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

[ifosterkittens]

I hope the judge knows Josh attended the wedding. Even if Josh had permission the judge should know.  Why in the world would his wife's brother's wedding be an exception to the strict rules? I understand the Rebers were his watchers (or whatever they were called), but at their daughter's wedding I think they have other things to focus on and can't be expected to watch him at the wedding. Could another person be appointed temporary watcher?

If Josh didn't have permission the judge really needs to know. There are established criteria to determine sentencing, and this may not factor in, but the judge should have all the facts while determining the sentence. If the judge is considering any type of leniency hopefully this would sway him. 

For those in the legal field could there be any legal repercussions if Josh didn't have permission and violated the terms of his release before trial? Could the Rebers be held accountable? I'm guessing the money put up for bail has already been returned, but if not, could it not be returned? 

[JDuggs]

I’m assuming that Josh was wearing an ankle monitor and the court was always aware of his location.

[Anna Bolinas]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:28 PM, AussieKrissy said:

Who is paul ryan why am I getting images of that crappy arsehole youtuber? who's name I cant remember but I know isnt paul ryan 

 

I think you're thinking of Jake and Logan Paul, both douchebag Youtubers. Jake Paul is probably best known for living in a house with a bunch of other "influencers" and being a general dickhead/nuisance. Logan Paul is probably best known either for his video showing an actual dead body in his video on Japan's "suicide forest" or his attempts at being a celebrity boxer. They both suck just as much as the actual Paul Ryan.

[Dandruff]

21 minutes ago, JDuggs said:

I’m assuming that Josh was wearing an ankle monitor and the court was always aware of his location.

Wasn't the wedding on the Reber's property?  If so, just knowing his location wouldn't be enough to raise a flag.  The court would also need to know about the wedding and that he was in attendance.

[Smee]

On 2/14/2022 at 2:01 PM, Mama Mia said:

The strangest thing about Paul Ryan is that he is an absolute twin of the music teacher on Glee. Very disconcerting. Didn’t Paul Ryan quit after Trump came in because he couldn’t stand the circus and / or was being blackmailed?

Oh wow he is too. I don’t know Matthew Morrison’s politics, but I’d find it very entertaining if he dyed his hair dark and put his acting skills to use pretending to be Paul Ryan and trolling him in every way possible.

9 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Just out of curiosity, say you're invited to a wedding of your fundy sibling, cousin, or inlaw and you show up and Josh is there, do you walk out?  If you brought your kids you know he won't harm them as you won't let them out of your sight, do you stay and side eye him or bail?

 

I’ve heard waaay too many stories of kids molested with their parents RIGHT THERE (on a bus with parents in the seat behind them, in the kitchen literal seconds after being followed out of the lounge to get a drink, all those gymnasts who thought what Nassar was doing must be ok because it was in front of mom etc) that it wouldn’t be enough for me. If I know there’s a pedophile awaiting trial for CSAM in attendance, I’m coming down with a sudden gastro bug and rushing everyone home.

[Mama Mia]

9 hours ago, Dandruff said:

Wasn't the wedding on the Reber's property?  If so, just knowing his location wouldn't be enough to raise a flag.  The court would also need to know about the wedding and that he was in attendance.

It was established back when the wedding happened that it was at some outside venue, not at the Reber’s.  Also we talked about him being on electronic monitoring. The officials in charge of him definitely knew he was there.
 

I’m going to assume the family pushed for him to go based on it being his (probable) last chance to see them for a very, very long time, and it was allowed because the Reber’s and Anna would be there. They may have had additional restrictions on how long he could stay, being alone inside with minors etc..

Remember too that even after conviction, registered sex offenders might have bans on being at playgrounds or schools —areas that are mostly geared towards children - but will be at the supermarket or a stadium for a baseball game or a shopping mall. The determining  factor in a request to go somewhere  might be if the event/location is primarily geared towards children ,or if children are just incidentally there.

[ILoveJellybeans]

I cant see why he should have been allowed to go to the wedding. With so many people around, so many children, how could he be supervised properly? Especially as big families are the norm in their culture, so its easier for kids to be unsupervised. A lot of the children probably dont know that Uncle Josh is a pedophile, or dont understand what that means and why they are told not to be around him.

The Rebers probably want to spend time with their daughter as its her wedding day, instead of minding a pedophile. Anna has a whole bunch of kids to watch, all who probably want to see Daddy, but also who want to go and play with their cousins. What can she do if one kid wants to be with Josh but another needs something, is getting into something they shouldnt or she does a head count and comes up short, or what if that happened but Josh needed to be left alone while there are other children about? She cant be in more than one place at once.

I wonder what the other people there really thought when they saw Josh there? I know fundies have to keep sweet and all, but surely some of them were very uncomfortable with it.

[Antimony]

37 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

It was established back when the wedding happened that it was at some outside venue, not at the Reber’s.  Also we talked about him being on electronic monitoring. The officials in charge of him definitely knew he was there.
 

I’m going to assume the family pushed for him to go based on it being his (probable) last chance to see them for a very, very long time, and it was allowed because the Reber’s and Anna would be there. They may have had additional restrictions on how long he could stay, being alone inside with minors etc..

Remember too that even after conviction, registered sex offenders might have bans on being at playgrounds or schools —areas that are mostly geared towards children - but will be at the supermarket or a stadium for a baseball game or a shopping mall. The determining  factor in a request to go somewhere  might be if the event/location is primarily geared towards children ,or if children are just incidentally there.

I have....complicated feelings about the wedding attendance and I guess I'm prepared to have them rejected. Personally, emotionally, personal-decision wise, I would have been uncomfortable with bringing children to such an event. Emotionally, I believe that anything could have happened, and that Josh is the worst, but statistically, I don't know if it's any more dangerous than other behavior. It's an "easy" emotional call here because of what we know about Josh, but it is probably technically safer to have a child at a wedding, with you, even though Josh in the general area, than it is to like...have your child sit with a chaperone on a field trip who is a stranger. Or to drop them off at a summer camp.* 

In short, it feels like a knowledge bias. It feels icky (and it also is icky, but this is about feelings, because none of us went to this wedding anyway) because we know what we know, but that knowledge also means people are aware and their guard is up, as opposed to other situations where your guard is down because you feel safe with the people in your community (and you should! if it's deserved! isn't a dream of humanity to live in a safe community!) even if they are strangers. 

Of course, there are complicated factors here. Fundie children, in general, are almost raised to not only be convenient victims (within their own culture, not as a value judgement for any given victim of anything) and are not armed with the vocabulary to report abuse. There's been a lot said about the value of teaching children anatomical terms and how it can help them either defend themselves or accurately name what has happened to them. (And, as with anything in trauma or mental illness, etc, the ability to name the problem is usually half the battle.) 

The other thing here that informs my thoughts, and that I've posted before, is that Sex Offender Registries just aren't effective. It's a weird political situation were we can actually see the data because SOR's were staggered in their implementation state-by-state and they just aren't effective. If they aren't effective, I have trouble seeing a case that preventing Josh from attending a wedding is a reliable way to protect anybody and would probably just been seen as purely punitive by the courts, which is complicated because he wasn't convicted at this point. 

I always feel like I'm starting a mess when I think to bring up nuance here or mention that the SRO doesn't work, because a lot of people feel this is a defense for pedophiles but I really just think it's worse to throw "fixes" at a problem that don't actually work and refuse to get into the nitty gritty, even though it's very very uncomfortable. 

All that said, the wedding is kind of the least of the issues here because there has been no meaningful action from Parents Duggar to protect the rest of their children from Josh nor any meaningful action from Anna to do the right thing for her children, so we're kind of pointing out a pimple on somebody who has a flesh eating bacteria infection. 

*I say from experience! I've been a camp counselor for different things. Sports, academic camps. Ages 7 to 17. For some camps, I had to pass a background check. For others, they were short staffed and were like, "Yea, you can teach sports, whatever". I could be anybody. I'm not anybody, I'm me, but I could have been anybody and I was absolutely floored every time a parent just dropped off their child and walked away, no matter how many camps I did. For some reason, the amount of trust they were handing to me, who they don't know from Adam, never felt less heavy or like a bigger responsibility and I absolutely never got used to it. Is that weird? Maybe that's weird. 

[Idlewild]

41 minutes ago, ILoveJellybeans said:

 

Anna has a whole bunch of kids to watch, all who probably want to see Daddy, but also who want to go and play with their cousins. What can she do if one kid wants to be with Josh but another needs something, is getting into something they shouldnt or she does a head count and comes up short, or what if that happened but Josh needed to be left alone while there are other children about? She cant be in more than one place at once.

 

I think it’s obvious by now that Anna wouldn’t do a thing- she’d let him be smirking around kids and get snotty with anyone who challenged it.

Josh is responsible for his crimes, but the role of his enablers in making him think he will always get away with it should not be understated.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Antimony said:

I have....complicated feelings about the wedding attendance and I guess I'm prepared to have them rejected. Personally, emotionally, personal-decision wise, I would have been uncomfortable with bringing children to such an event. Emotionally, I believe that anything could have happened, and that Josh is the worst, but statistically, I don't know if it's any more dangerous than other behavior. It's an "easy" emotional call here because of what we know about Josh, but it is probably technically safer to have a child at a wedding, with you, even though Josh in the general area, than it is to like...have your child sit with a chaperone on a field trip who is a stranger. Or to drop them off at a summer camp.* 

In short, it feels like a knowledge bias. It feels icky (and it also is icky, but this is about feelings, because none of us went to this wedding anyway) because we know what we know, but that knowledge also means people are aware and their guard is up, as opposed to other situations where your guard is down because you feel safe with the people in your community (and you should! if it's deserved! isn't a dream of humanity to live in a safe community!) even if they are strangers. 

Of course, there are complicated factors here. Fundie children, in general, are almost raised to not only be convenient victims (within their own culture, not as a value judgement for any given victim of anything) and are not armed with the vocabulary to report abuse. There's been a lot said about the value of teaching children anatomical terms and how it can help them either defend themselves or accurately name what has happened to them. (And, as with anything in trauma or mental illness, etc, the ability to name the problem is usually half the battle.) 

The other thing here that informs my thoughts, and that I've posted before, is that Sex Offender Registries just aren't effective. It's a weird political situation were we can actually see the data because SOR's were staggered in their implementation state-by-state and they just aren't effective. If they aren't effective, I have trouble seeing a case that preventing Josh from attending a wedding is a reliable way to protect anybody and would probably just been seen as purely punitive by the courts, which is complicated because he wasn't convicted at this point. 

I always feel like I'm starting a mess when I think to bring up nuance here or mention that the SRO doesn't work, because a lot of people feel this is a defense for pedophiles but I really just think it's worse to throw "fixes" at a problem that don't actually work and refuse to get into the nitty gritty, even though it's very very uncomfortable. 

All that said, the wedding is kind of the least of the issues here because there has been no meaningful action from Parents Duggar to protect the rest of their children from Josh nor any meaningful action from Anna to do the right thing for her children, so we're kind of pointing out a pimple on somebody who has a flesh eating bacteria infection. 

*I say from experience! I've been a camp counselor for different things. Sports, academic camps. Ages 7 to 17. For some camps, I had to pass a background check. For others, they were short staffed and were like, "Yea, you can teach sports, whatever". I could be anybody. I'm not anybody, I'm me, but I could have been anybody and I was absolutely floored every time a parent just dropped off their child and walked away, no matter how many camps I did. For some reason, the amount of trust they were handing to me, who they don't know from Adam, never felt less heavy or like a bigger responsibility and I absolutely never got used to it. Is that weird? Maybe that's weird. 

Thank you for taking the time to post this.  You bring up a lot of really important points, and the "known" factor would definitely affect my feelings, but I acknowledge that's my anger apart from risk.

I don't have time for a more in-depth reply atm but this gave me a lot to think about.

[Alisamer]

1 hour ago, ILoveJellybeans said:

I cant see why he should have been allowed to go to the wedding.

Innocent until proven guilty. He was charged, but not convicted at the time of the wedding, and as long as he went through the proper channels for permission I'm not surprised they allowed him to attend. It was a large event that was not child-centered, and he was charged with receiving and possessing CSA material - not creating it or committing molestation (even though everyone knows what he did as a teen). He was in the presence of the Rebers, who were his "guardians", as well as having Anna present to supervise him with the children. And the party line at that point for most of the people attending was likely along the lines of "oh, we're so sad for what is happening to poor Anna and hope the truth comes out quickly". 

Like, yeah he's an icky slimeball to US. But technically speaking at that point if he was given permission to attend there was nothing wrong with him attending, and he was likely welcomed by many of the people there who may have been glad that he was getting this bit of normality in the midst of all the stress of a trial and living away from home. Even those there who also thought he was icky likely were coldly polite at worst, after all if he'd been found "not guilty" at trial anyone in their circles who went public saying he was guilty might find themselves backtracking and having to apologize to get back in good graces, if they wanted that sort of thing. 

Now if it was me? He'd not have been invited. Or if for some reason (like parental pressure) he HAD to be invited, I'd have made it a no-kids wedding or tried to schedule it at a time or place I knew he couldn't possibly show up. If I was invited to the wedding, and I was close with the couple, I'd have attended and been coldly polite and distanced myself the second he came near me (had to do that with someone at my own sister's wedding, actually). If I wasn't close to them, I'd have sent regrets and not attended.

I have no ideas why the Rebers would have wanted him to attend, but they apparently did, so if he had permission it was normal for him to attend. That video is just clickbait, IMO.

[KnittingOwl]

On 2/14/2022 at 10:37 AM, anjulibai said:

I wish it wasn't sealed. 

I don’t. It’s a victim statement, which means it’s someone who was a victim of CSA and most likely from someone who was a child in one of the videos. The general public should not have access to that. Especially because there are people out there who will enjoy reading it, which revictimizes the individual again. It should stay sealed forever. 

[fundiewatch]

I think his attendance was the shittiest for Josie and any other minor siblings there. There has been zero contact with him since his arrest by court order and suddenly they get to deal with the uncertain feelings of having him around, without having any knowledge or understanding of what’s really going on. His ick got all over them and I hate that. The bride, I guess, chose it, but they didn’t. That said, this was pretrial so if those events are approved, so be it. I guess it’s their last dresses up pics for awhile. 

[anjulibai]

47 minutes ago, KnittingOwl said:

I don’t. It’s a victim statement, which means it’s someone who was a victim of CSA and most likely from someone who was a child in one of the videos. The general public should not have access to that. Especially because there are people out there who will enjoy reading it, which revictimizes the individual again. It should stay sealed forever. 

I can understand the victim statement being sealed, but I think the rest (like the psych report) should be public. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by anjulibai

[ifosterkittens]

If Josh had permission to be there it seems to me (IANAL) like that is a tremendous amount of privilege other people facing similar charges with similar conditions of release would not have been granted. 

[QuiverFullofBooks]

I thought about Paul Ryan more yesterday than I had in a decade. It turns out that he’s related by marriage to one of the possible Supreme Court nominees, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Her husband, Patrick Jackson, has a twin brother,  William, who is married to Dana Little Jackson, whose sister, Janna, is married to Paul Ryan. Paul Ryan testified in favor of her nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, which is more Republican approval than the other possible nominees are likely to get.

[Marshmallow World]

And we have a sentencing date: April 5, 2022 at 9:30am. 

[formergothardite]

19 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

How can you be on trial for CSAM and have no shame about showing your face and mingling

I keep thinking about the gender reveal they did right before Josh turned himself in. And Josh and Anna’s smile when he did turned himself in. They have no shame. None. I don’t think Anna or Josh felt even a twinge of misgiving about attending the wedding. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

28 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

I keep thinking about the gender reveal they did right before Josh turned himself in. And Josh and Anna’s smile when he did turned himself in. They have no shame. None. I don’t think Anna or Josh felt even a twinge of misgiving about attending the wedding. 

This.  I think it's the one thing about many fundies that puzzles me the most, the total lack of shame.  

54 minutes ago, Marshmallow World said:

And we have a sentencing date: April 5, 2022 at 9:30am. 

Ha!  Won't that guy be thrilled at clicks from a new snark board?!  

Thanks for posting this.   I do wonder if anyone will enter a sentencing memorandum whatever the opposite of a victims impact statement is, where they talk about his merits and good things the court should take into account - on his behalf besides Anna.  Do you guys think even JB and M will enter a statement?  

Sorry for the hot mess of a sentence, if anyone knows what that is called help a girl out....you don't learn that working in IT!

I bet Anna's statement will probably be written on a Chick Fil A napkin in crayon; however much the lawyer who will rewrite it into something intelligible is getting paid, it's not enough.

Edited February 15, 2022 by HerNameIsBuffy

[Marshmallow World]

20 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

 I do wonder if anyone will enter a sentencing memorandum on his behalf besides Anna.  Do you guys think even JB and M will enter a statement?  

I bet Anna's statement will probably be written on a Chick Fil A napkin in crayon; however much the lawyer who will rewrite it into something intelligible is getting paid, it's not enough.

My understanding is that his defense counsel will file a sentencing memorandum arguing for as little jail time as possible and a response brief to the prosecution's sentencing memorandum (who I assume will be arguing for the most jail time as possible). I don't think family members can file those - only counsel can. I'm happy to be corrected if wrong. Like I've stated, my experience is mostly in civil litigation on the state level with a few criminal matters thrown in, but I do believe our state rules are similar to the federal ones. 

ETA: Also I want to make it clear that I am NOT a lawyer, I'm a career paralegal. A Degreed Law Professional, if you will 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Marshmallow World
ETA

[missy1228]

4 minutes ago, Marshmallow World said:

My understanding is that his defense counsel will file a sentencing memorandum arguing for as little jail time as possible and a response brief to the prosecution's sentencing memorandum (who I assume will be arguing for the most jail time as possible). I don't think family members can file those - only counsel can. I'm happy to be corrected if wrong. Like I've stated, my experience is mostly in civil litigation on the state level with a few criminal matters thrown in, but I do believe our state rules are similar to the federal ones. 

I don't practice in Federal courts, but I've written many a sentencing memo that follow the same sort of template as one written in federal court.  They will give fluffy feel good family background, talk about what a great guy he is, how the community isn't in any danger, doesn't have a criminal history, etc., and will likely attach letters written by friends and family in support as exhibits.  I don't know if that will be sealed as well, but I know when I file them in my state, they are public record and make part of the clerk's file. It will be interested if anyone, or if so, whom, will write letters to the Court on his behalf (other than the "long suffering" Anna, of course.)

Edited February 15, 2022 by missy1228

[HerNameIsBuffy]

5 minutes ago, missy1228 said:

I don't practice in Federal courts, but I've written many a sentencing memo that follow the same sort of template as one written in federal court.  They will give fluffy feel good family background, talk about what a great guy he is, how the community isn't in any danger, doesn't have a criminal history, etc., and will likely attach letters written by friends and family in support as exhibits.  I don't know if that will be sealed as well, but I know when I file them in my state, they are public record and make part of the clerk's file. It will be interested if anyone, or if so, whom, will write letters to the Court on his behalf (other than the "long suffering" Anna, of course.)

Thanks to you and @Marshmallow World for the correction on my wording.  I edited my post above.

Horrible thought just occurred to me, they won't let the M's submit letters will they?  Not that the court would be swayed, but the trauma of putting them through that would be unforgivable.

[Marshmallow World]

@missy1228 Yes, I didn't think about sworn affidavits/declarations as exhibits. I've seen quite a few of those now that I think about it. Those are public record in my state, too. I'm really curious to see if Josh's will be made available. 

[AussieKrissy]

16 hours ago, Anna Bolinas said:

I think you're thinking of Jake and Logan Paul, both douchebag Youtubers. Jake Paul is probably best known for living in a house with a bunch of other "influencers" and being a general dickhead/nuisance. Logan Paul is probably best known either for his video showing an actual dead body in his video on Japan's "suicide forest" or his attempts at being a celebrity boxer. They both suck just as much as the actual Paul Ryan.

yes the suicide forrest one is the one I am thinking of. I did not know he had a dickhead brother though 

Nature vs nurture double screwed those knob jockeys 

[Guanabana]

48 minutes ago, missy1228 said:

It will be interested if anyone, or if so, whom, will write letters to the Court on his behalf (other than the "long suffering" Anna, of course.)

Im sure Hilary Spivey has her letter written and co-signed by her husband. That woman is so thirsty she not only leg jumps James and Jason, but insinuated herself into this trial. Pa Keller and Pecan Thief will probably blab incoherently about God’s grace, forgiveness, and redemption. I do wonder which siblings will be pressured by JB to vouch for their monster brother.