(CW: Child Sex Abuse) Josh & Anna 29: Left with Nothing but a Flip Phone Full of Shame

[AliceInFundyland]

1 hour ago, luv2laugh said:

I know I sound naive but I didn't know the depth of human depravity like this. I've actually cried about this today. I am very triggered. This is a lot for me to process and I can't bother my friends and family about it.

You sound quite naive. Especially for being on this board as long as you have. Especially about this subject matter.

If this triggers you, and I can see it building in so many... does it occur to anyone that we're at the precipice of an iceberg? I don't think Josh Duggars crimes against humanity are the worst ever, but they're not good and I'd like to point out that  the triggering effects are probably going to continue as we get more details.

Be kind to yourself and step away from the internet when it makes you cry. 

[neuroticcat]

3 hours ago, rexasaurus_nirb said:

It is so clear that none of the people monitoring are likely to report if he does anything that violates the terms... they will try to pray it away or hide it rather than contact authorities. What a mess. 

I can hope that someone might speak up. A lot of his siblings are parents now and if they have concerns about their kids they may report past suspicions. 
 

I’m also wondering about the Raber family’s “adult daughter” in the home. I mean does that mean she Josh’s age or like a 19 year old stay at home daughter. Either way this seems really unwise. 

[Jaedzia]

3 minutes ago, alwayscaffeinated said:

she literally walked through our back door back in November and found a spot next to my husband on the couch. She's been with us ever since. 

She knew she could trust you all. Animals know. 

[ADoyle90815]

My furbabies, Loki(house panther), Dust, and Smoke(torties.)

Edited May 6, 2021 by ADoyle90815

[hoipolloi]

Re: Josh & church. He should be restricted to zoom attendance with the pastor or other adults in the church visiting him as needed.

Re: Covenant Eyes & accountability. Even before now, this program never struck me as being very effective. It's not surprising Josh found a way around it with apparently very little effort. 

[Columbia]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

I still suspect he was molested at some point in his youth. Its not an excuse but many molesters and CP addicts have something like that in their pasts.

I’ve wondered about that too, but I would have thought that it would have come out by now as an “excuse” for why he’s looking at CSAM. 

[hand holder]

I know that Emily Baker's youtube was posted previously. I am listening to her now (she was in the hearing) and she said that the final results fo the second forensic investigation into the harddrive of the HP computer at the car lot didn't come back until FEB 2021. So, after that they still had to drop the pieces into place. She also mentioned that the investigators and AUSA would have had other cases to work on during the same timeframe. 

 

She is going to timestamp the livestream at a later point so it can be watched while skipping semi-graphic descriptions.

Edited May 6, 2021 by hand holder
adding info

[neuroticcat]

I have so many feelings right now. On the one hand we, of all people, mightn’t have been shocked by this, but it’s still so shocking and horrible! 
I remember a month or so before Joshgate 1 a discussion we had here speculating on whether the Duggars did anything to protect their children from potential predators with all the visitors and kids running around unsupervised and then - boom! - statistics on abuse prove correct that it’s almost always a family member or friend. And here we are again with an abuser given “forgiveness” and inadequate safety measures and free to do only God knows what. It is unconscionable, and I hope it shakes every last person enamored but the Duggars to their core.

And while I know it would be bad and impossible, but  I almost wish TLC would document this whole process and wipe away the fake glamor they’ve helped create. Not for entertainment but to make an actual attempt to TELL THE TRUTH. Why aren’t we getting a camera crew at Josh’s booking? An interview about what it’s like to be investigated for CSA? A field trip to visit an inmate? A wisdom booklet about &*$! abuse? 
 

Of course Josh may still have done all of this without the show and a small silver lining may be that it spotlights the evil hidden in fundamentalism but the spotlight and editing and all the rest contributed to this too.
 

How dare he. 

[sixcatatty]

3 hours ago, Jess said:

I do not know all the details obviously, but I doubt it would preclude any evidence. They had a warrant to collect his phone and they did. Sounds like the min stuff is on his computer a lawyer would not have been able to stop them executing the search warrant. At best I would guess it’s slightly possible any statements made after they took the phone would be excluded. I am like 99.99% sure he will take a plea deal anyway. Almost everyone takes a plea deal and from what we heard today they have good evidence. 

If I were the AUSA, I would argue inevitable discovery, even if it happened when he was arrested; something like in ventory exception and probably good faith. A Supreme Court case in the last 2-3 years expanded the good faith exception.

[AussieKrissy]

3 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

He can leave for work, church, lawyer visits, etc.

church will have children

[ToriAmos]

1 hour ago, BernRul said:

Having heard the evidence against him and what he's accused of having, he will absolutely  be convicted. I'm not saying anything but the CSA he downloaded is infamous for being thr worst of the worst. I'm trying not to punch the wall, thats how angry i was when i heard what it was.  And he did a sloppy job hiding it. And the feds have a high conviction rate. He's going down. If his lawyer was smart he'd tell him to plead out.

Please tell me you're a legal professional? I want that to be true so badly.

From a layperson perspective, and obviously just on what we've heard, the evidence seems overwhelmingly against him, but I don't know law.

[sixcatatty]

2 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

To any lawyer here...could Josh's question "Why? Did someone download CP?" be considered an spontaneous or excited utterance?

Yep. If I'm the AUSA, that's likely the first sentence of my opening statement.

[EmmieJ]

18 minutes ago, AliceInFundyland said:

Be kind to yourself and step away from the internet when it makes you cry. 

This x 100.  Josh is a depraved person.  The subject matter is absolutely horrifying.  I have skimmed past many posts, especially those speculating "do you think he did this or that?" because what I already know is bad enough.

(Somehow text is centered, don't know why.)

If you are feeling overwhelmed, sick, are crying, or otherwise naturally greatly disturbed, step away.  Go eat some comfort food, call a friend, watch an episode of The Office, or cuddle your pet.  There are very bad people, but there are decent people committed to putting them behind bars.  Focus on that.  

[hand holder]

RE: Emily Baker and my previous post. 

She is explaining the evidentiary hearing process and the info shared today that may not be shared/used in the actual trial. It's very interesting and some really good info to have when we are talking about what might happen next. The defense is going to latch on to the phone thing when it was being seized. They may be successful in that. Other information might be "tainted" by that and would subsequently be thrown out. 

Discovery hasn't happened yet - we basically haven't even started this long, long train that we're gonna be on through this trial. 

[Giraffe]

Watching Emily D Baker’s livestream has been really helpful in understanding why he was released. @Antimony and others on here are clearly much more informed about the legal side of things and now I understand why some of you are wondering  why some of us are shocked he’s being released. 

[AussieKrissy]

3 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I think if my kid was taking piano lessons from Mrs. Reber, I might have them take some time off.

I would never send them back. Your priorities are screwed if your priority is a pedo and not a kid. I would never trust you around my child. 

Last person Jimbob looked to, to help Josh turned out to be a pedo cop. Shit sticks and rumours run, I would  be nowhere near these guys. No way would I ever have a pedo supporter around my kid. 

[neuroticcat]

2 hours ago, BernRul said:

Apologies if this was addressed during my catch up,  but I heard that Josh tried to blame the CSA images on his brother. Can anyone confirm that? 

His brother who worked at the car lot was Josiah right? So he was totally okay with ruining Josiah's life? Josiah, who used to look up to Josh when he was little? 

Josh is a straight up sociopath. I used to think he cared about his family but evidently not if he could screw over his little brother like that.

 

Maybe a lawyerly person can help with this, but in a family like this with shared business and everything, is there a potential reasonable doubt defense in something like this? Is he actually trying to claim someone like a brother is responsible or is he just answering a standard question?

 

Could he be trying to say that his business partner brother had all his passwords and could have done all this? Or is it simply that he answered that yes, other people had access to his computer. 

So help me if he not only abused his sisters but also his brothers by inviting them to watch porn with him...I’ve heard anecdotally from male friends who grew up in conservative evangelical circles that that’s a thing - for fathers or laser brothers/friends to introduce them to porn and group stuff - and for many was the beginning of their own “battle” against porn, but I don’t know how common it is. 
 

What a mess.

[princessjo1988]

Again, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.... I'm not surprised. Disturbed and angry, yes, but not surprised. 

By her decisions, Anna has now set her kids up for a life of association with that man. Speaking from experience, as a child of a convicted sex offender, it is a very heavy burden to carry. 

As for JimBob and Michelle.... There is nothing redeemable in their actions. They cannot claim ignorance or anything at this point. I understand the complications of family relationships, I've lived them, but they are now actively choosing an offender over the very real survivors in their own family. On a public stage, no less, with more knowledge and actual charges. It would be best for them if they quietly go into the good night and never ever offer child raising or any sort of family advice again. 

And here is a photo of my beautiful Albus boy for some light relief. Please look after yourselves, folks.  

 

 

[Tdoc72]

38 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Re: Josh & church. He should be restricted to zoom attendance with the pastor or other adults in the church visiting him as needed.

Re: Covenant Eyes & accountability. Even before now, this program never struck me as being very effective. It's not surprising Josh found a way around it with apparently very little effort. 

If he is on zoom, then he’s on the internet.  Big no-no.

[coffeebean7]

Gah this thread moves sooo fast. Someone in the last few pages asked about forensic exams. I am sorry if this has already been answered but this is almost certainly a forensic interview which is not a medical exam. Forensic interviewers are highly trained to neutrally interview children in a child-friendly environment about abuse/neglect. They are trained on getting neutral and clear and helpful information for an investigation so kids only have to talk about it once (ideally). Not every kid discloses abuse even if it occurred. It’s really hard to do with kids who are super young. They are not doing sexual assault exams on the kids (I am 99.9999% sure). Just wanted to answer that of it hasn’t been yet. 

[JenniferJuniper]

3 minutes ago, neuroticcat said:

Maybe a lawyerly person can help with this, but in a family like this with shared business and everything, is there a potential reasonable doubt defense in something like this? Is he actually trying to claim someone like a brother is responsible or is he just answering a standard question?

From what I heard about today's testimony it sounds like they've been able to show, if not outright prove that Josh was the one using the computer, but yes, it sounds like he was trying imply or at least to leave open the possibility that someone else could have downloaded the material.  The forensics sound very damning for Josh though.

[livinginthelight]

We adopted this cutie from a shelter earlier this year. She drops her toys at my feet when she wants to play. That little nose stripe and those eyes melt me every time.

[QuiverFullOfCondoms]

22 minutes ago, hand holder said:

RE: Emily Baker and my previous post. 

She is explaining the evidentiary hearing process and the info shared today that may not be shared/used in the actual trial. It's very interesting and some really good info to have when we are talking about what might happen next. The defense is going to latch on to the phone thing when it was being seized. They may be successful in that. Other information might be "tainted" by that and would subsequently be thrown out. 

Discovery hasn't happened yet - we basically haven't even started this long, long train that we're gonna be on through this trial. 

The phone seizure rights violation is not going anywhere. He wasn’t arrested at the time, only his property was seized. No one stopped him from using the office phone or any other phone to make a phone call.

[coffeebean7]

2 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

To any lawyer here...could Josh's question "Why? Did someone download CP?" be considered an spontaneous or excited utterance?

It’s an admissible statement if that’s what you’re asking.... 

 

ETA - sorry this was already answered ?‍♀️ I can’t keep up!

Edited May 6, 2021 by coffeebean7

[viii]

23 minutes ago, coffeebean7 said:

Gah this thread moves sooo fast. Someone in the last few pages asked about forensic exams. I am sorry if this has already been answered but this is almost certainly a forensic interview which is not a medical exam. Forensic interviewers are highly trained to neutrally interview children in a child-friendly environment about abuse/neglect. They are trained on getting neutral and clear and helpful information for an investigation so kids only have to talk about it once (ideally). Not every kid discloses abuse even if it occurred. It’s really hard to do with kids who are super young. They are not doing sexual assault exams on the kids (I am 99.9999% sure). Just wanted to answer that of it hasn’t been yet. 

Thank you for clarifying this. I’ve finally caught up after having to take couple hours away and reset myself. I have been thinking about this while reading and feeling so concerned for the M kids.