Josh and Anna 53: 151 Month Sentence

[nausicaa]

31 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

It’s funny because I can imagine all the awkwardness very easily. Because I have a large extended family and not everyone gets along. I just witnessed some family awkwardness at a family gathering this past weekend. I typically get along with everyone, but everyone knows who doesn’t get along with who. And it can be a little tense at times. But there hasn’t been a blow out in years. Thankfully. 

Same. My family is large, varied in political beliefs and there is some pretty weird history between some cousins (nothing illegal or dangerous, but two former spouses cheating with each other, money "borrowed" and not paid back, etc). We just go all Catholic and shove it down and completely pretend none of it exists at family events, even when drunk. 

I realize the Duggars aren't Catholic, but they definitely have the denial and smile part down pat. 

[SassyPants]

Just now, Freejin said:

I hope so but I’m also concerned that this is a man who has been able to bounce back and rebrand himself several times before. Do you think it’s officially over now?

I think the days of getting paid to live your life and spout your odd beliefs for easy money, all because you have had a gazillion kids are over. What kind of skills or knowledge does JB have that will earn him fast, easy money for doing nothing? His name, along with Josh’s, is tainted. Now the kids, apart from JB, someone might pay money to hear their stories-

I don’t think the entire family should be considered tainted and off limits, but JB, M, Josh, Anna- hell no. Get jobs that are reflective of your skills, motivation and knowledge, and good luck!

[Cam]

The Dillards’ statement is well written. It addresses the ordeal in an efficient yet comprehensive way. Jase also released a good statement. It’s probably cathartic for them to address the matter. I don’t see Jase’s statement as being concerned about the family’s image. At his age, 22, it seems he’s striking out on his own, declaring his own opinion separate from his parents. He isn’t married; it may be he wants to set the record straight so any potential love interests know where he stands.  To me, it’s a little like beating his chest about his Lord and Savior.

I think this is it for JB. I do not see him reinventing himself. He’s now the older generation and his kids are the ones moving into their prime with kids of their own. He’s too indelibly marked with the Josh stain.

As for Anna, she may be happy with the 20 year probation because Josh will be monitored and it won’t be as much her burden to bear when he’s released.

So far, Josh has been shown to have a self-destructive streak. He was given a second chance time and again yet always managed to ruin it for himself. (Plus he likes to ruin it for everyone else, too.) Time will tell if that continues after he completes his sentence. 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Cam

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I 'm not sure that Josh put any of his properties in his and Anna's names , nor in Anna's alone.  In the fundie world the man controls everything; the sweet little woman isn't smart enough to handle any "business". Does anyone believe JB put J'chelle as co-owner of his businesses/ properties. Not me.

My FIl, who was not fundie in the least (but still a jerk), never put my MIL on their house title.  It was in his name alone.  She found this out when he died. he did not leave her the house in his will. She had to buy the house from his estate.

[Alisamer]

5 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

How is ~12.5 years below the median and why does Jason think it fair to sentence Josh below the median?  I don't get it.  Is he trying to help JB feel better about all the money spent on lawyers?

Also, it's so good to know that Jason will love Josh no matter what, and that the main victims were his family.  What about the children in those images/videos?

I do give Jason some credit for trying.  I believe he's well-intentioned and probably trying to reassure those around him.  And yesterday must have been a jolt.  My sense is that he's trying to balance acknowledgement of the crime with the Christian image that the family has worked so hard to portray.  I expect to be seeing a lot more of that.  I think JB is going to try to get his good reputation back and, per usual, the (rest of the) kids will be expected to help.

I think that's a combo of SOTDRT, and Jason trying to balance his true feelings with what his religious teachings tell him he's supposed to feel, with a dash of "gotta mention forgiveness and love because Christian" thrown in. 

I wouldn't be surprised if his statement represented what most of the Duggar kids are thinking. "Wow, he did awful stuff, made us look bad, made Jesus look bad, and hurt all kinds of people. I'm horrified and mad about it but I'm Christian so I'm not supposed to be mad really and he's my brother so I'm supposed to love him. Plus mom and dad will be pissed if I don't say the right Christian thing." So you get "I deplore what he did and am glad he's locked up, but I love and forgive him because the BIble says I have to. Also don't blame Jesus for what Josh did."

I'm really curious how much the younger sibs and M kids know. Like, how is this being spun to them? Are they getting "Josh made a mistake that's against the law and has to go to prison. We need to pray for him." or are they getting "Satan persecuted Josh and set him up and he was found guilty of a crime that he didn't commit so now he's going to prison, so keep your hearts pure so Satan doesn't come after you too." How much are they told? How much does Jason even know?

Like, I know there are people here who are deliberately (and understandably) avoiding the details of exactly what sort of images and videos Josh was looking at. I imagine most of the Duggar family is similarly sheltering themselves from that information. But I wonder HOW sheltered they are. Like do they realize how bad it actually was?

Because if you're avoiding the details, as I'm sure most of them are - it's far worse than you might imagine. 

For all that the Duggars base so much of their life on sex - having kids because of it, when you're allowed to have it, not being allowed to think about it, no physical contact with a suitor until you're engaged, dressing to make sure other people don't think about it... I'd bet many of them are probably pretty clueless in reality. 

[Idlewild]

I wonder if this trial and sentence hearing has indeed opened the eyes of some of the Duggar brothers to what a POS Josh is, the awful time their sisters endured and its ongoing effects and how their parents failed their children? JB & M used the tactics of isolation and minimisation to ensure they were able to carry on regardless after the news about the abuse on his siblings broke. They were telling their kids it was persecution they were Christians, light touching over pyjamas, dealt with by ‘therapy’ within the church. They also fed into the belief that any anxiety or depression is a weakness that can be prayed away. The girls were married off and all was well. And the humpers bought it so why shouldn’t uneducated dependant children?

I like to think that hearing the details of his crimes and seeing the effect on a beloved sister has caused the scales to drop away. I hope so. The next step is seeing their parents for the greedy manipulative con artists they are.

I think Jed and Jana will be harder to crack- they seem steeped in Duggar beliefs and Justin will do whatever Claire/Hilary tell him. Maybe there is a glimmer of hope for some of them.

[Alisamer]

2 minutes ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

I 'm not sure that Josh put any of his properties in his and Anna's names , nor in Anna's alone.  In the fundie world the man controls everything; the sweet little woman isn't smart enough to handle any "business". Does anyone believe JB put J'chelle as co-owner of his businesses/ properties. Not me.

My FIl, who was not fundie in the least (but still a jerk), never put my MIL on their house title.  It was in his name alone.  She found this out when he died. he did not leave her the house in his will. She had to buy the house from his estate.

It's been ages but there are properties in Anna's name, I think. We've seen some legal stuff indicating that. It's been a long time ago, though.

I'm still convinced JB puts stuff in other people's names all the time for tax reasons and to shelter properties in case of legal shenanigans. I'm sure that's why Jana "owned" a tattoo parlor for a while. I don't expect any of the women involved actually handled any business beyond "sign here and here, thanks", but if there's any benefit whatsoever in putting things in the woman's name, JimBob will do it.

And frankly moving as much as possible out of Josh's name and into Anna's would have made a lot of sense. After the Ashley Madison scandal it could have served as a way to make Anna feel included and secure, a way to slightly punish Josh, and maybe even a way to help shelter some things legally in the highly likely case that Josh screws up yet again. 

[EmmieJ]

11 hours ago, hoipolloi said:

I'd also guess Jim-Bob is mighty pissed because he has spent a shit-ton of money on Josh's legal team -- probably well over a million. If they appeal the sentence, Jim-Bob can kiss hundreds of thousands more good-bye, maybe more depending on how much of a fight they put up. This is why I'm glad to see what appears to be a solidly developed sentence that will withstand appeal.

 

It seems fairly likely that Josh and Anna will want to appeal the sentence, but I'm on the fence as to whether JB will be willing to fund the appeal.  If he does, I hope it runs into the hundreds of thousands and the end result will be a hard no by the appeals court.

[Bluebirdbluebell]

34 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Same. My family is large, varied in political beliefs and there is some pretty weird history between some cousins (nothing illegal or dangerous, but two former spouses cheating with each other, money "borrowed" and not paid back, etc). We just go all Catholic and shove it down and completely pretend none of it exists at family events, even when drunk. 

I realize the Duggars aren't Catholic, but they definitely have the denial and smile part down pat. 

I've never heard "going all Catholic" described liked that and I come from a Catholic family. I was always under the impression suppression and denial was a WASP way to deal with things. Catholics fight and tend to let things out. Heck, I knew at least one Catholic whose family stopped talked to each other. 

Anyway, I doubt there's one culture where people shove it down and completely pretend none of it exists. People probably do that across cultures. 

[nokidsmom]

1 hour ago, Freejin said:

I hope so but I’m also concerned that this is a man who has been able to bounce back and rebrand himself several times before. Do you think it’s officially over now?

I think he may try, but the sky's not the limit anymore.  It probably was back in the TLC heyday, with the show money, the branding as the "wholesome Christian family" and all the perks, recognition, fame, respect, paid appearances that went with it.   That's all gone.  Joshley killed JB's golden goose and I suspect part of JB's anger is that there's no way to bring it back to life.   

The family still had a chance back when the molestations / Ashley Madison came out.   Some part of the show was continued and the molestations were played up as "being all taken care of" in JB's words, meaning it was in the past.   AM was something that Joshley owned up to and the public at large can, to some extent,  deal with cheating allegations.   The CSAM is a totally different thing.   Far more egregious as far as the public is concerned and it was clear that Joshley's issues were never fully in the past, on the contrary, he was, and continues to be, a very sick individual.  He has permanently stained the family name. 

I think JB was dependent in large part on having a good name both nationally and locally.   That doesn't exist anymore.   Sure there may be those who are sympathetic or in denial about it and will think the same about him but his options these days are a LOT more limited.   No show, no more "wholesome Christian family brand" to parlay for perks and money, probably the only thing he can continue with is real estate which appears to be strictly local.   But he's got his errant son's family to support plus wife and kids at home at least.  Plus presumably massive legal bills and counting, assuming he's willing to fund an appeal.

Nope, life is no at all good in JB Land.  

Edited May 26, 2022 by nokidsmom
Clarification

[hoipolloi]

5 hours ago, FiveAcres said:

This article details how the judge explains the mitigating and aggravating circumstances that went into the sentence.

Extremely interesting & helpful. Thank you, @FiveAcres, for linking to it.

This right here probably explains why the sentence is as high as it is:

Quote

The judge noted that a downward variance for a defendant’s accepting responsibility for his offenses does not apply in this case, because Duggar’s defense has maintained his innocence. [Emphasis added]

No acknowledgement of wrong or crimes committed and certainly no remorse. In fact, they'll appeal the sentence.

I also found it significant and chilling that the judge specifically addressed the issues of unknown/concealed contact-abuse subsequent to what Josh did as a teenager and the potential for recidivism. 

37 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

I think that's a combo of SOTDRT, and Jason trying to balance his true feelings with what his religious teachings tell him he's supposed to feel, with a dash of "gotta mention forgiveness and love because Christian" thrown in. 

I agree. The "no true Christian" stuff is obnoxious but not surprising and I give Jason credit for making a fairly clear statement.

Edited May 26, 2022 by hoipolloi
Clarity

[Idlewild]

Social media has probably killed off the chance of another TV show. Most of the fans want to see the weddings and babies and they can do that on the married kids YouTube channels. If the kids don’t have a channel/SM presence, then they won’t want to be on TV.

JB didn’t see a problem with running for office in the middle of all this- his arrogance will probably mean he tries to relaunch himself in some way

[Mela99]

I’m honestly not positive JB is gonna bankroll that appeal

[waltraute]

I think Jason's statement was coded completely for the Christian community and especially targeted to those who think Josh has been wronged. The bit about the judge being fair and giving Josh a below median sentence doesn't mean he thinks Josh deserves a below median sentence. He is circumventing the persecution camp by saying look, the judge isn't in fact persecuting Christians. The judge was more lenient than he could have been, so that argument is dead. The verbiage in this statement also tells us what Jason might think about an appeal. 

None of the siblings owe the public a statement. I think the statements are extremely valuable though as a wake-up call to JB and Michelle and to anyone in their circle who might still be clinging to the persecution argument, and I hope more siblings come out with public statements for this reason only.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

4 hours ago, Sullie06 said:

So we put that in all of our Probation conditions. You are not allowed to use mood effecting agents, including alcohol, even if legal, while on Probation. 

Does that include prescribed psychiatric drugs?

 

3 hours ago, FiveAcres said:

And it still pisses me off that he put the responsibility for managing his anger on his children. It's the classic tactic of an abuser.

Speaking as a child who was forced to do my parent’s emotional work, it sucks.

 

2 hours ago, FluffySnowball said:

Regarding JB, I just think that abusers (often times, but of course not always!) breed abusers. And JB definitely is an abuser (though likely not in the same way Josh is, but still an abuser nonetheless).  

I come from a looong line of abusers, I’ve traced my family lineage of abuse into the 19th century. I think it’s children survive abuse by watching abusers and using unhelpful coping skills. Sometimes it sets them up to be further victimized and sometimes it sets them up to be abusers.
 

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Crazy story but I recently matched with a guy on a dating website and we hit it off and exchanged numbers. I Googled his to discover he is on the sex offender registry. (If anyone was wondering how my dating life is, IT'S GOING GREAT 👍👍👍.)

He was arrested in 2018 for the full Josh Duggar. Multiple images of CSAM, very young children. He was caught when he uploaded some to a website. He was sentenced to five years at the end of 2018, but is apparently now out and hitting on women through Bumble. (Not sure if that's a violation of his parole. I just cancelled the date and blocked.)

You might want to consider contacting Bumble so they can deactivate his profile, even if it isn’t a parole violation.
 

1 hour ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

What Jason has to say today:

I give Jason a little bit of a pass here, since he is still living at home he needs to cow tow to Jim Bob a bit. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 minute ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I give Jason a little bit of a pass here, since he is still living at home he needs to cow tow to Jim Bob a bit. 

I think he’s trying to create space by moving into the tree house 😂

[nokidsmom]

1 minute ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think he’s trying to create space by moving into the tree house 😂

I am willing to bet he spent last night in the tree house.    Probably today too.  And tomorrow, and the next day and the next day....

[Nothing if not critical]

About older romance novels: I agree that a lot of them, seen through the modern lens, come across as kind of rapey (and they are!), but I recently read an interesting take on that: In a time, where it was still considered morally reprehensible for women to enjoy sex too much, that kind of plot actually offered a way for them to enjoy erotica and identify with the heroine. Because if she was at least in part forced to take part in those acts, then surely she wasn't to blame for giving in to temptation. And of course, ultimately, it would always turn out to be enjoyable. So while it seems gross to us now, for many women of our parents' generation, this may have been the only way to indulge in a bit of raciness without feeling guilty.

[nausicaa]

17 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

You might want to consider contacting Bumble so they can deactivate his profile, even if it isn’t a parole violation.

A friend suggested this too, but unfortunately after I'd unmatched him so I don't have access to his profile anymore. 

Also, to clarify: I make it clear in my profile I don't have kids and there aren't any children in any pics with me. So I don't have clear evidence he was trying for anything illegal other than just dating adult women. Still not anything I want to be associated with though. 

[neuroticcat]

I think Jason’s statement reveals he’s still deep in fundamentalism. The only way to reconcile Josh’s actions with the cult’s promises are “he was never a Christian to begin with.” 
 

I think it’s a good sign he’s willing to make a public statement and it shows he believes Josh is guilty. Maybe it was personally costly to go against JB, but I see it as what a fundie who believes he was guilty would say. I imagine JB and M would say the same if they were willing to publicly admit Josh’s guilt. 

[socalrules]

I don’t think Jason wrote the statement as it is too well written but it likely conveyed his feelings on the situation. 
 

 

Edited May 26, 2022 by socalrules

[käsekuchen]

On the topic of romance novels, I feel like some modern ones, especially in the New Adult segment, are somewhat problematic, too and I think it's worse than older ones, because we should know better, if you know what I mean? They can be full of slut shaming (albeit in both directions, especially in those friends to lovers novels), the not-like-other-girls-trope (while pretending to be uber-feminist) and in general putting other women down to make the female main character look better. Plus, a lot of crossing boundaries and use of the word "females". Can you tell that I just read a NA romance with a male main character that the reader was supposed to feel was a good guy, who put on a bad boy routine as a defense mechanism - the book failed badly at making him likeable?

Regarding the 20 years of parole: How does that work in the US? He serves 12.5 years (minus time served and that one bonus that he is eligible for) and afterwards he has to abide by the rules the judge set out for his probation for 20 years. What happens if he violates the terms of his parole - will he have to serve the remainder of those 20 years?

Edited May 26, 2022 by käsekuchen
Clarification

[Carol]

I think Jason's statement opened a small crack in his beliefs.  I'm hoping that crack widens.  He acknowledges Josh's wrong doing but pretty much everything else stops there.  No concern for the victims, and his concern about sullying Jesus's name turned my stomach.  Jesus has nothing to do with this, it's all down to Josh and his parents.  I am not a believer in Christ but I get really tired of his name being used to justify all sorts of excuses for forgiveness while not addressing the root of the problem.  Josh is a pedophile, he's dangerous and he's hurt all his victims.  I'm past caring about him hurting much of his family(except his sister victims) and it's likely I'll stay this way until his family shows they understand that CSAM and his  pursuit of it shows how deranged their cults thinking about sex is.

[Freejin]

On a spiritual note - what is going through JB and Michelle’s heads right now? On some level they have to be fearing joshs eternal damnation right? Isn’t that horrifying for them to consider?

[libgirl2]

11 minutes ago, käsekuchen said:

On the topic of romance novels, I feel like some modern ones, especially in the New Adult segment, are somewhat problematic, too and I think it's worse than older ones, because we should know better, if you know what I mean? They can be full of slut shaming (albeit in both directions, especially in those friends to lovers novels), the not-like-other-girls-trope (while pretending to be uber-feminist) and in general putting other women down to make the female main character look better. Plus, a lot of crossing boundaries and use of the word "females". Can you tell that I just read a NA romance with a male main character that the reader was supposed to feel was a good guy, who put on a bad boy routine as a defense mechanism - the book failed badly at making him likeable?

Regarding the 20 years of parole: How does that work in the US? He serves 12.5 years (minus time served and that one bonus that he is eligible for) and afterwards he has to abide by the rules the judge set out for his probation for 20 years. What happens if he violates the terms of his parole - will he have to serve the remainder of those 20 years?

I love old romance novels. Yes, some of them are very problematic with the sex. I will not read any that have rape. I usually just skip the sex scenes and if there are too many, I don't read it. Since many of the ones I read are historical, I do understand that times were different in the setting they are in along with when they were written. 

I have tried to read some of the newer ones and I agree, they have problems too and we should know better. I have started some that seem interesting and then the couple are having sex almost immediately. I don't like that in the older books and I don't like them in the newer ones. 

I guess I like a romance but I want a storyline too.