(CW: Possible CSA) Josh & Anna 38: Can't Believe I'm Typing This, but YAY Bobye Holt

[DalmatianCat]

18 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

In addition to the public scandals, she would know how he is in private and I don't think he's a nice guy in private.  He's barely tolerable in public.  I suspect he's been a complete ass to Anna from the start and probably to the kids too. 

ETA: if anyone has watched the body language video on Josh from the last thread, it really shows how pushy and nervy Josh is, without any consideration for Anna and that's when he was proposing to her!  I never saw the actual episode but seeing the replay, I almost didn't need the accompanying analysis because it was just so cringeworthy.  Anna is clearly uncomfortable, Josh was arrogant, smug, pushy, oblivious and Pa/Ma Keller think it's all great.  

Also, Anna went from being the only in-law for several years to gaining several in a short time-frame. In general, they all seem more respectful of their spouses then Josh does of Anna (it was probably easy for her to overlook it when none of his siblings were married). Jill and Derrick took a few years to find their stride, but seem like a supportive team who are on the same page now, Ben definitely treats Jessa with a lot of deference/respect, Joy-Anna and Austin seem like good buddies/partners, and JD and Joe seem to adore their wives. Once there were more marriages to compare hers to, she probably had some moments of reflection.

Edited December 2, 2021 by DalmatianCat
Typo

[HerNameIsBuffy]

4 minutes ago, FleeJanaFree said:

I don’t believe for a second Anna thinks josh is actually innocent. There have been too many scandals and surely she knows what an ass he is in private as well as public situations. She knows he’s a piece of shit but she made that promise to God to stand by her man and by golly she’s going to do it. This is her cross to bear. 

Sadly, I can.  At least with the conscious part of her mind she's allowing herself to access.  Some people have an extraordinary ability to delude themselves.  It's a defense mechanism for some people who are so afraid of what the truth would mean for their life and worldview they just relegate the fears to the realm of impossibility.  When you see it in action it is absolutely surreal.

My mother was like this.  She wasn't stupid, she was a nurse, she was very capable and intelligent in many ways and handled minor and medium conflicts just fine.  But the big ones?  The holy shit this is abuse I am obligated to stop right now.  The fuck I need to protect my kids immediately conflicts?  Her affect would change and she'd go inward.  I can't explain it well, but it was eerie.  The danger and harm was an unbelievable to her as if I had confessed to being on the run with Bonnie and Clyde.  Of course I wasn't, they died decades before I was born....that's how certain she was that the unthinkable wasn't possible.  She saw the good in everyone, even when it wasn't there.  

She lived in denial until she didn't.  There would be a point where she'd snap out of it and see the truth and act swiftly to do the right thing.  All of a sudden things she'd have a great awakening and see things clearly and feel terrible for not having acted years earlier.  Not even after escalation of circumstances or any other catalyst, it was like coming out of an indefinite and situationally specific trance.

She was the victim of CSA at the hands of her brother and had more finely honed skills of denial than you would think possible for a functioning adult.

I have always been far more cynical and quicker to believe the worst in people than she.  A more accurate judge of character...except when I wasn't.  It was quite late in life when I realized I had blind spots just as bad and just as harmful.  It wasn't a form of conscious denial, I just didn't see things I should have seen even though I thought I was paying enough attention I couldn't have missed danger.  Realizing this about myself was absolutely life changing for me.  I no longer trust my own judgement.  I always thought I was more self-aware than most, but it caused me to doubt who I am down to the core level.  It's not intellect, The scariest thing is I wasn't shutting my eyes to evil, I just didn't see it.  I constantly second guess everything I feel emotionally or believe to be true outside of empirical or tangible things.  

Neither my mom nor myself would have been able to remain blind in Anna's circumstances because police reports don't lend themselves to plausible deniability, but neither of us grew up in a cult.  

I am not defending Anna just as I don't defend my mom or myself.  Once you have kids protecting them is your responsibility regardless of your own damage.  She's showing up in court every day to support her husband rather than busying herself working on a way to get her kids away from this shit show.  Every minute she's sitting behind Josh she is betraying her children.  She could chose to protect her kids from a predator or try to protect a predator from the consequences of his actions.  She chooses the latter every day.  I hope one day she has a moment of clarity and realizes what she has done.

And when that day comes she will hate herself.  I hope for her kids that day comes sooner rather than later, but I doubt it.

[SassyPants]

33 minutes ago, FleeJanaFree said:

I don’t believe for a second Anna thinks josh is actually innocent. There have been too many scandals and surely she knows what an ass he is in private as well as public situations. She knows he’s a piece of shit but she made that promise to God to stand by her man and by golly she’s going to do it. This is her cross to bear. 

If she still thinks he’s innocent, wouldn’t she have to wonder why Josh Duggar continues to be such a target for these types of incidents? WHY would the world be against Josh Duggar and only Josh Duggar? Even if it’s about Christian persecution, how come this kind of targeting isn’t regularly and personally happening to any of the other 2.38 BILLION Christians on the planet? Reasonable doubt and common sense, Anna. Please start using the brain Jesus gave you.

[Bassett Lady]

8 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

mentioning the word “therapeutic” during the trial week seems to be meaningful,

My heart aches for her. If she finds therapeutic release via cleaning and organizing, then I am thrilled she has projects to tackle. I am so proud of her for posting that message. Not only does it prioritize her self care, but, it does so publicly. She is acknowledging that she needs some healthy redirection today, and so she is doing it. 
 

How can Jim Bob look at that wonderful young woman and minimize/gloss-over the trauma/violation  she has endured? 
 

Jim Bob does NOT deserve her, but he does deserve Josh. 

[theotherelise]

The Sun is reporting that Joy is in the courtroom today and sitting in the back with Austin.

[nokidsmom]

31 minutes ago, fundiefan said:

I am not at all surprised that Ben is not there. I can't imagine him having balls even in the most fantastical of imagination. He's too reliant & would never be a man supporting his wife; he's pretty much a kept man, as far as I'm concerned. A kept boy, actually. 

I agree that Ben is the most "JB dependent"of the Duggar sons-in-laws and doesn't appear to have done anything to change that.  While I can see him lacking the nerve to rock the boat, at the same time, it's possible that Jessa preferred he not be there, perhaps also to not rock the boat.    I see both of them as too reliant IMHO.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, theotherelise said:

The Sun is reporting that Joy is in the courtroom today and sitting in the back with Austin.

Wow.  Too bad JB and M are so busy paying half a mil protecting their son to realize the very real strength and power of their daughters.

Sometimes you get strong because of how your parents raised you, sometimes in spite of it.  

[Imaginary_Wonderland]

I read on Twitter that Joy is there at court today and was very distressed and being comforted by Austin. Poor Joy! Probably only now understands that her parents lied to her, and learns the truth of what happened to her while she was too young to remember. 

[Sops2]

As for Justin being at the trial, he is definitely not making distance between himself and Jim bob.

At  church service in Fort Worth, just over 3 weeks ago, David Waller asked for prayer requests like he usually does during the service.  Justin was heard to voice a request that people would pray for his dad and the upcoming election.

David asked how the campaign was going, when the election was, how things were going- reply "pretty good" and yes we'll all pray for that and the right outcome, blah, blah, blah.

We can hope that seeds of doubt have been sown in Justin's brain and he's there to hear for himself, but I'm not too sure

[Daisy]

I just can’t get over how jovial Josh is. Joking with the court clerk, shaking Derricks hand, in general appearing to be in high spirits. Dude, you are on trial for possessing CSA! This is serious. I think he really thinks he’s going to get off. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Daisy

[fraurosena]

Poor Joy-Anna...

[Alisamer]

5 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

If she still thinks he’s innocent, wouldn’t she have to wonder why Josh Duggar continues to be such a target for these types of incidents? WHY would the world be against Josh Duggar and only Josh Duggar? Even if it’s about Christian persecution, how come this kind of targeting isn’t regularly and personally happening to any of the other 2.38 BILLION Christians on the planet? Reasonable doubt and common sense, Anna. Please start using the brain Jesus gave you.

So much yes. It's just Josh, for the most part. Not any of his many brothers. None of the brothers-in-law. Not even Jim Bob! 

The only similar thing I can think of that matches up (TV show, many kids, CSA) is the Willis family. And as messed up as that was, the mom got the kids out of the situation once the police got involved. Josh is on trial and there Anna sits.

I really think it's a combo of things. Brainwashing, gaslighting, fear of hell, fear of being stuck alone having to raise 7 kids without the Duggar money helping... but also? I think that Anna and possibly some of the others might not quite get exactly why this is such a big deal to people. He might have looked at some pictures. They were horrible sinful pictures, sure, but they were just pictures. As long as he repents and prays about it what's the big deal?

I think it's notable that this time he did NOT make a tearful apology and talk about repenting, like he has with his past "indiscretions". He knew this was a big deal. He knew this was go-to-jail illegal. 

And he absolutely knew that stuff was on that hard drive. I'm certain he's the one who put it there, but even in the highly unlikely scenario that he wasn't the one who downloaded it... he knew it was there. Which means he had seen it. He could have deleted it, he could have reported it, if he wasn't the one who downloaded it in the first place he could have been the hero and reported it to the police the minute he knew it was there.

But he didn't. It was there, for months, and when Homeland Security showed up to raid the car lot, he stood out there like a doofus asking "what's this about, did someone download some child porn?" and "Oh, was it uploaded or downloaded?"

He's so guilty.

Whose mind immediately goes to "child porn" when cops show up to raid a car lot? I'd have guessed money shenanigans, stolen cars, or drugs first, in that situation.

[Speedy]

7 minutes ago, Imaginary_Wonderland said:

Probably only now understands that her parents lied to her, and learns the truth of what happened to her while she was too young to remember. 

Do we know for sure that she doesn't/didn't remember? If I remember correctly she was 5 when it happened, which means she could possibly remember. I can hope that she can't have remembered because it would have been handled better when it became public knowledge, but I doubt that's the truth.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Daisy said:

I just can’t get over how jovial Josh is. Joking with the court clerk, shaking Derricks hand. Dude, you are on trial for possessing CSA! This is serious. I think he really thinks he’s going to get off. 

Anyone want to proffer a diagnosis of exactly what disorder this is?  You accuse me of something like if I did it (as if) I would be so ashamed and humiliated I wouldn't be capable of eye contact.  If I didn't do it I'd be panicked and angry and desperately looking for confirmation that my family knew it wasn't true.  Smiling and joking around ...I wouldn't be able even if it would save my life.

Sociopaths are supposed to be pretty good at mimicking the human emotion appropriate for the situation when stakes are high.  He's never been able to do that, it's like he enjoys the attention even thought it can cost him years of his life and keep him from raising his children.  

Seriously, any true crime buffs out there who know of similar cases where the defendant acted like this?

[Imaginary_Wonderland]

2 minutes ago, Speedy said:

Do we know for sure that she doesn't/didn't remember? If I remember correctly she was 5 when it happened, which means she could possibly remember. I can hope that she can't have remembered because it would have been handled better when it became public knowledge, but I doubt that's the truth.

Actually, I don't know. That was an assumption on my part. I don't remember stuff from 4-5 yrs old, but then I have quite poor memory in general, so perhaps I'm wrong and most people do have some recollection from their childhoods.

[neuroticcat]

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Anyone want to proffer a diagnosis of exactly what disorder this is?  You accuse me of something like if I did it (as if) I would be so ashamed and humiliated I wouldn't be capable of eye contact.  If I didn't do it I'd be panicked and angry and desperately looking for confirmation that my family knew it wasn't true.  Smiling and joking around ...I wouldn't be able even if it would save my life.

Sociopaths are supposed to be pretty good at mimicking the human emotion appropriate for the situation when stakes are high.  He's never been able to do that, it's like he enjoys the attention even thought it can cost him years of his life and keep him from raising his children.  

Seriously, any true crime buffs out there who know of similar cases where the defendant acted like this?

It seems like pretty classic narcissism to me - the same thing that made him weird alpha dog joking with David Waller. Control the conversation, show t everyone you have nothing to be ashamed about, etc. Plus, his entire adult life has been spent performing for cameras so he probably doesn’t even have a concept of true authenticity.

[libgirl2]

I think they are all going to support Josh. I don't know, its just a feeling I am getting. They might hate what he does but maybe some feel he is a sick person. Jill is really the only wild card. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by libgirl2

[HarleyQuinn]

This has got to be a lot for Joy. She likely only had vague memories if any of this abuse, and now it's all laid out for her. 

Another thing to consider with Derick, he wants to be a lawyer (I don't think he's passed the bar?) So him being up there front and center could be more about him just wanting to feel important. I feel like that's more likely than him supporting Anna, but I'm also an eternal pessimist. 

[danvillebelle]

14 minutes ago, Speedy said:

Do we know for sure that she doesn't/didn't remember? If I remember correctly she was 5 when it happened, which means she could possibly remember. I can hope that she can't have remembered because it would have been handled better when it became public knowledge, but I doubt that's the truth.

I was molested at 3-4 and didn't clearly remember it until I had been hospitalized and entered therapy (age 42).  Tracing back the level of sexual dysfunction and trauma in my life led straight to it.  I have nothing but sympathy for Joy and I hope she gets some therapy.

ETA: I think early childhood memory is just something that some people have and some don't.  

Edited December 2, 2021 by danvillebelle

[Speedy]

3 minutes ago, Imaginary_Wonderland said:

Actually, I don't know. That was an assumption on my part. I don't remember stuff from 4-5 yrs old, but then I have quite poor memory in general, so perhaps I'm wrong and most people do have some recollection from their childhoods.

You're likely right. I have maybe two memories from that age and even then they are hazy enough that if someone I trusted, like a family member who was present, told me something slightly different happened I'd likely believe them. If they repeatedly and publicly stated it, my own memory might get even less clear. Memories from that young are usually much more easily changed/forgotten. I was just curious if we knew for sure one way or the other, not that it really matters with everything else the family has done to cover up and minimize what Josh did

[Sister Mozz]

14 minutes ago, Daisy said:

I just can’t get over how jovial Josh is. Joking with the court clerk, shaking Derricks hand, in general appearing to be in high spirits. Dude, you are on trial for possessing CSA! This is serious. I think he really thinks he’s going to get off. 

The user giving updates in Fundie Wonderland says the Sun is exaggerating the extent or tone of Josh's interaction with the family. 

[Buzzard]

Hi all...

I know I've been gone a very long time and I dont have a ton of time to hang out, as much as I'd love to!  I havent been keeping up with the case a ton but this is way too juicy to not try and catch up!

I've seen a few questions here about the standard of proof and what it takes for an acquittal - basically - all 12 jurors will need to vote unanimously for a final disposition either way (guilty or not guilty) .  If they do not reach an agreement the jury "hangs" and he can be tried again.  This has to happen for each count.

As to the standard of "reasonable doubt" it is commonly defined as "the doubt of a fair minded juror honestly seeking the truth."  This is something you can state a reason for, not something that is a mathematical certainty or beyond ALL doubt. 

Be very careful about relying on news reports with respect to the evidence.  Its rather complicated to tell what was elicited in the presence of the jury (admitted) and what was just mentioned in court.  Opening and closing arguments, and objections made by attorneys, and comments made by the judge are NOT evidence.

So far I do agree this will be a "this is scary technology" defense and the hope will be that the jurors do not understand what the dark web actually is and how it works.  Right now the investigation reads as extremely sloppy but I dont think anything is fatal to the case.  I'll be very curious about the testimony when they get to the actual forensic exam of the computer and the images. They may be able to tell when the individual files were actually accessed, not just downloaded.  That witness will be key.

 

[punkiepie]

5 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Anyone want to proffer a diagnosis of exactly what disorder this is?  You accuse me of something like if I did it (as if) I would be so ashamed and humiliated I wouldn't be capable of eye contact.  If I didn't do it I'd be panicked and angry and desperately looking for confirmation that my family knew it wasn't true.  Smiling and joking around ...I wouldn't be able even if it would save my life.

Sociopaths are supposed to be pretty good at mimicking the human emotion appropriate for the situation when stakes are high.  He's never been able to do that, it's like he enjoys the attention even thought it can cost him years of his life and keep him from raising his children.  

Seriously, any true crime buffs out there who know of similar cases where the defendant acted like this?

It’s like Brain Laundrie, when they pulled over by the police. And he was all joking around with the police, making light of the situation, as if to say, see I’m cool, I didn’t do anything wrong, she’s the crazy one. Meanwhile, Gabby was having an emotional breakdown in the car.  That’s exactly what it reminds me off.

It’s some mix of narcissism and sociopathy and assholery. I had a boyfriend like that. He was the biggest schmoozer and could win a room over in like 2 minutes. But give him 20 minutes and then you see that he’s a real asshole. 

[Ms. Brightside]

I’m guessing Joy was young enough that even if she remembered it one way, the way it was downplayed would be enough to make her question that. When you’re five, people tell you things all the time about how you experience the world… that classic: you fall down, and a parent exclaims “oh you’re ok!” when you look up at them, so you hop up and keep playing. We know this was massively swept under the rug and the girls were repeatedly told it wasn’t a big deal. As a five-year old, if that’s what you’re told and that’s how everyone around you is acting, you might believe it and move on with your life and the memory wouldn’t stick they way you remembered it… it would stick the way you were taught to remember it by people brushing it off after like it was no big deal. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

3 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Hi all...

I know I've been gone a very long time and I dont have a ton of time to hang out, as much as I'd love to!  I havent been keeping up with the case a ton but this is way too juicy to not try and catch up!

I've seen a few questions here about the standard of proof and what it takes for an acquittal - basically - all 12 jurors will need to vote unanimously for a final disposition either way (guilty or not guilty) .  If they do not reach an agreement the jury "hangs" and he can be tried again.  This has to happen for each count.

As to the standard of "reasonable doubt" it is commonly defined as "the doubt of a fair minded juror honestly seeking the truth."  This is something you can state a reason for, not something that is a mathematical certainty or beyond ALL doubt. 

Be very careful about relying on news reports with respect to the evidence.  Its rather complicated to tell what was elicited in the presence of the jury (admitted) and what was just mentioned in court.  Opening and closing arguments, and objections made by attorneys, and comments made by the judge are NOT evidence.

So far I do agree this will be a "this is scary technology" defense and the hope will be that the jurors do not understand what the dark web actually is and how it works.  Right now the investigation reads as extremely sloppy but I dont think anything is fatal to the case.  I'll be very curious about the testimony when they get to the actual forensic exam of the computer and the images. They may be able to tell when the individual files were actually accessed, not just downloaded.  That witness will be key.

 

Buzzard! Welcome back!