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

[HerNameIsBuffy]

52 minutes ago, gustava said:

Genuine GOPers believe in the Constitution . 

That was true once, I used to be one.  People like me left the GOP in droves once it was taken over by the Tea Partiers and even more with MAGA and Trump.  Current republicans and MAGA supporters are one and the same now.

[Kayleigh83]

6 hours ago, tsukinokawa said:

sorry if this has been posted before but here is observe ( who is youtuber who specializes in body language) has posted video where he analyzes Josh's body language from some old clips. 

he is actually roasting Josh a lot but I was more surprised how he said that Anna's body language during the proposal was anything but joyful. 

I was going to see if anyone else posted this too, thought it was interesting and he was appropriately grossed out by Josh’s entire demeanor. He sure picked up on the smugness. He mentioned at the end he will do future videos on Josh and I guess the Duggars in general - I’d love to see his take on the family dynamics of the Duggars in general. They always seem so fake and uncomfortable around each other, even years after you could discount it as just being nervous in front of the camera. 

3 hours ago, SassyPants said:

Sore? What about shamed, embarrassed and mortified. 

Bold of you to assume Jim Bob is capable of feeling shame!

1 hour ago, ven said:

Well he did start his political career at the same time this circus is going down. He did that on purpose! Bad attention still is good attention? 

Yeah just boggles the mind he chose this time to try and resurrect his long dead political career….

[PinkGreyBrown]

If Josh is convicted then his rights to cash in with a tell-all will be severely curtailed. The laws vary from state to state & I can't remember if there's a federal version, but there was a spate of law-passing decades ago to stop convicts from making money off their stories.

Edited December 2, 2021 by PinkGreyBrown
eta link

[HerNameIsBuffy]

45 minutes ago, snickerz said:

Anna is an idiot for staying with Josh, but she is also a victim and a big loser in this thing no matter which way the verdict goes. If she were my sister in law, I'd give her a hug and support her through this. I would ALSO tell her to leave her POS husband and never look back.

I wouldn't support anyone standing behind a child predator and praying for him to be released so he can be around her own children.  I'd save my hug for someone more worthy, like a demonic poltergeist.  

Victims sometimes grow up to be the victimizers, that doesn't erase her obligation to protect her children.  You stand with a woman putting her POS husband before her kids but I consider that a slap in the face to every victim whose enabling parents looked the other way.

Edited December 2, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[EvilAthiest]

21 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

This is small potatoes, but I thought it was a story book??  The reason that stuck with me is that in the police report/interview of the girls, one of them said so and even remembered the title (I think it was one of the younger two girls)  something with an animal . . . . It stood out to me because she could remember that detail when JB/Michelle kept pushing the headline that the girls were asleep and didn't remember anything. Also, quite some time had passed between the incident and the interview. For a young (probably coached) child to throw that out there . . .

Or have I misremembered?

I read that Bobye Holt’s testimony was that Josh admitted digitally penetrating his little sister while she sat on his lap and he was reading her Bible stories. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, PinkGreyBrown said:

If Josh is convicted then his rights to cash in with a tell-all will be severely curtailed. The laws vary from state to state & I can't remember if there's a federal version, but there was a spate of law-passing decades ago to stop convicts from making money off their stories.

I think they can't profit off their crimes, so it would get sticky even if he didn't include any of this in the story.  I think I remember reading they can write it if the proceeds go to charity or the victims?  But no idea how that may or may not be true factoid entered my head.

[PinkGreyBrown]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think they can't profit off their crimes, so it would get sticky even if he didn't include any of this in the story.  I think I remember reading they can write it if the proceeds go to charity or the victims?  But no idea how that may or may not be true factoid entered my head.

Arkansas does indeed have some kind of Son of Sam law. Not a lawyer tho'. Trying to find any kind of plain-language explainer.

[smittykins]

That’s how I remember it too, I believe there was a ruling that they can’t be prohibited from writing a book because First Amendment, but any proceeds have to go into a victims’ fund.

[Antimony]

13 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Maybe Derick sees Anna as a victim too and is trying to be supportive of her?

This is my hope. Derrick has, to some extent (not fully, some of their beliefs are still trash), watched and helped somebody leave a cult in real time. The fact of the matter is, as much as they might deserve it for their complicity, being mean to somebody in a cult will not help them leave. He and Jill aren't obligated to be nice to Anna at all but it's very much a "bigger person" thing to do and it might help Jill heal and Jill is likely aware that there's not any good bonus in further alienating Anna from her least-bananas family members. 

Derick and I are diametrically opposed (foes) and on principle, I dislike him. As a person though, he seems actually kind of affable and charismatic and I'd have a beer with him (but he's picking up the tab). 

[PinkGreyBrown]

More pertinent to the case at hand, there is a federal law. Fairly straightforward one.

[Giraffe]

20 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

Maybe Derick sees Anna as a victim too and is trying to be supportive of her?

He could also be encouraging her to leave Josh and telling her there really is support for her outside of JB’s world. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

IMO the only valid excuse for Jeremy and Ben not being there is if Jessa or Jinger were adamantly against it.  Frankly I think it's understandable, but inexcusable that the other adult kids aren't there.  JD, Jana, the howlers...they should want to witness the evidence first hand and not have it spun by their parents.  

Also, from what I've seen pastors tend to be very comfortable with hypocrisy and untruthfulness.  

Jeremy is on the West Coast, isn’t he?  I won’t hold it against him that he didn’t leave Jinger behind and flew to Arkansas for the trial.

Ben is another matter.  

[Jackie3]

15 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Victims sometimes grow up to be the victimizers, that doesn't erase her obligation to protect her children.  You stand with a woman putting her POS husband before her kids but I consider that a slap in the face to every victim whose enabling parents looked the other way.

Exactly. That's how I feel about Brenda Willis. And about ZZ Anderson. And about a lot of other fundie women who let their husbands physically or sexually abuse their kids. I mean, Anna's kids haven't even experienced any abuse, as far as we know.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jackie3

[mpheels]

I almost think the reporter got Austin and Derick confused… would make far more sense for Austin to sit with Anna (offering support, despite his dislike for Josh) while Derick say apart with arms crossed.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Who knows.  Maybe he sat closer to her to try to read her reactions.  My eyes would be glued to her trying to see if there was even a glimmer of disgust.

[Antimony]

5 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I think they can't profit off their crimes, so it would get sticky even if he didn't include any of this in the story.  I think I remember reading they can write it if the proceeds go to charity or the victims?  But no idea how that may or may not be true factoid entered my head.

I know these laws are popular here but I'm sorry to say, I kind of hate them. I have a pen-pal who is doing life and he was punished for publishing a book while incarcerated. The book was not about nor did it mention his crime and he did not profit from it. He never saw a single proceed (because it was self-published on Amazon and he let his friend keep all the money). But, the punishment was internal (time in solitary confinement) so no judge ever approved it. The prison just decided on it. They decided he cannot do any work in prison that makes him any money (even though he has to have a job there...) even if it's not related to the crime. I totally get the intention of it but the application has been messy for other folks. It's kind of Not the Issue in most cases but the (mis?)application of them grinds my gears. 

Anyway, I am helping format a second collection of short stories for publishing and the proceeds will go to organizations that send books into prisons (because I would feel really dirty keeping any profits). 

[FrumperedCat]

Holy moly! Just read the Buzzfeed round up for today's court session. Hadn't realised Josh's conversation with the Homeland Security Investigators' lasted 51 minutes. Apparently 3 excerpts were played in court including 1 were Josh said “Appreciate what you guys do,” Duggar replied. “I don’t want to say that I’m guilty or not of accessing inappropriate content at some point of my life.”

🙄

Not sure he's so appreciative right now.

[SassyPants]

6 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Jeremy is on the West Coast, isn’t he?  I won’t hold it against him that he didn’t leave Jinger behind and flew to Arkansas for the trial.

Ben is another matter.  

Maybe Ben had to work. Gotcha!

[onekidanddone]

WOACB Is running a stream and the thumb nail says Austin is there to support Josh. I’m not in the mood for her click bait, husband is in a zoom meeting in the room and I’m too lazy to go somewhere else.  
 

 

 

Edited December 2, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy
added link to correction

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I think the argument might be that defendants have the right for jurors to review and see for themselves. The crime is all about the images after all.  But given how bad these are, its the prosecution surely wants the jury to see them.

Anyone potential juror who couldn't deal with seeing the photos would presumably not be seated by the judge, assuming he or she raised their hand during selection.

Apparently none of the potential jurors raised their hand.  The court did warn them and gave them the option.

[patsymae]

1 hour ago, gustava said:

MAGA and Republicans are not one and the same.  MAGAites want to bring down the country, overthrow the Constitution,  and install a white, Christian, male dominated dictatorship.  Genuine GOPers believe in the Constitution .  See today's SCOTUS oral arguments on abortion:  Barret believes adoption is  substitute for abortion.  Roberts wonders why a pregnant (rape/incest/teenager) person would need more than 15 weeks to decide to get an abortion.  Yes, I know I'm WAAAAY off topic, but Duggars aren't Republicans:  They are Christian totalitarians who would send us all to prison if we violated any of their "Christian" laws.

Thinking women who don't want to be pregnant should become breeders for others rather than terminate seems pretty Christian-male-dominated to me, as does not thinking a pregnant woman would need time to weigh her options. Aside from the white supremacy, these seem pretty MAGA to me. Or was that the point you were trying to make?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Continue here.