(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 50: Anna Breaking the Opposite of News about the Whodunnit of the Century

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

2 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

The graphic descriptions of the material Josh was watching show a deeply depraved mind. He is a danger to children if he can bear to watch that stuff and not recoil in horror as most people would. I’m not sure what it will take to get that into Anna’s (and any other sympathisers’- I’m looking at you Hilary Spivey) heads.

Well, I suppose the argument is that they don't believe Josh watched the material. It was some guy sitting in his car in McDonalds' parking lot or that other sex offender who wasn't in the state at the time.  Not Josh, who is clearly an honest, upstanding member of the community who has never harmed children or sex workers and never cheated on his wife.  (well, not much!)

That's just straight-out refusal to face facts because those facts are too awful to face and would require Anna to start making wholesale changes to her life. But anyone who gets pleasure watching other human beings - never mind children - be tortured probably cannot be fixed.  I think Anna will hear this a lot over the next few years, even from some of Josh's siblings. It will be interesting to see if it eventually sinks in.  I think it might, not that I'd put money down.

[Cam]

 

2 hours ago, Idlewild said:

The graphic descriptions of the material Josh was watching show a deeply depraved mind. He is a danger to children if he can bear to watch that stuff and not recoil in horror as most people would. I’m not sure what it will take to get that into Anna’s (and any other sympathisers’- I’m looking at you Hilary Spivey) heads.

Yes, a deeply depraved mind. And we’re not talking about the strange guy who lives alone in the dilapidated house down the street, or the creepy uncle who never got married and lives in his parents’ basement. That is bad enough. 

What makes Josh seem even more depraved is he’s not only the married father of seven young children with every intent to continue to procreate, but his entire lifespan has consisted of being surrounded by unusually large amounts of children, continuously, non-stop. As the oldest in his family, this is a person whose parents went on to have what many consider a bizarre number of children and whose religion made them friends with other couples having many offspring and with whom they all socialize. In addition to all that, his siblings are now having kids of their own at a rapid pace which will continue on for decades. And unfortunately Josh himself will have his own grandkids. 

It boggles the mind that a person could be surrounded daily their entire life by the beauty, purity, innocence and promise of so many children and yet still have it in them to watch some of the worst known csam out there. 

All of this is what the judge should consider when arriving at a sentence.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Cam

[Inky]

To those wondering if viewing CSAM does lead further down the dark place, there was a murder in Toronto around 2004 of young 10 year old Holly Jones. Killed by a man named Briere. He had been a viewer of child porn and the article details how one day he just had to do it to a "real" child (not to say those in the video aren't real of course, but wasn't sure how to phrase it). I will post a link to the article in the Globe and Mail, probably shouldn't post an excerpt here. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/child-porn-fan-gets-life-forkilling-toronto-girl/article1134586/

Based on this alone, I would say Josh is a clear danger even to his own children.

[noseybutt]

17 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

Does watching CSAM lead to actually committing child abuse? Does the "thrill" of watching, (puke) eventually not be enough? I have no idea of the statistics on this, but if I were Anna, I would be very afraid.

This is an interesting question. 

There is a segment of offenders convicted on CSAM charges who have no prior history of hands-on offending. They tend to remain very, very low risk in terms of committing a hands-on sex crime. They tend to have better employment histories, more education, less substance abuse histories, limited to no prior contact with legal system, etc. Most of the guys I have evaluated who are CSAM only offenders tend to be tech oriented and own up right away (because they understand the tech evidence) and they have a lot of shame around their behavior. Most end up on suicide watch multiple times. 

The population that is combined CSAM and hands-on, they tend to look the hands-on offenders.  A lot more criminality, substance abuse, lying, weird ideas around sex and consent, etc.

The problem with Josh is that there is good evidence that he was a hands-on offender as a juvenile. Because there were no legal charges, he would probably still score low risk on an actuarial risk assessment, (An actuarial assessment is where you enter bask information like age, prior arrests, prior convictions, etc.)

However, I am guessing he would score high risk on a different type of instrument called a structural professional judgment risk assessment. On an SPJ assessment, you can account for prior hands-on offending (even though no legal charges), ongoing community rule violations around sexual behavior (Ashley Madison, ongoing porn use), inability to support himself and family without help from parents, dishonesty/hypocrisy, etc. 

As a forensic psychologist, my biggest issue would be that he has essentially lived a double (or triple) life since he was very young. Majority of people with sexual attraction to underage people NEVER act on it. They contain it because....well, human decency. But someone who has normalized living a double life his whole life, there is no motivation for him to contain his behaviors. He's going to do what he wants when he wants how he wants.

So yeah. He's a risk. Probably always will be.

[noseybutt]

36 minutes ago, Inky said:

To those wondering if viewing CSAM does lead further down the dark place, there was a murder in Toronto around 2004 of young 10 year old Holly Jones. Killed by a man named Briere. He had been a viewer of child porn and the article details how one day he just had to do it to a "real" child (not to say those in the video aren't real of course, but wasn't sure how to phrase it). I will post a link to the article in the Globe and Mail, probably shouldn't post an excerpt here. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/child-porn-fan-gets-life-forkilling-toronto-girl/article1134586/

Based on this alone, I would say Josh is a clear danger even to his own children.

There are certainly case examples such as this which are horrific and concerning. However, this is not the typical progression based on population data. 

CSAM crimes are horrific in and of themselves. IMO they should be prosecution on that fact alone, and not because CSAM to hands-on offending is a typical progression (because it's not, unless the person already has prior or concurrent hands-on offenses).

 

ETA The data is always in-flux and may change in the coming years. One weird question is how virtual/augmented reality type tech will impact all this. I think there's a real chance that more life-like tech will blur the line between virtual and hands-on offending, and thus shape this is ways that we don't yet understand. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by noseybutt

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

3 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

CSAM crimes are horrific in and of themselves. IMO they should be prosecution on that fact alone, and not because CSAM to hands-on offending is a typical progression (because it's not, unless the person already has prior or concurrent hands-on offenses).

The Court can't sentence Josh based on some perceived propensity for him to molest children in the future. He was convicted of possessing/downloading CSAM, and his sentence will be based upon this only (I have no idea whether whether his abuse of girls when he was a minor can even be factored into sentencing as he was neither charged nor convicted of prior crimes).  This is why he's not getting 15, 20 or as WOACB keeps insisting, 40 years. It's wishful thinking to assume otherwise, although it is understandable wishful thinking.

[noseybutt]

Just now, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

The Court can't sentence Josh based on some perceived propensity for him to molest children in the future. He was convicted of possessing/downloading CSAM, and his sentence will be based upon this only (I have no idea whether whether his abuse of girls when he was a minor can even be factored into sentencing as he was neither charged nor convicted of prior crimes).  This is why he's not getting 15, 20 or as WOACB keeps insisting, 40 years. It's wishful thinking to assume otherwise, although it is understandable wishful thinking.

Correct. 

I was speaking to the fact that CSAM offending does not necessarily lead to hands-on offending.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

3 minutes ago, noseybutt said:

Correct. 

I was speaking to the fact that CSAM offending does not necessarily lead to hands-on offending.

Agree. It doesn't, but even if it does a large percentage of the time, the Court cannot sentence for crimes not yet committed. 

[noseybutt]

3 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

Agree. It doesn't, but even if it does a large percentage of the time, the Court cannot sentence for crimes not yet committed. 

Oh goodness. You have just summed up probably the biggest challenge of my job: communicating that population data doesn't speak to an individual case. 

Population data can give us a good idea of what to probe for and what to expect in very general terms. Which is very different than establishing the facts of the case. 

[Dandruff]

2 hours ago, Cam said:

It boggles the mind that a person could be surrounded daily their entire life by the beauty, purity, innocence and promise of so many children and yet still have it in them to watch some of the worst known csam out there.

I don't get it either but (speculation here) I suspect he resented the existence of most of the children, since they meant more responsibility and fewer resources for him.  Also, he didn't appear to be allowed normal developmental activities with girls his age.  Could the two have become intertwined, contributing to the molestations and receipt/possession of the CSAM?  I wonder whether there might have been interest in watching child abuse without the "sexual" aspect.  Do people do that?

I'm not trying to make excuses for him, just trying to figure out motivation.  Since he has nine brothers who were raised under the same roof, and there's no evidence of any of them doing the same things, there seem to be some issues specific to him.  Were they all intrinsic?  Parental punishment, being sent away (as a teenager then Jesus jail as an adult), and being viewed with contempt by some fundies and the general public didn't stop him, though he seemed to be trying to be discreet (multiple fails).  Would proper therapy as a teenager have stopped him?  What effect might therapy in prison have?

Sorry, lot of questions.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Dandruff
spelling

[Smoochie]

Josh already committed sexual assault on minors, his sisters and another. He then 'dabbled' in 'regular' porn and has escalated & downloaded CSAM (perhaps previously, first time caught?).

Frankly, at least to me, it's not a far leap to his own children. I guess I don't understand, but, I could never be brainwashed enough to not recognize the dangers and get my children far the fuck away!

[Letgo]

19 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

Does watching CSAM lead to actually committing child abuse? Does the "thrill" of watching, (puke) eventually not be enough? I have no idea of the statistics on this, but if I were Anna, I would be very afraid.

A few years ago I read about a study in the UK, I think. They wanted to see if allowing pedophiles to view CSAM would deter them from acting on their desires, to see if merely viewing it would be enough for them. As I recall, 85% said viewing it made their impulses to act increase. So no, it doesn't seem to be a deterrent for most.

I'd also be afraid if I were Anna. That is the part that astounds me about this whole thing. Unless for some reason she totally and absolutely believes her husband's lies, she is willingly putting her children at risk. I don't understand how she could completely believe him, given his past history sexually, with the abuse, and the lying and hiding it. Yet here she is, on IG claiming the full story hasn't been told. This is not a case of a husband who has led an exemplary life as a human in general, as a husband, and as a father. Not even close. But Anna chooses to believe Josh and stay with him. I hope he's in prison until his kids are adults.

[gustava]

On 3/16/2022 at 5:12 PM, nokidsmom said:

out of the big house and back to the warehouse

Might be a good title for a thread with the addition of NOT at the beginning!

[nokidsmom]

@gustava  Thank you for the thread title recommendation! 

16 hours ago, Letgo said:

I'd also be afraid if I were Anna. That is the part that astounds me about this whole thing. Unless for some reason she totally and absolutely believes her husband's lies, she is willingly putting her children at risk. I don't understand how she could completely believe him, given his past history sexually, with the abuse, and the lying and hiding it. Yet here she is, on IG claiming the full story hasn't been told. This is not a case of a husband who has led an exemplary life as a human in general, as a husband, and as a father. Not even close. But Anna chooses to believe Josh and stay with him. I hope he's in prison until his kids are adults.

I think Anna just cannot abide the idea that basically she married an awful person and the life she envisioned for herself is over.  That's understandable but she's also had some time to know that her husband was not the person whom she thought or led to believe he was.  Perhaps she needs to hold on to her fantasy that Josh is really innocent because otherwise maybe she really will fall apart.    Someone in Anna's position could benefit from real counseling but we know she's unlikely to do that, which is unfortunate.

At the same time, Anna's denial, while understandable to a point, does put her children at risk.   That's why I was glad to see that Josh was taken into custody immediately upon conviction which insured he didn't have contact with the children, and he's not coming home anytime soon.   So the kids are protected from Josh at this point.    Personally I hope he gets as close to the maximum as possible just so the youngest kids are adults when he gets out. 

[SassyPants]

At this point, Anna is just in the saddest/worse case scenario, isn’t she? She is damned, no matter what. Should she work towards independence, a healthier lifestyle for herself and her kids, and move on and away from the Duggars? Obviously, yes, but at this point, 7 kids, 2 tinies and a preschooler in the mix, not to mention what pulling those kids away from their grandparents, aunts, uncles (no matter how awful they are) would do. Clearly it would be devastating and horrible for a good long time. Yet, staying is so dysfunctional and awful. Unfortunately, staying the course has only led to a worsening situation for Anna. She stays and does nothing because no matter how hard or bad it is, it’s a known entity vs the unknown bad of the outside world. And if JB is as verbally ugly and angry to anyone who challenges him and his authority…well, in a patriarchal society that just plays in his favor, doesn’t it?

[noseybutt]

18 hours ago, Letgo said:

A few years ago I read about a study in the UK, I think. They wanted to see if allowing pedophiles to view CSAM would deter them from acting on their desires, to see if merely viewing it would be enough for them. As I recall, 85% said viewing it made their impulses to act increase. So no, it doesn't seem to be a deterrent for most.

 

Yeah, the whole deterrent theory was a bizarre one and it makes sense it did not hold up.  I think there was a fair amount of research in Germany on it because they have very tight doctor/patient confidentiality. Unlike the US, medical and mental health providers are not mandated reporters. So, a person with pedophilic attraction and behaviors could disclose to professionals and it not trigger child protective services (or, at least not in the same way as in other jurisdictions). I both have moral qualms and fascination as to how the German researchers are proceeding. Most of what we know about pedophilia is coming out of those studies. The squeamish part is--at what price? 

The interesting thing with Josh is that we don't really know his sexual attractions. I suspect it is "anything forbidden" which is frightening given the long list of forbidden things in his head plus how extreme he seems willing to take it. Based on the type of child porn he was caught with, it may have been the violence that was equally (or more) attractive than the age. 

[louisa05]

21 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

The Court can't sentence Josh based on some perceived propensity for him to molest children in the future. He was convicted of possessing/downloading CSAM, and his sentence will be based upon this only (I have no idea whether whether his abuse of girls when he was a minor can even be factored into sentencing as he was neither charged nor convicted of prior crimes).  This is why he's not getting 15, 20 or as WOACB keeps insisting, 40 years. It's wishful thinking to assume otherwise, although it is understandable wishful thinking.

I have a relative who is working as mitigation specialist--they research information   for the defense to use to try and reduce sentences. According to her,  the molestations can be discussed at his sentencing hearing; and since it was allowed to be discussed at trial, it is highly likely that the prosecution will highlight it. She had a CSAM case last year. She found all kinds of horrid things in the convicted person's past including that he had been abused himself. Didn't matter. He got the max sentence. Federal guidelines are usually adhered to pretty strictly and most judges don't have a lot of sympathy for these people. Josh's past will likely influence the sentencing as well. 

[SassyPants]

On 3/18/2022 at 11:37 AM, louisa05 said:

I have a relative who is working as mitigation specialist--they research information   for the defense to use to try and reduce sentences. According to her,  the molestations can be discussed at his sentencing hearing; and since it was allowed to be discussed at trial, it is highly likely that the prosecution will highlight it. She had a CSAM case last year. She found all kinds of horrid things in the convicted person's past including that he had been abused himself. Didn't matter. He got the max sentence. Federal guidelines are usually adhered to pretty strictly and most judges don't have a lot of sympathy for these people. Josh's past will likely influence the sentencing as well. 

Were the prior molestations actually introduced into the trial? I know there was talk of that happening and having Jill testify to the incidents, but I am uncertain if that information was indeed entered. I do know that Jill did not end up testifying.

[Four is Enough]

Did I really read that Josh's attorneys asked for a 30 day delay in sentencing? I can't find it now. I don't think it was Pickles reporting this..

 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

@SassyPants I believe that's what Bobye Holt testified about.

[Letgo]

1 hour ago, Four is Enough said:

Did I really read that Josh's attorneys asked for a 30 day delay in sentencing? I can't find it now. I don't think it was Pickles reporting this..

 

Yes, it's in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. His lawyers want more time to gather information and documentation relevant to his sentencing. 

[sndral]

1 hour ago, Letgo said:

Yes, it's in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. His lawyers want more time to gather information and documentation relevant to his sentencing. 

Here’s a link to the article https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/mar/19/duggar-seeks-30-day-delay-in-child-porn/?news-arkansas-nwa
WTF have they been doing the last 3-4 months? It’s not like finding Josh’s ‘friends,’ family, church, etc. to argue for mitigation is going to take any great detective work. 

[zee_four]

2 hours ago, sndral said:

Here’s a link to the article https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2022/mar/19/duggar-seeks-30-day-delay-in-child-porn/?news-arkansas-nwa
WTF have they been doing the last 3-4 months? It’s not like finding Josh’s ‘friends,’ family, church, etc. to argue for mitigation is going to take any great detective work. 

In high profile cases like this its not uncommon for defense lawyers to try to extend the process as long as possible. I know my defense lawyer did this, I was hospitalized in ICU for over a month and left unable to walk again, so there was legit reasons that the paper called "claims of poor health". But also before that, at the beginning when the DAs office has sent out a press release full of really horrific sensationalistic claims of me being a drug kingpin selling a specifically lethal strain of heroin (fun fact most of the claims of febtynal being so dangerous touching it will kill you, of it being in drugs like weed and coke, etc. have no proof other than police departments who have even faked videos, every scientist and expert believes these are all false and have no actual proof- but scaring the crap out of the public about innocent kids touching a bag of candy laced either fentynal and dying keep their budgets up, like way up) and killing people statewide. Even with their completely over the top charges they never came close to suggesting something that outrageous and false in court ever. But it definitely got media attention and really lowered my chance of having a fair trial in our small community. That kind of media saturation isn't an uncommon prosecutor strategy either, especially when there are political or other motives that are not truly justice related, to control the narrative in a way they'd never be able to even in the more corrupt courtrooms.

Josh is an example of them getting it right though, finally, so no sympathy at all and if anything his charges were mild for what he's done over his life.

But yeah, defense attorneys like to take as much time for initial public outrage from media coverage to die down especially before  trials, sentencings,  things like that. It's not unique to Josh at all.

[Idlewild]

I wondered if they wanted some sort of medical evaluation? I know the Duggars don’t generally believe in any psychological disorders and think it can all be prayed away, but are prepared to do anything to reduce his sentence.

[Smee]

On 3/19/2022 at 4:38 AM, noseybutt said:

The interesting thing with Josh is that we don't really know his sexual attractions. I suspect it is "anything forbidden" which is frightening given the long list of forbidden things in his head plus how extreme he seems willing to take it. Based on the type of child porn he was caught with, it may have been the violence that was equally (or more) attractive than the age. 

I have wondered this too, especially since he also had adult “rape porn” and the specifics of Danica Dillon’s allegations (spitting, choking etc). I think he gets off on violence and feeling powerful, and it would not surprise me in the slightest if it came out he was also physically abusive.