[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 33: Ohhh Honey It Is Already a Disaster.....

[sixcatatty]

24 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

I wonder the legalities of the lawyers talking and dealing with JB. Sure he is paying the bills, but even with Josh's permission, is it a violation of his rights, or a conflict of interest?  I once accompanied a friend to her attorneys office for a divorce and the attorney wouldn't let me in the room during the session because she said she might need me to testify. Just curious. 

One lawyer's take: I don't have an ethical duty to Jim Bob, even if he is paying the bills. My ethical duty is to Josh, who is my client.  Jim Bob will NOT be sitting in on my meetings with Josh or else attorney-client privilege is broken. If Jim Bob demands to sit in, he'll be finding another lawyer. I worked too damned long and too damned hard for my license to practice to give it up because of those two idiots.

2 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Technicality means point of law so I'm not sure what the argument is?  I don't think people are minimizing the importance of our laws of evidence by saying they hope Josh doesn't benefit because someone made a procedural mistake.

Fwiw I agree that if things weren't handled legally and according to the law then they should be thrown out as that's the only thing that keeps law enforcement accountable.  None of us are better off if law enforcement officers aren't held to the legal standard, it's the only protection we have against tyranny from the state.  

That said, if people who commit the kind of heinous crimes like this get off because things were improperly handled then of course people will be disgusted.  Believing it's better for 100 guilty men to go free than one innocent man be convicted is one thing in theory, and a lot harder to swallow if those 100 men represent such danger to children.  

 

It's important to me because most people I deal with don't understand that technicality could mean point of law. They simply think it's another slick lawyer getting somebody off. Even with the same degree and license, I'm called a public pretender so I may be a tad more sensitive than the norm.

Edited June 9, 2021 by sixcatatty

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, sixcatatty said:

One lawyer's take: I don't have an ethical duty to Jim Bob, even if he is paying the bills. My ethical duty is to Josh, who is my client.  Jim Bob will NOT be sitting in on my meetings with Josh or else attorney-client privilege is broken. If Jim Bob demands to sit in, he'll be finding another lawyer. I worked too damned long and too damned hard for my license to practice to give it up because of those two idiots.

That's interesting, is that typical for criminal cases?  I've gone with a few people over the years to lawyers for divorce and estate planning just as moral support and the lawyers never had an issue with someone else being in the meeting....it's been a while though so maybe that's changed?  

[Chickenbutt]

@sixcatattyThank you for your response. That's the way I understood it to be. You just worded it better than I ever would have, 

[justoneoftwo]

1 hour ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That's interesting, is that typical for criminal cases?  I've gone with a few people over the years to lawyers for divorce and estate planning just as moral support and the lawyers never had an issue with someone else being in the meeting....it's been a while though so maybe that's changed?  

If they are worried about privilege it's true for anyting. I'm a corporate lawyer and we can have multiple people in the meeting if they are all there is part of the corporation or it is not privileged.

[Chickenbutt]

I guess another question I have is this. If JB is privvy to all the conversations between Josh and his attorney, then he can tailor HIS story to match up with Josh's. Is that ethical? All of this is assuming JB has something that the court wants to hear. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

28 minutes ago, Chickenbutt said:

I guess another question I have is this. If JB is privvy to all the conversations between Josh and his attorney, then he can tailor HIS story to match up with Josh's. Is that ethical? All of this is assuming JB has something that the court wants to hear. 

Josh is out and able to communicate freely with his family, so he could fill JB on anything in a personal capacity.  

[Chickenbutt]

You're absolutely right. I forgot. Collusion at it's best. 

[mstee]

I wonder if:

1) JB is planning on telling his other sons that worked the car lot to testify they also used the computers (if they go to trial. Obviously the actual strategy is up to the lawyers). But I could see JB wanting to use that as reasonable doubt. Which would be shitty but not surprising of him.

2) many of the siblings want to see Josh convicted. I’m sure many of them harbor a lot of resentment towards him. 

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, Chickenbutt said:

I guess another question I have is this. If JB is privvy to all the conversations between Josh and his attorney, then he can tailor HIS story to match up with Josh's. Is that ethical? All of this is assuming JB has something that the court wants to hear. 

I'm not sure what stories JB would have regarding the crimes Joshly is charged with.  Josh is free to tell Pops everything and consult with him about his options, although JB probably won't be able to sit in on meetings with Josh and counsel without Josh possibly losing attorney-client privilege should the prosecution find out.  But I still think Boob will find a way to be very much in the loop with regard to the decision making.  Control is his middle name. 

[Chickenbutt]

Yeah I dunno what JB would have to say either. But can you imagine him staying quiet through all this? He has to tell everyone what a great man/dad/husband Josh is. As @msteesays, JB is most likely looking for a way, any way, to minimize Josh's role in all this. At the risk of his other sons? I dunno.

[JenniferJuniper]

2 minutes ago, mstee said:

I wonder if:

1) JB is planning on telling his other sons that worked the car lot to testify they also used the computers (if they go to trial. Obviously the actual strategy is up to the lawyers). But I could see JB wanting to use that as reasonable doubt. Which would be shitty but not surprising of him.

2) many of the siblings want to see Josh convicted. I’m sure many of them harbor a lot of resentment towards him. 

1.  That's Josh's prime defense.  It must have been someone else.  I don't think it will work based upon what we heard in the bond hearing, but aside from any misconduct or errors made by the Feds in their investigation, he doesn't appear to have any other defense.  But that's a sticky one if it was only, say, Josiah or another brother who used that computer.  Still, if it's all he has, he will need to use it, shitty or not.  It could put JB in an interesting spot.  

2. Maybe some of them don't think he's as a big an asshole as some others do, but I can't see anyone weeping over Josh being in prison.  I can see them feeling terrible for Anna and those poor little M's though, despite the fact that they are all safer without him being around. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, JenniferJuniper said:

But that's a sticky one if it was only, say, Josiah or another brother who used that computer.  Still, if it's all he has, he will need to use it, shitty or not.  It could put JB in an interesting spot.  

I don't think he will if the only other people who had access are Duggars.  Pin it on an outsider, sure, but one of his brothers and it just makes it look like JD and Michelle raised two monsters instead of one which could make a lot of people view them all with suspicion.

Strategically if they're going to try to reasonable doubt but it had to be a Duggar they are better off letting Josh take the hit alone, rather than making everyone wonder who in that family isn't a pedophile.

 

[Mama Mia]

8 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't think he will if the only other people who had access are Duggars.  Pin it on an outsider, sure, but one of his brothers and it just makes it look like JD and Michelle raised two monsters instead of one which could make a lot of people view them all with suspicion.

Strategically if they're going to try to reasonable doubt but it had to be a Duggar they are better off letting Josh take the hit alone, rather than making everyone wonder who in that family isn't a pedophile.

 

Exactly. Trying for reasonable doubt based on throwing a brother under the bus would be a terrible strategy for the entire family. Most people will at least vaguely empathize with or understand how a family can have one extreme deviant  due to satan/mental illness/evil/ chemical imbalance  - however their personal ideology describes it - but multiple offenders in the same family ? No. That’s definitely going to make you look like something is seriously wrong with the family itself. 

[JenniferJuniper]

29 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't think he will if the only other people who had access are Duggars.  Pin it on an outsider, sure, but one of his brothers and it just makes it look like JD and Michelle raised two monsters instead of one which could make a lot of people view them all with suspicion.

True.  I wonder about the "outsider" story though.  Was there one?  And if there was one, what did he actually do, and did he use the lot's computer to do anything?  Rhetorical questions at this point.   

This is Josh's defense though, not JB's and Michelle's.  And if I'm Josh's attorney, my job is raise as much doubt as I can, even if that includes pointing out another Duggar or Duggars also had access to the same computer on which the images were found. 

[Jackie3]

I don't think the feds would have brought this case if reasonable doubt could be raised about who viewed the images. They must have solid proof it was Josh. Maybe they were able to view him through the computer's webcam?

There must be a way they can pin it on the correct person. Otherwise, how could they ever win any of these cases? In nearly every case, a defendant could say, "Well, my wife/coworker/teenager had access to my laptop." How would they even get that past a grand jury?

[Smee]

13 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

I don't think the feds would have brought this case if reasonable doubt could be raised about who viewed the images. They must have solid proof it was Josh. Maybe they were able to view him through the computer's webcam?

There must be a way they can pin it on the correct person. Otherwise, how could they ever win any of these cases? In nearly every case, a defendant could say, "Well, my wife/coworker/teenager had access to my laptop." How would they even get that past a grand jury?

They had evidence like texts to Anna and stuff putting him at the car lot at the specific time the files were downloaded. Unless he can prove someone else was there that particular day and time, “I’m not the only one who works there and uses the computer” wouldn’t be enough for “reasonable” doubt in my mind. Depends on the jurors I guess.

[Idlewild]

The forensic audit of a computer is very thorough- it looks at not only times but which sites the user was using immediately prior to the offending behaviour. There is also other evidence- the use of the same passwords as he held for his bank accounts - he would have to be exceptionally stupid to hand those out to other people (I suppose he could rely on stupidity as a defence but he’s too arrogant), the whole system to bypass Covenent Eye- that will likely leave a trail. Also his reaction when the feds arrived didn’t exactly smack of a shocked innocent man.

[anjulibai]

Could the prosecution call the other Duggar sons (Josh's brothers not his sons) to testify?

Edited June 10, 2021 by anjulibai

[Idlewild]

2 minutes ago, anjulibai said:

Could the prosecution call the other Duggar sons to testify?

I don’t know what the law is in the US. In England the prosecution can only call witnesses who have given a statement to the police. If in interview Josh had named them as potential suspects then the investigators could ask them for a statement, I doubt they’d cooperate though.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

11 hours ago, JenniferJuniper said:

True.  I wonder about the "outsider" story though.  Was there one?  And if there was one, what did he actually do, and did he use the lot's computer to do anything?  Rhetorical questions at this point.   

This is Josh's defense though, not JB's and Michelle's.  And if I'm Josh's attorney, my job is raise as much doubt as I can, even if that includes pointing out another Duggar or Duggars also had access to the same computer on which the images were found. 

Yeah, Josh will throw all his brothers under the umbrella of suspicion if he can.  Hell, Josh would throw suspicion on Anna or his parents if he thought it would fly.

Honestly if there were an outsider I think we'd be hearing about it.  This is the kind of thing that if it could be proven they knowing lied to implicate someone else publicly they could be sued...these are life ruining accusations.  Josh has nothing to lose, but I doubt we'll hear about any specific outsider from JB and co.

29 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

I don’t know what the law is in the US. In England the prosecution can only call witnesses who have given a statement to the police. If in interview Josh had named them as potential suspects then the investigators could ask them for a statement, I doubt they’d cooperate though.

They can subpoena anyone they feel has material information to add to the case.  If they are asked to testify they can refuse, but if they are subpoenaed and refuse they can beheld in contempt of court.  They could get a lawyer and try to argue why they have no relevant testimony and shouldn't be called, but in the end if the court wants to hear from them they will.

The only people who can't be compelled to testify is Josh (he has the right to avoid self incrimination) and Anna (spousal privilege.)  Everyone else, including his parents and kids, are fair game.  

ETA I don't think a prosecuter would call the kids unless absolutely necessary because putting them through the trauma for no reason would back-fire.  And if they do kids are often allowed to testify via video or cc tv so they aren't subjected to court.

Edited June 10, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[JenniferJuniper]

1 hour ago, Jackie3 said:

I don't think the feds would have brought this case if reasonable doubt could be raised about who viewed the images. They must have solid proof it was Josh. Maybe they were able to view him through the computer's webcam?

Webcam?  Oh, my.  I hope the feds aren't watching me.  My hair is scary today.

As others have said, the forensic investigation seems to have been very thorough.  And they waited a long time to actually arrest him in order to be sure it was Josh's uncovenanted eyes that viewed the material before they made the move.  The only thing I can see at this point being a possible issue is the bit about Josh claming he said he wanted a lawyer when the computers and his phone were being seized.  I can see that being something his attorney will try to work with, even if there is no evidence his rights were violated. 

[SassyPants]

Wasn’t the password used to access the filth the same one Josh used for his personal bank account? If so, How did this fictitious person get access to it? 

[Four is Enough]

18 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

I wonder the legalities of the lawyers talking and dealing with JB. Sure he is paying the bills, but even with Josh's permission, is it a violation of his rights, or a conflict of interest?  I once accompanied a friend to her attorneys office for a divorce and the attorney wouldn't let me in the room during the session because she said she might need me to testify. Just curious. 

When our son was in deep trouble, we paid the attorney fees. I was told up front that the attorney could not speak to us unless and until our son, his actual client, agreed that he could do so.

18 hours ago, sixcatatty said:

One lawyer's take: I don't have an ethical duty to Jim Bob, even if he is paying the bills. My ethical duty is to Josh, who is my client.  Jim Bob will NOT be sitting in on my meetings with Josh or else attorney-client privilege is broken. If Jim Bob demands to sit in, he'll be finding another lawyer. I worked too damned long and too damned hard for my license to practice to give it up because of those two idiots.

That seems to be a universal thing. JB is probably trying to horn in on the attorneys, to control the dialogue, but he probably won't get far.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

19 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Wasn’t the password used to access the filth the same one Josh used for his personal bank account? If so, How did this fictitious person get access to it? 

As an IT person if I had a dollar for every time I've rolled my eyes at seeing a password on a postit note on the computer I'd be on my own private island somewhere.  

Not saying he did this, but the I'm sure the feds case rests on a lot more than the password since password sharing and posting is so common that would be reasonable doubt right there.  It's going to be the use right before and after as well as the timing that will hang him, me thinks.

[JenniferJuniper]

10 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

As an IT person if I had a dollar for every time I've rolled my eyes at seeing a password on a postit note on the computer I'd be on my own private island somewhere.  

Not saying he did this, but the I'm sure the feds case rests on a lot more than the password since password sharing and posting is so common that would be reasonable doubt right there.  It's going to be the use right before and after as well as the timing that will hang him, me thinks.

Yes, they cross referenced material he sent from his phone's location and timed it with the accessing of the images on the stationary computer, placing him in the trailer.  Otherwise he could claim Mystery Guy and/or Josiah knew and used his password for the unprotected side of his computer.