Duggar found GUILTY

[Mrs Tiggywinkle]

Just now, Slache said:

Oh my gosh that's absolutely insane! Thank you for clarifying.

Are the animal books good? I've always wanted them, but I feel like they're tied to yuckiness.

I actually liked them as a kid, but there’s some definite Gothard weirdness if I remember right—but my mom tossed them 25 years ago and my memory could be faulty.

[Stacia]

17 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Bill Gothard got up and said that you shouldn't adopt children because the Bible says the sins of the father will be passed along to the son, and you don't know what kind of sins you might be dealing with.

Uh, so does that still apply in the birth family? JB is Josh's dad and we know what Josh was just convicted for....

[El...]

Those Character Sketches books were gorgeous packages for grotesque doctrine. Beautiful illustrations, gross misogyny tucked inside. For example, the question and answer portion after the story of Tamar (David's daughter) pointed out the  mistakes she made that put her in a position to be raped. 

I hope I'm not slandering them, because I don't have the books here and can't prove this today. But boy, I remember sitting in the living room couch and hearing that.

Eta: I googled to check my memory. Yep. Watch your google search, guys: recoveringgrace was flagged as unsafe by my browser.

[KungFuPanda]

Has this conversation devolved enough that we can talk about Jana’s child endangerment charges? Or how Jim Bob forgot to trade for the slightly grayer toupee?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Slache said:

Oh my gosh that's absolutely insane! Thank you for clarifying.

Are the animal books good? I've always wanted them, but I feel like they're tied to yuckiness.

I still have one. As a child I was an animal *fanatic* and I loved - still love - those beautiful illustrations and the information about animal behavior. (Although as an adult I do find it weird that they ascribed character traits to animals that are not a result of character, but of instinct.) 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Slache said:

Oh my gosh that's absolutely insane! Thank you for clarifying.

Are the animal books good? I've always wanted them, but I feel like they're tied to yuckiness.

No. They are called Character Sketches. The idea is to captivate children with certain character traits through animals, but not like animal.books.in which there are moral tales, ala. Aesops Fables, but by claiming children should learn from the animals. Each character trait has a matching animal with mythical stories claiming animal x, y, z acts and lives demonstrating this character. They are total lies. Ask any naturalist or zoologist, wild life, expert, DNR officer. The stories are 100% lies but presented as scientific truth. My dad, even after he left ATI/IBLP,  still insisted on using Character Sketches with my little sister who was 13 years my junior. Since she went to a fundie school, not one associated with IBLP but one that still used some of the most amazing crap for curriculum, she was not aware of how fake those stories were and honestly thought animals displayed those character traits. She she went to college, she found herself incredibly embarrassed to discover what the animal world is really like.

[Faith-manor]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

I still have one. As a child I was an animal *fanatic* and I loved - still love - those beautiful illustrations and the information about animal behavior. (Although as an adult I do find it weird that they ascribed character traits to animals that are not a result of character, but of instinct.) 

And actually, several animal and wildlife specialists have spoken out about exactly how false the information is with "traits" or "instincts" ascribed to many animals that they do not actually have.

[DawnM]

24 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

Has this conversation devolved enough that we can talk about Jana’s child endangerment charges? Or how Jim Bob forgot to trade for the slightly grayer toupee?

Sure, but I can't find details.   How did she put a child in danger?   Who, what, when, where, why?

[freesia]

1 minute ago, DawnM said:

Sure, but I can't find details.   How did she put a child in danger?   Who, what, when, where, why?

No one knows. Trial is in January. 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Stacia said:

Uh, so does that still apply in the birth family? JB is Josh's dad and we know what Josh was just convicted for....

Excellent question!

Here is what I don't get. Slimeball predator Gothard was never married, never had children, and never faced a single situation that he proclaims to know so much about. Not only that, he had no education in counseling or psychology, never attended a well reputed seminary. Yet people fell for it hook, line, and sinker, and several southern states adopted his character education in public schools. It was like people were so.eager to have a recipe for perfect family life that they shut their brains off. Of course, I think a big attraction was misogyny and predatory behavior. Abusers are attracted to such trash.

[Faith-manor]

3 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Sure, but I can't find details.   How did she put a child in danger?   Who, what, when, where, why?

I think that is probably carefully protected information because it involved a minor, A minor with a name, local address, etc. So they can't publish more information without the potential of violating the victim's privacy.

[Guest]

For anyone who is interested…I still have one Character Sketches book. Here are some pics: 

 

[DawnM]

1 hour ago, Stacia said:

Uh, so does that still apply in the birth family? JB is Josh's dad and we know what Josh was just convicted for....

Honestly, if you were part of their way of thinking, you wouldn't see it like that.   You would think that since Josh is a Christian, he just made a mistake and God has forgiven him, but "the world" wants to punish you for things Jesus has already forgiven you for.

The only bad people who do these things are the depraved ones who don't have Jesus as their savior.

I am sure I am not explaining it well, but I grew up in this line of thinking.   "Oh, poor Anna and Josh, they just want to crucify him, we just need to pray that he can get out and come back to his family where he belongs.   He made a mistake but Jesus forgives."   

🤮

[Stacia]

6 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Honestly, if you were part of their way of thinking, you wouldn't see it like that.   You would think that since Josh is a Christian, he just made a mistake and God has forgiven him, but "the world" wants to punish you for things Jesus has already forgiven you for.

The only bad people who do these things are the depraved ones who don't have Jesus as their savior.

I am sure I am not explaining it well, but I grew up in this line of thinking.   "Oh, poor Anna and Josh, they just want to crucify him, we just need to pray that he can get out and come back to his family where he belongs.   He made a mistake but Jesus forgives."   

🤮

That kind of thinking is a perfect set up for abuse. (As we all know.)

You have to wonder at the sheer amounts of abuse that have likely happened (and still are happening) under systems like that.

Eta: It's a manipulative, gaslighting system.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Stacia

[KungFuPanda]

18 minutes ago, DawnM said:

Sure, but I can't find details.   How did she put a child in danger?   Who, what, when, where, why?

Do we not have even ONE hive member in Arkansas who is plugged into the local gossip? I’m curious, but have no information. I didn’t actually look for it, so I don’t know if it exists. I’m just here to take the easy way out. 

[Faith-manor]

Dawn is right, and it is one of the dangers of "once saved, always saved" from a theological perspective. There will be those who use the "no true scotsman" argument and say he was never a Christian to begin with, but within the confines of this group which also places a bizarre value on first born sons, it will be downplayed considerably, and it is all about the poor Josh Duggar family being persecuted for their faith.

[Faith-manor]

1 minute ago, KungFuPanda said:

Do we not have even ONE hive member in Arkansas who is plugged into the local gossip? I’m curious, but have no information. I didn’t actually look for it, so I don’t know if it exists. I’m just here to take the easy way out. 

LOL, you might want to hang out on the duggarsnark subreddit. They have a journalist from KNWA over there, and a few people from the area. Maybe they know the skinny.

[DawnM]

I found this:

[pic deleted by moderator because hoo boy, we wouldn't want them on our tails.]

[Lisa]

Its really sad what JD did to his sisters, and his parents swept it under the rug. He then downloaded that disgusting child porn. I'm reminded of the Bible verses, "For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." Luke 8:17 and "You may be sure that your sin will find you out." Numbers 32:23. 

Nothing is hidden from God and now JD is paying the consequences of his sin. 

[DawnM]

Here it is:

And:

 

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jana-duggar-charged-with-endangering-welfare-of-minor-details/

Edited December 11, 2021 by DawnM

[MeaganS]

35 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

Do we not have even ONE hive member in Arkansas who is plugged into the local gossip? I’m curious, but have no information. I didn’t actually look for it, so I don’t know if it exists. I’m just here to take the easy way out. 

I'm about 20 minutes from them but too lazy. Sorry! I did see a ton of Papa Duggar campaign signs the other day while driving to Tulsa to go to the zoo with my kids. 

[KungFuPanda]

1 minute ago, MeaganS said:

I'm about 20 minutes from them but too lazy. Sorry! I did see a ton of Papa Duggar campaign signs the other day while driving to Tulsa to go to the zoo with my kids. 

That must be weird. Do you think he can win after this? Also, I respect your commitment to honest AND laziness. 😆

[MeaganS]

7 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

That must be weird. Do you think he can win after this? Also, I respect your commitment to honest AND laziness. 😆

Honestly, it's hard to say. NWA is becoming much more progressive than the surrounding area and is growing very very fast. He lost last time and I have to imagine the demographics are even less in his favor now. But he does live in the boondocks/country area right outside of the main growth and the voting district is more that area than the part growing. Who knows? When I heard he was running I looked it up and it's not my district, just the one next to us. Here he'd for sure lose. There? Much trickier. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by MeaganS

[Elizabeth86]

On 12/9/2021 at 5:59 PM, Katy said:

Also I’m under the impression from reading about Jared the Subway guy that pedophiles in Federal prison aren’t ever in general population.  They have different prisons or at least different sections of prisons. 

Not true. There are plenty of pedophiles in general population in federal prison. Lots of them “check in” when they feel unsafe, but then they still have a cell mate.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Elizabeth86

[Stacia]

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/josh-duggar-family-allegations-timeline

and

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paigeskinner/reddit-duggarssnark-josh-guilty

[chiguirre]

2 hours ago, DawnM said:

Honestly, if you were part of their way of thinking, you wouldn't see it like that.   You would think that since Josh is a Christian, he just made a mistake and God has forgiven him, but "the world" wants to punish you for things Jesus has already forgiven you for.

The only bad people who do these things are the depraved ones who don't have Jesus as their savior.

I am sure I am not explaining it well, but I grew up in this line of thinking.   "Oh, poor Anna and Josh, they just want to crucify him, we just need to pray that he can get out and come back to his family where he belongs.   He made a mistake but Jesus forgives."   

🤮

Thank you for this enlightening post. I was ascribing a lot of stuff to hypocrisy that should have been chalked up to something even darker. So they really, truly believe they are above the law and that citizens should not be treated equally. That's really disturbing, but useful to know.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, chiguirre said:

Thank you for this enlightening post. I was ascribing a lot of stuff to hypocrisy that should have been chalked up to something even darker. So they really, truly believe they are above the law and that citizens should not be treated equally. That's really disturbing, but useful to know.

I have experience with people from a totally unrelated religious group with similar ideas.  That the whole purpose of their life is promoting their religious group so it’s ok to, for example, cheat on taxes and then redistribute the money as long as it goes to Christians.  It creates some really weird scenarios of what they think is justifiable.

[Carrie12345]

7 hours ago, DawnM said:

Here it is:

And:

 

https://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/jana-duggar-charged-with-endangering-welfare-of-minor-details/

I would think it would have to be the Ms (if true), no? All of the siblings are 12+. I don’t really know what *their street is like, but it’s been perfectly normal for anyone over 8/9ish to play in the street most places I’ve lived.

I don’t know how many other siblings live nearby enough to dump kids on their aunt.

[maize]

9 hours ago, Quill said:

 

Ignore the quote box, it's accidental but I can't get rid of it.

I feel bad for Jana. Yes she's an adult now but she's been treated as an unpaid nanny since she was just a kid, and taught that meeting everyone else's needs is her perpetual duty.

[HomeAgain]

1 hour ago, Carrie12345 said:

I would think it would have to be the Ms (if true), no? All of the siblings are 12+. I don’t really know what *their street is like, but it’s been perfectly normal for anyone over 8/9ish to play in the street most places I’ve lived.

I don’t know how many other siblings live nearby enough to dump kids on their aunt.

Most probably.  But there's also the issue that the house is set a way back from the street, so whichever kid(s) it was not only left a supervised area, but got through a gate after leaving the house where the adult was sleeping.

I feel bad for Jana.  Maybe it's a good excuse for her to pull back and refuse to watch the kids anymore, though.

[Katy]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

Most probably.  But there's also the issue that the house is set a way back from the street, so whichever kid(s) it was not only left a supervised area, but got through a gate after leaving the house where the adult was sleeping.

I feel bad for Jana.  Maybe it's a good excuse for her to pull back and refuse to watch the kids anymore, though.

If it is Anna’s kids, they live in the warehouse, which is not set back from the street at all. 

[DawnM]

8 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Thank you for this enlightening post. I was ascribing a lot of stuff to hypocrisy that should have been chalked up to something even darker. So they really, truly believe they are above the law and that citizens should not be treated equally. That's really disturbing, but useful to know.

Which is why, the first time, he was sent to that "camp" to rehabilitate.   They truly didn't think that pressing charges or getting "the world" involved is not the answer.   

[WildflowerMom]

So does this cult mainly follow the OT with the rules and punishment and such?  I don’t see much evidence of the teachings of Jesus.   Does gothard just focus on certain books of the Bible? 
 

also, I doubt josh will be in gen pop because he’s famous, but it would be nice to accidentally put him there for a few hours.    Otherwise, a cell with zero contact with others, just a place to slide in a pb&j sandwich at meal times and some books.  

[Faith-manor]

29 minutes ago, WildflowerMom said:

So does this cult mainly follow the OT with the rules and punishment and such?  I don’t see much evidence of the teachings of Jesus.   Does gothard just focus on certain books of the Bible? 
 

also, I doubt josh will be in gen pop because he’s famous, but it would be nice to accidentally put him there for a few hours.    Otherwise, a cell with zero contact with others, just a place to slide in a pb&j sandwich at meal times and some books.  

Gothard preaches "special revelation" and he is the prophet though he is careful with his wording so as not to cause too much ire. His special revelations are detailed in his wisdom booklets and the newsletters. You can't say that he follows the O.T. because he also ignores a lot of it, just like the N.T. He picks and chooses that which he can twist into supporting his misogyny and perversion. Most of what he claims like "wives and daughters should not even buy make up without the head ship's approval" and "the presence of cabbage patch and troll dolls brings evil into the house causing women to need c-sections instead of birthing naturally" is so far out there, he can't even twist a.Bible verse to support it. People in IBLP claim to be Christians, however, it should be noted that they are following and practically worshipping the man called Bill Gothard, and his prophecies do not hold up to any kind of basic, theological scrutiny within the scope of mainstream Christianity. It is very bizarre stuff.

From what I have read, Josh will likely start out in a fairly solitary cell, no roommate, on suicide watch for a bit which is I guess standard when new inmates with these charges arrive at federal pens because they are a big suicide risk until they adjust to the idea of "this is my life now". Then after that it kind of depends. There are some federal prisons with wings just for sex offenders, and others where they mix in with general population. I don't understand what all goes into choosing where he is housed.

[ktgrok]

12 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Dawn is right, and it is one of the dangers of "once saved, always saved" from a theological perspective. There will be those who use the "no true scotsman" argument and say he was never a Christian to begin with, but within the confines of this group which also places a bizarre value on first born sons, it will be downplayed considerably, and it is all about the poor Josh Duggar family being persecuted for their faith.

One of the siblings has already said he "claims to be a Christian" - I think they have basically decided he is not one. 

Two siblings have released statements condemning what he did, and other siblings have either liked those posts or reshared, so it seems that at least some of the siblings - who just found out the truth at the trial and had previously been lied to about everything - are NOT standing behind him or downplaying what he did. I'm so relieved. 

[Ottakee]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

 

From what I have read, Josh will likely start out in a fairly solitary cell, no roommate, on suicide watch for a bit which is I guess standard when new inmates with these charges arrive at federal pens because they are a big suicide risk until they adjust to the idea of "this is my life now". Then after that it kind of depends. There are some federal prisons with wings just for sex offenders, and others where they mix in with general population. I don't understand what all goes into choosing where he is housed.

I am not sure about his state, but on Michigan, federal prisoners awaiting sentencing are housed in local county jails where the feds have a contract.  My ex was housed in a jail a few counties away as that is where the local federal court had a contract.

He was somewhat protected but did have cellmates at times.

Then after sentencing, he went back to the county facility while the feds did the processing.  That was another 6 weeks or so.  Then he was taken to Chicago but there were issues there with his safety so he was moved quickly.  Then a week or so later he was brought to his long term location where he has been for 3 1)2 years.   He has a cellmate but is in a medical wing with other prisoners with health issues...he is insulin dependent type 2 diabetic and has had a heart attack.

Given Josh's celebrity status he might be protected a lot more.  Larry nassar had to be moved a few times and is in a special facility now...Florida I believe.

 

Ok..I just looked it up and there is a federal facility right by the court so he might be held there now.  We don't have a federal prison in our area which is why they use local facilities while awaiting sentencing.

Edited December 11, 2021 by Ottakee

[Faith-manor]

47 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

One of the siblings has already said he "claims to be a Christian" - I think they have basically decided he is not one. 

Two siblings have released statements condemning what he did, and other siblings have either liked those posts or reshared, so it seems that at least some of the siblings - who just found out the truth at the trial and had previously been lied to about everything - are NOT standing behind him or downplaying what he did. I'm so relieved. 

I am relieved as well. One by one I hope each of the adult kids realize the bill of wickedness sold to them, and gets out. In turn, I hope they help their younger subs when they each the age of majority.

Anna has a brother and a sister who have left the cult as well.

[Faith-manor]

19 minutes ago, Ottakee said:

I am not sure about his state, but on Michigan, federal prisoners awaiting sentencing are housed in local county jails where the feds have a contract.  My ex was housed in a jail a few counties away as that is where the local federal court had a contract.

He was somewhat protected but did have cellmates at times.

Then after sentencing, he went back to the county facility while the feds did the processing.  That was another 6 weeks or so.  Then he was taken to Chicago but there were issues there with his safety so he was moved quickly.  Then a week or so later he was brought to his long term location where he has been for 3 1)2 years.   He has a cellmate but is in a medical wing with other prisoners with health issues...he is insulin dependent type 2 diabetic and has had a heart attack.

Given Josh's celebrity status he might be protected a lot more.  Larry nassar had to be moved a few times and is in a special facility now...Florida I believe.

Yes, I think a lot probably depends on how well known the offender is as to what they have to do facility wise. I would think for starters this would mean not being housed in the Arkansas region just because the family is most well known there. I know there is a federal penitentiary a few hours away in Missouri. But they are pretty well known around there so that doesn't seem wise. Again, not certain how they determine these things. I do know a guy from my own home region ended up in basic solitary in the local lock up because too many people knew him, and wanted to take him out. It was a real problem for the sheriff's department that runs the jail. They don't have a lot of space for doing solitary like that. Eventually they had to rent a bed from another facility further away while they waited for him to finally be sent to a federal one.

[gardenmom5]

5 hours ago, HomeAgain said:

Most probably.  But there's also the issue that the house is set a way back from the street, so whichever kid(s) it was not only left a supervised area, but got through a gate after leaving the house where the adult was sleeping.

I feel bad for Jana.  Maybe it's a good excuse for her to pull back and refuse to watch the kids anymore, though.

I wouldn't hold my breath about JB &M respecting her autonomy in babysitting kids or not.  They have a record of: this is what God wants you to do, and you're committing sin if you refuse . . . . And will attempt to lay that on her.

3 hours ago, WildflowerMom said:

also, I doubt josh will be in gen pop because he’s famous, but it would be nice to accidentally put him there for a few hours.    Otherwise, a cell with zero contact with others, just a place to slide in a pb&j sandwich at meal times and some books.  

My understanding is he is in a s3x offender's unit.

[KungFuPanda]

2 hours ago, ktgrok said:

One of the siblings has already said he "claims to be a Christian" - I think they have basically decided he is not one. 

Two siblings have released statements condemning what he did, and other siblings have either liked those posts or reshared, so it seems that at least some of the siblings - who just found out the truth at the trial and had previously been lied to about everything - are NOT standing behind him or downplaying what he did. I'm so relieved. 

On some level I suspect these statements of condemnation are put out to protect their online revenue streams . . .  or at least weren’t released earlier to protect the money. Not all of them have jobs that pay the bills without supplementing with TLC/youtube/Instagram dollars.  I’m not judging them for this. I can’t imagine the financial stress of feeding such large families without an education or trade skills. I think there’s a lot of juggling of public perception and fudging the dates of who knew what and when. Keeping secrets in a large family when you’re living together is nearly impossible and there is definitely a history of saying “I didn’t know about it.”

[Faith-manor]

23 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

On some level I suspect these statements of condemnation are put out to protect their online revenue streams . . .  or at least weren’t released earlier to protect the money. Not all of them have jobs that pay the bills without supplementing with TLC/youtube/Instagram dollars.  I’m not judging them for this. I can’t imagine the financial stress of feeding such large families without an education or trade skills. I think there’s a lot of juggling of public perception and fudging the dates of who knew what and when. Keeping secrets in a large family when you’re living together is nearly impossible and there is definitely a history of saying “I didn’t know about it.”

I do think the ones by Jinger and Jill are real condemnations. Jill and Derrick are out. Derrick spends time really poking the bear on social media, ie. calling out JB. He is clearly angry with them for what happened to Jill and their lack of protection or care for her. They successfully sued JB for Jill's wages for the show, and they are not welcome at the big house. At the trial, when JB finally showed his face and came up to Anna, Derrick got up and left. It was noted by people in the room that the tension was obvious. Derrick is studying for the bar exam having successfully graduated law school. They are not dependent upon revenue from online sources.

Jinger moved to California, published a book about her search for truth, questioning many things her parents taught, and making her own choices...wearing jeans, shorts, going to parties where alcohol is served, not seeing biblical support for !any of her parents beliefs. She and Jeremy just published a children's book. She does have online revenue sources, but she and Jeremy are not in a place where they necessarily have to say things just because. On top of that, she could have condemned his actions, and made an acceptable statement without totally trashing her parents' theology. If she was making a statement for the sake of revenue stream but still trying to stay in her parents' good graces or adhering to IBLP beliefs, this was not a straddle the fence kind of statement.

The daughter with the most to lose is Jessa as Ben doesn't have much income at all, and they may still have some dependency on the Duggar brand. She hasn't made a statement yet, but she "liked" Jinger's statement on instagram, and that alone is a little on the edge if she is planning on staying JB's good side.

Austin and can take Joy away from the mess. He has some resources, and like Derrick, could sue JB for Joy's wages, and then move on.

I think there is some hope for these adults to move forward away from the cult, and Jinger and Jill already have; this just makes it super obvious.

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I do think the ones by Jinger and Jill are real condemnations. Jill and Derrick are out. Derrick spends time really poking the bear on social media, ie. calling out JB. He is clearly angry with them for what happened to Jill and their lack of protection or care for her. They successfully sued JB for Jill's wages for the show, and they are not welcome at the big house. At the trial, when JB finally showed his face and came up to Anna, Derrick got up and left. It was noted by people in the room that the tension was obvious. Derrick is studying for the bar exam having successfully graduated law school. They are not dependent upon revenue from online sources.

Jinger moved to California, published a book about her search for truth, questioning many things her parents taught, and making her own choices...wearing jeans, shorts, going to parties where alcohol is served, not seeing biblical support for !any of her parents beliefs. She and Jeremy just published a children's book. She does have online revenue sources, but she and Jeremy are not in a place where they necessarily have to say things just because. On top of that, she could have condemned his actions, and made an acceptable statement without totally trashing her parents' theology. If she was making a statement for the sake of revenue stream but still trying to stay in her parents' good graces or adhering to IBLP beliefs, this was not a straddle the fence kind of statement.

The daughter with the most to lose is Jessa as Ben doesn't have much income at all, and they may still have some dependency on the Duggar brand. She hasn't made a statement yet, but she "liked" Jinger's statement on instagram, and that alone is a little on the edge if she is planning on staying JB's good side.

Austin and can take Joy away from the mess. He has some resources, and like Derrick, could sue JB for Joy's wages, and then move on.

I think there is some hope for these adults to move forward away from the cult, and Jinger and Jill already have; this just makes it super obvious.

AGreed. They didn't issue bland statements, and Jill's actually went after her parents - in not so subtle bible verse quoting. 

[KungFuPanda]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

I do think the ones by Jinger and Jill are real condemnations. Jill and Derrick are out. Derrick spends time really poking the bear on social media, ie. calling out JB. He is clearly angry with them for what happened to Jill and their lack of protection or care for her. They successfully sued JB for Jill's wages for the show, and they are not welcome at the big house. At the trial, when JB finally showed his face and came up to Anna, Derrick got up and left. It was noted by people in the room that the tension was obvious. Derrick is studying for the bar exam having successfully graduated law school. They are not dependent upon revenue from online sources.

Jinger moved to California, published a book about her search for truth, questioning many things her parents taught, and making her own choices...wearing jeans, shorts, going to parties where alcohol is served, not seeing biblical support for !any of her parents beliefs. She and Jeremy just published a children's book. She does have online revenue sources, but she and Jeremy are not in a place where they necessarily have to say things just because. On top of that, she could have condemned his actions, and made an acceptable statement without totally trashing her parents' theology. If she was making a statement for the sake of revenue stream but still trying to stay in her parents' good graces or adhering to IBLP beliefs, this was not a straddle the fence kind of statement.

The daughter with the most to lose is Jessa as Ben doesn't have much income at all, and they may still have some dependency on the Duggar brand. She hasn't made a statement yet, but she "liked" Jinger's statement on instagram, and that alone is a little on the edge if she is planning on staying JB's good side.

Austin and can take Joy away from the mess. He has some resources, and like Derrick, could sue JB for Joy's wages, and then move on.

I think there is some hope for these adults to move forward away from the cult, and Jinger and Jill already have; this just makes it super obvious.

I do hope they can break free and still retain relationships with their younger siblings.  Those kids will need support in the future.  I wonder how much the younger Duggers and the M's even know if the only information they're getting is Headship Approved.  I think Jill and Derrick are leading this charge, but I get the feeling they are constrained.  I don't know if they're just trying to maintain family relationships or if they're working around some sort of DNR like Amy signed.  It must be crazy when your life IS your business.  I wonder what Jim Bob will even DO with himself when the dust settles.  Financially it should be easier to make ends meet with fewer kids at home, but it seems like Anna and the kids will replace anyone who moved out.  If he wins his election I'm going to be in shock.

[Guest]

It’s probably a weird thing to say but I am so thankful Derrick came into Jill’s life. In earlier years, I thought Jill was the most likely to drink the kool-aide; she was the most modest dresser of the four eldest girls and she seemed the most devoted to the faith. I thought Jessa was the most likely to “rebel”. I think her marriage was the most unwise because Ben (so far) has no ability to head his own family like Derrick and Jeremy do. 
 

Sidebar: the charges against Jana seem like witch-hunting. It does not seem like a coincidence of timing. 

[KungFuPanda]

13 minutes ago, Quill said:

It’s probably a weird thing to say but I am so thankful Derrick came into Jill’s life. In earlier years, I thought Jill was the most likely to drink the kool-aide; she was the most modest dresser of the four eldest girls and she seemed the most devoted to the faith. I thought Jessa was the most likely to “rebel”. I think her marriage was the most unwise because Ben (so far) has no ability to head his own family like Derrick and Jeremy do. 
 

Sidebar: the charges against Jana seem like witch-hunting. It does not seem like a coincidence of timing. 

I wonder if it was a mandatory charge thing and they had no choice.  I can imagine a scenario where Jana needed a nap and put some of her younger siblings in charge of Anna's kids.  It would be normal for them to put a minor in charge of little kids and just expect them to be responsible.  It the kids weren't paying attention and taking regular headcounts, the grandkids could easily wander off.  A person driving by might call the cops to figure out who these kids belonged to.  (I saw a map. They managed to roam over to a street that isn't the one in front of the Dugger residence.  I guess it could be adjacent to Anna's house.)

Once the police are involved, they might HAVE to apply specific charges and if Jana is the only person of age in the house, she's left holding the bag.  It would also explain why Michelle missed the last day of trial.  They might be legally required to have an adult on the premises that ISN'T Jana until after her court date.  

I'm just guessing, but it might be standard procedure and not a witch hunt.  Once my neighbor put his three babies down for a nap and then went outside for yard work.  Those kids just came toddling up our road and he didn't see them or hear them leave the house.  (They were walking up the road, not the sidewalk.) When I asked them their names, none of them would speak to me.  I just slowly herded them back in the direction they came.  At this point dad sees them, shuts off his mower, and comes running.  They were new to the neighborhood and I hadn't met them yet so I didn't know where they lived.  If I couldn't figure it out I would have HAD to call someone.  

[Corraleno]

33 minutes ago, Quill said:

Sidebar: the charges against Jana seem like witch-hunting. It does not seem like a coincidence of timing. 

But this happened in September, right? 

[Pam in CT]

re charges against Jana

1 hour ago, Quill said:

...Sidebar: the charges against Jana seem like witch-hunting. It does not seem like a coincidence of timing. 

I dunno about coincidence of timing or not. But it occurs to me that the charges against Jana, ironically or less-so, may represent more of a lifeline to ultimate autonomy than anything she's experienced yet in her life.

Her attorney -- even if found by/paid for by her parents -- will be ethically and legally obliged to represent *her* interests, not theirs.  She'll have not just the opportunity, but the obligation, to describe in detail the conditions/circumstances under which she was working during the time whatever happened, happened. She'll *have to do so* without her parents being present.  She'll be obliged to tell the truth.

She will have the opportunity to swap counsel for a court-appointed public defender if she chooses.

Her life experience may well constrain her ability to see her range of options.  But being thrust into a process that her parents *cannot control* may actually give her rights and ultimately a lifeline that she otherwise would not have.

Also -- if the same prosecutor or investigators responsible for charging Jana had any involvement in charging Josh, her arrest provides a mechanism to get a lot more information about the kids under her care than would otherwise have come out.

 

(Totally hypothetical: If for example she's been tending 7 very-young kids including a sleepless newborn in a warehouse *by herself*, and that was a major factor for the exhaustion that resulted in a negligence charge, a perfectly logical provision that either a prosecutor could let her settle for, or judge could include as a part of sentencing, could be "no contact with any children under 5 yo for 60 days."  Better yet: a mandated course in child safety offered by Red Cross or something, that got her out of the house and into the world.)

Edited December 11, 2021 by Pam in CT
typo & omitted words

[gardenmom5]

 

1 hour ago, Quill said:

It’s probably a weird thing to say but I am so thankful Derrick came into Jill’s life. In earlier years, I thought Jill was the most likely to drink the kool-aide; she was the most modest dresser of the four eldest girls and she seemed the most devoted to the faith. I thought Jessa was the most likely to “rebel”. I think her marriage was the most unwise because Ben (so far) has no ability to head his own family like Derrick and Jeremy do. 
 

Sidebar: the charges against Jana seem like witch-hunting. It does not seem like a coincidence of timing. 

If my understanding is correct - ATI/IBLP does a lot of victim blaming, and "retraining" the victims to be more modest so they "won't be tempting".  (if a victim is an infant, it's the female's fault for changing a diaper where josh could see them.).  She was the oldest victim. (or was that jana?).  She was young enough she could have really swallowed it was her fault and she needed to repent. Or maybe not.  Her statement in 2015 really seemed to downplay what happened - and I imagine that's what she was required to say.

while the religious abuse (I heard a lot of: you will do what I say/treat me right, or God will d*mn you to h3ll) I experienced is nowhere in this league - I did a lot of "go along to get along" - up until the day I felt safe enough to tell her where she could shove it.  Not because I bought into it, but because I was afraid of the fallout (of what she would do to me) of not parroting back what was expected.

Re:  Jessa.  Since JB has enormous say in who the girls married, he may have chosen a weakling for her, that would be under his thumb, because she seemed most likely to rebel.

Edited December 11, 2021 by gardenmom5

[Faith-manor]

Picking up on Pam's thoughts. When these kinds of charges happen for things like car seat/seat belt issues, it is just big fines unless the family is poor or homeless in a car, and then there are a lot of avenues for assistance. Police and fire departments have fee, brand new car seats in their boxes and will install them. Often judges will waive the fines once the family produces proof of car seats properly installed, and promises to use them. We have two new shelters for homeless folks, one is for families. Numerous nonprofits help. So unless.something egregious is going on in terms of neglect, assistance will be given and they will try not to punish unless they have to.

In the case of other types of child endangerment, it runs the gamut. Sometimes intervention such as parenting classes can be ordered, sometimes day care can be paid for if the parent is working nights and needs to sleep but has no one to take baby, etc. In the case of a non parent endangering a child, that can be less about intervention and more geared to punishment. I have to wonder about that for Jana. None of these kids are hers. The state has no vested interest in her becoming a better "parent" so it might be harsher for her.

[ktgrok]

14 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Picking up on Pam's thoughts. When these kinds of charges happen for things like car seat/seat belt issues, it is just big fines unless the family is poor or homeless in a car, and then there are a lot of avenues for assistance. Police and fire departments have fee, brand new car seats in their boxes and will install them. Often judges will waive the fines once the family produces proof of car seats properly installed, and promises to use them. We have two new shelters for homeless folks, one is for families. Numerous nonprofits help. So unless.something egregious is going on in terms of neglect, assistance will be given and they will try not to punish unless they have to.

In the case of other types of child endangerment, it runs the gamut. Sometimes intervention such as parenting classes can be ordered, sometimes day care can be paid for if the parent is working nights and needs to sleep but has no one to take baby, etc. In the case of a non parent endangering a child, that can be less about intervention and more geared to punishment. I have to wonder about that for Jana. None of these kids are hers. The state has no vested interest in her becoming a better "parent" so it might be harsher for her.

I wonder if it could trigger a CPS investigation? The more scrutiny the better.