Josh and Anna 57: Singing the I'm Stuck in the SHU Blues

[Idlewild]

Josh never really bothered learning a trade or profession before. He went from used car sales to wannabe political influencer (presumably with a view to standing for office himself) and then went straight back to car dealing after the first scandal broke. As a family they have had little time for formal education and always preferred learning on the job or mooching after they got the TV show.

[Maggie Mae]

A lot of people take all the classes in prison solely to have something to do. Maybe he'll discover something he's good at and enjoys. Unlikely, he's a loser who doesn't seem to enjoy anything except having power over people. 

[sndral]

4 hours ago, TN-peach said:

SCOTUS would only hear the case if there was a "controversy" with the law.  Say there were two different circuits interpreting the same law differently - that's not the case here.  There is no circuit split here.  Also, there really is no issue of first impression or something super unusual about his trial.  This was a very normal trial.  The laws he was convicted under aren't vague or overly broad, there were no real constitutional issues raised (he tried to raise the issue of his statements to LE but he wasn't in custody so that's a no-go).  

Well, SCOTUS could chose Josh’s case to be ‘the’ case they use to reinterpret the 5th amendment or the confrontation clause or the like, I mean IMO the current court has played pretty fast & loose w/ precedent, but I think not. The trial Judge did a great job protecting the record.

[postscript]

Any one of those continuing education or occupational education courses would do Josh a lot of good. At the very least, they would occupy his time. However, he probably thinks he’s too advanced for the automotive or computer tracks, and maybe that he’s above formal education in general. He’s also probably too lazy and undisciplined to put in the necessary work. 

[shesinsane]

3 hours ago, sndral said:

Well, SCOTUS could chose Josh’s case to be ‘the’ case they use to reinterpret the 5th amendment or the confrontation clause or the like, I mean IMO the current court has played pretty fast & loose w/ precedent, but I think not. The trial Judge did a great job protecting the record.

Plus Jim Bob Duggar cannot afford to befriend a SCOTUS judge at the level required to get a case reviewed. The Duggar are Arkansas wealthy, but they cannot make Paul Singer or Harlan Crow level bribes gifts love offerings the right SCOTUS members. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

On 8/7/2023 at 5:41 PM, postscript said:

 

Josh once expressed interest in going to law school. Since he’s stuck in federal prison for the next several years, now would be an ideal time to obtain that college degree Jim Bob denied him. He could even attend law school, assuming he could get admitted (some prisoners do). He’s unlikely to pass any state bar’s character and fitness exam, meaning he couldn’t take the bar or practice, but he might learn something about the laws he’s so fond or flouting. 

I hope he uses his time for growth and comes out a better person. I doubt it will ever happen. 
 

19 hours ago, sndral said:

 

Or they could petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court gets somewhere around 8,000 - 10,000 petitions for writs of cert. per year, they issue opinions in about 100 of them - so Josh has about a 1% chance the U.S. Supreme Court would take a look at his case if his attorneys petition. I’d say his chances are even lower, the law’s not really on his side IMO.

I hope not, with their conservative bend they’d probably let him go.

 

11 hours ago, Cam said:

I would love to learn if JB and Michele ever visit Josh in prison, and how often Anna goes to see him.

My guess is his parents don’t visit. Michelle may be too fragile to see her baby in prison.

[marmalade]

1 hour ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

I hope not, with their conservative bend they’d probably let him go.

The appeal was denied by 3 conservative judges. That seems to be why the Duggars seemed to be fostering hope for a new trial. They were hinging their hopes on political glad handing. 

I'm glad the judges didn't let their politics interfere with their (correct) ruling. 

[noseybutt]

One of the few topics that can unite liberal and conservative judges alike is CSAM. 

It is a terrible look to be appear soft on that crime no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. Friends in legal high places are of no help.

[viii]

2 hours ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

My guess is his parents don’t visit. Michelle may be too fragile to see her baby in prison.

I agree; I’d be surprised if his parents have visited more than once. Now with losing the appeal, I think reality is setting in and the Duggars are probably moving on. They’ll likely put a pin in the Josh issue for the next 12 years and deal with him once he’s out. 

[FiveAcres]

10 hours ago, viii said:

I agree; I’d be surprised if his parents have visited more than once. Now with losing the appeal, I think reality is setting in and the Duggars are probably moving on. They’ll likely put a pin in the Josh issue for the next 12 years and deal with him once he’s out. 

Those Duggars who are more grounded in reality have probably given a quiet sigh of relief. After all of his criminal activities, they are probably appreciating not having to deal with the "Josh problem" for ten years. 

[BensAllergies]

14 hours ago, viii said:

I agree; I’d be surprised if his parents have visited more than once. Now with losing the appeal, I think reality is setting in and the Duggars are probably moving on. They’ll likely put a pin in the Josh issue for the next 12 years and deal with him once he’s out. 

Just like it was Anna’s job to keep her husband accountable, it will be Anna’s job to keep him steady during his prison term. JB was willing to support them with money for the lawyers because it’s not Anna’s job to provide financial support, but other than that, Anna is on her own.

[SassyPants]

24 minutes ago, BensAllergies said:

Just like it was Anna’s job to keep her husband accountable, it will be Anna’s job to keep him steady during his prison term. JB was willing to support them with money for the lawyers because it’s not Anna’s job to provide financial support, but other than that, Anna is on her own.

And JB providing the money keeps Anna firmly in-line. She is 100% hosed, but she has 10 + years to devise and activate a plan. 

[Bobology]

Does anyone have thoughts about how the trial/conviction/sentencing might have turned out if Josh would have had a public defender? If about the same outcome could have been expected, I'm glad that JB spent a lot of money (unless that keeps other offspring from getting/inheriting more in the end.)

Before and during the trial there was speculation here that perhaps JB felt like he had to support Josh in the effort because Josh might know and tell damaging info in regards to JB if JB did not provide all that financial support. If that's true, then it's possible JB will continue to do what he can for Josh, or at least make it appear to Josh that JB is doing all he can. 

[FiveAcres]

1 hour ago, Bobology said:

Does anyone have thoughts about how the trial/conviction/sentencing might have turned out if Josh would have had a public defender? If about the same outcome could have been expected, I'm glad that JB spent a lot of money (unless that keeps other offspring from getting/inheriting more in the end.)

Before and during the trial there was speculation here that perhaps JB felt like he had to support Josh in the effort because Josh might know and tell damaging info in regards to JB if JB did not provide all that financial support. If that's true, then it's possible JB will continue to do what he can for Josh, or at least make it appear to Josh that JB is doing all he can. 

I've wondered that myself. It can't be a comfortable feeling for Jim Bob that, if anyone besides Jim Bob knows where the bodies are buried, it's probably Josh. 

[marmalade]

5 hours ago, SassyPants said:

And JB providing the money keeps Anna firmly in-line. She is 100% hosed, but she has 10 + years to devise and activate a plan. 

She won't. She's living comfortably now. No need to devise anything that would require effort on her part.

[ifosterkittens]

1 hour ago, Bobology said:

Does anyone have thoughts about how the trial/conviction/sentencing might have turned out if Josh would have had a public defender? If about the same outcome could have been expected, I'm glad that JB spent a lot of money (unless that keeps other offspring from getting/inheriting more in the end.)

Before and during the trial there was speculation here that perhaps JB felt like he had to support Josh in the effort because Josh might know and tell damaging info in regards to JB if JB did not provide all that financial support. If that's true, then it's possible JB will continue to do what he can for Josh, or at least make it appear to Josh that JB is doing all he can. 

Emily D Baker (legal commentator on youtube) said when the feds bring a case it is usually pretty airtight, and as the information in Josh's case came out the feds had done everything by the book, followed procedure, and accurately tied it to Josh Duggar. Emily said she imagined the lawyers Jim Bob hired said we can try these strategies, but the evidence is really stacked against Josh, and a conviction is likely. Now your only opportunity to get a not guilty verdict is to take it to trial, so Jim Bob must have decided it was worth the gamble.

I don't think Josh would have done better or worse with a public defender. The person the Duggars brought in to be an expert witness didn't do well, didn't help Josh's case, so I don't think all that money made a difference. Anyone can claim religious persecution and say that's why Josh Duggar was targeted (although that's not how it worked, Josh downloaded an image that was being tracked, and the tracked image was tied back to Josh) but a reasonable person can see the evidence or listen to a legal commentator explain it (because I don't understand all the jargon) and see Josh did the thing he was accused of doing. 

Jim Bob may have not wanted Josh to plead guilty he may not have wanted an admission on the record.  Originally JB could say Josh is an adult in his 30s who chose to download and view CSAM. When the judge allowed Josh's prior bad acts (offenses he committed against his sisters) to be testified to by Bobbi I wonder if JB was rethinking the trial strategy, but at that point it was too late. I think that really pissed off JB. JB really lost control of the narrative at that point because it was no longer about Josh's current crimes he committed in his 30s. 

Given Josh's conviction and prior offenses I don't know how seriously anyone would take him without proof on other secrets/buried bodies. I don't see his siblings going against JB to stand in solidarity with Josh on something. I think Jim Bob paid for the defense in an effort to protect his name, his reputation, his brand. I think it had very little to do with Josh. 

[GuineaPigCourtship]

Plausible deniability to anyone who cares.  They never admit guilt, there will probably be at least some who thing he isn't guilty.  Those people are idiots or fools, but they probably exist and it was the only hope for any continuation of the Duggar brand.

[FleeJanaFree]

Does anyone have more info on this? I’ve seen some videos about the fifth victim allegedly speaking out today but no way to verify if it’s really her. 
 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRWXcU56/

 

allegedly she wasn’t a babysitter but a family friend. She was “silenced” and involved in a lawsuit. He didn’t voluntarily confess but was caught for forced to confess. 

ive  only seen it on tiktok and another recap on youtube but no news article or actual link to this “statement” so I’m wary. 

 

if true, one of the comments said calling her a babysitter was a calculated move to make her seem older and I’d have to agree with that. Very Jimbob. 

[AussieKrissy]

1 hour ago, FleeJanaFree said:

Does anyone have more info on this? I’ve seen some videos about the fifth victim allegedly speaking out today but no way to verify if it’s really her. 
 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRWXcU56/

 

allegedly she wasn’t a babysitter but a family friend. She was “silenced” and involved in a lawsuit. He didn’t voluntarily confess but was caught for forced to confess. 

ive  only seen it on tiktok and another recap on youtube but no news article or actual link to this “statement” so I’m wary. 

 

if true, one of the comments said calling her a babysitter was a calculated move to make her seem older and I’d have to agree with that. Very Jimbob. 

I will be interested to see how this plays out, if it is indeed her, 'cause you know, the sticky beak factor.  

I hope it is though, only because I would hate to see a "faker" playing the role of a real victim. 

edit to add; How long until Pickles or WACB state they knew all along or get an "exclusive" tip or interview

I know/think one of them maybe pickles was tossing around the real name of the fifth girl years ago. I purposely ignored it and didn't search for it 'cause you know, I 'aint about endorsing that shit. Yes I am a sticky beak but I wont dig where I am not morally allowed.  

Edited August 10, 2023 by AussieKrissy
add stuff

[marmalade]

I think Pickles claimed it was Kaeliegh Holt. She shut that down pretty early on.

Edited August 10, 2023 by marmalade
Autofill strikes again!

[AussieKrissy]

10 minutes ago, marmalade said:

I think Pickles claimed it was Kaeliegh Holt. She shut that down pretty early on.

was that the betrothed one or one of the sisters of the betrothed one?

[marmalade]

15 minutes ago, AussieKrissy said:

was that the betrothed one or one of the sisters of the betrothed one?

The betrothed one. 

[Cam]

13 hours ago, ifosterkittens said:

….feds had done everything by the book, followed procedure, and accurately tied it to Josh Duggar……the lawyers Jim Bob hired said we can try these strategies, but the evidence is really stacked against Josh, and a conviction is likely. Now your only opportunity to get a not guilty verdict is to take it to trial, so Jim Bob must have decided it was worth the gamble……

…..I think Jim Bob paid for the defense in an effort to protect his name, his reputation, his brand. I think it had very little to do with Josh. 

I agree with these trains of thought. And the defense lawyers would have known even a trial was a long shot. I specifically believe it was JB taking a “gamble”. If he won (Josh found not guilty), JB could crow till the cows come home and maybe even go on a money making speaking tour. JB had plenty of money to place this massive bet, even tho some FJers and Snarkers don’t realize he has substantial wealth to do so.

 

16 hours ago, Bobology said:

Before and during the trial there was speculation here that perhaps JB felt like he had to support Josh in the effort because Josh might know and tell damaging info in regards to JB if JB did not provide all that financial support. If that's true, then it's possible JB will continue to do what he can for Josh, or at least make it appear to Josh that JB is doing all he can. 

Yes, it’s a possibility. Guess we’ll never know for sure.

 

10 hours ago, FleeJanaFree said:

if true, one of the comments said calling her a babysitter was a calculated move to make her seem older and I’d have to agree with that. Very Jimbob. 

Disgusting that they’d think this could even lessen the impact of Josh’s molestations.

 

[noseybutt]

As others have pointed out, the feds don’t bring CSAM charges unless it’s pretty airtight.

One option is to mitigate the charges by

(1) psych eval that possibly points out deficiencies in family upbringing, education, lack of appropriate intervention when he was a teen, etc

(2) voluntary and consistent participation in a solid sex offender treatment program during the lengthy pretrial (pre settlement) phase

(3) admit to the guilt and express remorse

Do all that and then hope the judge gives toward the lower end of the sentencing guidelines—which they often do because the lower end of the range for CSAM is still quite long when compared with, say, hands on sexual offenses like rape.

It’s fairly obvious why this tactic was not used. (PSA that JB voted to defund residential juvenile sex offender treatment in Arkansas during his days as a politician.)

IMO there is also a  different issue at play with use of a public defender. Namely, public defenders are supposed to be used when the defendant is indigent (or the crime so unique or severe that only a public defender would have the experience to provide effective counsel). Neither of those conditions applies in this situation.

As @Cam points out, the family is wealthy. CSAM is not a rare or unique or death penalty crime.

They should pay every penny of the legal fees.

 

 

 

***ETA There is another exception where I think public defenders are appropriate and that is with juvenile legal cases. I think often there is a conflict of interest when parents hire attorneys for their underage children because attorneys know who really pays their bills and what the parents want often conflicts with the legal defense. Juvenile attorneys are supposed to represent only the child but realistically, that’s tough. 

[TN-peach]

On 8/8/2023 at 2:06 PM, sndral said:

Well, SCOTUS could chose Josh’s case to be ‘the’ case they use to reinterpret the 5th amendment or the confrontation clause or the like, I mean IMO the current court has played pretty fast & loose w/ precedent, but I think not. The trial Judge did a great job protecting the record.

I agree the judge did a great job protecting the record. Sure they could choose this one, but the likelihood is extremely small because this SCOTUS is not likely to give defendants more rights even if some of them have more libertarian leanings.