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

[Bluebirdbluebell]

10 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

The prosecutors must know by now. I mean if it was public for any length of time I’d think someone would rat him out. 

I would think if they wanted to they could find a way to get the video. It's also amazing that a room of people saw him there and said nothing. Nobody feared for their children's safety. 

[onekidanddone]

8 minutes ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

They may not have seen the video before it went private, but hopefully someone recorded it. And if they have Boob under oath and ask about that it may end up impacting how kind - or not - the judge feels come sentencing time.

Private or not I would think the police can get access to it. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

16 minutes ago, shesinsane said:

Today I visited a patient in a nursing home, and I walked past the rooms of a Fanny, a Fannie, and another Fanny. I was born in the 70s and don't know anyone in my generation with the name Fanny, but back in the day it was huge in the midwest, apparently. 

Fanny was a fantastic all-female rock band in the early 70's.

But some rock historians think the choice of the name was detrimental to their career as "fanny" means something different in the UK than in the US.  As Keith from The Office explains here.

https://youtu.be/R7UHKfqXYTU

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Anne Of Gray Gables

[Lady Dondarrion]

58 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I would think if they wanted to they could find a way to get the video. It's also amazing that a room of people saw him there and said nothing. Nobody feared for their children's safety. 

That's what cults do.

Can any kind of legal action be taken against the Reber's?

[Chickenbutt]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Rebers were obligated to the courts to report any violation of his bail. If he violated, they knew and didn't report is that Contempt of Court? 

[QuiverFullOfCondoms]

1 hour ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

I would think if they wanted to they could find a way to get the video. It's also amazing that a room of people saw him there and said nothing. Nobody feared for their children's safety. 

Because in their sick twisted cult, Josh isn’t a predator. It’s the young children that are temptresses and make him sin. 🤢

Edited November 23, 2021 by QuiverFullOfCondoms

[Mama Mia]

Isn’t Josh on electronic monitoring? If he is, a report will automatically be sent to whoever in the court system is in charge of him. Unless it was approved ahead of time.

I suppose he could of gone, without court approval, on a monitor, a week before his trial, to a big public event full of cameras, without permission, but that seems stupid even for him- and that’s saying something.

Do we have any other verification than one very short sighting in a crowded setting? Maybe it was just a similar looking family member? 

Edited November 23, 2021 by Mama Mia

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

The prosecutors must know by now. I mean if it was public for any length of time I’d think someone would rat him out. 

The prosecutors need to check FJ to stay on top of this case!  In between discussion of names and snark about clothing we have really useful information. 😉😁😉

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, Mama Mia said:

Isn’t Josh on electronic monitoring? If he is, a report will automatically be sent to whoever in the court system is in charge of him. Unless it was approved ahead of time.

I suppose he could of gone, without court approval, on a monitor, a week before his trial, to a big public event full of cameras, without permission, but that seems stupid even for him- and that’s saying something.

Do we have any other verification than one very short sighting in a crowded setting? Maybe it was just a similar looking family member? 

Where was the wedding held?  If it was on the Reber's property, then the court likely wouldn't know - unless told - whether Josh attended.

I'm also wondering whether there was verification he was there.

[Mama Mia]

51 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Where was the wedding held?  If it was on the Reber's property, then the court likely wouldn't know - unless told - whether Josh attended.

I'm also wondering whether there was verification he was there.

It wasn’t on the property, it was one of those renovated barn type venues. There are photos on Reddit, they include a photo of the side of what could have been Josh’s head- or not - that someone grabbed before the video went private. Seems very speculative to me. Oh, and the gold dress was the MOH, and the oldest? M boy was a groomsman or something. Which, to me, makes Josie being a jr/ bridesmaid even stranger. 

[quiversR4hunting]

5 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

It wasn’t on the property, it was one of those renovated barn type venues. There are photos on Reddit, they include a photo of the side of what could have been Josh’s head- or not - that someone grabbed before the video went private. Seems very speculative to me. Oh, and the gold dress was the MOH, and the oldest? M boy was a groomsman or something. Which, to me, makes Josie being a jr/ bridesmaid even stranger. 

I can never find things on reddit. I just tried to find this and can't. I am not saying it isn't there, just that I am bad at navigating reddit!

I wouldn't be surprised if Josh was as the wedding. My guess is he got permission as Baker said he can get permission to attend things in the district which she explains includes 3 counties. I agree with @onekidanddone if the prosecutors really want the information, they can obtain it. It will be interesting to see if we get confirmation he was at the wedding and if the court does anything. We may never know if he had permission to attend unless it is brought up in court. 

On the unwed fundie thread someone posted the link to the wedding pictures or stills of the video. I am bringing it over here too. 

@onekidanddone I just saw your question on the unwed thread but decided to answer it here, I haven't seen a new video of Emily Baker about Josh but I forget to go look all the time. The one she dropped 4 days has something about Josh but I haven't watched it. 

[imokit]

Considering how good both sets of lawyers seem to be in this case.  I'm going to assume that if he was there he had permission to be there.  The Duggars are not stupid.  They'd know that if Josh was there, there would be a good chance of getting caught.  Even within the cult, I'm sure that there would be people who would dob Josh in to the press for money on the downlow.  Even one of his siblings could shop him in for their own reasons.

If Josh were there, he was allowed to be there, which to me is stupid.  He's not allowed to be at home or his parents house because of his risk to children,  But he can go to a wedding where there are packs of hyper children running around with little specific supervison.

[Hane]

@Anne Of Gray Gables, I remember an interview with the members of Fanny in which they mentioned the name being influenced by such sources as Fanny Brice and Fanny Hill.

[Alisamer]

2 hours ago, imokit said:

Considering how good both sets of lawyers seem to be in this case.  I'm going to assume that if he was there he had permission to be there.  The Duggars are not stupid.  They'd know that if Josh was there, there would be a good chance of getting caught.  Even within the cult, I'm sure that there would be people who would dob Josh in to the press for money on the downlow.  Even one of his siblings could shop him in for their own reasons.

If Josh were there, he was allowed to be there, which to me is stupid.  He's not allowed to be at home or his parents house because of his risk to children,  But he can go to a wedding where there are packs of hyper children running around with little specific supervison.

Yeah that totally seems like the sort of thing he'd be given permission to go to. He's only charged, not yet convicted, so really I'd be surprised if he wasn't given permission to go, considering his sister and one of his kids was in the wedding party, the groom is his brother-in-law, and he's spent the last several months living with the bride's parents.

Remember that probably the majority of the people attending that wedding believe he is innocent, falsely accused, being set up, whatever. If we thought that, we'd be outraged if he wasn't allowed to attend his wife's brother's wedding, especially since he's been (in their minds) unjustly kept away from his family home for the last several months, and now he's got a newborn daughter and isn't home to bond with her and help his wife, etc.

I'm sure there were a few people there who gave him the side-eye, but I doubt they were the majority. Innocent until proven guilty, and even then most of them won't be convinced. 

We see him as a dangerous pedophile who needs to be kept away from children and should have gotten help as a teen the first time he offended, and now needs to be locked up long enough for the majority of his kids to be at least pre-teen before he is released. They see him as a "good christian man" who has "made a few bad choices" but has "repented" and is therefore forgiven, and probably didn't even do what he's now going on trial for. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

2 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Yeah that totally seems like the sort of thing he'd be given permission to go to. He's only charged, not yet convicted, so really I'd be surprised if he wasn't given permission to go, considering his sister and one of his kids was in the wedding party, the groom is his brother-in-law, and he's spent the last several months living with the bride's parents.

Remember that probably the majority of the people attending that wedding believe he is innocent, falsely accused, being set up, whatever. If we thought that, we'd be outraged if he wasn't allowed to attend his wife's brother's wedding, especially since he's been (in their minds) unjustly kept away from his family home for the last several months, and now he's got a newborn daughter and isn't home to bond with her and help his wife, etc.

I'm sure there were a few people there who gave him the side-eye, but I doubt they were the majority. Innocent until proven guilty, and even then most of them won't be convinced. 

We see him as a dangerous pedophile who needs to be kept away from children and should have gotten help as a teen the first time he offended, and now needs to be locked up long enough for the majority of his kids to be at least pre-teen before he is released. They see him as a "good christian man" who has "made a few bad choices" but has "repented" and is therefore forgiven, and probably didn't even do what he's now going on trial for. 

My guess is that most of the wedding guests think he’s guilty, but it’s not like he’s going to assault their kids at the wedding, he hasn’t been convicted yet, and he has strong connections to the bride and groom, so it’s fine.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

10 minutes ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

My guess is that most of the wedding guests think he’s guilty, but it’s not like he’s going to assault their kids at the wedding, he hasn’t been convicted yet, and he has strong connections to the bride and groom, so it’s fine.

That old "hide your kids, hide your wife" meme just popped into my head.  I suspect Josh got permission to be there. He's dumb, but probably not dumb enough to risk breaking a rule like that in front of so many witnesses. I suppose it would be considered the wedding of an immediate family member as the groom is his wife's brother. And the bride is the jailkeeper's daughter. 

[Mama Mia]

2 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

That old "hide your kids, hide your wife" meme just popped into my head.  I suspect Josh got permission to be there. He's dumb, but probably not dumb enough to risk breaking a rule like that in front of so many witnesses. I suppose it would be considered the wedding of an immediate family member as the groom is his wife's brother. And the bride is the jailkeeper's daughter. 

Maybe. I’d be kind of surprised if he was allowed to go, given the specific terms of his house arrest. Like not being in his own house. Or his parents house. And it’s not his own kid getting married , just a brother-in-law. People I’ve known on house arrest for far less severe offenses haven’t been given permission for this type of thing.
I think it’s more likely that in this case it was just some other family member who looked kind of similar. But who knows? Or they could have considered the ceremony a religious service. I think most of the guests think he’s guilty, but would be politely avoidant if he’s around. 

[church_of_dog]

I saw the video clip before it was removed.  It showed, from behind, a woman moving into frame and taking a seat at the very edge of the frame, facing away from the camera.  It looked roughly like Anna in size and hair.  

Then a man apparently sat down next to her.  His chair was off screen, but he leaned over a bit as he moved to sit and so the side of his head was visible for a moment.  It did look like Josh.

Then a few seconds later, the woman turned around to talk to someone behind her.  She stayed turned around for several seconds.  Someone who is better than I am with faces might feel more certain it was her, or maybe could match her clothing to any other public photos of Anna that day.

So assuming that was Anna, someone very Joshylike was sitting next to her or at least was there for a moment while she was getting seated.  Hard to imagine it was anyone other than him, but who knows.

I could imagine him getting special permission to be there since it was all outdoors in view with plenty of people around.  On the other hand I could also envision him thinking that restriction was not a rule that needed to be taken seriously.

I wonder what other reason there might have been to take down the video besides realizing it could get Josh in trouble?

[Mama Mia]

15 minutes ago, church_of_dog said:

I saw the video clip before it was removed.  It showed, from behind, a woman moving into frame and taking a seat at the very edge of the frame, facing away from the camera.  It looked roughly like Anna in size and hair.  

Then a man apparently sat down next to her.  His chair was off screen, but he leaned over a bit as he moved to sit and so the side of his head was visible for a moment.  It did look like Josh.

Then a few seconds later, the woman turned around to talk to someone behind her.  She stayed turned around for several seconds.  Someone who is better than I am with faces might feel more certain it was her, or maybe could match her clothing to any other public photos of Anna that day.

So assuming that was Anna, someone very Joshylike was sitting next to her or at least was there for a moment while she was getting seated.  Hard to imagine it was anyone other than him, but who knows.

I could imagine him getting special permission to be there since it was all outdoors in view with plenty of people around.  On the other hand I could also envision him thinking that restriction was not a rule that needed to be taken seriously.

I wonder what other reason there might have been to take down the video besides realizing it could get Josh in trouble?

Well, personally if I was a guest, or the bride and groom, or the photographer - I’d probably take it down as soon as I saw all the speculation - whether it was correct or not - it would be distracting from the wedding celebration. Ugg. How much would it suck to be on the periphery of some sort of asshole like this? 

[Jinderella]

19 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

The judge in Josh's case tends to dole out 6 - 7 year sentences for first time offenders.  If Josh falls into the same general category and my math is correct that could mean 5 - 6 years with good behavior. 

A lawyer on Youtube (don’t remember his name) said he would get an additional two years because of the young age of the victims. Does anyone know about that?

[EmCatlyn]

6 hours ago, imokit said:

….

If Josh were there, he was allowed to be there, which to me is stupid.  He's not allowed to be at home or his parents house because of his risk to children,  But he can go to a wedding where there are packs of hyper children running around with little specific supervison.

I would think that Josh could be at a wedding full of children so long as he wasn’t allowed to interact with the children or go beyond where he can be seen by responsible adults.  If he was there with a special permission, I am sure some such condition was made.

We don’t know for sure that he was there, and if he was there and without permission, I hope they put him in jail for violating his bond.  However, I don’t think it is impossible that he had permission.  His mere presence does not endanger children.  It is only the possibility that he might behave inappropriately that led to the “can’t be near children” restriction.  If some way of preventing him from behaving inappropriately can be put in place for a specific event, I could see it being allowed. (The argument that it’s a family wedding involving his brother-in-law and the daughter of his “guardians” might be strong enough.)

Note: I used “behave inappropriately” rather than terms such as “assaulting” or “molesting,” minors because my understanding is that the restriction on his being around kids is not just focused on what he might do “to” kids but what he might get gratification from seeing.

[AussieKrissy]

Personally i don’t think he would get permission to be there but who knows. My reasoning is I wouldn’t want to be the (whoever approved it) person answering to the courts why he (theoretically) did something with a child whilst I allowed him near them, when his bail conditions so clearly so no contact with any children except his own. 
The system is ducked if they let him go. It was his brother in law not someone extremely close. No one else should have been put at risk so that smug fucking piece of utter fucking shit could have his moment in the sun. 
I would have been like no way you are going if I was in charge of making the decision. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

Good old Bob-Yay posting a comment made by a woman condemning purity culture that’s kept Anna stuck with Josh. Not all fundies 🙄

 

ETA: if you want to find the post she commented on, it’s a FB page called: Thriving Forward by Emily Anderson.

Edited November 23, 2021 by JermajestyDuggar

[SassyPants]

Since Josh’s  chaperones were obviously at the wedding, wouldn't he have to attend as well?

[Bluebirdbluebell]

6 hours ago, Alisamer said:

Yeah that totally seems like the sort of thing he'd be given permission to go to. He's only charged, not yet convicted, so really I'd be surprised if he wasn't given permission to go, considering his sister and one of his kids was in the wedding party, the groom is his brother-in-law, and he's spent the last several months living with the bride's parents.

Remember that probably the majority of the people attending that wedding believe he is innocent, falsely accused, being set up, whatever. If we thought that, we'd be outraged if he wasn't allowed to attend his wife's brother's wedding, especially since he's been (in their minds) unjustly kept away from his family home for the last several months, and now he's got a newborn daughter and isn't home to bond with her and help his wife, etc.

I'm sure there were a few people there who gave him the side-eye, but I doubt they were the majority. Innocent until proven guilty, and even then most of them won't be convinced. 

We see him as a dangerous pedophile who needs to be kept away from children and should have gotten help as a teen the first time he offended, and now needs to be locked up long enough for the majority of his kids to be at least pre-teen before he is released. They see him as a "good christian man" who has "made a few bad choices" but has "repented" and is therefore forgiven, and probably didn't even do what he's now going on trial for. 

He's not supposed to be around that sister!! 

The judge was very clear. He can't be around any kids under 12 unless they are his children! Where I live that would include siblings under 12. Josie Brooklyn Duggar will turn 12 in December, but she is currently 11 years old. That's a violation of his parole and that's before you factor in that he has gone after other sisters in the past.

I agree that most of the family and friends probably think he is innocent and the lawyers will make sure he is proven innocent. It looked like a smaller crowd than I expected and I assume many people either weren't invited or didn't want to come.

I have no idea which one of his kids was in the wedding party.

I think the prosecutors should into this as a parole violation, but I'm sure no one cares.

Edited November 23, 2021 by Bluebirdbluebell