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

[Marshmallow World]

52 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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.

Again my experience is somewhat limited, but outside of victim impact statements (which are sealed), I have never seen a letter, declaration, or affidavit filed that came from a person under the age of 18 in relation to sentencing. I don't know if they consider minors' statements as credible (as in non-coerced) at the federal level, but in my state, boy oh boy would you get in trouble if you tried that file that.

[Dandruff]

24 minutes ago, Guanabana said:

I do wonder which siblings will be pressured by JB to vouch for their monster brother.

Don't know if any siblings would cooperate but I can imagine the Rebers attesting to what a model pest he was.

[KnittingOwl]

3 hours ago, anjulibai said:

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

His psych report is part of his medical record and that’s covered under HIPAA. I also am generally uncomfortable of the idea of psych reports being generally available, convicted felon or not. There are just too many people who get cases overturned. Not that it applies to Josh, but you can’t make a law that only applies to Smuggar. 

[Antimony]

9 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

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 

Small note, no scolding, but there is a (relatively small) movement to stop referring to the Aokigahara as a "suicide forest" because people worry that it sensationalizes it and/or makes it a more romanticized location for suicide. It doesn't really have this nickname in Japan as much as it does in the English-speaking Morbid-Loving World (of which I am a part). All that said, I want to go to Aokigahara so badly.  The morbidity aside, I want to go there so badly because I hear the thickness of the forest and the nature of the ground creates a weirdly sound dampening air, resulting in an unusual quietness. Maybe that's part of the romanticization, but I've heard such about other thick forests before. 

[Guanabana]

I recently saw Derick’s response to a comment accusing Jill of defending the felon on the MK interview for money. Derick’s response not only denied they were paid for the interview (or their participation on the shows), but said Jill’s participation was borderline coercion. He used another word that I can’t recall.

 I don’t doubt for a second that JB is verbally abusive, an emotional bully, and would have no qualms about blackmailing his children. But now that it is out there, JB’s true nature, and other unflattering aspects of the cult, would he dare twist some arms in an effort to save face. I hope I got my point across. 
I sometimes forget that to a lot of people out there JB’s and M’s level of evil is new news. The same goes for IBLP. 

[sableduck]

34 minutes ago, Guanabana said:

I recently saw Derick’s response to a comment accusing Jill of defending the felon on the MK interview for money. Derick’s response not only denied they were paid for the interview (or their participation on the shows), but said Jill’s participation was borderline coercion. He used another word that I can’t recall.

 I don’t doubt for a second that JB is verbally abusive, an emotional bully, and would have no qualms about blackmailing his children. But now that it is out there, JB’s true nature, and other unflattering aspects of the cult, would he dare twist some arms in an effort to save face. I hope I got my point across. 
I sometimes forget that to a lot of people out there JB’s and M’s level of evil is new news. The same goes for IBLP. 

I’m guessing Derick won’t be attaching any letters testifying to Josh’s good character.

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, KnittingOwl said:

His psych report is part of his medical record and that’s covered under HIPAA. I also am generally uncomfortable of the idea of psych reports being generally available, convicted felon or not. There are just too many people who get cases overturned. Not that it applies to Josh, but you can’t make a law that only applies to Smuggar. 

Not exactly. Psych reports produced for the court are not covered under HIPAA. There are key differences between treatment evaluations and forensic evaluations, and that is one of the main ones. The reports are not confidential and the defendant is advised that this is the case at the very beginning of the evaluation.

[Mrs. Kravitz]

5 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

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?  

Considering how the pre-trial interviews went, I think anything JB wrote would have the opposite effect on the judge. "My son is a good person. I don't recall him ever doing anything bad!"

 

Edited February 16, 2022 by Mrs. Kravitz

[SassyPants]

What would Josh’s good points include? 

Talking about his kids-no

Talking about being a family man and husband-no

Standup Christian- no

Hard worker-no

Motivated-no

Wonderful brother-no

[anjulibai]

44 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

What would Josh’s good points include? 

Talking about his kids-no

Talking about being a family man and husband-no

Standup Christian- no

Hard worker-no

Motivated-no

Wonderful brother-no

That he is none of those things doesn't matter. They believe he is all of those things because he's white, male and speaks the right Christainese. 

[Bluebirdbluebell]

1 hour ago, anjulibai said:

That he is none of those things doesn't matter. They believe he is all of those things because he's white, male and speaks right-wing Christainese. 

I changed it a little, but I agree with your basic point.

Edited February 16, 2022 by Bluebirdbluebell

[KnittingOwl]

4 hours ago, noseybutt said:

Not exactly. Psych reports produced for the court are not covered under HIPAA. There are key differences between treatment evaluations and forensic evaluations, and that is one of the main ones. The reports are not confidential and the defendant is advised that this is the case at the very beginning of the evaluation.

Interesting. Thanks for the correction. 

[noseybutt]

10 hours ago, KnittingOwl said:

Interesting. Thanks for the correction. 

The laws are complex.

HIPAA is for medical treatment providers, insurance companies, and people who do billing. Basically they have to make an effort not to accidentally or intentionally release information without permission of the patient. 

Typically treatment providers, if they testify, will testify as fact witnesses. They can talk about what they did for treatment (assessment, diagnosis, treatment plan) but cannot speak to legal questions, hypotheticals, etc. 

When a mental health professional is appointed by the court, the resulting evaluation will go to all sides (judge, DA, defense). If hired by the attorney, the information goes to the attorney first and only released if the attorney finds it helpful.

But the whole evaluation process is different than what would happen in a treatment setting. The point of the evaluation is to answer a legal question, not to treat. The client is the court or the attorney, not the person being evaluated. There will be heavy reliance on collateral information. Generally a forensic evaluator has far more information than a treatment clinician would (legal files, rap sheet, police reports, educational records, jail medical records, jail custody/discipline records, etc.) A forensic evaluator can often interview collateral people--except victims--even if the defendant may not want that to happen. There is an assumption that the evaluator is not an advocate for the defendant in the same way that a treating professional might be. Because, again, the client is the court or the attorney.

Forensic evaluators generally testify as expert witnesses (not fact witnesses). That means they can speak more broadly. They can draw conclusions, opine on legal questions, answer hypothetical questions, explain research, etc.

Where this gets super complex is that if the defendant wishes their mental state or mental health to be part of their defense, then pretty much all previous medical records are fair game and can be subpoenaed. This happens a lot in civil cases. It also happens in criminal cases with not guilty by reason of insanity and diminished capacity cases, competency to stand trial, and some sentencing cases. 

Also, there are certain jobs where medical records may be insisted on. For example, with a law enforcement pre-employment evaluation with a person who admits to mental health issues--the agency will likely ask them to sign over a release for all medical records. The applicant can refuse. But the psychologist doing the evaluation can also refuse to pass them if there are concerns.

 

ETA I don't think medical records are all that secure. There are lots of ways a medical provider can release information in order to get paid. Also, courts can and do subpoena. I am pretty tight lipped with my medical providers. I say what I need to say and answer their questions but no, I don't chit chat about random things. It's almost a paranoia. LOL.

Edited February 16, 2022 by noseybutt

[patsymae]

On 2/13/2022 at 6:03 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That's what I'd love to know.  If this gets out beyond snarkers who care enough to read the court papers I wonder if he'll issue a statement.

I can't find the original mention of how Paul Ryan's name showed up, but I'm kind of surprised Smuggar didn't ask the FBI, "Has Paul Ryan been downloading child porn on my computer?"

edited to finish my sentence

Edited February 16, 2022 by patsymae
addition

[HerNameIsBuffy]

8 minutes ago, patsymae said:

I can't find the original mention of how Paul Ryan's name showed up, but I'm kind of surprised Smuggar didn't ask the FBI, "Has Paul Ryan b?"

It was in the latest court filings of the prosecution's response to the defenses request for acquittal or a new trial end of last week I think.  You can find the docs in the reddit link I posted upthread.

I'm so disappointed the main stream media didn't pick this up forcing Ryan to issue a statement.  

[patsymae]

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

It was in the latest court filings of the prosecution's response to the defenses request for acquittal or a new trial end of last week I think.  You can find the docs in the reddit link I posted upthread.

I'm so disappointed the main stream media didn't pick this up forcing Ryan to issue a statement.  

me too. I googled but couldn't find one damn mention.

[Expectopatronus]

Okay, so I’m not suggesting that I believe that this is what happened but just as a legal question if Josh’s legal team in the appeal can prove that he isn’t the one who downloaded the CSA, can he still be charged with possession? And is there an aiding and abetting law that he could be smacked with for providing access to a computer that was set up to cover illegal activities along with giving his password to everyone? If he knew that someone was downloading CSA material, isn’t he also culpable? 
Or, and I am wildly musing here, if Anna’s statement that there is more to the story indicates that they both knew that the computer was being used for illegal activities, could both parents end up behind bars? 
Wow, I’m thinking in bizarre, convoluted ways here that would make for B grade movies! I must need to go home! Work day almost done. 

[patsymae]

On 2/15/2022 at 5:46 PM, Dandruff said:

Don't know if any siblings would cooperate but I can imagine the Rebers attesting to what a model pest he was.

because not only are they tools, but their grandchildren are/will be cousins with Smuggar's kids. What a tangled web...

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, Expectopatronus said:

Okay, so I’m not suggesting that I believe that this is what happened but just as a legal question if Josh’s legal team in the appeal can prove that he isn’t the one who downloaded the CSA, can he still be charged with possession? And is there an aiding and abetting law that he could be smacked with for providing access to a computer that was set up to cover illegal activities along with giving his password to everyone? If he knew that someone was downloading CSA material, isn’t he also culpable? 
Or, and I am wildly musing here, if Anna’s statement that there is more to the story indicates that they both knew that the computer was being used for illegal activities, could both parents end up behind bars? 
Wow, I’m thinking in bizarre, convoluted ways here that would make for B grade movies! I must need to go home! Work day almost done. 

I can't speak to the legal stuff, but I'd be shocked if Anna even had an inkling that Covenant Eyes wasn't foolproof.  She is the exact target market for nanny software, people too gullible to understand how worthless it is.

[Mama Mia]

39 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I can't speak to the legal stuff, but I'd be shocked if Anna even had an inkling that Covenant Eyes wasn't foolproof.  She is the exact target market for nanny software, people too gullible to understand how worthless it is.

I don’t think she’s even shocked that Josh-u-a did it. I think there’s a reason Josh-u-a was moved into the warehouse instead of one of the ten zillion other properties the Duggarborg owns. It’s because absolutely no one trusts him and they know he needs eyes on him 24/7 to stay out of trouble, and even then it’s a long shot. She’s gullible. She’s dick whipped. But she’s not a complete imbecile. She probably HOPED covenant eyes was foolproof, or at least enough of a deterrent to slow him down, but he’s slimed his way out of so much, that she can’t be shocked he found a way to wiggle around it.  I (unfortunately) completely understand lying to yourself to believe some POS man because of love — but that’s often as much about rationalizing or excusing the behaviors as actually believing the denials. 

[Sullie06]

On 2/11/2022 at 4:14 PM, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Prosecutions response to the Defense's motion to acquit or order a new trial.  Anything think Mrs. MoreToTheStory will read any of this?

The trigger warning is for real, The reddit post is safe, but don't click the Court Listener Link if you wish to avoid graphic details like the file names of some of the CSAM.

 

I love this response by the Prosecution. You can clearly see they are over this whole Duggar Circus. They were like here are the facts. This is just more typical Duggar behavior. Excuses have been made for Josh his entire life. His problematic sexual behaviors have always been the fault of someone else (his sisters for tempting him, the Holts for bringing it to light, CPS, the media, the people who leaked Ashley Madison, Caleb, The federal government, and the list goes on). Josh thinks he's a martyr and I truly believe they think they can "talk " their way out of this one. 

On 2/12/2022 at 10:04 AM, fundiewatch said:

The pre-sentencing investigation is also on Court Listener, obviously not public. Would love to see it!

As somebody who writes PSI's for a living I would LOVE to read his. 

[Sullie06]

On 2/12/2022 at 7:45 PM, Mama Mia said:

I’d be interested. My impression was that the Holt’s believed that  JB taking Josh to talk to the cop was properly reporting to the authorities. To be fair, JB and Michelle may have felt the same. The cop may very well have convinced JB and Michelle that no charges were needed, and that church camp, counseling by a pastor, and keeping Josh supervised around his sisters was enough. I’m sure JB and Michelle would very much want to believe that, and the cop, himself being later found to be a pedo, likely sympathized with Josh. As far as I recall the worst of the abuse wasn’t disclosed to Bobye by Josh until later, around the time the letter and Oprah show came out? So Bobye could have very well made more reports around that time, but it was already being handled.  I’d love to see a timeline though, I could be completely mixed up. 

When I was working as a social worker, I made more CPS reports than I can count, and quite a few police reports. I had a pretty thorough working knowledge of the laws, many, many, many trainings in child abuse /neglect / exploitation. Worked on program development, worked with clients on completing their CPS plans, many of which involved child sexual assault.  And on and on and on.  For 20 years. And I was STILL often surprised sometimes by which cases would result in charges or an open cases - and which wouldn’t. I could easily see a panicked parent or family friend accepting that if no case was opened - and an authority figure had been informed - that’s the way it was supposed to go. 
 

That isn’t meant to excuse anyone involved - particularly the way they treated their daughters after the abuse! Or the incredibly bizarre decision to pursue television with that huge a secret hanging overhead. Or triple down on “purity” etc etc etc 

But I can see WHY they’d think they’d done what they needed to do after they told the cop. 
 

 

I was going to say the same thing. Quite honestly, if they had gone to the police after the original molestation, there might not have been any charges filed. In my line of work, I've seen offenders come through our office who had prior offenses that no charges were filed on. Typically CPS would become involved and the the offender would have to complete a specialized treatment program. However, if they do not complete, or they reoffend, that's often when charges are filed. I have found that in the recent years, police are more willing to charge adolescent sexual offenders from the initial offense. 

The Duggars just did more harm to all of their children and perpetuated the cycle by not dealing with this in a proper legal manner.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, Sullie06 said:

I love this response by the Prosecution. You can clearly see they are over this whole Duggar Circus. They were like here are the facts. This is just more typical Duggar behavior. Excuses have been made for Josh his entire life. His problematic sexual behaviors have always been the fault of someone else (his sisters for tempting him, the Holts for bringing it to light, CPS, the media, the people who leaked Ashley Madison, Caleb, The federal government, and the list goes on). Josh thinks he's a martyr and I truly believe they think they can "talk " their way out of this one. 

As somebody who writes PSI's for a living I would LOVE to read his. 

Can the court compel people to cooperate with the pre-trial investigations?  So if say Michelle refused to be interviewed for the psycho-sexual eval could she be legally compelled to do so?

Edited February 17, 2022 by HerNameIsBuffy

[Sullie06]

On 2/14/2022 at 1:37 PM, anjulibai said:

I wish it wasn't sealed. 

PSI's are always sealed. When we complete them they go directly to the judge. The only person who can release it, including to the attorney's is the judge and has to be done under court order. When we have a juvenile offender go into placement we have to request the court send a copy of the PSI to the detention center as they are legally allowed to use it for treatment and residential purposes but we can't just give it to them, the court has to. 

[Sullie06]

On 2/14/2022 at 11:12 PM, ifosterkittens said:

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? 

If I remember correctly, Josh was on electronic monitoring. Which means his probation officer was aware of his whereabouts at all times. I will tell you from personal experience, our Pre-Trial Release Investigators would probably have given him permission to attend the wedding if he has been following all conditions of his release and it was in a situation where he would be supervised at all times. It's called graduated responses. 

As for if he didn't have permission, if he were still pending trial it could have a been a violation and they could have remanded him for the remainder of his pre-trial period. They also could have just brought him in, had a conversation with him and restored him to PTR. If he violated, the judge would have been notified. If he had permission the judge would not have because it was at the discretion of a Probation Officer. He would not have been in violation of any conditions.