(CW: Possible CSA) Josh & Anna 37: Saving the Cocktail Dresses for Court

[iFlunkedAWANA]

Ah, the good old "I don't recall" excuse.  My perpetrator also used this line for our sexual assault case.  And it worked for him - as a Criminology major and cop, he knew what legal jargon to use in order to get away with a crime.  But Jim Bob is just plain arrogant and stupid - there's so much PUBLIC evidence of him "recalling" what his son did to Jane Does 1-4.  The 2006 police report, his 2015 interview with Megyn Kelly, and he and Michelle's joint statement following In Touch's publication of Josh's crimes (May 2015, I believe).  I don't know if the judge would go after JB for lying under oath, but we can only hope...

I was so angry to read that Jim Bob didn't "recall" his son's crimes, therefore dismissing the 4 victims.  What an absolute pig and POS of a father.

[EvilAthiest]

I can only imagine how it makes the victims feel to know that their father swore on a Bible that he could not recall exactly what Josh admitted doing to them.  As though it didn’t even matter what Josh did to them.  His priority is to help Josh.  What a horrible person and father JimBob is.

[artdecades]

Is there any good summary of the bobye and Jim bob testimony? This is all moving so fast. 

[iFlunkedAWANA]

16 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

No speculation about any victims, but does anyone really believe the incidents we know about are the extent of Josh's crimes against girls? Given the nature of their "church" and how they operated, I think it's not a stretch to imagine there are other victims out there. We only know about the things he didn't get away with. Well, partially didn't get away with. 

I hope someone is writing a book about this.

With sexual predators, there are ALWAYS other victims out there.  The ones who report/are known of, are just the tip of the ice berg.  I've had extensive sexual assault reporting training for my job, and this is one of the arguments used to encourage potential unknown victims to report - that there are more of you out there, and if the perp is not reported/caught/stopped, they will continue to add more victims to their roster. 

It doesn't matter what environment the perp is in, but places of worship and other places where trust is built/isolation of victims is easier, removes barriers for the perp's preying.  You see this in Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Amish, Evangelicals, Mormons, etc.  It's about preying on trusting and vulnerable populations.

[Iamtheway]

Why would Jed be on the witness list? He was four or younger when the molestations happened and I can’t imagine him and Josh being close enough for Josh to confess something to him. 
Did he work at the car lot? Is it possible he saw something? Or do the prosecution just think it’s a bonus to make the Duggars with political ambitions make fools of themselves on the stand?

[Smee]

8 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Is there any good summary of the bobye and Jim bob testimony? This is all moving so fast. 

https://www.nwahomepage.com/northwest-arkansas-news/josh-duggar-trial-judge-to-rule-tuesday-on-allowing-testimony-about-duggars-prior-allegations/amp/ Posted up thread 

[iFlunkedAWANA]

2 minutes ago, artdecades said:

Is there any good summary of the bobye and Jim bob testimony? This is all moving so fast. 

Basically, Jim Bob claimed in court he doesn't "recall" anything that Josh confessed to him in 2002 and 2003, other than Josh admitting touching his sisters over their clothes.  He also tried to tell the judge what to do (JB didn't like that the police report had InTouch Magazine watermarks on it/didn't like they were using a tabloid); the judge basically smacked him down.  He also tried to get Bobye Holt's testimony removed/deemed inadmissible, arguing that she was clergy (confessions to clergy are typically exempt from use in legal cases, from what I understand).  

Bobye Holt went into great detail about what Josh confessed to her and her husband.  She explained that Josh and her daughter had dated from 2002-2003 and that it was broken off in March 2003 after JB and Michelle called Bobye and Jim Holt to their house to have Josh confess touching his sisters over their clothes, including an incident that had just occurred that day (I believe it was March 30th, 2003).  What the Holts were not told at the time was that Josh had been caught (by some of his siblings) digitally penetrating Jane Doe 4 (who was 5 years old at the time) during story time or Bible study.  Bobye Holt told the court that she was not informed of these more graphic details until Josh came to live with her family in 2005 and confessed this more serious incident to her.  She broke down in court, according to one of the articles, when she repeated what Josh had told her about digitally penetrating a 5-year-old.  She also stated that in 2005, after Josh confessed this to her, she attempted to tell JB and Michelle, but they "did not want to hear it".  She said a lit bit more about JB and Michelle trying to cover up Josh's crimes, and implied that she and Mr. Holt (I'm confusing myself with all these Jim's) stopped being friends with the Duggars either after that incident or the 2003 incident, and previous to that, had been "best friends", skiing together and such.  

Oh and she also said Josh had confessed to molesting his victims since he was 12, not 13 or 14, and continued on until at least age 15.  This means he started molesting in 2000 or early 2001, given that he was born in March 1988, and continued through 2003.  That we know of...

 

Here's an article about her testimony.  I hope the link works - this is my first day posting on FJ.  I know it's People Magazine, but I thought the article was still decent:

Duggar Best Friend Testifies When Josh Duggar Admitted Molesting Girls | PEOPLE.com

[mpheels]

3 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

If Jill testifies, I hope it is 100% of her own volition.  She is hella courageous. 

At the time of Josh Duggar's molestation crimes, Joy was basically Jill's own baby, and the first of her buddy team. She must have felt bad being molested by Josh Duggar, but 1,000 worse that he molested " her" baby. 

Jill’s testimony (if called) can be as simple as reading out loud from the police report where she was quoted as a child, and confirming that the report is consistent with her recollection of events. The only purpose is to introduce the evidence that downloading CSA materials is consistent with Josh’s established behaviors, counter to any defense assertion that he’s an upstanding family man who would never. The don’t have to go into details, just establish to the jury that Josh was showing signs of CSA when he was a teenager.

editing to add… this is why JB’s testimony is especially shitty. The prosecution was probably doing everything to avoid calling Josh’s victims. All JB had to do was look at the police report and say yes, it’s consistent with his recollection. He can’t say it’s inconsistent - that would mean he lied then or is lying now. He can only fail to recall, and in doing so he dragged his former favorite daughter into the mess. Hopefully the defense will decide against the “good guy” argument, so Jill never has to step foot in the courtroom.

27 minutes ago, Iamtheway said:

Why would Jed be on the witness list? He was four or younger when the molestations happened and I can’t imagine him and Josh being close enough for Josh to confess something to him. 
Did he work at the car lot? Is it possible he saw something? Or do the prosecution just think it’s a bonus to make the Duggars with political ambitions make fools of themselves on the stand?

Jed could simply be there to provide testimony establishing Josh’s whereabouts relative to the timeline for the CSA downloads. Something like dropping a car off at a certain time/date, or receiving a text from Josh mentioning that he was at the car lot alone.

Edited November 30, 2021 by mpheels
More thoughts

[AprilQuilt]

34 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

What really pisses me off about JBs testimony is his “I don’t remember if he said the vaginal area, or just the breasts” that doesn’t ring remotely true. I’d believe him more if he said “Josh didn’t confess to anything other than over the clothes, or anything except x, y, z” but to not remember that very significant portion? No. Absolutely not.

 

yes, totally. It's not just a case of not recalling the specific words your son used 18 years ago, it's a case of not recalling what was done to your very young daughters. 

If I heard that my child had been sexually assaulted, I have zero doubt that the details would be engrained in my mind FOREVER and I would never ever forget them. Never.

How he can be OK with denying their experience blows my mind. I can't imagine what Josh's victims are feeling at the moment - whether they are still complicit or whether they feel utterly abandoned and dicked over by their father, again.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Laura2730 said:

Here's what she wrote:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I know what she wrote.  I have a link to the whole thing. (I’m sure others don’t and are glad you shared.)

My question was why you thought it might not be allowed.  If there is a rule against reposting this kind of information, I wanted to know about it.

 

[PinkGreyBrown]

Given the established levels of passive-aggressiveness in the Duggar household (high levels, that is), I'm assuming that Jill being forced to testify is a bonus for Jim Bob about how he's handling this. Because of the estrangement. I sense a lot of suppressed rage on the part of all the adult Duggars, fwtw. Rage that comes squirting out, as it is wont to do when suppressed. Jim Bob's face is suffused with repressed rage, I have way too much experience with the genre from my own life.

[Tangy Bee]

Ok my grown ass over here googling "digital penetration". WTH....is all I can say right now. How can Josh look everyone in the face with all these horrible secrets coming out? 

[Tatar-tot]

2 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

Yes, maybe not "sexy" but stylish and not a frump. It would also send a message, look how attractive she is, how modern, why would she stay with him if he were guilty? 

I wonder if her sister (not Priscilla) may have taken her shopping while she was in town for the wedding.  The dress looks great on Anna. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

27 minutes ago, PinkGreyBrown said:

Given the established levels of passive-aggressiveness in the Duggar household (high levels, that is), I'm assuming that Jill being forced to testify is a bonus for Jim Bob about how he's handling this. 

I wonder if she's being forced or if she feels she's doing the right thing. I think the prosecution would have much preferred not to call any of the victims, but since her father is once again making light of the assaults on her and her sisters, maybe she raised her hand? 

I still think the prior stuff may not get in though. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Laura2730 said:

I assume 'Alice' only knew what Jim Bob had told certain people and I can guarantee he wouldn't have provided the kind of details about Jane Doe 4 that Bobye Holt provided yesterday that indicates rape. I posted it merely because of what she says about who knew first and told Jim Bob.

As I try to put the different stories together, it went something like this:

Someone took notes and wrote “a letter” with details of Josh’s first offenses.  (I speculate that these elders were the Holts and that the letter may have been a sort of memorandum about Josh’s confession.)

The “letter” was placed in a book but forgotten.  Someone (a woman according to JB in the police report) found it and asked questions.  Either that  same woman or someone she told contacted Oprah because Oprah was about to do a show about the Duggars.  Oprah cancelled the show and reported the Duggars.

Oprah’s report led to the investigation that resulted in the police report that In Touch got hold of.

Before In Touch published anything, the woman calling herself “Alice” posted the information that Josh had molested his sisters and so forth on some now-defunct blog.  The letter was circulating for a couple of years before and there must be several copies in FJ.

It has been speculated that the trigger for the In Touch investigation may have been a robo-call Michelle was making against trans/gays. It is rumored that people in the area who supported trans/gay rights and were fed up with the Duggar’s hypocrisy alerted In Touch to the police investigation that had taken place some years earlier and that led to a FIA request for the police report.

Bobye is not “Alice.”  The way they talk is different, and Alice was apparently resentful and jealous.  There was a tone of animosity toward JB’s mother, as I recall.  Nothing like what Bobye comes across.

 

[Tatar-tot]

2 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

No speculation about any victims, but does anyone really believe the incidents we know about are the extent of Josh's crimes against girls? Given the nature of their "church" and how they operated, I think it's not a stretch to imagine there are other victims out there. We only know about the things he didn't get away with. Well, partially didn't get away with. 

I hope someone is writing a book about this.

These were the times he was caught.  To be bold enough molest a sibling during a Bible time says a lot. 

[indianabones]

The Reddit poster clarified that it was a male juror whose daughter is married to a Duggar son. That means it was (mostly likely) either Paul Caldwell, Dwain Swanson, or Korey Nakatsu.

[Smee]

Does someone have a link to where I can read the whole “Alice” thing?

[EmCatlyn]

7 minutes ago, Smee said:

Does someone have a link to where I can read the whole “Alice” thing?

https://defamer.gawker.com/the-web-has-known-about-josh-duggar-for-years-when-did-1706258269

[sndral]

2 hours ago, sixcatatty said:

How much you want to bet defense counsel move for a mistrial because even with admonitions, the parties can't be sure what the father-in-law of a Duggar said to taint the jury pool? I'm a criminal defense lawyer. I would.

Jeopardy doesn’t attach until the jury is sworn, so no basis for a mistrial. If the father in law somehow tainted the jury pool by talking to fellow potential jurors they’d just dismiss this entire panel and start with a new untainted group of potential jurors tomorrow or ASAP.
I’m wondering if they used a jury questionnaire to sort through jurors obviously out for cause to avoid potentially tainting other potential jurors via questioning on those subjects in open court. I’ve not practiced in Federal court, but have used juror questionnaires in some of my murder cases.

Edited December 1, 2021 by sndral

[EvilAthiest]

28 minutes ago, Tangy Bee said:

Ok my grown ass over here googling "digital penetration". WTH....is all I can say right now. How can Josh look everyone in the face with all these horrible secrets coming out? 

I think it’s easy for him since he has no conscience.  He’s enjoyed getting away with everything he has done.  Scandal after scandal.  And he probably thinks he just may get away with it again this time.  He has Daddy publicly swearing on the Bible to lies.  By doing so, Daddy chose him over his victims/sisters.  He still has Anna; she’s not going anywhere no matter what.  Daddy and Mommy will continue to support him and as many children as he can produce.  If he is found not guilty, he will continue his abhorrent behavior, in some form.

[iFlunkedAWANA]

1 hour ago, EvilAthiest said:

I can only imagine how it makes the victims feel to know that their father swore on a Bible that he could not recall exactly what Josh admitted doing to them.  As though it didn’t even matter what Josh did to them.  His priority is to help Josh.  What a horrible person and father JimBob is.

Speaking as a (non-Fundie) Christian, I can say that what JimBob did yesterday utterly violated one of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not bear false witness").  And not to mention, what he did was illegal.  Funny how JimBob makes his children adhere to "Christian" principles, like forcing his young boys into (overheating) wetsuits in the middle of an Arkansas summer, or forcing his daughters to wear long dresses that make it hard to swim/increase the potential for drowning, but lying UNDER OATH is okay!  As well as all the other garbage that isn't even Christian, but that JB forces his children to do - like no kissing before marriage, no mortgage/no car payment, etc. 

My homeschooled sister-in-law and I were discussing the trial and just what an awful human being JimBob is today in between work break texts.  I mean, we all know he is awful, but he sank to a whole new level today.  I cannot imagine how Jill is feeling, especially with an upcoming testimony.  When I had to go to court to testify against my SA perpetrator, I got such severe anxiety that I had diarrhea (sorry, TMI), uncontrollable shaking, and also developed a wonderful adult stutter that likes to pop up in job interviews and other nerve-wracking situations.  I know she's been attending therapy and hopefully has developed some tools to deal with tough situations like the one she's currently facing, but I'm still going to say a little prayer for Jill tonight.  She's going to need to use all the strength she has in court against family members - some of whom may never speak to her again.

28 minutes ago, Tatar-tot said:

I wonder if her sister (not Priscilla) may have taken her shopping while she was in town for the wedding.  The dress looks great on Anna. 

I was surprised by how much leg she is showing in the sheerness toward the bottom.  But yes, the black color and fit is flattering.  I do agree with others here who are saying the Defense team wanted her to look more modern and less cultish.

[sixcatatty]

3 minutes ago, sndral said:

Jeopardy doesn’t attach until the jury is sworn, so no basis for a mistrial. If the father in law somehow tainted the jury pool by talking to fellow potential jurors they’d just dismiss this entire panel and start with a new untainted group of potential jurors tomorrow or ASAP.
I’m wondering if they used a jury questionnaire to sort through jurors obviously out for cause to avoid potentially tainting other potential jurors via questioning on those subjects in open court. I’ve not practiced in Federal court, but have used juror questionnaires in some of my murder cases.

I misspoke--I got mistrial on my mind....apologies to  Natalie Cole. I would move for a new panel also, although in some Kentucky counties, potential juries sit for six months to a year (small counties. Jefferson (Louisville) potential jurors have a two week term).

I wonder if they did a jury questionnaire, too.

[AussieKrissy]

9 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

Here is a link and a screenshot of the video as Josh comes around the corner of the building. 

lordy that is a short dress by duggar standards JB is obs having to fork out for Anna's new wardrobe too 

How many black dresses is she gunna have by the end of the year?

[iFlunkedAWANA]

3 hours ago, MomJeans said:

I agree that Anna's look has been crafted by the defense team (which isn't unusual, but damn is this defense expensive).

I don't think they are trying to portray her as sexy, but as a confident, intelligent modern woman. capable of making her own decisions, and not a brainwashed cult member.  They don't want her going to court in frumpers, looking weak, uneducated, or unkempt.  I would even guess that possibly a female attorney or paralegal was tasked with taking Anna shopping, as who ever picked out Anna's outfit today is not from that cult.  It's also obvious she doesn't know how to walk in those shoes.  

The fact that they are making a woman who just gave birth, walk in such high heels, is yet another example of how little disregard they have for women.  I wear heels daily to my office, and Anna's just looked so excruciating.