Josh and Anna 53: 151 Month Sentence

[patsymae]

8 minutes ago, Smee said:

If Mack and Mike will be adults by the time he is released, would they then qualify as “supervision”? I can’t possibly imagine that being reasonable with the father-child power dynamic, but then again the fundie husband-wife power dynamic is just as bad.

Also, wasn’t one of the teen molestation victims a child sitting on his lap being read to WITH OTHERS IN THE ROOM? Supervision or not, that man should not be within arms reach of a child.

Jason’s statement has too many exclamation points for my liking, but as Duggars go it’s not bad. There’s some real “hate the sin, love the sinner” going on there.

Yup, according to Bobbye he digitally penetrated his 5-year-old sister while she was sitting on his lap and having bible study. While JB and Meech were reading from the bible or whatever. Because ... oh I can't even start

 

[Freejin]

Did they ever do a forensic evaluation of his own children?? Did the court rule out abuse in his own household? 

[backyard sylph]

9 hours ago, Antimony said:

Is The Lighthouse pornographic? Can Josh watch The Lighthouse?

That movie will haunt me for the rest of my days. It is so so good and I don't know the word I want to use to say how I feel about it, something just really terrible. I wonder about a punishment in which his eyes are held open like Alex in A Clockwork Orange and he's forced to watch the entire thing over and over again. But maybe Frozen would do just as well. 

But I agree with the questions you were asking in the larger sense; controversy over an art piece in a local museum has that kind of thing on my mind today. Who is the arbitor of what's pornography or art, each community will have its own view. What feeds the individual frenzy? It clearly isn't precisely the same for any two people. So they draw a very big fat line and say do not cross it. But a line like that is part of what fed the problem in the first place, of course.

[JermajestyDuggar]

I was just thinking. The 4 littlest girls can’t remember Josh even living in the same house as them. They must not view him as a brother. He must be more of a good for nothing uncle. And now they don’t see him again for another 10 years. I bet in 10 years when he gets out, they will feel like they barely even know the guy. 

[Jackie3]

3 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I don’t think the younger siblings and the older M’s need to know the full details.   I think, “Josh was caught with some very naughty pornography which is against the law,” is enough for Josh’s kids and the other minors.  

The best way to empower those children is to give them information. Otherwise, they will learn the ugly details from other people (or the internet) and have to process it all alone. 

As soon as Mackynzie or Michael have access to the internet, they are going to google their father's name. Of course they will. They will learn he wasn't convicted of "very naughty pornography" but something horrific and evil. They will know their mother did n't tell the full truth, and they will be alone with their feelings.

The Ms, and the younger Duggars, are going to overhear things. Or they'll be told things by their peers. It's impossible to keep them away from other kids their own age (they go to conferences, etc) and those peers will tell them some pretty terrible things. They'll know their mother wasn't honest with them, and that will make it all much worse. 

Hiding things from children never goes well. Those kids have suffered enough, and deserve honesty. "Naughty pornography" can mean so many things, and kids will have no idea what it means. So they'll fill in the blanks with their imagination, and that will cause a lot of worry and anxiety.  Especially with the crazy Duggar "nike" rules. They think all pornography is "naughty." I wouldn't want an M to think they are going to jail because they looked at a racy picture.

I'm not saying the five-year old needs to hear the details of the videos, but they do need an abbreviated version of the absolute truth, that can be built upon later ("Daddy has a terrible problem that makes him want to watch movies about bad people doing mean things.")

The older Ms, and the young Duggars, deserve to know it all, because otherwise they are being left alone to deal with the reality by themselves. And they will find out about it. They'll find out from peers, or a sneaky internet search, or from the tabloids at the market. They'll be alone with their shock and their fear, and have no one to talk to. 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Jackie3

[Freejin]

5 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

The best way to empower those children is to give them information. Otherwise, they will learn the ugly details from other people (or the internet) and have to process it all alone. 

As soon as Mackynzie or Michael have access to the internet, they are going to google their father's name. Of course they will. They will learn he wasn't convicted of "very naughty pornography" but something horrific and evil. They will know their mother did n't tell the full truth, and they will be alone with their feelings.

The Ms, and the younger Duggars, are going to overhear things. Or they'll be told things by their peers. It's impossible to keep them away from other kids their own age (they go to conferences, etc) and those peers will tell them some pretty terrible things. They'll know their mother wasn't honest with them, and that will make it all much worse. 

Hiding things from children never goes well. Those kids have suffered enough, and deserve honesty. "Naughty pornography" can mean so many things, and kids will have no idea what it means. So they'll fill in the blanks with their imagination, and that will cause a lot of worry and anxiety.  Especially with the crazy Duggar "nike" rules. They think all pornography is "naughty." I wouldn't want an M to think they are going to jail because they looked at a racy picture.

I'm not saying the five-year old needs to hear the details of the videos, but they do need an abbreviated version of the absolute truth, that can be built upon later ("Daddy has a terrible problem that makes him want to watch movies about bad people doing mean things.")

The older Ms, and the young Duggars, deserve to know it all, because otherwise they are being left alone to deal with the reality by themselves. And they will find out about it. They'll find out from peers, or a sneaky internet search, or from the tabloids at the market. They'll be alone with their shock and their fear, and have no one to talk to. 

 

Yes to all of this. This is exactly what family therapy would be good for but of course they’ll never have access to that. Just awful. 

[Antimony]

17 minutes ago, backyard sylph said:

That movie will haunt me for the rest of my days. It is so so good and I don't know the word I want to use to say how I feel about it, something just really terrible. I wonder about a punishment in which his eyes are held open like Alex in A Clockwork Orange and he's forced to watch the entire thing over and over again. But maybe Frozen would do just as well. 

But I agree with the questions you were asking in the larger sense; controversy over an art piece in a local museum has that kind of thing on my mind today. Who is the arbitor of what's pornography or art, each community will have its own view. What feeds the individual frenzy? It clearly isn't precisely the same for any two people. So they draw a very big fat line and say do not cross it. But a line like that is part of what fed the problem in the first place, of course.

It's one of my favorite films and it's also an audio/visual assault that Robert Eggers delivers unto the viewer personally. I am so hyped to see The Northman. Wacky The Lighthouse trivia under the spoiler;

Spoiler

Word on the street is that when you ask Robert Pattinson to give you a masturbation scene...he just does it. He is not supposed to do that but he does. It's real. Apparently, in one of the shots for The Lighthouse he threw up on himself at the same time (...his decision...not directed...) and they decided to not use that cut because it was "too disturbing" which on one hand is fair but my other reaction was, "THAT is what you thought might be TOO disturbing??? Did you watch the rest of your own film????? You probably could have left that in and I wouldn't have noticed because of all the other shit going on."

My father was sailor and I watched The Lighthouse without watching any of the trailers or reading anything about it. About 15 minutes in, I texted him, "Hey, you might like this movie The Lighthouse it's about these lighthouse keepers...". About...30? 40? minutes in, I realized I had made a very big mistake. 

There's also the flip side of this, obviously. There's media that depicts incredible violence that isn't pornographic. A Clockwork Orange fits the bill, of course. And the rape scene (scenes?) in Game of Thrones don't cross my pornographic-"I know it when I see it"-meter, but like, maybe that would be a worse thing for Josh to see. I think a court would be hard pressed to prevent anybody from watching like...Saw or Cannibal Holocaust or whatever*...but you could also see an argument that some horror films more closely resemble what he was downloaded than most legal adult porn does, so it's odd.

*I love horror, but I have not seen those two films, because it's not my subgenre of horror, but you get the idea of the examples. If anybody wants to bring some popcorn over for a Hereditary or Babadook viewing though...different story. 

[Galbin]

Delete if inappropriate mods, but does anyone else think Josh could now be a real risk to himself? Narcissists do not cope well with losing control of people and their environments.

He has just been told he faces basically 30 years of no proper contact with his kids or even regular use of the internet. He is also not allowed to numb himself with any type of substance - including regular pornography. What's left for him?

[onekidanddone]

31 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

The best way to empower those children is to give them information. Otherwise, they will learn the ugly details from other people (or the internet) and have to process it all alone. 

As soon as Mackynzie or Michael have access to the internet, they are going to google their father's name. Of course they will. They will learn he wasn't convicted of "very naughty pornography" but something horrific and evil. They will know their mother did n't tell the full truth, and they will be alone with their feelings.

The Ms, and the younger Duggars, are going to overhear things. Or they'll be told things by their peers. It's impossible to keep them away from other kids their own age (they go to conferences, etc) and those peers will tell them some pretty terrible things. They'll know their mother wasn't honest with them, and that will make it all much worse. 

Hiding things from children never goes well. Those kids have suffered enough, and deserve honesty. "Naughty pornography" can mean so many things, and kids will have no idea what it means. So they'll fill in the blanks with their imagination, and that will cause a lot of worry and anxiety.  Especially with the crazy Duggar "nike" rules. They think all pornography is "naughty." I wouldn't want an M to think they are going to jail because they looked at a racy picture.

I'm not saying the five-year old needs to hear the details of the videos, but they do need an abbreviated version of the absolute truth, that can be built upon later ("Daddy has a terrible problem that makes him want to watch movies about bad people doing mean things.")

The older Ms, and the young Duggars, deserve to know it all, because otherwise they are being left alone to deal with the reality by themselves. And they will find out about it. They'll find out from peers, or a sneaky internet search, or from the tabloids at the market. They'll be alone with their shock and their fear, and have no one to talk to. 

 

When will Mac or Michale get their own phones or un monitored access to the internet? Certainly Mac won’t until she is married off. 

[backyard sylph]

7 minutes ago, Antimony said:

It's one of my favorite films and it's also an audio/visual assault that Robert Eggers delivers unto the viewer personally. I am so hyped to see The Northman. Wacky The Lighthouse trivia under the spoiler;

  Reveal hidden contents

Word on the street is that when you ask Robert Pattinson to give you a masturbation scene...he just does it. He is not supposed to do that but he does. It's real. Apparently, in one of the shots for The Lighthouse he threw up on himself at the same time (...his decision...not directed...) and they decided to not use that cut because it was "too disturbing" which on one hand is fair but my other reaction was, "THAT is what you thought might be TOO disturbing??? Did you watch the rest of your own film????? You probably could have left that in and I wouldn't have noticed because of all the other shit going on."

My father was sailor and I watched The Lighthouse without watching any of the trailers or reading anything about it. About 15 minutes in, I texted him, "Hey, you might like this movie The Lighthouse it's about these lighthouse keepers...". About...30? 40? minutes in, I realized I had made a very big mistake. 

There's also the flip side of this, obviously. There's media that depicts incredible violence that isn't pornographic. A Clockwork Orange fits the bill, of course. And the rape scene (scenes?) in Game of Thrones don't cross my pornographic-"I know it when I see it"-meter, but like, maybe that would be a worse thing for Josh to see. I think a court would be hard pressed to prevent anybody from watching like...Saw or Cannibal Holocaust or whatever*...but you could also see an argument that some horror films more closely resemble what he was downloaded than most legal adult porn does, so it's odd.

*I love horror, but I have not seen those two films, because it's not my subgenre of horror, but you get the idea of the examples. If anybody wants to bring some popcorn over for a Hereditary or Babadook viewing though...different story. 

My son who watched The Lighthouse with me really liked The Northman. He will love something if he thinks it's great. I'm more complex. I did think The Lighthouse was great, but I did not love it. Same with There Will Be Blood; he was sure I'd love it because it's so good. 

I think what we perceive as pornographic changes the way styles change. That is, perhaps, what people would call softcore or hardcore, same with erotica. Personally, I find certain types of straight-up horror films pornographic, but other people are so inured to violence, they don't see it as I do. It isn't exactly horror or violence I'm thinking of, but the nuances behind it. I like plain old scary stuff as much as most people. 

If we could dial into just what triggers antisocial criminal behavior in people like Josh, I'm not sure we'd, collectively, use that power wholly for good. There'd be a lot of Manchurian Candidates, I fear. 

Well ultimately, I think that the pablum he was raised on is about all his personality can safely handle. There is irony to it. 

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, fundiefan said:

They also need to know that they have every right to say NO to any touch, even a hug or handshake, if they feel uncomfortable. They need to know it is not rude to say NO to something or someone that doesn't feel right. 

When I think of all the years kids were told to be polite and hug Uncle Morty or let Auntie Jane hold you when they didn't want to and were crying or having a tantrum. 

I don’t see how you can “tell” a baby or toddler that they don’t have to “hug Uncle Morty or let Aunt Janie hold” them.  Basically, you show them.  By the time kids are verbal enough to say “no” to unwanted signs of affection, they will have learned that they can (or can’t) refuse to be hugged or held— just because you read their body language and support them. (“I guess Little Ray doesn’t feel like hugging today,” or “Robin doesn’t like being held, Aunt Janie.”)  

With my kids, my daughter never met a person she didn’t want to hug and be held by, but my son was another matter.  I simply supported them in what they wanted to do.  Even my hug-everyone daughter didn’t like to be grabbed.  Since she was an early talker, she had no problem (at age 2) telling a grown up who grabbed her hand to lead her to sit with some kids in another spot, “I don’t want to go with you.”  In short, by the time kids are verbal, they should have been shown that they can say “no.”

The problem with people like the Duggars is that they don’t give kids this non-verbal message.  I am not sure if they could give the kids verbal permission to say “no” to unwanted hugs.  I hope they can.  But if they can’t, at the very least, they should encourage kids to say “no” to touching in the “private zone.”

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, patsymae said:

Yup, according to Bobbye he digitally penetrated his 5-year-old sister while she was sitting on his lap and having bible study. While JB and Meech were reading from the bible or whatever. Because ... oh I can't even start

 

I don’t think JB and M were present.  I think Joy was sitting on his lap while he read a “bible study” book to her and some other siblings.  (It was some children’s book of bible stories.)   The story is she jumped and ran out of the room and told one of her sisters (we assume Jill) who then got the parents involved.  This is what I remember from the police report and other discussions.  

1 hour ago, Freejin said:

Did they ever do a forensic evaluation of his own children?? Did the court rule out abuse in his own household? 

We don’t know for sure, but it is assumed they did.  There was some talk that Anna wouldn’t let the kids be interviewed by CPS, but I don’t think she had a choice.

It is probable that if there was some evidence that he had molested his own kids there would be another investigation and another case (this one at the state level) against him.  

Someone else may know more.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

The best way to empower those children is to give them information. Otherwise, they will learn the ugly details from other people (or the internet) and have to process it all alone. 

As soon as Mackynzie or Michael have access to the internet, they are going to google their father's name. Of course they will. They will learn he wasn't convicted of "very naughty pornography" but something horrific and evil. They will know their mother did n't tell the full truth, and they will be alone with their feelings.

The Ms, and the younger Duggars, are going to overhear things. Or they'll be told things by their peers. It's impossible to keep them away from other kids their own age (they go to conferences, etc) and those peers will tell them some pretty terrible things. They'll know their mother wasn't honest with them, and that will make it all much worse. 

Hiding things from children never goes well. Those kids have suffered enough, and deserve honesty. "Naughty pornography" can mean so many things, and kids will have no idea what it means. So they'll fill in the blanks with their imagination, and that will cause a lot of worry and anxiety.  Especially with the crazy Duggar "nike" rules. They think all pornography is "naughty." I wouldn't want an M to think they are going to jail because they looked at a racy picture.

I'm not saying the five-year old needs to hear the details of the videos, but they do need an abbreviated version of the absolute truth, that can be built upon later ("Daddy has a terrible problem that makes him want to watch movies about bad people doing mean things.")

The older Ms, and the young Duggars, deserve to know it all, because otherwise they are being left alone to deal with the reality by themselves. And they will find out about it. They'll find out from peers, or a sneaky internet search, or from the tabloids at the market. They'll be alone with their shock and their fear, and have no one to talk to. 

 

I don’t disagree at all.  However, I think they should be told a simplified version of the truth for starters and more when they ask questions.  I don’t think a 12-year-old needs to be told (possible trigger)

Spoiler

that her father got off watching little girls raped and tortured.

I think if she asks, “what kind of bad things” she can be told more, until gradually she gets answers.  Initially, however, she doesn’t need the whole story.  The kids need the truth, but it should be given to them according to what they ask and what they can understand.

The sad thing is that they will not be told anything remotely like the truth and they will have to find the whole sordid story very painfully,

[Smee]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

As soon as Mackynzie or Michael have access to the internet, they are going to google their father's name. Of course they will. They will learn he wasn't convicted of "very naughty pornography" but something horrific and evil. They will know their mother did n't tell the full truth, and they will be alone with their feelings.

The Ms, and the younger Duggars, are going to overhear things. Or they'll be told things by their peers. It's impossible to keep them away from other kids their own age (they go to conferences, etc) and those peers will tell them some pretty terrible things. They'll know their mother wasn't honest with them

Honestly, with all the brainwashing and sin flattening in that cult, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of them googled and simply thought “oh, so THATS what they meant by bad pornography. Satan sure got his claws into daddy.” And didn’t think of anything their mother said to them as a lie or half truth. Like how Anna claimed she “knew” about the molestations prior to marrying Josh but she was likely told something vague like “he succumbed to temptation as a teenager and has repented of his sexual sins”.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

1 hour ago, Galbin said:

Delete if inappropriate mods, but does anyone else think Josh could now be a real risk to himself? Narcissists do not cope well with losing control of people and their environments.

He has just been told he faces basically 30 years of no proper contact with his kids or even regular use of the internet. He is also not allowed to numb himself with any type of substance - including regular pornography. What's left for him?

Food. He has food left.

[Dysfundamental]

Child sexual abuse material should never be referred to as pornography. But yeah, these @$#&**!s likely do so, because media of consenting adult sex workers is probably just the same as evidence of child torture in their teeny minds.

[VooDooChild]

6 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Food. He has food left.

But he won't have control over what he gets and how much.  And having no control is his issue.  

[Bethella]

14 minutes ago, VooDooChild said:

But he won't have control over what he gets and how much.  And having no control is his issue.  

I’m guessing Anna (or some fans/groupies) will put plenty of money in his commissary account so he can purchase lots of unhealthy snacks. I can easily see his weight ballooning with lots of empty calories and not much exercise. 

[Carol]

I hate what Josh did and how he's dealt with it but suicide is final and it leaves people in its wake who will suffer terribly.  My gut feeling is that he will serve his sentence and go back to Anna, simply because he has no other options and because he's basically a lazy sod who has always had everything handed to him.  His dad will take him under his wing, again, likely with the most menial jobs he needs done.  JB will make him pay, not for what he was convicted of but because he's affected JB's reputation and bank account.  

I have a feeling he will be able to spend time with his underage children after he's out because Anna will see to it.  This is scary to me but I hope that by that time she will acknowledge his aberrant behavior and protect the children under 18 with having ANY time alone with him.  In terms of his nieces, nephews, etc., I hope their parents know it is crucial to protect them because Josh's behavior will not change.  Maybe by that time they will accept what he is and put their children first.

Oh, who am I kidding?!  We have zero proof that anything will change within that family except for the more enlightened ones.  May they grow in number. Truthfully, I don't hold out any hope that Anna will be among them. 

[VooDooChild]

4 minutes ago, Bethella said:

I’m guessing Anna (or some fans/groupies) will put plenty of money in his commissary account so he can purchase lots of unhealthy snacks. I can easily see his weight ballooning with lots of empty calories and not much exercise. 

My point is he has no control. Self-contol or otherwise. I also wouldn't be surprised if he ballooned up. His parents are failures with no self-awareness. 

[SPHASH]

So by my calculations if the sentence started May 25 he will be done on Christmas Day 2034 and probably sooner if he gets credit for time served.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by SPHASH

[AussieKrissy]

6 minutes ago, SPHASH said:

So by my calculations if the sentence started May 25 he will be done on Christmas Day 2034 and probably sooner if he gets credit for time served.

 

I think he will get credit for time served since being found guilty and taken in to custody so maybe work it out from that date 

Edited May 27, 2022 by AussieKrissy
plus you could have the date that is the 85 percent of the sentence which is his earliest release date

[Mama Mia]

24 minutes ago, SPHASH said:

So by my calculations if the sentence started May 25 he will be done on Christmas Day 2034 and probably sooner if he gets credit for time served.

 

You need to take off the time served from the day he was found guilty until the day he was sentenced. And another 15% for presumed good behavior. Someone came up with a projected release of June 2032. Which sounds right.

[Pibblesmiles]

For those who weighed in on the subject of "not-like-other-girls," would you consider Elizabeth Bennet a Regency example of this trope?  Elizabeth climbed trees as a child, and still enjoys long rambles by herself.  She walked 3 miles to Nether field, despite knowing her skirts would end up 6 inches deep in mud and she wouldn't be fit to be seen by polite company.  She prefers gowns with minimal lace and simple lines to the more frilly, "girly" designs preferred by others.  Her father allowed her access to his library, which she took advantage of to read books out of the ordinary to those normally read by young ladies.  She is accused (by Caroline Bingley, so take that for what it's worth) of having  "an abominable sort of conceited independence -- a most country-town indifference to decorum." And, she most definitely does not simper at, nor try to attract, the eminently eligible Fitzwilliam Darcy.

[katilac]

15 hours ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Man I watched that in 2004 and haven’t seen it since! It’s the documentary that got me into documentaries. I should watch it again. The documentary that almost got me to hate documentaries is Dear Zachary. Don’t ever watch that one. Unless you want your week completely ruined. 

It's devastating for sure, but it's an amazing documentary. 

 

13 hours ago, Chocolatecheesecake said:

I just heard about this sentence and must say, from my perspective 12.5 years is much more than I was expecting. I studied law in Austria and here the maximum sentence for Joshes offence would have been two years in prison. The maximum sentence for producing the materials Josh was accessing would be 10 years.  

😯

Those are stunningly short sentences, particularly for producing the materials!!