Josh Duggar was arrested today

[popmom]

5 hours ago, sweet2ndchance said:

Psychopath? Almost unquestionably, yes. I absolutely agree that he is some sort of psychopath. It would be hard for him not to be given the nature of the evidence against him, both past and present.

But I really hate how "popular" the NPD label has become and how flippantly it is used to describe anyone who displays self-centered or unscrupulous behavior toward others. One can be a self-centered, deplorable jerk of a person and not be NPD. There is evil, vile and disgusting and then there is NPD. It really is a whole other thing that is just indescribable and incomprehensible until you have seen it first hand.

Honestly, I have no idea if Josh Duggar has NPD. I have not followed him particularly and don't know enough about him as a person to make that statement confidently. He is evil, vile, disgusting and deplorable, absolutely. But that itself does not make him NPD.

Now, his parents, on the other hand, absolutely give me the NPD vibe that I am so familiar with from my situation. And from my armchair psychologist position, I absolutely think there is a theme of NPD in that family. But that does not automatically make every family member NPD as well. I get the feeling that Josh, being the oldest boy in a patriarchal family, was a golden child. He can do no wrong in his parents' eyes no matter how wrong he actually is. It will take a lot for a golden child to be dethroned usually and even federal charges usually are not enough to do that as odd as that seems to the rest of the world.

He has a problem that isn't something one is just born with. Again from my armchair psychologist position, I think his problem was his way of dealing with his upbringing. Does that excuse him? Absolutely not. I do not know how to make that any more emphatic. Is he a narcissist or on his way to being a narcissist? Could be, but there is also a chance that he is just living and acting the only way he knows how after being raised by NPD parents.

Not excusing him in anyway at all but I do think there are explanations for his behavior, both those that are federal offenses and those that are just questionable life choices, that do not include him being a NPD himself.

Being raised by NPD parents sucks, there are several of us on this board that know this first hand. In my opinion, it is hard, nigh impossible, to survive that kind of upbringing with your mental health in tact. Some just stray further to the deep end than others.... and yes, some do become narcissists themselves but not all.

I've kinda gotten way out in the weeds, sorry about that, but I do whole heartedly agree with @Ottakee . As triggering as it is to read through threads like this, I do believe it is important to help other people understand how complex and tricky situations like these are. As nice as it would be to have, it just isn't that cut and dried. By the time things have gotten this far, the web is so knotted and tangled that you can unravel one knot and create five more before you even know what happened!

 

Please do not assume that I made that comment flippantly. I understand what you are saying. Of course I’m speculating here, and I do acknowledge that there is NPD and there are those with narc traits that aren’t NPD. So maybe I should have said “narc traits”. The damage is the same. I’m living it, myself. Trust me...I don’t make that comment lightly. 
 

Also, if we’re not throwing around the NPD label, let’s not make that assumption of Jim and Michelle. Brainwashed and misguided, yes, but I don’t see any evidence that they have been intentionally malicious. I’m not saying they are innocent by any means. But I’m not seeing the “NPD vibe” you speak of in them. 
But...I’m not going to defend them because I know enough about the disorder to not make that assumption either. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by popmom

[kiwik]

17 hours ago, itsheresomewhere said:

It takes awhile to handle these types of charges and built a tight case. 

The last thing they want is him wriggling out because they didn't sew things up tightly enough.  And there has been the little matter of a pandemic and civil unrest.

I know nothing about these people but what I read here but if she doesn't remove the kids herself I think the authorities will have to consider getting involved.

[kiwik]

6 hours ago, Shahrazad said:

I agree, strongly with what you wrote here.

Additionally, in terms of the massive amount of sympathy directed toward Anna in this thread, as someone who escaped out of a similar religious setting myself, I can't fully get down with that. I think the line of one's victimhood begins to diminish as one crosses into the territory of perpetrator/facilitator. If we were having this conversation back in 2015, I would absolutely have a lot more sympathy for her. However, IMO, there are multiple factors in this particular situation that make it stand out from other abuse situations where the victimhood of the mother somewhat absolves some of the blame for not extracting her children from the situation:

- Anna already knew she was married to a pedophile because, 6 years ago, we all were alerted to that fact. He sexually assaulted his pre-pubescent sisters and paid no consequences and received no meaningful intervention or therapy and then returned to the house to live with said victims and to pretend nothing happened. Its fine if she was cool with praying on and forgiving him for being a slimy, hypocritical, cheating, d-bag with the Ashley Madison/solicitation of sex workers stuff (although it probably should have been a concern with regards to the violence aspect of that) but once she found out that he had assaulted his sisters (who were *also* under 12 -- between 7 and 12 if IIRC -- clearly he has a predilection for young girls and that is not something that tends to just go away) and then CHOSE to remain with him and keep her daughters in the house with a pedophile who they'd trust and who would also have complete access to them, she knowingly and willingly put them at a pretty grave and imminent risk. If Josh did anything to them in those interim years, IMO she absolutely carries responsibility for that and deserves to be dealing with CPS intervention, the way many people would if they knowingly put their children in the care of a sexual predator after being repeatedly alerted to the fact that said person was a sexual predator. And it isn't as though she was in denial because Josh and his sisters admitted the sexual assault situation publicly so there was no question that he had done it, the only question was related to whether the consequences for it were appropriate. She wasn't just "having trouble believing he would to that," she KNEW he did that to his sisters and still thought it was okay to return her daughters into his care.

- Anna has far more resources than most of us coming from extreme religious backgrounds who are locked into abusive marriages. She is part of a major TV show franchise, is often around people who do not subscribe to her insular religious beliefs (most of the casts of these reality shows talk about how much time they spend with the producers and camerapeople and how close they usually get). Her brother offered her an out. There was talk of her family being upset about the Josh-sister news coming out. She has a huge social media following and if she left would have options for her own show, interviews with major talk shows....etc. She is literally a phone call away from freedom.

- Additionally, the more exposure you get to "outsiders" when you're in this kind of community, the greater the effect on your isolation. For example, even when I first joined this forum many years ago, the things I learned and the online friendships I formed with some of the members here began to influence me and the way I saw the world because I was no longer in an echo chamber. I actually think a lot of my own personal change took place as a result to exposure that began here. I had a very polished way I presented myself to the outside to portray a good view of my orthodox version of faith and yet just hearing other perspectives often broke through in a way I would never have acknowledged at the time. I don't think she is as sheltered and restricted as we think or that she cannot fathom any other view but the one she has been brainwashed to believe. She may continue to hold the drilled in view, as I did at the time, but that doesn't mean the exposure doesn't offer other perspectives and give her the chance to see that there are other options.

- Its a kind thought that every person who is a victim of abuse is a sympathetic figure in how they interact with those they have power over but it is often not the case. I have seen quite often with others who were in the same situation as myself and who remained in those situations that one often forms a coping mechanism in which they tend to either become very manipulative or to throw others under the bus in the name of self preservation. An example of this I repeatedly witnessed in my old community would come in the form of an abusive husband causing significant harm to the child or making a decision that could have a huge, life-altering consequence for the child and the mother opting not to do anything to protect said child because they "didn't want to hear it/didn't want to deal with his anger/couldn't do anything". Because these people had become so accustomed to trying to avoid confrontation with their abuser, the idea of entering one even for the sake of the protection of their children was more off-putting than their child being harmed severely OR perhaps them losing their child altogether. Does that make them less of a victim? No. But does it make them less sympathetic when they can exert a reasonable effort to try and protect the child who they are responsible for protecting and caring for and choose not to to avoid even the possibility of an argument? Absolutely IMO.

- Anna may be a member of a cult but she is still in the USA. She may recognize her in-laws power over her and headship but the law is not going to prioritize placing grandkids with the Duggar parents or children with their admitted-pedo criminal father over their mother. I can definitely understand the perspective of her as primarily trapped by her own mind. There are many women, women I have known personally, who have had to fight to protect their kids from similar situations in places where the general law and general public opinion is not on their side, where they very much could lose their kids if they divorced, and where they could even face penalties and prosecution for leaving or trying to obstruct their husband. Anna has a lot of privilege that comes with being in a country where the views the Duggars hold are an outlier and, as a result, she has a lot of practical advantages if she wants to, for example, not return her children to living in a house with a pedophile predator father and stop bringing more children into an already awful situation.

For reference, I am not and have never been a member of the Duggar's particular brand of religion BUT I was raised to be a very conservative Muslim in a very conservative/traditional cultural household. I was arranged married at 16 to a man I barely knew. I had a GED I got after spotty homeschooling, no degree, no work experience ever. I had never done even practical thinks regarding money management or basic tasks of living, my husband did everything, handled all the money...etc. I was perhaps even worse off than Anna in many ways. I absolutely bought in to many of the same views the Duggars hold regarding marriage and subservience and women, I was so completely brainwashed that I couldn't even consider leaving an abusive marriage because I was petrified of the idea of being disowned by my father and family who would never forgive me if I left. In the end, I left because, even if I felt all those ways, even if I was sure I was going to hell and doing all the wrong things and I would lose everything and everyone, I couldn't stomach my children growing up seeing that abuse and thinking that was normal or healthy or okay. And my husband wouldn't have ever hurt them, he adored them, he directed all his anger toward me. There is absolutely zero question in my mind that had there been a situation where my children were at risk regarding their physical safety or if I'd learned he was a pedophile, I would have been out even sooner, the moment that information came to light because, for many of us, we instinctually draw the line at our children's physical well-being/major safety. I didn't have TLC to call and I didn't have a brother who publicly said he'd have my back and I, too, didn't have work experience or anything to fall back on. I didn't even have friends as I'd been quite isolated and everyone was gone once they realized I was leaving my husband anyway. In fact, one of the biggest helps that happened once I shared my departure was that a group of amazing women from this site who I kept in touch with on social media pooled together and surprised me by sending me an incredibly generous amount of money that allowed me to secure a place of my own while I waited to receive my first paycheck from my first ever job (and one who lived near me even offered to watch my children while I interviewed for that job as well -- just freaking amazing). It took many years of therapy for me to get to a healthier place spiritually and emotionally and I'm still working on it (especially spiritually). But even those of us who are victims are not so weak that we deserve a pass for consciously choosing to put our children in the clutches of a predator. Even now, she has given the impression she will be supporting him.

As a side note, am I remembering right that last time, in 2015, when the pedophilia/sister assault stuff came out, she also announced her pregnancy right before it? Just made me side eye things a little because today when I tried to do a search, only about 40% of the articles were on the arrest vs 60% about her pregnancy announcement she made a few days ago. Makes me wonder whether they have a heads up about when this stuff is about to hit the fan and she is "helping" try to bury it by announcing her pregnancies around the same time the news will hit.

And if she had left 6 years ago she would have had several fewer kids to manage.  A woman's first responsibility is to her children.  The husband comes well below them.

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

Truthfully, I don’t think Anna will leave him.  Why would she? Either he’ll be convicted and go away anyway, and he won’t be around the kids until they’re mostly grown if he gets 20 years; or he won’t be convicted and she’ll be convinced of his innocence. 

The only way I really see her divorcing is to protect assets. 

[Ottakee]

8 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

Truthfully, I don’t think Anna will leave him.  Why would she? Either he’ll be convicted and go away anyway, and he won’t be around the kids until they’re mostly grown if he gets 20 years; or he won’t be convicted and she’ll be convinced of his innocence. 

The only way I really see her divorcing is to protect assets. 

Divorcing to protect assets is a very real concern.   In my situation, the divorce had to be final before a conviction to protect assets from the possibility (a very real one) of federal seizure.

Her situation is very similar to mine but our family culture and resources are different.   I could not find a lawyer locally willing to take on my divorce case since it involved a federal case.  There are many added prayers of complexity here.

[Katy]

Is Arkansas a community property state?

Will the federal government easily be able to seize the assets they’ve hidden in LLC’s in Anna’s name?

I keep waffling between thinking we have no idea if she’s a victim or perpetrator because it isn’t as if we know for sure she’s controlling her social media herself. Putting out pictures from the family photo shoot isn’t at all the same thing as talking to the camera in an Instagram story. I’m not sure she’s ever talked to a camera.  Even when she was in the first episode or two after he lost his lobbying job she talked to a producer off to the side, not to the camera. 

[mommyoffive]

Wow.  Very sad to see what the charges were.  I am even more sad for the kids.  But honestly I am sure they were at risk their whole lives with him as their father.  I worry about all the extended family kids too.   Those poor kids.  I pray that he didn't do anything to them, but I don't know that the chances of that is high.  

I do feel sad for him in a way too.  I think his parents failed him growing up.  Maybe this is brought on or protected by the religion that they are.  But when he was touching his sisters, that was his time to get intensive help.  Maybe there were signs before that too.  

Those poor kids.  I am so worried about them. 

[ktgrok]

2 hours ago, kiwik said:

And if she had left 6 years ago she would have had several fewer kids to manage.  A woman's first responsibility is to her children.  The husband comes well below them.

Sadly, this is NOT what she was taught. Or what many Christian women are taught. First responsibility is to God, second to Spouse, kids are below both. Because the best way to have healthy kids is to have a good marriage, supposedly. (eye roll)

[BlsdMama]

18 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Sadly, this is NOT what she was taught. Or what many Christian women are taught. First responsibility is to God, second to Spouse, kids are below both. Because the best way to have healthy kids is to have a good marriage, supposedly. (eye roll)

I think you do get healthier kids with a healthy marriage - but that sure spins on the definition of "good" and "healthy."  It's funny, I don't love how much my DH and I disagree - but those disagreements proffer opposing viewpoints, compromise, discussion, an openness to thoughts other than those that rattle around in one's head.  

This wasn't healthy.  The concept that the husband is always right, that the wife has nothing to offer, that opposing thoughts shouldn't be voiced is downright dangerous and feeds an unhealthy mindset.

I think of Anna as an ostrich - if she could just keep her head in the sand then everything would be "okay."  She really never got to know him one on one and even if she had and had pushed back, I don't see it having been acceptable for her to back out of the marriage - family pressure, religious pressure, and then the pressure of being "on stage" as the poster couple for courtship.  This is nothing short of disastrous.  I can't remember how old J was when he molested his sisters? Was he super young or older? 

I honestly wonder what compelled JB to want to do the TLC show longterm.  He had to have known it would come out and that it would affect his daughters. I haven't seen a lot of the show, but my girls do like to watch the Bates.  I just look at the families that opened up their lives to TLC and think, "Wow, that's destruction waiting to happen..." The pressure to present this false perfect story has to be intense and I can't imagine it brings out the best in ANYONE.  Then you add to it by having this deep dark secret.  And J is just not right in the head.  What idiot believes he can get away with stuff like this?  Shudder.  Let this be a very public lesson to pedophiles - they're looking for ya'all.  

[lauraw4321]

52 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

I think you do get healthier kids with a healthy marriage - but that sure spins on the definition of "good" and "healthy."  It's funny, I don't love how much my DH and I disagree - but those disagreements proffer opposing viewpoints, compromise, discussion, an openness to thoughts other than those that rattle around in one's head.  

This wasn't healthy.  The concept that the husband is always right, that the wife has nothing to offer, that opposing thoughts shouldn't be voiced is downright dangerous and feeds an unhealthy mindset.

I think of Anna as an ostrich - if she could just keep her head in the sand then everything would be "okay."  She really never got to know him one on one and even if she had and had pushed back, I don't see it having been acceptable for her to back out of the marriage - family pressure, religious pressure, and then the pressure of being "on stage" as the poster couple for courtship.  This is nothing short of disastrous.  I can't remember how old J was when he molested his sisters? Was he super young or older? 

I honestly wonder what compelled JB to want to do the TLC show longterm.  He had to have known it would come out and that it would affect his daughters. I haven't seen a lot of the show, but my girls do like to watch the Bates.  I just look at the families that opened up their lives to TLC and think, "Wow, that's destruction waiting to happen..." The pressure to present this false perfect story has to be intense and I can't imagine it brings out the best in ANYONE.  Then you add to it by having this deep dark secret.  And J is just not right in the head.  What idiot believes he can get away with stuff like this?  Shudder.  Let this be a very public lesson to pedophiles - they're looking for ya'all.  

JB cares about $$. The TLC show was his way to support his wife’s birth addiction. They were struggling financially before the show. He put his kids on national TV after his son abused his daughters. Any motivation other than $ is just a justification they told themselves and their audience. 

[lauraw4321]

Oh, and the reason I don’t think Anna will ever leave Josh is because of an advice column I read several years ago. It was either Debbie Pearl, something VF-esq, but it raised this exact scenario (maybe with even abuse of the father’s own children thrown in) and the wife was seeking permission to divorce. The advice noted that this is not grounds for divorce and so she should remain married, but had no obligation to see her husband. They said it would be a “testimony” to the world of the power of marriage and a godly wife. And that she should pray for him and maybe he’ll repent. And then it went on to note that by the time he was out of prison he wouldn’t be a threat to anyone, so she had nothing to worry about. Even if Anna’s resources are seized, JB will provide for her for her life. It will take a miracle, maybe a literal angel from heaven, for her to divorce him. 

[Katy]

@BlsdMama

Josh was 15-16, the youngest victim was the last at 5 years old according to the police report, and that wasn’t simple molestation. It involved digital penetration of the 5 year old while she sat on his lap in full view of the rest of the family. Her dress or nightgown hid what he was doing. 

I think JB legitimately started the show not just as a way to make money, but as a way to spread the cult. And I’m sure there’s a certain political motivation, he was a state politician. 

Edited May 1, 2021 by Katy

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

19 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Oh, and the reason I don’t think Anna will ever leave Josh is because of an advice column I read several years ago. It was either Debbie Pearl, something VF-esq, but it raised this exact scenario (maybe with even abuse of the father’s own children thrown in) and the wife was seeking permission to divorce. The advice noted that this is not grounds for divorce and so she should remain married, but had no obligation to see her husband. They said it would be a “testimony” to the world of the power of marriage and a godly wife. And that she should pray for him and maybe he’ll repent. And then it went on to note that by the time he was out of prison he wouldn’t be a threat to anyone, so she had nothing to worry about. Even if Anna’s resources are seized, JB will provide for her for her life. It will take a miracle, maybe a literal angel from heaven, for her to divorce him. 

It was Debbie Pearl. It’s in one of her books. The only good thing I can say about it is that the wife had discovered that the husband was molesting their own child. The Pearls’ advice was to immediately cut off access and alert the authorities.  They did say if he got out of prison before the child was grown that he should not have access again and that the wife should not divorce him while in prison, but remain faithful(though she doesn’t necessarily have to go visit, but should if she wants too).  But even in that case, they don’t advocate divorce at all.  They do advocate turning him over to the authorities and never allowing him around children, at least.

The Pearl’s are weird. Mike Pearl gleefully wrote about raping his wife on their honeymoon. It was definitely marital rape.  They are sadistic physical abusers of children and advocate for it.  But on sexual abuse of children, they’ve written books for kids on telling adults if it happens to them and they think child molesters need very long prison sentences, if not the death penalty.  There’s a lot of weirdness in their books. I buy them at thrift stores to use as bonfire kindling.

[Ottakee]

40 minutes ago, lauraw4321 said:

Oh, and the reason I don’t think Anna will ever leave Josh is because of an advice column I read several years ago. It was either Debbie Pearl, something VF-esq, but it raised this exact scenario (maybe with even abuse of the father’s own children thrown in) and the wife was seeking permission to divorce. The advice noted that this is not grounds for divorce and so she should remain married, but had no obligation to see her husband. They said it would be a “testimony” to the world of the power of marriage and a godly wife. And that she should pray for him and maybe he’ll repent. And then it went on to note that by the time he was out of prison he wouldn’t be a threat to anyone, so she had nothing to worry about. Even if Anna’s resources are seized, JB will provide for her for her life. It will take a miracle, maybe a literal angel from heaven, for her to divorce him. 

I will say that just a few years go I had some on the church questioning if I really should get a divorce or not after my then husband was arrested on the same charges.

[Catwoman]

16 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

I will say that just a few years go I had some on the church questioning if I really should get a divorce or not after my then husband was arrested on the same charges.

I hope you had a few choice words for them! 🤬

[lauraw4321]

19 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

I will say that just a few years go I had some on the church questioning if I really should get a divorce or not after my then husband was arrested on the same charges.

I’m so sorry. I know you know you did the right thing, but I’ll say it again. You did the right thing. 

[Stacia]

 

 

 

There's more to the thread...

[Stacia]

 

 

[mom2scouts]

1 hour ago, Stacia said:

 

 

This makes me want to vomit. 

[Melissa Louise]

P*rn is impacting on the type and frequency of injuries young women present with to the GP. Forget addiction, I'm more concerned about physical injury. 

 

[Carrie12345]

 

I’m getting the scary feeling that this is analogous to another idea and, yeah, I heard it on TikTok!
So, someone was in a class with a person of an undefined sect of very conservative Christian. The topic was homosexuality, and the student’s argument was about choice. When asked when they chose to be heterosexual, the response was along the lines of “everyone experiences same-sex attraction, but it’s not something to act on.”  And it’s just like... who’s going to tell this kid that full on straight people don’t feel that attraction?

It’s freaking me out to think that this could be the same situation; that people might believe this horrific deviance is inwardly universal and only problematic when acted upon.

[gardenmom5]

On 4/30/2021 at 7:15 PM, KungFuPanda said:

 I remember the movie and the news coverage but I don't remember anyone remotely romanticizing it.  I thought it was covered so much because it was unusually icky. 

 

I didn't watch the movie - I was very angry at the way it was promoted.  It wasn't the first case of a female teacher and student - but she was so "pretty".

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

I’m getting the scary feeling that this is analogous to another idea and, yeah, I heard it on TikTok!
So, someone was in a class with a person of an undefined sect of very conservative Christian. The topic was homosexuality, and the student’s argument was about choice. When asked when they chose to be heterosexual, the response was along the lines of “everyone experiences same-sex attraction, but it’s not something to act on.”  And it’s just like... who’s going to tell this kid that full on straight people don’t feel that attraction?

It’s freaking me out to think that this could be the same situation; that people might believe this horrific deviance is inwardly universal and only problematic when acted upon.

This was something I figured out early.

People who go against the social norm, who engage in  . . . undesirable behaviors . . . think "everyone does it".  or at least they think about it, and if they don't their schmucks to be taken advantage of.

Re; - thieves, narcissists, etc.  I was recently on a group chat where a self -identified narcissist said something, and stated non-narcissists wouldn't say it out loud.  At which point I piped up with "Non-narcissists wouldn't have even THOUGHT it!"  (it was a comment someone made about "not wanting to be the center of attention".)

I recall a similar encounter with a narcissist many years ago - where it was clear they thought everyone thought the way they did.  No - people can actually be altruistic.

[KeriJ]

6 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

This was something I figured out early.

People who go against the social norm, who engage in  . . . undesirable behaviors . . . think "everyone does it".  or at least they think about it, and if they don't their schmucks to be taken advantage of.

Re; - thieves, narcissists, etc.  I was recently on a group chat where a self -identified narcissist said something, and stated non-narcissists wouldn't say it out loud.  At which point I piped up with "Non-narcissists wouldn't have even THOUGHT it!"  (it was a comment someone made about "not wanting to be the center of attention".)

I recall a similar encounter with a narcissist many years ago - where it was clear they thought everyone thought the way they did.  No - people can actually be altruistic.

I agree.  My dad was a narcissistic sex addict who had countless "affairs" for over 30 years.  When we were having an "intervention"  he looked at the men in the room and said, "Just wait until you are in my shoes."  

[MercyA]

Reddit had an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session with someone who was a close friend of Josh as a teenager. AMA hosts are verified; sometimes they are actors, scientists--or even our own 's @YaelAldrich's husband! 

Introductory post here:

AMA session here:

Very interesting. He said " I think I could have been raised on a p*rn studio lot and had less of a focus on women's bodies and sexuality. It was obsessive / relentless."

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by MercyA

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, KeriJ said:

I agree.  My dad was a narcissistic sex addict who had countless "affairs" for over 30 years.  When we were having an "intervention"  he looked at the men in the room and said, "Just wait until you are in my shoes."  

My grandmother   had a very "prurient" interest in s3x.  She talked about others being promiscuous, in a self-righteous salacious gossip sort of way.

she accused my dh of having an affair  A WEEK after we got married. (he was going out of town on business - and "everyone does it". - that was her "proof".).  The things she said when I was a teen made me think she wanted people to mess around - so she could have salacious gossip.

my sister - her favorite/victim (reminiscent of Munchausen as she'd undermine her so she could rescue her) got married because she was pregnant, and didn't want to have a third abortion.  She miscarried the day after the wedding.  She was at my grandmother's house while her dh moved everything from their apartment to a house.  My grandmother demanded she act like a blushing bride who knew nothing about s3x when any of her neighbors stopped by.  (I personally think my grandmother was relieved she miscarried.  I was the scapegoat, and I had my first nine months and four days after I got married - and was constantly subjected to "what will people say?" - we had s3x on our wedding night?)

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, MercyA said:

Reddit had an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session with someone who was a close friend of Josh as a teenager. AMA hosts are verified; sometimes they are actors, scientists--or even our own 's @YaelAldrich's husband! 

Introductory post here:

 

AMA

Very interesting. He said " I think I could have been raised on a p*rn studio lot and had less of a focus on women's bodies and sexuality. It was obsessive / relentless."

 

I'm very sorry he went through that. No child should ever have to experience that.   

I consider that representation of Christianity to be an abomination, and isn't anywhere close to what Christ represents.

[Laurie]

On 4/30/2021 at 9:45 AM, Katy said:

Under the age of 12.

So he could get up to 20 years in prison?   Of course I believe JD should go to prison, and given who he is I'm sure he'll actually go to prison, unlike this local criminal (aka "child pornography collector")

 https://komonews.com/news/local/judge-fbi-tied-child-porn-collector-not-a-danger-to-seattle-school

I don't have any personal connection to this local case other than I follow the news, and I have an elephant brain and can't forget about pervert creeps like this.   Look at what he did.  And the judge thinks he's a good person who just made an oopsie!     

 

[Katy]

2 minutes ago, Laurie said:

So he could get up to 20 years in prison?   Of course I believe JD should go to prison, and given who he is I'm sure he'll actually go to prison, unlike this local criminal (aka "child pornography collector")

 https://komonews.com/news/local/judge-fbi-tied-child-porn-collector-not-a-danger-to-seattle-school

I don't have any personal connection to this local case other than I follow the news, and I have an elephant brain and can't forget about pervert creeps like this.   Look at what he did.  And the judge thinks he's a good person who just made an oopsie!     

 

20 years per count, at least 2 counts so far.

[gardenmom5]

3 hours ago, Laurie said:

 

 https://komonews.com/news/local/judge-fbi-tied-child-porn-collector-not-a-danger-to-seattle-school

I don't have any personal connection to this local case other than I follow the news, and I have an elephant brain and can't forget about pervert creeps like this.   Look at what he did.  And the judge thinks he's a good person who just made an oopsie!     

 

Seattle.  Says everything. 

Same city who attacked a judge for refusing to grant bail to a violent felon who tried to throw a woman off an overpass onto I5 during rush hour. Another big guy was around and saved her life.

[Ausmumof3]

18 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

This was something I figured out early.

People who go against the social norm, who engage in  . . . undesirable behaviors . . . think "everyone does it".  or at least they think about it, and if they don't their schmucks to be taken advantage of.

Re; - thieves, narcissists, etc.  I was recently on a group chat where a self -identified narcissist said something, and stated non-narcissists wouldn't say it out loud.  At which point I piped up with "Non-narcissists wouldn't have even THOUGHT it!"  (it was a comment someone made about "not wanting to be the center of attention".)

I recall a similar encounter with a narcissist many years ago - where it was clear they thought everyone thought the way they did.  No - people can actually be altruistic.

It makes me wonder if there’s some theory of mind component missing.  Where they literally can’t comprehend that someone might think or feel in a different way to them?

[Lawyer&Mom]

1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:

Seattle.  Says everything. 

Same city who attacked a judge for refusing to grant bail to a violent felon who tried to throw a woman off an overpass onto I5 during rush hour. Another big guy was around and saved her life.

It was a federal judge appointed by Regan who let him live across from the elementary school. Not sure how you blame Seattle for that. 

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Lawyer&Mom said:

It was a federal judge appointed by Regan who let him live across from the elementary school. Not sure how you blame Seattle for that. 

The prosecutors kept dropping charges against the guy.  (at least three times previously for violent assault).  Because he's "mentally ill".  The king co. prosecutors kept putting him back on the street.   This time - they charged him with assault - instead of attempted murder. (if he'd thrown her 40' off the overpass into rush hour traffic, she would have died.)

I can't find the report of king co/seattle authorities expressing anger at the judge for *refusing* to grant bail (re: the judge kept him locked up.), and since I'm packing tonight I don't have time to keep looking.  

Man charged after prosecutors say he tried to throw woman off Seattle overpass | The Seattle Times

Seattle suspect has long history with police, state mental health (mynorthwest.com)  (goes into more detail about mental health status and the king co/seattle prosecutors reasoning for dropping charges.  by not locking him up - prosecutors were putting the public at risk.)

[AbcdeDooDah]

This is not a laughing matter but I just saw a comment about the situation if Josh gets bail and has to live with a third party. 

He'll have a chaperone . . .

[Scarlett]

Just now, AbcdeDooDah said:

This is not a laughing matter but I just saw a comment about the situation if Josh gets bail and has to live with a third party. 

He'll have a chaperone . . .

I don't think I have ever seen that requirement put quite that way.  But yes I do now see the humor in it.

[Katy]

1 hour ago, AbcdeDooDah said:

This is not a laughing matter but I just saw a comment about the situation if Josh gets bail and has to live with a third party. 

He'll have a chaperone . . .

I hope he isn’t given bail.

[Laurie]

1 minute ago, Katy said:

I hope he isn’t given bail.

Does he even know anyone without kids/visiting grandkids to stay with?  I worry that they'll park a camper on family property somewhere, let him eat meals with family members and think it's okay because his bedroom will be the camper.   Hopefully the authorities will keep an eye on him (but aren't some of his brothers doing police work in their community?)

[Ottakee]

7 minutes ago, Laurie said:

Does he even know anyone without kids/visiting grandkids to stay with?  I worry that they'll park a camper on family property somewhere, let him eat meals with family members and think it's okay because his bedroom will be the camper.   Hopefully the authorities will keep an eye on him (but aren't some of his brothers doing police work in their community?)

There would also likely be a stipulation of no internet access AT ALL.

They were going to release my now ex husband into my custody/supervision and I said NO WAY.

 

[Scarlett]

5 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

There would also likely be a stipulation of no internet access AT ALL.

They were going to release my now ex husband into my custody/supervision and I said NO WAY.

 

Good for you. That is shocking that they would have allowed that!

[Laurie]

18 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

There would also likely be a stipulation of no internet access AT ALL.

 

 

How can this be enforced?    All he has to do is visit a library.  Maybe it's different where he lives, but in my city he could go into a library and have access to plenty of online sewage because the librarians are against filters, even though kids are in the libraries!   

If he gets out on bail I hope he'll have to wear one of those ankle gps monitors.  

[Ottakee]

20 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Good for you. That is shocking that they would have allowed that!

It is a lot cheaper to let them out than to house them.   Many non violent offenders are let out while awaiting trial.

[Ottakee]

1 minute ago, Laurie said:

How can this be enforced?    All he has to do is visit a library.  Maybe it's different where he lives, but in my city he could go into a library and have access to plenty of online sewage because the librarians are against filters, even though kids are in the libraries!   

If he gets out on bail I hope he'll have to wear one of those ankle gps monitors.  

Exactly.  One of the many, many reasons why I would not agree to this.

[hjffkj]

9 minutes ago, Laurie said:

How can this be enforced?    All he has to do is visit a library.  Maybe it's different where he lives, but in my city he could go into a library and have access to plenty of online sewage because the librarians are against filters, even though kids are in the libraries!   

If he gets out on bail I hope he'll have to wear one of those ankle gps monitors.  

I mean he could do that but all it takes is one person to recognize him and report it. Then he would have broken the terms of his bail, he'd lose his bail money(I think), and he'd have his bail revoked. 

 

[Katy]

34 minutes ago, Laurie said:

Does he even know anyone without kids/visiting grandkids to stay with?  I worry that they'll park a camper on family property somewhere, let him eat meals with family members and think it's okay because his bedroom will be the camper.   Hopefully the authorities will keep an eye on him (but aren't some of his brothers doing police work in their community?)

I don’t know. The only non-family member I’ve seen talk about what the judge said is Katie Joy from Without a Crystal Ball on YouTube. And even if she was on the court conference call she doesn’t seem to have the firmest grasp on the legal system. For example she said if he was granted bail he wouldn’t be allowed any contact with minors at all… but the the document in the released just said no unsupervised contact.  

He hasn’t lost his parental rights so I imagine if he gets bail he’ll be treated exactly the same as other defendant and given visits, possibly supervised by a family member. OTOH, I saw a comment from a CPS worker from Texas (the state that probably gives children more rights and terminates parental rights faster than any other state) say that in Texas he wouldn’t have even social-worker supervised visits.  I’ve had kids in my home who were returned to SA homes, so clearly CPS handles it very differently in different states. 

Anyway Katie Joy claimed he would have to have a 3rd party person supervise him, which she claimed meant NOT a family member, who had no children and no children who visited, would have to be by his side and responsible for ensuring he complied with the court orders 24/7. 

My thought is because his family owns a bunch of aircraft they’ll argue he’s a flight risk who should not be granted bail. 

[Faith-manor]

I think one of the biggest problems in terms of keeping him incarcerated awaiting trial, is that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are best buddies with the family, and Mike in particular has very big ties to ATI, very big ties. I do believe they will intervene and use their influence on his behalf unless they suddenly decide that his charges are a bridge too far for them politically, and they pull the fair weather friend routine.

I may post next week a bit more about my experiences with ATI. However, I am currently on vacation, camping with my family and really enjoying myself. Contemplating this isn't relaxing for me. But I didn't want everyone to think I posted and just ran off. We have had this camping trip planned for three months.

[katilac]

5 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think one of the biggest problems in terms of keeping him incarcerated awaiting trial, is that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are best buddies with the family, and Mike in particular has very big ties to ATI, very big ties. I do believe they will intervene and use their influence on his behalf unless they suddenly decide that his charges are a bridge too far for them politically, and they pull the fair weather friend routine.

 

I definitely think they're going to be all, Josh who? They know the feds don't arrest without an extremely strong case. 

[Tanaqui]

Filters don't work well, and often block a lot of sites that any reasonable person would consider legitimate to browse in a public location. That's why libraries are often loathe to put them in. We'd all *like* to keep hardcore shocking stuff off the public screens - but we don't want to accidentally - or "accidentally" if the people who designed/bought the filter have an agenda - block access to informative websites about breast cancer, sex ed, lgbtq issues, and so on. And all these things have been blocked with bad filters, often.

[Frances]

13 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I think one of the biggest problems in terms of keeping him incarcerated awaiting trial, is that Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee are best buddies with the family, and Mike in particular has very big ties to ATI, very big ties. I do believe they will intervene and use their influence on his behalf unless they suddenly decide that his charges are a bridge too far for them politically, and they pull the fair weather friend routine.

 It does not surprise me at all that the family is close to Huckabee and Cruz. Birds of a feather indeed. It never ceases to amaze me who we idolize and trust in leadership in this country.

[Faith-manor]

10 minutes ago, katilac said:

I definitely think they're going to be all, Josh who? They know the feds don't arrest without an extremely strong case. 

One would hope. But, man, we have sure seen Ted Cruz throw himself under the bus lately. The run to Mexico during a crisis and throw his own daughters under the bus comes to mind.

[katilac]

Well, I for one would not hope, lol. I am fully in favor of them publicly supporting Josh Duggar.