Exclusive
LOCK HIM UP

Josh Duggar’s prosecutors rip Anna & Michelle’s ‘BAFFLING’ support for him & slam his request for just 5 years in prison

JOSH Duggar’s prosecutors have ripped his wife Anna and mom Michelle for their “baffling” support of the disgraced star, as they have slammed his request for just five years in prison. 

Josh, 34, was found guilty of possessing and receiving child pornography on December 9 and will be sentenced for the crimes on May 25. 

Advertisement
Josh Duggar's prosecutors slammed wife Anna & mom Michelle's letters of support for their family memebrCredit: Toby Canham
The family supported Josh's request for just five years behind barsCredit: TLC

The oldest Duggar son is requesting just five years in prison, while prosecution is demanding he receive the maximum sentence of 20 years behind bars.

Josh’s wife and mother, along with other family members and friends, helped support his lenient request by writing letters to judge Timothy L. Brooks

The Sun can exclusively reveal that prosecution has responded to the request by slamming his loved ones’ support of the fallen son.

In court papers obtained by The Sun read: “To support his argument, Duggar relies on claims from his wife, his mother, and others that he is ‘deeply devoted’ to his faith and family.

Advertisement

“He claims that the writers are ‘extremely supportive while fully aware of his conviction[s],’ and that this ‘will enable him to make the most of the rest of his life and to work hard to ensure that his children’s lives are impacted as little as is possible’ by his trafficking in CSAM.”

The Prosecution then goes into Josh blaming “challenges” associated with the fame from the family’s show 19 Kids and Counting, and .

The court documents continue to argue: “These claims only underscore the appropriateness of the Government’s sentencing recommendation. 

“Indeed, his supportive family and public-facing and privileged lifestyle make his pattern of criminal conduct all the more baffling.

Advertisement

Most read in TV

WRITTEN OUT
Corrie veteran furious over shock exit as soap is hit by budget cuts & cull
not goodge
'Devastated' Lauren Goodger seen after Mark and Michelle revealed pregnancy news
SOAP CRISIS
Who will be next? Fears MORE Coronation Street and Emmerdale stars will be axed
xmas scare
Celebrity Big Brother's James Whale rushed to intensive care amid cancer battle

"Despite achieving some level of fame through reality television as an adult, he is better known at this point for his behavior outside his family’s show, including his sexual improprieties and criminal sexual conduct. 

“More importantly, none of these letters meaningfully grapple with his crimes or his sexual proclivities toward prepubescent girls.”

Prosecution then argues that it is “unlikely” Josh will “ever receive the treatment and accountability needed to prevent him from reoffending should he maintain this posture.”

The court documents claim: “In fact, given the apparent success of his blame tactics with some of the individuals he intends to surround himself with after his release from incarceration, it is not just unlikely—it is inconceivable.”

Advertisement

The prosecution also fights back against the argument that his wife and seven children will be affected financially by his 20-year absence. 

The court docs continued: “And while Duggar’s incarceration will undoubtedly reverberate through his immediate and extended family, that is unfortunately true in many criminal cases and particularly in cases like this one, where Duggar appears to have hidden his reprehensible conduct from those closest to him up until his conviction.”

'EXCESSIVE & UNWARRANTED'

Josh’s legal team responded to the Government: “The sentence the Government seeks is excessive, entirely unwarranted, and unprecedented given the alleged crime for which Duggar stands before this Court for sentencing.

“To be clear, nobody denies the extent to which real children are victims of child pornography crimes—but the Government’s focus in its sentencing memorandum is clearly intended to provoke an emotional response in the hopes that this Court will hand down an unnecessarily harsh sentence in this case.”

Advertisement