Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Coconut Flan

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

I thought when the jurors couldn’t agree it was a “hung jury” — not an acquittal.  

A former relative (ex brother-in-law of my ex) was the accused in a federal drug case.  He was tried and not convicted (but not acquitted either) because the jury couldn’t agree. My then sis-in-law told me it had been a “hung jury” and after a couple of months he was retried and convicted.    This was back in the 1980s. Has it changed?  If the jurors can’t agree, does the accused go free?

Yes, if they can not agree it’s a hung jury. However, often prosecutors will not retry a hung case because of the expense. The theory being of one jury acquitted the next might as well but that’s a case by case area by area basis. Also, people are much more likely to get more favorable plea deals and take them after a hung jury. The prosecutor makes a better offer since they have already spent so much time and tax payer dollars. The defendants have often ran out of money to pay for lawyers after one trial and don’t like the idea of public defenders so they are more likely to agree to a deal. 

8 hours ago, AussieKrissy said:

Well therapy is confidential so nothing will come out unless Josh chooses to have it released to help with sentencing or parole issues 

Prison therapy programs do not have the same confidentiality rules at least in the USA. It’s somewhat controversial because sex offenders often have to participate in some program to get into the special sex offender units, and they are/feel unsafe in general population. Then they feel the therapy is used against them especially in some states where they are subject to civil commitment at the end of their sentences. Personally I just can’t really feel bad over the issue, but I do understand why some people get very upset as they feel it’s an abuse of the system in general and that anything can be a slippery slope. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, formergothardite said:

He could drag a whole lot of people down with him, and I expect many of them know that. What will it do to the happy, shiny image of the Bates if Josh starts blabbing that they currently head up the organization that taught him that a child is to be blamed if they are molested? 

This might actually end up with JB facing a lot of pressure from other members of the Quiver full community. If Josh goes to trial, his defense might try to use exposure to the unsavory norms taught and modeled by IBLP/ATI as a mitigating circumstance.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a prison psychologist for a number of years and was never required to report crimes or details of crimes that my patients discussed with me. I was also never subpoenaed to testify in any court proceedings. The rules may be different in other states, but I was only required to report patients who were currently suicidal or homicidal (threat to self or others).

  • Upvote 10
  • Thank You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, formergothardite said:

I can see the same thing happening, not even necessarily to save himself but to also exact revenge on people he feel wronged him. If he gets stuck in jail he will have plenty of time to sit around feeling angry and resentful. He seems like the type to blame everyone else and want to get back at them. Who knows what sort of stories he will start telling about the family, Gothard, TLC and even the Bates. 
 

He could drag a whole lot of people down with him, and I expect many of them know that. What will it do to the happy, shiny image of the Bates if Josh starts blabbing that they currently head up the organization that taught him that a child is to be blamed if they are molested? 

The thing about Josh “blabbing” is there would have to be something in it for him.  It seems to me there are financial disincentives to his “blabbing.”

Even if he does prison time, the odds are he won’t serve much more than a minimum sentence because (in the eyes of the law) this is a first offense.  So he has to think about what will happen when he comes out.   He may feel that he will need JB or his siblings to help him out financially after he gets out of jail.  (And he might also need his family to help him buy soap, toilet paper and whatever else he needs in prison while he is there.)  He is unlikely to “blab” if he thinks he will need his family’s help.

  • Upvote 10
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but there is another CSA case involving a much more well to do person than Josh

https://www.twincities.com/2021/08/25/s-d-court-may-unseal-child-porn-investigation-of-billionaire-t-denny-sanford/

PIERRE, S.D. — The South Dakota Supreme Court Tuesday weighed whether to unseal a search warrant and affidavits in an investigation into billionaire banker-turned-philanthropist T. Denny Sanford for possible possession of child pornography.

The court documents are sealed and refer only to “an implicated individual,” and attorneys did not name Sanford as they made their arguments. However, one person briefed on the case by law enforcement told The Associated Press that the hearing involved Sanford and a legal effort by media organizations to unseal court records in the investigation. The person demanded anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation.

The attorneys at the hearing also matched the lawyer representing Sanford, former South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley, and those for two media outlets — ProPublica and the Sioux Falls Argus Leader — that reported last year Sanford had been investigated for possession of child pornography.

Sanford has not been charged with any crime.

The 85-year-old is the state’s richest man, worth an estimated $2.8 billion, but has vowed to “die broke,” and his name adorns dozens of buildings and institutions in South Dakota and beyond.

Even after the investigation was reported last year, Sanford donated hundreds of millions of dollars to the South Dakota government and the state’s largest employer, Sanford Health. Some of the state’s top lawmakers, including Republican Gov. Kristi Noem, have not distanced themselves from Sanford.

 

Edited by SPHASH
Better link
  • Upvote 1
  • WTF 2
  • Thank You 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/4/2021 at 12:12 AM, EmCatlyn said:

To be fair, the family may have evolved in its ideas about clothing, courtship, television, etc. as time passed.  It may not have been a “gimmick” when they started.  I know when I began childrearing I had a lot of things we did which we stopped doing (or did differently) as time passed.

This is not to say they aren’t a bunch of shallow hypocrites, just that having relaxed some of their rules is not proof that they were always pretending.  Their concealing the change, on the other hand, was clearly a ploy because they were worried about their image.

A lot of fundies have changed course on some of their externals. Many fundie blogs I read a decade ago featured girls always in long skirts, no TV, etc., but now if you can track down some of those family members on social media you see a huge shift in those outward rules. Heck, even the Maxwell daughters *might* have been photographed in pants helping with Jesse's move. 

On 9/3/2021 at 11:00 PM, feministxtian said:

When JB said that molestation was "common" among his community, it set off alarm bells for me. What is JB hiding? What did JB do to the kids? I'm willing to bet there's lots of skeletons in that closet. 

Even setting aside speculation about what JB may or may not have actually done, could he be held liable for things he knew and didn't report years ago? (I'm thinking of the Tina Anderson case which came to light more than a decade after it happened. Wasn't the pastor charged with not reporting? BTW that case was my gateway to Razing Ruth 🙄 which led me to FJ all those years ago.)

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a relative that was on a jury, and I couldn't believe she voted to acquit.

The Defendant was accused of trying to run over the alleged Victim.  The Defendant had found out the Victim had had an affair with Defendants wife, and also sold him some fake drugs.

The Victim was in his driveway when the Defendant came roaring down the street honking and yelling "You motherfucker!", so the Victim ran around his house to the back yard.  He didn't want to go into the house because his children were in there and he didn't want them to see their father assulted or killed.  

The Defendant drove onto the Victims lawn, and drove around the house, taking down the fence in the process.  Then he drove the car around into the back yard and drove at the Victim, who was hiding behind a tree.  After ramming the tree at a high rate of speed, the Defendant was knocked unconscious and the Victim ran into the house, grabbed his kids, and ran out the front door to the car, where they drove off to the nearest police station.

The Defendant claimed that his brakes failed and he had to use the tree to stop his car; later a mechanic checked the car out and found the brakes worked just fine.  The Defendant claimed he was just going to his friends house to warn him that his drug supplier was cheating him.  The Defendant didn't want his good buddy to lose his rep as a trustworthy drug dealer, I guess.  As for honking and calling the Victim a motherfucker, the Defendant claimed that was always how they approached each others houses and calling each other names was just good clean fun.  The Defendant also claimed he didn't know of the alleged affair at the time, and wouldn't have believed it anyway.  The gun found on the floor of the car had been under the seat and was intended solely for protection, and was dislodged when the car hit the tree.

My relative, as I said before, voted to acquit.  She couldn't believe someone would try to commit such a crime in broad daylight.  Everyone else on the jury voted to convict.  My relative was quite offended that everyone else was amazed that she believed such a stupid defense.

  • Upvote 10
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bethy said:

 

Even setting aside speculation about what JB may or may not have actually done, could he be held liable for things he knew and didn't report years ago? (I'm thinking of the Tina Anderson case which came to light more than a decade after it happened. Wasn't the pastor charged with not reporting? BTW that case was my gateway to Razing Ruth 🙄 which led me to FJ all those years ago.)

No, JB isn't a mandated reporter so he wouldn't be found liable for failing to report, unlike a pastor who IS a mandated reporter.

  • Upvote 6
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not related to Josh's case at all, but talking about being on a jury and people being surprised at the verdict: I was on a jury where an individual was being tried for murder. In our state, if someone is killed during the commission of a crime you instigated, you can be tried for their murder even if you had no direct contact with the victim. I don't think anyone on that jury wanted to see an angry young black man end up in jail. It wasn't going to make him any less angry or a better person. However, in the altercation that he was involved in that led to a bystander's death, he claimed self-defense. The legal definition of self-defense stipulates that your self- defense response not be a stronger form than the threat. This guy felt threatened (he had no clear reason why- they tried to say the other guy's girlfriend was pretty and the defendant had been looking at her so he thought her boyfriend might hit him when he walked past- it was weak) and pulled a gun on an unarmed man. Because the gun was an escalating response to feeling threatened, his explanation of self-defense could not legally stand. So legally he committed a crime in pulling the gun and shooting the person he felt threatened by. A bystander was shot and killed by a security guard in the crowd who had been reacting to the defendant shooting when another bystander hit the security guard with an object. Because less than a minute went by between the defendant shooting and the security guard reacting to being hit by shooting a bystander, there was no way we could say that it wasn't the same situation. The defendant was in the commission of a crime when someone was killed. Many people felt that we were wrong not to agree that it was self defense since the defendant was reacting to feeling threatened--but that isn't how the law read. If he had thrown a punch, yes, but because his response was stronger than the threat, it did not meet the legal definition of self-defense which meant that if it wasn't legal self-defense, it was a crime, which then made him guilty of murder according to the law of the state. I don't think any of us were at peace with what the verdict meant for the defendant but it was how the law was written and according to the law, he was guilty. I know they were going to try to get a re-trial and I really hope they did. Not one person who was on the witness list actually showed up in his defense even though we could identify people in the audience who were on the surveillance video of the incident.

Edited by nolongerIFBx
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, nolongerIFBx said:

I don't think any of us were at peace with what the verdict meant for the defendant but it was how the law was written and according to the law, he was guilty.

My dad served on a case that was almost the opposite of this. The entire jury was nearly positive that the defendant was guilty of the accused murder. All of the circumstantial evidence pointed to the defendant. But the police department had done a terrible job of collecting/preserving evidence and interviewing witnesses and the jury didn't have the evidence to say that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so he was acquitted. A few months later the defendant was killed while in the processes of attempting another murder. The jury all felt bad knowing that they were letting a man go free who would not hesitate to hurt someone else, but by the letter of the law they couldn't convict him. 

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, OHFL2009 said:

My dad served on a case that was almost the opposite of this. The entire jury was nearly positive that the defendant was guilty of the accused murder. All of the circumstantial evidence pointed to the defendant. But the police department had done a terrible job of collecting/preserving evidence and interviewing witnesses and the jury didn't have the evidence to say that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt so he was acquitted. A few months later the defendant was killed while in the processes of attempting another murder. The jury all felt bad knowing that they were letting a man go free who would not hesitate to hurt someone else, but by the letter of the law they couldn't convict him. 

It is a difficult responsibility to carry.

  • Upvote 2
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOACB is live now with breaking news. I missed the beginning so I’m not sure exactly what is going on but I think it has to do with images of his hands and a a plea deal

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
  • Eyeroll 2
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government is offering him a plea deal because they matched images of his hands from the materials they took to the photos of his hand they took.

My source is Without A Crystal Ball, so maybe this is wrong.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

WOACB is live now with breaking news. I missed the beginning so I’m not sure exactly what is going on but I think it has to do with images of his hands and a a plea deal

I just came here to say the same thing.  

If his hands were pictured that would imply that the victims would also be known to him. I want to vomit. 

(I am not speculating on who the victims are, just that he was present if those are his hands - hope this doesn't violate a FJ rule.)

Edited by Queen Of Hearts
  • Upvote 1
  • Sad 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bluebirdbluebell said:

The government is offering him a plea deal because they matched images of his hands from the materials they took to the photos of his hand they took.

My source is Without A Crystal Ball, so maybe this is wrong.

Listening now. She is reading from a legal document so this might be accurate 

5 minutes ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

I just came here to say the same thing.  

If his hands were pictured that would imply that the victims would also be known to him. I want to vomit. 

(I am not speculating on who the victims are, just that he was present if those are his hands - hope this doesn't violate a FJ rule.)

Whoever the victims were I hope they are safe with people who love and protect them 

Edited by onekidanddone
  • Upvote 7
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think everybody is jumping the gun because of legalese right now but to my reading of these raw files, the government is not claiming they have evidence of production at all. 

Re: Scar Quote;

Quote

The photographs document a scar on the defendant’s hand, which is plainly visible. Law enforcement observed the same scar in images recovered from the defendant’s electronic devices seized pursuant to a search warrant in this case

Just says images, not CSAM images. Could be indicating just that this phone was used to take pictures of Josh that prove to us he has had the phone in his possession. Images of his coffee, etc. They do need to assert that it is Josh's phone he was using, because it contains data that backs up his presence at the car lot at the time of CSAM file downloads. Such a photo would be enough to make the hand images evidentiary (they physically tie him to being the one using this phone during this period) but not enough to bring a production charge. 

From Plea Deal Emails;

Quote

dugemail.thumb.PNG.77209b6711366c0ef5f3616a0a054ecf.PNG

A sentence guideline for possession of CSAM with all enhancements is ~10 years. The minimum for production of CSAM is 15 years. There's no way the government would say, essentially, "if you do not accept the plea deal, we will bring charges of production against you which is 10 years" when they know the minimum is 15 years. The last line is the worst kicker her for my explanation, but they indicate they had calculated the enhancement guideline sentence and somebody who would or could calculate such a guideline period would know the minimums for these charges. 

It's not that I don't think Josh wouldn't be horrible, it's that I think if the government already had evidence that he had, it would be clear and not vague in the Denial Re: Hands/Feet document and I think if they had evidence he had produced CSAM, we would have seen the charge filed after the plea deal was turned down. The plea deal emails date back to March of this year, so they're not very new. 

WOCAB is also jumping the gun and not very carefully reading this documents either. Dropping these on a Friday makes sense for a publicized case because it slows down the journalists that would have time to comb through it properly. If somebody who can analyze it properly posts, that's one thing, but WOCAB is notoriously unreliable and full of misinformation. 

Edited by Antimony
  • Upvote 10
  • Thank You 23
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Antimony said:

Okay, I think everybody is jumping the gun because of legalese right now but to my reading of these raw files, the government is not claiming they have evidence of production at all. 

Re: Scar Quote;

Just says images, not CSAM images. Could be indicating just that this phone was used to take pictures of Josh that prove to us he has had the phone in his possession. Images of his coffee, etc. They do need to assert that it is Josh's phone he was using, because it contains data that backs up his presence at the car lot at the time of CSAM file downloads. Such a photo would be enough to make the hand images evidentiary (they physically tie him to being the one using this phone during this period) but not enough to bring a production charge. 

From Plea Deal Emails;

A sentence guideline for possession of CSAM with all enhancements is ~10 years. The minimum for production of CSAM is 15 years. There's no way the government would say, essentially, "if you do not accept the plea deal, we will bring charges of production against you which is 10 years" when they know the minimum is 15 years. The last line is the worst kicker her for my explanation, but they indicate they had calculated the enhancement guideline sentence and somebody who would or could calculate such a guideline period would know the minimums for these charges. 

It's not that I don't think Josh wouldn't be horrible, it's that I think if the government already had evidence that he had, it would be clear and not vague in the Denial Re: Hands/Feet document and I think if they had evidence he had produced CSAM, we would have seen the charge filed after the plea deal was turned down. The plea deal emails date back to March of this year, so they're not very new. 

WOCAB is also jumping the gun and not very carefully reading this documents either. Dropping these on a Friday makes sense for a publicized case because it slows down the journalists that would have time to comb through it properly. If somebody who can analyze it properly posts, that's one thing, but WOCAB is notoriously unreliable and full of misinformation. 

WOAQB jumping the gun is not shocking at all.  I appreciate your explanation of the legal stuff.  It makes me slightly less nauseous that it may not be as sick as it was sounding.  

Personally, I hope that he rejects the plea and this goes to court and his family (JB and Anna specifically) are forced to hear ALL the truth  and he gets the max sentence possible... but at least with a plea we know he will be behind bars so that is probably the best outcome.

Edited by Queen Of Hearts
  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I quit listening as it was becoming one long ramble. I’ll wait for the Law Nerd to dive into the new legal stuff. As she says ‘Facts not Fuckery’. 
If she covers it at all. Seems that Emily isn’t that into the Duggars

  • Upvote 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just saw this video on YouTube. It is shirt and does a good job of explaining that Josh is in deep doo doo. And doesn't have the editorializing that WOAQB has. 

 

  • Thank You 12
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gustava said:

I'm confused.  Has Josh been offered a plea?

Apparently he was offered a plea of around 10 years before the grand jury indictment

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • nelliebelle1197 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.