(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 51: An Unappealing Appeal

[JermajestyDuggar]

4 hours ago, gustava said:

The first three words:  Definitely!  But a pest is simply annoying.  Josh is a convicted felon.

Maybe:  Cracker Sweeping Sex Felon

 

I’ve noticed that in England, sex pest basically means pervert or sex offender. So it sounds harsher in England than the US. 

[EmCatlyn]

4 hours ago, gustava said:

The first three words:  Definitely!  But a pest is simply annoying.  Josh is a convicted felon.

Maybe:  Cracker Sweeping Sex Felon

 

I agree Josh is a felon, but as a “post count title” I think “Pest” is better because it’s more general.  The post count titles are allusions to specific people, sayings or instances, They aren’t attempting to describe a specific person, are they?

4 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

This is just a minuscule aspect and unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but what possessed Michelle to decorate her name in the letter to the judge with a heart?! Like, seriously… that’s something you can do in private correspondence only. But she doesn’t just do it in an official letter, she does it in regards to Josh’s CSA trial. I just can’t believe it. Is this to seem cute and innocent? It just looks weird to me. 

She just hasn’t grown up emotionally to the point that she realized it is stupid and inappropriate.  

[SassyPants]

1 hour ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

Everyone has a story; most of these guys have families.  I don't think the judge will be impressed by the silly letters.

With that said, 12 - 15 years seems high based on past sentences handed down by this judge. I can only see that happening if he puts a lot of weight on teen Josh's behavior. The state may be stretching their claim of number of images downloaded as well.  We'll know soon enough where he's going and for how long.

 

So the safety of his children, should Josh be given a lighter sentence and returned to the home, will not be considered? Sadly, that is horrible for this particular group of kids as apparently they have no one to look out for their safety. What a horrible, horrible situation.

 

[EmCatlyn]

Posted on r/duggarsnark

 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

10 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

So the safety of his children, should Josh be given a lighter sentence and returned to the home, will not be considered? Sadly, that is horrible for this particular group of kids as apparently they have no one to look out for their safety. What a horrible, horrible situation.

 

No, and it shouldn't be considered at all.  Someone convicted of a crime should be sentenced based upon that crime, not whether he has children or how many he has.  And this cuts both ways.  He shouldn't get a lighter sentence because he has kids waiting for him at home.  And he shouldn't get a longer sentence because he has kids waiting at home.

[Antimony]

1 hour ago, SassyPants said:

Admittedly I know little about the inner workings of our justice system as it pertains to sentencing. How much weight is given to the individual felon’s personal life circumstances and crimes committed as opposed to the what a general sentence might be for a similar felon convicted of a similar crime? In other words, if the judge is to consider personal testimonials about Josh’s great and generous works (surprised my keyboard didn’t spontaneously combust just typing those words) when coming up with an equitable sentence, shouldn’t s/he also have to take into consideration the ages of Josh’s minor children when considering the sentence? I know this is likely pie-in-the-sky thinking, but I’d say a 12-15 year sentence would be adequate. Let’s get the latest M to puberty before he is released back to the home and society. I am aware that he was not convicted on crimes against his own children. OTOH, he does have a history of molesting his own sisters, even if the judge can not legally use those crimes when sentencing.

Okay, I can't find any thing that says this outright because I'm not looking that hard, but I'm fairly certain Brooks can consider whatever he wants based only on my knowledge of previous judges. In the Kids for Cash scandal, Judge Ciavarella once told a child to count the number of birds outside the courthouse window and when the kid did, he was like, "Well, that's your sentence in months." This was all legal. It was only illegal because he was getting kick-backs from for-profit places, but it was the money that was the crime, not the sentences themselves.

So, I don't think there's anything on the books keeping Brooks from considering the age of the M's, or the cult, or anything else in the PSR, or his own discretion, frankly.  It isn't like a trial, but it reminds me of what it means when you open the door legally to admit evidence. The Defense can scream, "He has seven kids!!" and the Government can take that and say, "He has seven KIDS!!!" and it's up to Brooks to decide. 

CC McCandless reported that Brooks sentenced a producer of CSAM to 60 years-WOP this month, but I don't know how many counts. Somebody on the Reddit did find and summarize all of Brook's previous judgements, but we don't know the details of any of those cases, either, and I would be shocked if the Government had recommended a maximum sentence for all those cases.

[SassyPants]

6 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

No, and it shouldn't be considered at all.  Someone convicted of a crime should be sentenced based upon that crime, not whether he has children or how many he has.  And this cuts both ways.  He shouldn't get a lighter sentence because he has kids waiting for him at home.  And he shouldn't get a longer sentence because he has kids waiting at home.

Wink, wink, sure…that could be how the law reads, but does that actually happen much of the time?  Judges, juries are human beings too.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

5 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Wink, wink, sure…that could be how the law reads, but does that actually happen much of the time?  Judges, juries are human beings too.

Yes, but his sentences are recorded and publicly available.  One of the reasons for a point system is to try to bring some level of fairness and consistency in sentencing.  You'll note that "has kids at home" is neither a plus nor a minus in the CSAM point system.  

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

25 minutes ago, Antimony said:

Somebody on the Reddit did find and summarize all of Brook's previous judgements, but we don't know the details of any of those cases, either, and I would be shocked if the Government had recommended a maximum sentence for all those cases.

If we pull out the 11.25 outlier (possibly a second offense) the range is 4.7 to 7.7 years crimes similar to Josh's.  I'm going to guess most of these involved pleas, but I'm not sure that Josh will be punished much for going to trial.  Technically speaking, he shouldn't be.) 

[noseybutt]

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Is it reasonable to assume that Josh’s children have been questioned about their dad and that any findings—either exculpatory or not—would  be conveyed to the judge but not released to the public?

I would not assume that.

I am in a different state and yes, children living in the same home as a CSAM offender are typically questioned as part of the original investigation when the investigation is handled by local law enforcement.

This was a federal case and I don't know what the protocol there is.

Also, the family is 100% not cooperative and that can complicate things. 
 

[Antimony]

32 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

If we pull out the 11.25 outlier (possibly a second offense) the range is 4.7 to 7.7 years crimes similar to Josh's.  I'm going to guess most of these involved pleas, but I'm not sure that Josh will be punished much for going to trial.  Technically speaking, he shouldn't be.) 

The poster said these were all pleas so we dont really have a representative sample. The legal teams might have done that research though.

[FluffySnowball]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

I agree Josh is a felon, but as a “post count title” I think “Pest” is better because it’s more general.  The post count titles are allusions to specific people, sayings or instances, They aren’t attempting to describe a specific person, are they?

She just hasn’t grown up emotionally to the point that she realized it is stupid and inappropriate.  

Re: Michelle drawing a heart instead of making a normal dot on the letter i of her name in her letter to the judge.

It’s possible Michelle has indeed not matured emotionally, but I’m not so sure that’s all there is to it. I could imagine she might have ”decorated” her name so quite deliberately to portray herself as innocent, unassuming, feminine and absolutely not cunning - so that her words aren’t taken as a calculated attempt but the honest words of a mother who just tells it how it is. It’s possible I read too much into it, who knows… 

Edited May 13, 2022 by FluffySnowball

[Idlewild]

@FluffySnowball everything about JB & M is curated and fake, so that wouldn’t surprise me at all.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

29 minutes ago, Antimony said:

The poster said these were all pleas so we dont really have a representative sample. The legal teams might have done that research though.

My understanding is that it's not taking a plea that might warrant some sort of reduction, but taking responsibility.  Something Josh has not shown any inclination to do so far, but there is a possibility he will at sentencing.  My guess is he'll still continue to lie and appeal though.

People take pleas because it's so expensive to continue fighting charges like these, and if someone is entitled to a public defender, resources for things like experts are limited. Josh had access to his daddy's money so he could exercise his right to a trial.  He won't be punished for that.  

I think those ranges are close to what Josh will see. Two questions that remain however are - Will he take responsibility for his actions before he is sentenced and, what will the judge do about the molestations that go back almost two decades now? 

[ophelia]

8 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

It reminds me of Alan Smith’s bio sisters. They would never write a nice letter about him even though their parents would. 

I wonder if JB is secretly pressuring his kids to also speak out in favor of Josh. At least the ones who still depend on him.

[JermajestyDuggar]

10 minutes ago, ophelia said:

I wonder if JB is secretly pressuring his kids to also speak out in favor of Josh. At least the ones who still depend on him.

My guess is that the pressure is not to talk about him at all. Because they know that even if they speak well of Josh, it won’t go well. So just shutting up about Josh in public is probably what he wants. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

19 hours ago, Smee said:

Anna and Michelle can’t accept that Josh is a sadistic pedophile because that means rejecting the idea that he’s a cracker-sweeping philanthropist, and they don’t realise that he might in fact be BOTH.

That kind of dialectical thinking is very hard to come to. When I first started therapy I could only see my abusers in one light- they were good, I was the problem. Now I can see them more fully. I’m working on being able to see them as flawed, traumatized people who acted out of ignorance and mental illness. It takes a lot of mental work to get there and I don’t see that Anna or Michelle has put in the time.
 

8 hours ago, Idlewild said:

I’m not altogether surprised that JB hasn’t written a letter. He had his arse handed to him by the judge in the preliminary hearing and it’s clear JB thinks the whole thing is a travesty. Any letter from him would undoubtedly do more harm than good.

He may have been advised as such by the fancy lawyers.
 

6 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

The letters are bad enough, but I am oddly disturbed by Michelle's stupid heart over her signature.  Yes, I get she's probably mentally stunted from meeting JB at a young age and marrying at 17, but it's still so strange given the context here.  

I used to sign my name with a heart, I stopped that at 16. I think being infantilized by the cult also didn’t help Michelle being stunted in adolescence. 

[WiseGirl]

Amy Duggar's reaction to all this. 

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-cousin-amy-duggar-calls-family-delusional-ahead-of-sentencing/

Wait, wait I missed this Meechelle "She then said her son "has a tender heart and he is compassionate toward others."" Fuck no. He has no compassion towards others.  These people are delusional. 

Edited May 13, 2022 by WiseGirl
Add text

[Satan'sFortress]

14 hours ago, formergothardite said:

Does David Waller think that repeating Joshua Duggar in like every sentence will make the judge be more sympathetic? Also I would think telling the judge that the kids are praying for him might backfire. 
 

All these letters show people who are completely out of touch with reality. 

His repeating Joshua Duggar was a very odd choice. I found that I stopped reading the rest of the sentence and was just waiting for the next Joshua Duggar to appear. Like I'd get a point for every one I found and circled. It also made me think it was some kind of form letter or mail merge situation---that he just keeps using the same basic character reference and slips a new name into it. It read like one of these:

Spoiler

 

[Antimony]

Emily D Baker, which I know isn't everybody's cup of tea but I like her style, is live-reading the Defense memo. She has opinions, notably that "these letters [supporting Josh] could backfire, depending on the Court."

[Father Son Holy Goat]

1 hour ago, Satan'sFortress said:

His repeating Joshua Duggar was a very odd choice. I found that I stopped reading the rest of the sentence and was just waiting for the next Joshua Duggar to appear. Like I'd get a point for every one I found and circled. It also made me think it was some kind of form letter or mail merge situation---that he just keeps using the same basic character reference and slips a new name into it. It read like one of these:

  Hide contents

 

Love the Dairy of a Wimpy Kid reference! 

[AussieKrissy]

In regards to the heart thing. I don’t put much stock in it mainly because I had a very articulate and educated English high school teacher who was embarrassed all she dotted all her letters with hearts 

she stated after years as a kid and teen doing it. It was just ingrained in her.  Maybe I didn’t think less of her because she was educated and intelligent and because I don’t mind quirky things that show personality. With all the shitty things Mechelle is. Her signature is not the worst. 

[Giraffe]

Emily D Baker read out some of the letters. Anna and Michelle are delusional. At this point I'm convinced Anna will need serious psychiatric help if she ever accepts Josh was convicted because he's guilty rather than wrongly convicted even though he's innocent as her letter appears she believes. 

Edited May 14, 2022 by Giraffe
clarifying

[zee_four]

On 5/11/2022 at 1:35 PM, Antimony said:

She's getting worse. No probation office would ask for a "to life" sentence when it's outside the cap for the crime. 

Also, not to be like the world's most pessimistic person on Earth, but I don't believe Josh's scores are the "highest and most severe" simply because I know of worse people who have done worse crimes. It's a race to the bottom for sure. (Also, like, okay, but on the assignment for these things, you eventually cap off sensitivity to measure it anyway...so two people could be very different extreme of vile and both max out a score. Who would report this way? WOCAB, that's who. )

But, on Reddit, the memos have been released.

Edit: I shall eat my own words. (See, I'm not always a bitch!!) Government paperwork claims, "At present, U.S. Probation’s 2calculationundertheUnited States SentencingGuidelines(Guidelines)set out in the final PSR reflects an advisory range of imprisonment of 360 months to life which will be capped by the offense maximum of240monthsset by statute for Count One in the Indictment." Technically, what she said is true but also not really what the government means. The government knows it's own limits and doesn't "request more" even when the scoring adds up that way. I just feel like "asked for" and "calculated a recommended" are meaningfully, legally, and sensationally different here and WOCAB knows that. 

Edit Edit: Also Re: Testing Batteries to Quantify...Evilness via Psychology, I also think it makes sense that past a certain point, any given inventory would stop being sensitive to quantification. I also feel like that is meaningfully different from how WOCAB editorializes. On the kind end of Psychological Assessment, two people could both have the most extreme scoring bin of anxiety but have vastly different experiences in what that means for their actual life, for example. The test can only quantify to a certain point. 

I've been on felony probation myself, at the state level not the federal level mind you, and filled out the extensive packets of background information from your family history to your high school experience and outcomes, to your relationships since, employment, what substances you've ever used. Starting when and where and with who and how often and the last time, as well as personality based questions. There's not really a right or wrong and its designed so the sociopath types who believe they're manipulating the system by answering how they expect they want you to is clear from honest answers because they also interview people in your life like immediate family, boss, etc. Asks about significant others, basic sexual history, psych history. I fill things out quick and it sitll took me hours.

For sex offenders its even more extensive because they do the equivalent of the personality and history but with your sex life much more explicitly. A coworker convicted of child porn possession (apparently it was of the barely legal variety but he was treated better by the system than my drug charges and kept his job when I was fired because of the restaurant owners being concerned about maintaining a family friendly image and the rich Argentinian had never even been mentioned in our shit local paper that was obsessed with covering everything the DA claimed unsubstantiated about me) Anyway he said they did tests where his sexual response (like straps and cuffs to measure blood pressure and erection etc.) was when shown different sexual images as well as regular lie detector tests.

So it has nothing to do with the crime. A murderer can be found to be very pro-social, remorseful and with a good history and family and community support system while someone like Smuggar comes out smelling like the rubbish he is. So yes I can see him thinking he's outsmarting the government (though last time it didn't work so well eh?) but his assessment coming out with the ruling of being antisocial, unrepentant, believing he did nothing wrong and very unlikely to respond to treatment while remaining a huge threat to society. 

But the probation/BOP/DOC system doesn't decide the sentence. They submit their reports to the judge and then at the sentencing hearing the prosecution often has victims impact statements and such and defense can have what are essentially character witnesses but the latter doesn't often change things. The judge does most of their decision making beforehand based on the results of the tests and assessments and probation analysis and suggestions as well as the statutes guidelines and sometimes similar cases rulings. Victims impact statements can and often make the ruling err on the side of more severe. But it doesn't matter how many fundies go up and lie about how great Smuggar is, it doesn't make a different other than showing his "support system" is enabling and will not help keep him accountable and help him get treatment.

[Four is Enough]

21 hours ago, Bastet said:

Is it reasonable to assume that Josh’s children have been questioned about their dad and that any findings—either exculpatory or not—would  be conveyed to the judge but not released to the public?

I would imagine that the court demanded it. We probably will never hear anything as to whether they were questioned or not.. the people who do that are very gentle, and dolls are used, and specific questions are asked in a very private and safe location. I don't think Anna would have been allowed in the room.