Jump to content

Menu

Josh Duggar was arrested today


Katy
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, EKS said:

Yes, well, most people today aren't interested in exploring nuance.

nuance, weeds, it's all in your perception.  Also once you read anything on linguistics you learn it's not good to correct other people's language.  Changing the definition and pronunciation of nuanced language is how language evolves.  You can teach kids the standards but language evolves.  To say nothing of whether it's appropriate to publicly judge the feelings and perceptions other adults express.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the testimony about that video specifically said they weren’t sure that Josh had watched it in particular or if it was part of a package.  Now everyone is saying he watched it over and over.  Where is that coming from? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, HeartString said:

I thought the testimony about that video specifically said they weren’t sure that Josh had watched it in particular or if it was part of a package.  Now everyone is saying he watched it over and over.  Where is that coming from? 

I was confused about that too, but I think the problem was the reporting.  Because the judge clearly asked Mrs Reber if she understood that that his charges included offenses against toddlers, plural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I was confused about that too, but I think the problem was the reporting.  Because the judge clearly asked Mrs Reber if she understood that that his charges included offenses against toddlers, plural.

If they’ve had it for 2 years I don’t see how they don’t know whether or not the file was played on that computer at some point, but I thought I saw a quote that left it as a question.  

(It was in his computer, he’s legally responsible.  I’m not saying he isn’t.  Just trying to clarify the details.)
 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, HeartString said:

If they’ve had it for 2 years I don’t see how they don’t know whether or not the file was played on that computer at some point, but I thought I saw a quote that left it as a question.  

(It was in his computer, he’s legally responsible.  I’m not saying he isn’t.  Just trying to clarify the details.)
 

 

My understanding is that the court didn't specify which of the videos he played while they used playing them interspaced with texting and doing other things like leaving reviews as evidence that it was him who was the guilty party (vs his brothers). But this wasn't a free file.  My understanding is that this file costs $10k, and people who download it know exactly what is in it.

ETA:  Meaning he possessed the video for at least 3 days, and after paying that much for it he presumably watched every video in the file.

Edited by Katy
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Katy said:

I was confused about that too, but I think the problem was the reporting.  Because the judge clearly asked Mrs Reber if she understood that that his charges included offenses against toddlers, plural.

Yes, and look at her response. She said she agreed because her husband asked her to. That is code speak for, “No, I don’t want to do this.”

This is a new judge and I think she is in over her head. 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Yes, and look at her response. She said she agreed because her husband asked her to. That is code speak for, “No, I don’t want to do this.”

This is a new judge and I think she is in over her head. 

Maybe, but most of the lawyers I've seen comment say they let him out because the prosecutor knew he had it for 18 months and didn't arrest him earlier because they admitted they didn't think he was a danger to the community...  His own family maybe but not the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I thought the testimony about that video specifically said they weren’t sure that Josh had watched it in particular or if it was part of a package.  Now everyone is saying he watched it over and over.  Where is that coming from? 

It could be because he would download-watch-erase-repeat, so some of the videos were seen  multiple times. I may be wrong, but it seems like he could have gotten away with watching one or two videos, but it was the sheer volume of traffic that wore a path to his door and it was the worst of the videos that were tagged and followed. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Katy said:

My understanding is that the court didn't specify which of the videos he played while they used playing them interspaced with texting and doing other things like leaving reviews as evidence that it was him who was the guilty party (vs his brothers). But this wasn't a free file.  My understanding is that this file costs $10k, and people who download it know exactly what is in it.

ETA:  Meaning he possessed the video for at least 3 days, and after paying that much for it he presumably watched every video in the file.

And hopefully the fact that he paid for it means there’s a trail directly to him? Because my fear is that his attorneys will do their best to clear him by trying to lay blame elsewhere. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, and my .02 as an attorney is that they knew this was going to be high profile. They literally scheduled this for the new judge. I totally understand the doing a thorough investigation end of things, but this feels political—like the good ole boys were getting together to protect one of their own.

House arrest pending trial isn’t uncommon—they don’t want to foot the housing bill—but I think the wife didn’t want to take him and is doing so begrudgingly because she has to submit to her husband. That was the jist of my comment—she is wrapped up in that unhealthy culture of wives submitting to their husbands and acting against their own best judgments.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

And hopefully the fact that he paid for it means there’s a trail directly to him? Because my fear is that his attorneys will do their best to clear him by trying to lay blame elsewhere. 

Or someone will do something stupid with jury selection or something else that will throw any conviction into question.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Seasider too said:

And hopefully the fact that he paid for it means there’s a trail directly to him? Because my fear is that his attorneys will do their best to clear him by trying to lay blame elsewhere. 

Some tabloid said that's exactly why Anna believes he is innocent... he told her it was an employee.  He told the officers his brothers had access to his computer.

  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

See, and my .02 as an attorney is that they knew this was going to be high profile. They literally scheduled this for the new judge. I totally understand the doing a thorough investigation end of things, but this feels political—like the good ole boys were getting together to protect one of their own.

House arrest pending trial isn’t uncommon—they don’t want to foot the housing bill—but I think the wife didn’t want to take him and is doing so begrudgingly because she has to submit to her husband. That was the jist of my comment—she is wrapped up in that unhealthy culture of wives submitting to their husbands and acting against their own best judgments.

Yeah, and you'd think being in a family that owns something like 5 planes would definitely make him a flight risk.  IDK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, prairiewindmomma said:

See, and my .02 as an attorney is that they knew this was going to be high profile. They literally scheduled this for the new judge. I totally understand the doing a thorough investigation end of things, but this feels political—like the good ole boys were getting together to protect one of their own.

House arrest pending trial isn’t uncommon—they don’t want to foot the housing bill—but I think the wife didn’t want to take him and is doing so begrudgingly because she has to submit to her husband. That was the jist of my comment—she is wrapped up in that unhealthy culture of wives submitting to their husbands and acting against their own best judgments.

I think with these latest details his good ole boy currency will plummet and he’ll be safer in jail.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fwiw, I do really feel for all of the attorneys, jury, and everyone else who is going to have to be exposed to what is on those tapes. I still think about some of the protection from abuse and child in need of care cases I worked 20 years ago. 😞 I left that area of work because it was so very, very heavy.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Katy said:

Some tabloid said that's exactly why Anna believes he is innocent... he told her it was an employee.  He told the officers his brothers had access to his computer.

Yeah, an employee wouldn't have access to split up a hard drive, install Linux, etx, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, prairiewindmomma said:

Fwiw, I do really feel for all of the attorneys, jury, and everyone else who is going to have to be exposed to what is on those tapes. I still think about some of the protection from abuse and child in need of care cases I worked 20 years ago. 😞 I left that area of work because it was so very, very heavy.

I wish we had a hug like.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure with how things like this work is you can now find it everywhere on the black web without paying.  Once so many people buy it those people start sharing it for free.  So, while it likely cost $10,000 originally I doubt it would be impossible to find a free copy of it sadly.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think with these latest details his good ole boy currency will plummet and he’ll be safer in jail.  

I am way more cynical. I would be looking for re-election campaign donations. Most district attorneys and many judges are elected—not sure about Arkansas, but I would .02 they both were.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

I am way more cynical. I would be looking for re-election campaign donations. Most district attorneys and many judges are elected—not sure about Arkansas, but I would .02 they both were.

https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_judicial_elections

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0231.htm

Yes, state judicial elections every even year.  DA's are elected too, not sure about term length.

Don't federal judges get appointed though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Katy said:

Some tabloid said that's exactly why Anna believes he is innocent... he told her it was an employee.  He told the officers his brothers had access to his computer.

Well, of course she believes him! It’s not like he has any history of sexual deviancy or anything!

Oh. Wait. 

Never mind.

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Katy said:

Also once you read anything on linguistics you learn it's not good to correct other people's language.

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I didn't see anything in the report of the hearing that suggested Josh paid for the DD video. The figure of $10K is what the man who originally made the video was charging for livestreams, but that video has been widely available on the dark web for a while and there is at least one guy in prison who ran a hurtcore site who admits he stole the video and put it on his site to get more traffic. So there may not be any kind of payment trail.

But I would also say that that video is absolutely infamous and not something someone would accidentally download because they didn't know what it was. And the investigator said that Josh was explicitly searching for rape videos.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

You ask for clarification of the nuance without correcting someone else, especially when someone else has a feeling or perception, not a concrete fact.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

But most of us do agree on the definition. We do agree that JimBob was being creepy. We are agreeing on the meaning of the word. 

You seem to be the only one who is arguing otherwise.

I don’t know why it is so important to you to prove that we are wrong.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

That’s the point

language does evolve and usage changes,

but in the last couple decades, differing definitions have been used even more than ever to signify the IN crowd and the OUT crowd. 

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn’t work federal, but the carrot/stick approach is fairly common. Usually, though, you charge everything you can upfront and then drop in exchange for pleas. You don’t add after the fact unless new evidence comes forward. It hurts working relationships (because police, DA, defense, judges all work together day after day there are some professional courtesy things that come into play).

Honestly, budgets are tight enough everywhere that you don’t bring charges unless you can nail them, and especially not in high profile cases.

So, yeah, you can add up until trial begins, but it’s not the usual in my non-fed experience....

You might ping others here...my work was mostly as a GAL for kids so I don’t know as much about prosecution.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, pinball said:

That’s the point

language does evolve and usage changes,

but in the last couple decades, differing definitions have been used even more than ever to signify the IN crowd and the OUT crowd. 

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

Stop being creepy. 😉 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

People adapt.  If I go back 200 years and say “yo, dadd-o, that’s the bees knees, so hip and happening” I’m getting put in an insane asylum.  Today I would sound old. At a certain place in time it would have been “cool”.  
If I say “we’ll have a gay-old time” people understand what I’m saying based on context.  

Edited by HeartString
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, pinball said:

if one group doesn’t agree with a definition that has evolved, then that group is OUT and it is used as a signal/excuse to not even bother with discussions anymore

Or maybe it has nothing to do with in or out but more to do with not wanting to interact with someone who is rude and condescending.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, pinball said:

I’d like to predict that this is not going to trial

the percentages of federal cases that go to trial is very small

 

I don’t care whether or not it goes to trial. I just want to see that pervert in prison for a very, very long time!

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bolt. said:

What's getting lost is that you don't see 'a man that would act that way' as a generally unboundaried sexually demonstrative man who doesn't notice or care about women's reactions or consent. You don't internally predict that 'a man that would act that way' is apt to take other liberties other times with other women's bodies. That's what there is to be afraid of.

Bingo.

The "fear" factor was not that he was doing it right then with his wife. The fear factor is that he has or will do this to others. Especially because he's not reading signals of uncomfortableness or he is, doesn't care, and is doing it anyway.

Either way files him as a creep in my book and creepy in general.

Arguing the semantics is asinine. As Seasider says, you can't control how someone else receives the message that's sent. It's not up to EKS to interpret for everyone else; I am not sure what EKS' intention is other than to hair-split or distract. Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Katy said:

Or maybe it has nothing to do with in or out but more to do with not wanting to interact with someone who is rude and condescending.

Kai is usually nice, though, so all I can think is that there is something about this that really matters to her and I’m missing what it is. I do think she is being kind of like a dog with a bone in this thread, though. I can’t imagine why she’s getting so caught up in the definition of one word. 

I know she probably doesn’t mean it that way, but it comes across almost as a defense of JimBob Duggar.  He’s inappropriate, not creepy. Except that JimBob is totally creepy, and calling him “inappropriate” seems like a way to minimize and normalize that.

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Katy said:

https://ballotpedia.org/Arkansas_judicial_elections

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/rpt/2003-R-0231.htm

Yes, state judicial elections every even year.  DA's are elected too, not sure about term length.

Don't federal judges get appointed though?

Yes, Federal judges are appointed.  This one was just appointed a few weeks ago.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

I think with these latest details his good ole boy currency will plummet and he’ll be safer in jail.  

I wish I could believe this.

I think there are plenty of good ole boys (and girls) who are perfectly ok with turning a blind eye to him and to help his dad/"famous" family.

  • Like 5
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, making lunch here...

Federal appointees are absolutely political. They aren’t elected, they are appointed by the president. But, they rise up through the ranks of prior elected positions, generally. Comstock was given an 8 year appointment.

So, my buddy here who just finished a term as a US attorney here for 4 years, was appointed by a Republican president in 2016 and had previously worked clerking for Republican judges and will probably go work for a think tank for a few years as a lobbyist and then run for office next cycle. He and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, but I respect his work.
 

While there are some positions that are apolitical in the law, they are fewer on the federal side. Each party runs their own agenda.

In this case, I think they ran out a Republican judge to wait for a democratic one, and made contributions to Republican campaigns to aid in patient waiting. 

I also note, in a quick Google, that a Jon Comstock ran last fall as the democratic candidate for district 96. He lost, but had previously served as a judge before going on to work for Walmart. I would .02 they are related, and likely come from a political family. Most things work that way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

By having flexible brains that pick up on changing meanings and nuances in words.

It's the difference between conversing with a human and programming a computer. Computers (with the possible exception of some cutting-edge AI stuff) need everything cut-and-dried, with predetermined and unchangeable definitions for every command and term.

People don't. 

When I was young, it was normal in my community to use the word "thong" for summer slip-on footware. Now thong isn't used that way anymore in the same community; flip-flop prevails. Elsewhere slipper is used for the same type of footware. 

I'm human, my brain functions like a human brain not a computer, so I adapt. So does everyone else and we magically avoid mass confusion 😉

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OH_Homeschooler said:

Can this maybe become a spinoff thread and move it out of here? PLEASE? 

It's the least depressing part of the discussion!

  • Like 5
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, EKS said:

How can people converse about something if they can't agree on what words mean?

People don't have to agree on what words mean to have a conversation from differing points of view, they have to define their own usage of terms for clarity and give examples.  That's how conversations work when there's disagreement on term usage. People here have been doing that with you, but you've decided, for whatever reason, to immediately dismiss it because not all are in agreement with you on how you choose to use the term.  People have pointed out where the fear comes into play using your definition of creepy.  You simply ignored it, missed it, or dismissed it. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Stacia said:

Bingo.

The "fear" factor was not that he was doing it right then with his wife. The fear factor is that he has or will do this to others. Especially because he's not reading signals of uncomfortableness or he is, doesn't care, and is doing it anyway.

Either way files him as a creep in my book and creepy in general.

Arguing the semantics is asinine. As Seasider says, you can't control how someone else receives the message that's sent. It's not up to EKS to interpret for everyone else; I am not sure what EKS' intention is other than to hair-split or distract. Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

She gave a concrete reason why.

your last paragraph is really mean.

And I think you’re using “begs the question” incorrectly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't even look at this stuff. I had a friend who is on the teams that bust child p8ngfrs. It is a dark, dark world. He told me that he never goes into a case without asking a blessing from his priest and getting a 24/7 prayer support going for him and his team. The work he is doing is good, busting evil out of the world, but by wading into the midst of it. And the word he uses is EVIL. I respect him and I also understand why he is gruff and prickly sometimes. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, pinball said:

 

And I think you’re using “begs the question” incorrectly

She is using the contemporary vernacular meaning of the phrase, not the classical logic meaning.

Since we are humans and have flexible brains we are capable of understanding a phrase as it is ordinarily used by people in our community, even if that usage differs from an older formalized meaning.

Incorrect is not a valid descriptor here.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stacia said:

Which begs the question... why? Why is EKS trying to argue semantics? Derail the conversation? Convince others that JB is not creepy, just someone who made you blush and be embarrassed (insert eyeroll)? What is the purpose?

Obviously I can't read Kai's mind. I do see her being dog-piled in this thread and she has a right to try to explain and defend herself. 

Others have said that we shouldn't judge another person's reaction to the Putt Putt video. That's true; people can't help how they react. But I see plenty of judgment for EKS NOT finding it creepy, but rather "wildly inappropriate," "cringe-worthy," etc. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...