(Possible Child Sexual Abuse Content) Josh and Anna 34: Plea Deal in the Making?

[Tdoc72]

I wondered why no wedding ring but if he surrendered to the jail, he might have just left it at home. 

[J'Lurker]

The US lawyers are laughing at his defense team. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure they basically said "lol the defense actually seems to misunderstand what the charges are." 

[ifosterkittens]

Today (8/24/2021) Emily D Baker on Youtube covered the five defense motions: Coffee & Cursey Words | Josh Duggar Defense Motions, Tati Westbrook Lawsuit Motions - YouTube. I didn't link it, but that is the title. It is time stamped, and her coverage of the five motions takes an hour.

She discussed the hands/feet pictures and had the defense motion up on her screen, and it had a footnote that says "In filing this motion to vindicate Duggar's rights, the defense is in no way even suggesting that these photographs have any evidentiary value to the Government." Emily guessed the government will respond by saying the pictures of the hands are part of booking procedure (defense is saying they aren't part of standard booking) to show no injury occurred and there are no hand cuff marks, no evidence of an injury or struggle. Defense is arguing you didn't have a warrant to take these photos, they aren't part of standard booking procedure, and they violated Duggar's rights. 

I highly recommend watching Emily's coverage it was fascinating. She said it is expected for a defense attorney to make motions to suppress that statements, the warrants and the evidence. The fourth motion (#39) with the appointments clause really impressed Emily. She said she had never seen that before, and it was a clever idea. She doesn't agree with the rationale, but said it was original and probably took a lot of time and money. 

[AussieKrissy]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9922609/Josh-Duggar-lawyers-seek-dismissal-child-porn-charges-say-prosecutors-didnt-save-key-evidence.html

 

Daily Fail is loving the Duggar Scandal

[Nike]

10 hours ago, ifosterkittens said:

Today (8/24/2021) Emily D Baker on Youtube covered the five defense motions: Coffee & Cursey Words | Josh Duggar Defense Motions, Tati Westbrook Lawsuit Motions - YouTube. I didn't link it, but that is the title. It is time stamped, and her coverage of the five motions takes an hour.

She discussed the hands/feet pictures and had the defense motion up on her screen, and it had a footnote that says "In filing this motion to vindicate Duggar's rights, the defense is in no way even suggesting that these photographs have any evidentiary value to the Government." Emily guessed the government will respond by saying the pictures of the hands are part of booking procedure (defense is saying they aren't part of standard booking) to show no injury occurred and there are no hand cuff marks, no evidence of an injury or struggle. Defense is arguing you didn't have a warrant to take these photos, they aren't part of standard booking procedure, and they violated Duggar's rights. 

I highly recommend watching Emily's coverage it was fascinating. She said it is expected for a defense attorney to make motions to suppress that statements, the warrants and the evidence. The fourth motion (#39) with the appointments clause really impressed Emily. She said she had never seen that before, and it was a clever idea. She doesn't agree with the rationale, but said it was original and probably took a lot of time and money. 

It blows my mind that Josh and his lawyers are defending the viewing of child abuse images and talking about "his rights" when it comes to pictures of his hands and feet. I get that lawyers have to grab anything but still...

 

[closetcagebaby]

9 hours ago, Nike said:

It blows my mind that Josh and his lawyers are defending the viewing of child abuse images and talking about "his rights" when it comes to pictures of his hands and feet. I get that lawyers have to grab anything but still...

 

Think about this way. If they grasp at everything and try every option and he gets convicted, that means that Josh won’t have any grounds for appeal based on ineffective counsel. 

[FiveAcres]

<sarcasm> And look on the bright side: I am sure Josh's victims and siblings are delighted to see the family's TLC cash go to lawyers. </sarcasm> Jim Bob seems to be getting his money's worth: the lawyers are not just phoning it in.  

[Alisamer]

9 hours ago, Nike said:

It blows my mind that Josh and his lawyers are defending the viewing of child abuse images and talking about "his rights" when it comes to pictures of his hands and feet. I get that lawyers have to grab anything but still...

 

Agreed. His rights were violated by having photos of his hands taken, so they want to get the charges dropped? While the charges are because he was looking at photos of children whose rights were violated by having abusive, sexually explicit photos taken? 

Dude.

Also did you see the kid on Nirvana's Nevermind album (the one with the swimming baby) is apparently now suing the band for "child porn" because of the photo? That seems like a serious money grab to me, compared to the serious abuse the kids Josh was looking at experienced. (I could see the guy wanting to be paid for the photoshoot, if his parents weren't at the time. But child porn? After all these years? Really?)

Meanwhile, Josh says his rights were violated because photos were taken of his HANDS. Right. 

[Antimony]

8 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

Agreed. His rights were violated by having photos of his hands taken, so they want to get the charges dropped? While the charges are because he was looking at photos of children whose rights were violated by having abusive, sexually explicit photos taken? 

Dude.

Also did you see the kid on Nirvana's Nevermind album (the one with the swimming baby) is apparently now suing the band for "child porn" because of the photo? That seems like a serious money grab to me, compared to the serious abuse the kids Josh was looking at experienced. (I could see the guy wanting to be paid for the photoshoot, if his parents weren't at the time. But child porn? After all these years? Really?)

Meanwhile, Josh says his rights were violated because photos were taken of his HANDS. Right. 

As far as I can tell, this is not the line of logic here at all. The Motion to Dismiss and the Motion to Suppress the Photos are two different arguments. 

The Motion to Dismiss is relying on irregularities in appointments of officials and acting directors, because the federal government was an absolute mess during the Trump Administration and it may be true that some people were appointed unlawfully. The Motion to Dismiss posits that the because the HSI officials might have unlawful or improper appointments, the case itself is unlawful and should be dismissed. This is a total stretch, legally, because it would set precedent to toss out hundreds of other cases during that time. I can't see it working because it would be a stupid precedent to set. 

The Motion to Suppress Photos claims that the photos cannot be used in any trial or as evidence because they were obtained without a warrant. This is true, and it's within his rights to ask for that suppression. (It's a different question if this was a wise time for lawyers to forget about the Streisand Effect, because I don't believe these are evidentiary photos anyway.) If something identifying about you is taken without a warrant or your permission (fingerprints, DNA swabs, evidentiary photographs), you absolutely have had your rights violated. Booking photographs are outside of these bounds because the arrest has already occurred. I believe these are standard booking photos, so no violation, but if they were for evidence or forensic purposes, that is a violation of his rights. You can't dismiss an entire trial because of improper evidence, typically, but you can dismiss certain portions of that evidence. 

I don't want to come off as a Josh apologist, and the other thing is that while we all "have" these rights, he's in the unique position of being able to afford having them defended, unlike most of the people who go through our legal system. I just don't feel it's the time to get all Light Yagami about it in one's emotions. I do think the average person should look at things like unwarranted searches, photographs, sampling, and DNA filing as a violation of constitutional rights. 

For the record, I don't really think that the legal or police or prison system work, or achieve justice, or function in any meaningful way. I just think this is a place where it is probably technically working within it's own definitions and while it's not going to be legally successful, what the lawyers are filing is technically proper. 

I'm not a lawyer, but Alec Karakatsanis has usually really good insights on rights and violations of them within the legal system, particularly the "little" and "banal" and "so totally obscure that you'd need a 10 minute primer on why this was so wrong" ways rights are violated. 

As for the Nirvana guy, total cash grab. He's recreated the photo millions of times and it's absolutely bonkers to assert that any nude photo of a child is child sexual abuse imagery. (If so, we're gonna have to get rid of a lot of Mary Cassatt paintings.)

[quiversR4hunting]

@ifosterkittens thanks for the reminder of Emily's podcast. Yet again, she does an awesome job explaining all this stuff. 

[EmmieJ]

21 hours ago, ifosterkittens said:

Today (8/24/2021) Emily D Baker on Youtube covered the five defense motions: Coffee & Cursey Words | Josh Duggar Defense Motions, Tati Westbrook Lawsuit Motions - YouTube. I didn't link it, but that is the title. It is time stamped, and her coverage of the five motions takes an hour.

I like Emily D Baker's youtube channel - I don't always watch all of her videos, but she is very informative and knowledgeable.  I didn't make it all the way through the video you reference above, but saw most of it.  

[ifosterkittens]

Like @EmmieJI don't always make it through all of Emily's videos. Today I watched the Q&A portion of the episode I mentioned above (at the 2 hour 38 minute mark) someone asked were the pictures of the hands taken to compare to material being produced/made. Emily said no, this is not a production case, the CSA material/images were already available. As @Antimonysaid above, and Emily also said if they wanted to take a picture of his hands for the purpose of looking at material being produced they would have to have a warrant. 

 

[mpheels]

5 hours ago, closetcagebaby said:

Think about this way. If they grasp at everything and try every option and he gets convicted, that means that Josh won’t have any grounds for appeal based on ineffective counsel. 

Exactly this. No innocent person should end up convicted, and no guilty person should be acquitted, for want of a decent lawyer. Good representation now means Josh’s chances of appeal will be slim, but it means they will try every (legal) thing they can think of to get an acquittal or minimize prison time. That is their job, and it would be unethical for them to do anything less. Federal prosecutors have an incredibly high conviction rate because they have to gather all the evidence and build the case for a grand jury indictment before they can charge anyone with a crime. The US federal legal system is far from perfect, but it is way more functional than most state systems.

[Columbia]

On 8/20/2021 at 10:30 PM, Mama Mia said:

The weirdest thing in there is the motion filed to suppress photos taken of Josh’s hands and feet while in custody. wTF ???

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sue-black-forensics-hand-markings-paedophiles-rapists

[AussieKrissy]

26 minutes ago, Columbia said:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/sue-black-forensics-hand-markings-paedophiles-rapists

oh the lady photographed has been on tv shows I think recreating people from the stone age or bronze age or whatever faces. She is super cool for a nerd like me. lol I didnt read the article, I can get the jist by the title. But seeing her face reminds me I must have a little doco session soon. I really wish Time team was still made. 

Edited August 25, 2021 by AussieKrissy
edit to add it might not be her. Does anyone know who I am talking about... I am a ginger and am sick of getting lumped in with people I dont look like just because of hair colour and here I am and did it myself lol

[Alisamer]

4 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

oh the lady photographed has been on tv shows I think recreating people from the stone age or bronze age or whatever faces. She is super cool for a nerd like me. lol I didnt read the article, I can get the jist by the title. But seeing her face reminds me I must have a little doco session soon. I really wish Time team was still made. 

She was on History Cold Case! She wasn’t the one doing the recreations though, she was the head forensic anthropologist I think! Awesome show. 

[AussieKrissy]

3 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

She was on History Cold Case! She wasn’t the one doing the recreations though, she was the head forensic anthropologist I think! Awesome show. 

Thank you so much yes you are right, I remember one (I think it was that show) were they tried to work out if Lizzie the First had her lover's wife, Amy Dudley bumped off.

Thanks for that I will be looking for some more on youtube tonight.

[Angelface]

9 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

Thank you so much yes you are right, I remember one (I think it was that show) were they tried to work out if Lizzie the First had her lover's wife, Amy Dudley bumped off.

Thanks for that I will be looking for some more on youtube tonight.

9 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

I think that several historians are of the opinion that it is unlikely that Elizabeth I had any involvement in the demise of Amy Dudley. Accidental death (falling down the stairs), possible undiagnosed terminal illness or others who desired her death are more likely options. However, I wouldn’t rule out some involvement by William Cecil. He wanted Elizabeth to marry a foreign prince to secure England from potential Catholic plots and Robert Dudley was seen (by Cecil) as an obstacle to achieving the sort of match that England required. By besmirching Robert Dudley’s reputation, whether deserved or not, the end result was that Elizabeth would never be able to marry him and should therefore be more amenable to marriage to a suitable foreign prince. I’m a bit of a history nerd and the Tudors are a bit of a pet topic. Sorry for going off topic. 

[AussieKrissy]

9 hours ago, Angelface said:

I think that several historians are of the opinion that it is unlikely that Elizabeth I had any involvement in the demise of Amy Dudley. Accidental death (falling down the stairs), possible undiagnosed terminal illness or others who desired her death are more likely options. However, I wouldn’t rule out some involvement by William Cecil. He wanted Elizabeth to marry a foreign prince to secure England from potential Catholic plots and Robert Dudley was seen (by Cecil) as an obstacle to achieving the sort of match that England required. By besmirching Robert Dudley’s reputation, whether deserved or not, the end result was that Elizabeth would never be able to marry him and should therefore be more amenable to marriage to a suitable foreign prince. I’m a bit of a history nerd and the Tudors are a bit of a pet topic. Sorry for going off topic. 

Yep I agree, I think all those theories were presented in the doco I watched. Off topic thread drift is what FJ does best. If it interests you it gets read other than that people scroll on. I love the tudors too. Elizabeth was a legend. 

[Expectopatronus]

Yahoo news had an article saying that Josh’s lawyers were seeking to have the case dismissed because an employee admitted to spending the night on premises without Josh’s knowledge and had adult porn on his phone that he had downloaded during work. Apparently investigators didn’t keep the phone as evidence. Are any other (ie credible) sources discussing this? Josh is a pig but if this is true the other dude isn’t in the clear either. I’m not a Josh fan but if he didn’t do it I would hate to have the person who does get off on viewing CSAM wandering around and free to escalate. 

[Sabine]

21 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

Yahoo news had an article saying that Josh’s lawyers were seeking to have the case dismissed because an employee admitted to spending the night on premises without Josh’s knowledge and had adult porn on his phone that he had downloaded during work. Apparently investigators didn’t keep the phone as evidence. Are any other (ie credible) sources discussing this? Josh is a pig but if this is true the other dude isn’t in the clear either. I’m not a Josh fan but if he didn’t do it I would hate to have the person who does get off on viewing CSAM wandering around and free to escalate. 

adult porn and sexual child abuse 'porn' is not quite the same thing. 

[Expectopatronus]

2 minutes ago, Sabine said:

adult porn and sexual child abuse 'porn' is not quite the same thing. 

Agreed. I’m merely responding to what his lawyers are putting forward. According to the article, it is possible to use one’s phone to download images on computers and the phones were not examined to see if Tor was installed. 

[Sabine]

4 minutes ago, Expectopatronus said:

Agreed. I’m merely responding to what his lawyers are putting forward. According to the article, it is possible to use one’s phone to download images on computers and the phones were not examined to see if Tor was installed. 

Well, hopefully someone will educate the lawyers to the distinction. The one being a legal thing to have on ones phone and the other not. Mind if they are a certain type of Christian they might not make such distinctions. 

[sixcatatty]

I'm a (criminal) appellate lawyer. I think I've seen one of these granted in 32 years of work. It does, however, create another issue for appeal. This latest is also a good to use in closing argument for reasonable doubt.

Edited August 27, 2021 by sixcatatty
Added a thought

[AussieKrissy]

40 minutes ago, sixcatatty said:

I'm a (criminal) appellate lawyer. I think I've seen one of these granted in 32 years of work. It does, however, create another issue for appeal. This latest is also a good to use in closing argument for reasonable doubt.

reasonable doubt did cross my mind