brought up to accept abuse, may have difficulty getting away.  Josh may or may not physically abuse Anna, but I am sure he is emotionally abusive.  We have seen hints of it from the beginning.

The dress she is wearing may not have been chosen by Anna.  The matching masks are a clear sign that someone else is involved.   What she wore to her brother’s wedding may have been the first thing she could get her hands on, because she was too exhausted/depressed to care about her appearance.   We don’t know.

If Anna is aware of something that Josh has physically hurt their children or his younger siblings since their marriage and she has not left him and blown the whistle on him, then she is only slightly less a monster than he is.  

However, we don’t know that she has such awareness.  We don’t know that Josh has actually hurt any minors directly.   We certainly shouldn’t assume that he has and that Anna is condoning it.

In my view, Anna is wrong to stay with Josh.  She should have left him after the Ashley Madison scandal.  She certainly should not have brought more children into that marriage.  I think almost all the choices she has made are wrong, and I definitely would not “give her a pass” if it turns out she has “looked the other way” at abuse of children.

Yet I don’t know that she has “looked the other way,” and I do believe she is herself a victim of abuse and gaslighting.  I pity her even when I hold her responsible.

It is not “giving her a pass,” to point out that her life must be horrendous. I can’t imagine how it feels to be bound for life with a man like Josh.  What is going through her mind as she goes through her days?  What can she say to her older children?  How can she drag herself to be a “supportive wife” to a man who has done what he is accused of doing?  Maybe denial is her only way to keep going.

In short, I pity the woman even when I condemn her choices.

[hauntedoklahoma]

I am not remotely sticking up for her and her life choices.

HOWEVER, in the Arkansas neck of the woods, it’s completely common to wear jeans to every single event in life. Funeral? Jeans and clean shirt. New if you’re immediate family. Wedding? Jeans and clean shirt. I know because I’m from there originally (not that it’s much different in Oklahoma, frankly). Her wearing what she wore to Nathan’s wedding doesn’t seem out of the norm at all to me. And trial clothes are carefully vetted by a defense team. She didn’t choose the dress. 

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

Maybe JRod?

Josh being stuck in a room with JRod for an indeterminate amount of time is the kind of pure universal justice that the Government can't deliver for us, but maybe by some sheer luck, Jill's total celebrity obsession could. I'm fairly sure trapping somebody with JRod is a violation of the Geneva Convention. 

[Antimony]

15 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

I can’t make up my mind about Anna.  On the one hand, I want to shake her. On the other hand, if she truly believes that God wants her to “stand by her man,” should we blame her just because we don’t agree?

People of limited education who are brought up with very narrow beliefs can’t always overcome their indoctrination. Abused spouses, even when they have education and were not brought up to accept abuse, may have difficulty getting away.  Josh may or may not physically abuse Anna, but I am sure he is emotionally abusive.  We have seen hints of it from the beginning.

The dress she is wearing may not have been chosen by Anna.  The matching masks are a clear sign that someone else is involved.   What she wore to her brother’s wedding may have been the first thing she could get her hands on, because she was too exhausted/depressed to care about her appearance.   We don’t know.

If Anna is aware of something that Josh has physically hurt their children or his younger siblings since their marriage and she has not left him and blown the whistle on him, then she is only slightly less a monster than he is.  

However, we don’t know that she has such awareness.  We don’t know that Josh has actually hurt any minors directly.   We certainly shouldn’t assume that he has and that Anna is condoning it.

In my view, Anna is wrong to stay with Josh.  She should have left him after the Ashley Madison scandal.  She certainly should not have brought more children into that marriage.  I think almost all the choices she has made are wrong, and I definitely would not “give her a pass” if it turns out she has “looked the other way” at abuse of children.

Yet I don’t know that she has “looked the other way,” and I do believe she is herself a victim of abuse and gaslighting.  I pity her even when I hold her responsible.

It is not “giving her a pass,” to point out that her life must be horrendous. I can’t imagine how it feels to be bound for life with a man like Josh.  What is going through her mind as she goes through her days?  What can she say to her older children?  How can she drag herself to be a “supportive wife” to a man who has done what he is accused of doing?  Maybe denial is her only way to keep going.

In short, I pity the woman even when I condemn her choices.

Always really level takes!

I've been thinking a lot lately that nobody, not even Josh, is at their worst all of the time. When my grandfather* died, his relationship with my grandmother was strained a bit. Maybe old age makes you meaner, and pain certainly can. I knew this, so it took me way longer than it should have to wrap my head around the complexity of her grief (neurodivergence? Who knows!) but I expressed this to my partner and he was like, "Look, Antimony, they were together for over 60 years. He wasn't at his worst for all of that, and even if he was, that's the only person who has always been around for her."

Josh's best is probably pretty trash, but he likely isn't his worst self to Anna most of the time. It could be hard for her to see it on that fact alone and the religious stuff just makes it harder and harder to see. I also think from a strategic perspective, and a survival perspective, what she's doing makes practical sense even if it's immoral. Stand by Josh, hope he'll get off, and try everything in your power and you can keep your husband. If you can't, you get in-group (cult) approval and a free Husband Removal Service that maybe she'll like more than she expects. If she leaves now, she's on her own and would be media hounded and cut off from her community. Anna probably does have her own bank account (since it seems like Josh likes to hide assets in her name) but she has none of her own job skills, no real resume to speak of, and no real sense for how to navigate as a single adult.

*A man I love dearly but you know, people are complex. Sometimes they can feel like completely different people. My great-grandfather was a Fire-and-Brimstone preacher who would have fit right in with the Duggar ilk, so you can imagine the type of psychic damage that could have done to my grandfather even as he rejected all of it.

[Aithuia]

6 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I'm here for the Josh news, but I wanted to comment on the name discussion.

Giving kids names like "Sir," "Queen," "King," etc. actually has roots in black culture since at least the beginning of the 20th century, and comes from how they were constantly disrespected by the white community and denied the same forms of respectful address that white people would give each other. Black men were often addressed only by their first name, for instance, not as "Mr. [Surname]." Giving your son a name like Sir was a way to ensure that white people would have to use a respectful term to address him.

Personally, I don't find it obnoxious at all when you consider the history behind names like that.

@Rachel333 I didn't know that, and I appreciate your including it here. In the case I mentioned, I don't know if the family in question was Black. I'm almost certain the mother was Filipino, since the church we attended at the time had a strong connection to the local Filipino community, which the mother was very involved in. They may also have been Black. 

Regardless, knowing about that tradition definitely changes my perspective overall. My intention was not to mock the naming practices of any culture or group, but I should have been clearer and more careful. 

Why I mentioned that example was not the names themselves, which I have no opinion on. I would have thought it totally understandable, say, for someone to be named Precious or Queen because to her parents she was precious and she was "the queen of their heart" or whatnot. I've met people named similarly for such a purpose. Nor was I making a point about a race or culture, since all cultures have traditions with significance only to them, and I also didn't think this choice was representative of any specific one. What I was focused on was the specific reason the individual involved gave for picking the name. I had never heard anything like that reason before, and when I learned of it I found it off-putting. By contrast, the tradition @Rachel333 described seems like an ingenious and beautiful way of showing pride in one's community and defying the systemic racism of the US.

(My apologies for being off topic at this point in the thread and too wordy, but I'm grateful to have learned that history, and thus a different way to see something.)

[AussieKrissy]

10 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

So I have a question for anyone that cares to answer. Will Josh testify? If he is going to claim SODDI, who else would testify to that? It would have to be Josh wouldn't it? Does the defense have any other witnesses? Or will they just question the witnesses that the prosecution calls to the stand and then rest their case? I am a bit confused (as usual).

What soddi? 

[Antimony]

4 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

What soddi? 

Some Other Dude Did It

[AussieKrissy]

9 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I'm here for the Josh news, but I wanted to comment on the name discussion.

Giving kids names like "Sir," "Queen," "King," etc. actually has roots in black culture since at least the beginning of the 20th century, and comes from how they were constantly disrespected by the white community and denied the same forms of respectful address that white people would give each other. Black men were often addressed only by their first name, for instance, not as "Mr. [Surname]." Giving your son a name like Sir was a way to ensure that white people would have to use a respectful term to address him.

Personally, I don't find it obnoxious at all when you consider the history behind names like that.

I think I knew this because I’m sure I read something similar when Beyoncé had her twins and named one Sir. Personally not a name for me but I understand the cultural importance. 

2 minutes ago, Antimony said:

Some Other Dude Did It

Poor Josiah. I really reckon they are gun it at him. Cheers for that too. 

[So-Virgin-It-Hurts]

Question for the group: At the time of the molestations of the sisters and the other girl, isn't it known that Josh was made to confess / testify to the church congregation? Pondering this, I guess the source was the YouTube audios associated with "I Pray You Put This Journal Away" or something like that. If true, what prevents church members during that time period from being interviewed and subsequently subpoenaed? 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by nelliebelle1197
Removed victim speculation