Jump to content
IGNORED

(Possible CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 35: Embattled in Spiritual Warfare!


nelliebelle1197

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Antimony said:

The full transcript for the bond hearing has been released and there are further details. Many are very, very upsetting so I think holding onto the CW/TW was a good option. The reddit has a scrubbed summary. We learned further that Josh is really bad at covering his tracks. 

Notably, in between file downloads (!?!? he's so casual in this timeline), he leaves a reviewer for a contractor under the name "Joshua". He also bookmarked a webpage about TOR. The previous summaries we had were pretty detailed, but the transcript just makes the government's case seem stronger than we already knew. 

He really thought he was untouchable, didn’t he? Maybe he will take a plea deal , but I suspect he won’t. Reality is going to hit him hard. 

  • Upvote 13
  • I Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, formergothardite said:

He really thought he was untouchable, didn’t he? Maybe he will take a plea deal , but I suspect he won’t. Reality is going to hit him hard. 

He definitely thinks he was untouchable.  What he originally did was swept under the rug. He probably thought this was going to be also. 

Edited by Jana814
  • Upvote 10
  • I Agree 7
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mela99 said:


I’m still hoping for Miranda Warning Duggar

This made me spit my coffee out........loolololol

  • Upvote 6
  • Haha 1
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fundiewatch said:

I’m so bad at Reddit or finding things. Where is the transcript?

The Showbiz Cheat Sheet (thanks @duggerme!) contains a link to the reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DuggarsSnark/comments/pw6yv2/nuggetsofchicken_reacts_to_defenses_response_to/

And the reddit contains a link to a dropbox of defense motions.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/96triyvd2ng77un/AAAX9lqR93dlgUuGZ33MCqRba?dl=0

  • Thank You 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Miranda Warning Duggar.

Mercy Me Duggar.

Minimum Security Duggar.

Maximum Security Duggar.

Mommy Get Me Out of Here Duggar...

  • Upvote 9
  • Haha 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

Miranda Warning Duggar.

Mercy Me Duggar.

Minimum Security Duggar.

Maximum Security Duggar.

Mommy Get Me Out of Here Duggar...

Ooooh, those are good, but I'm hoping for "Maximum Sentence Duggar"!

  • Upvote 16
  • Rufus Bless 2
  • Haha 4
  • I Agree 5
  • Love 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, formergothardite said:

He really thought he was untouchable, didn’t he? Maybe he will take a plea deal , but I suspect he won’t. Reality is going to hit him hard. 

You know, I really think he was and I really believe he felt that the effort he made into covering his tracks was enough. I won't detail it too much here because it tends to upset folks, but you can even tell from how the detectives speak that this is insufficient coverage and the people who ICAC taskforces track and hunt for years have done way more to cover up their tracks. I really think Josh thought a Linux partition and a TOR browser would be enough, he probably leaned back after bookmarking the "TOR 101 For Dumb Idiot Asshole Golden Boys" (I'm editorializing...) and felt really safe about it. I'm sure no case in the field is routine, but from the transcript, I get the feel that this is kind of an easy-catch and common-behavior case for them. The detective describes the behavior as "extremely common [among offenders]" even. 

I also feel like that the defense/Duggar camp originally asserting that other family members used the Mac devices was a misstep/useless in the defense. The only device used to commit the downloads was the HP Desktop. The availability of the Mac devices, and the general use of the Cloud to sync Mac devices, indicates to me that Josh chose to use the HP Desktop because he was aware that he could get caught otherwise (more) easily. On the other hand, the desktop isn't a cloud-synced device the way an Apple device can be (and commonly is), and is much less accessible to his family. This is all conjecture, but the details of the transcript make the "other family members use my apple account" excuse look even stupider (and the bar was low). 

I'm gonna put the rest under a spoiler cause it's icky (CW: websites, general CSAM warning, rape, sexual assault);

Spoiler

Speaking out my ass as a non-legal non-professional non-expert, I think the evidence the government has also will show that there is no defense for "it was a in a batch download of other materials". This has happened to innocent people on bittorrents before (apparently, supposedly), and has become a common defense. However, the Government's testimony claims that "the computer" (Josh) accessed specific (known) websites on the Dark Web associated with rape and CSAM using the TOR browser. This isn't "I was pirating a movie and somebody seeded a file into the batch that I only knew after unzipping" at all. It's also worth noting that the use and proof that he accessed these sites is proof of intent and awareness because the Dark Web, unlike the Regular Web, isn't indexed by search engines as we are familiar with them. You have to be aware of what you're trying to find and set out to find it. It really throws out a "monkey on the typewriter" kind of defense. 

Again, all I understand about this is through reporting, journalism, true crime, etc. I spend most of my day doing boring and repetitive tasks at a lab bench and I go through podcasts and audiobooks like crazy, but some stuff could still be wrong. Anyway, when this news first broke I listened to every podcast I could deep diving this so I could be ready to understand the documents that would come. I have complex mixed opinions about the True Crime Entertainment Industry but I'll say, at least for cases like this, people really share some important information that is otherwise very confusing. 

 

  • Upvote 28
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the transcript, skipping over the CSAM descriptions, and my non-legal self agrees with the assessment that the case seems pretty straightforward.

Like @Antimony said, the argument that family members could use the iPhone or MacBook is irrelevant because the CSAM is on the HP desktop.

The argument that the IP address is associated with a business with public WiFi that customers could use is irrelevant because it doesn’t explain how the CSAM ended up on the desktop. It also doesn’t explain how the exact two files that the ICAC-affiliated agent downloaded from the peer-to-peer network connected to that IP address were found on that desktop.

The argument that the HP desktop was a business computer is irrelevant because the CSAM was found on a Linux partition that was password-protected. And while the password to the desktop was known to employees, the password for the partitioned side had to be hacked as there was no Post-It on the desk with that password on it. The partitioned side password is the one used on Josh’s personal accounts for years and has his birth year in it.

The argument that the ICAC agents didn’t literally see Josh sit behind the keyboard and download the files is irrelevant because they have time stamps of when the files were downloaded that fall within timeframes in which he texted Anna to say he was at the lot, in which he took pictures using the iPhone that can be geolocated to the office, and in which someone posted a review on a website from the desktop using the name Joshua.

The government asked the defense whether they plan to argue that he has an alibi. I wonder if that’s partly because the government plans to use the iPhone photo geolocations, and the defense has previously said that family members use the iPhone too.

  • Upvote 14
  • Thank You 7
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend texted me but did you guys see this rumor that Anna is going to be a witness for the defense to give the turd an alibi? I sincerely hope it’s not true. I said it to her and I’ll say it again, pregnancy or a newborn will NOT keep you out of jail for perjury on a federal case.

  • Upvote 9
  • Disgust 4
  • Rufus Bless 3
  • WTF 3
  • I Agree 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Four is Enough said:

Miranda Warning Duggar.

Mercy Me Duggar.

Minimum Security Duggar.

Maximum Security Duggar.

Mommy Get Me Out of Here Duggar...

Malfeasance Mommy's-Girl Duggar

20 minutes ago, Mela99 said:

A friend texted me but did you guys see this rumor that Anna is going to be a witness for the defense to give the turd an alibi? I sincerely hope it’s not true. I said it to her and I’ll say it again, pregnancy or a newborn will NOT keep you out of jail for perjury on a federal case.

Where did you see this rumor?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motion Denied Duggar. 
Member of the Jury Duggar. 
 

  • Upvote 5
  • Haha 6
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dandruff said:

Where did you see this rumor?

One of the trashy tabloids made it up from the prosecution requesting alibi information.  

  • Upvote 7
  • Thank You 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coconut Flan said:

One of the trashy tabloids made it up from the prosecution requesting alibi information.  

They probably watched WOACB, who made a video wondering if Anna and/or JB/Michelle would testify. She concluded that they wouldn't. Duh.

  • Eyeroll 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anna may or may not testify for the turd but I don’t see Michelle doing so. This is not because she cares about the truth- her actions over the years show that she and JB are prepared to lie (‘ investigation? What investigation? We see no investigation’), but rather that they are on track to restore the Duggar Brand v2. From their statement about Josh, it’s clear they still  think they are awesome parents and can provide godly counsel to others, for a fee plus expenses.

Taking the younger children on an extended trip during the court hearings was not so much to protect the children as protect themselves - wholesome activities with a cluster of younger children is what brought them fame in the first place and JB is arrogant enough to think he can do it again.

There is a significant risk that Josh will be found guilty and all the terrible details become known- in which case Michelle becomes the woman who lied to protect a man who enjoys watching children being abused. The mother of the year committee are not going to be knocking on the door anytime soon. By placing a subtle yet tangible distance, JB & M no doubt think they can use this as leverage for appearances- some tear dabbing speeches and interviews- and knowing the humpers, they’re probably right.

  • Upvote 12
  • I Agree 6
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a legal point of view, is it "enough" that they know Josh was at the car lot at the time it was downloaded, and it was his password? Could his defence not say that someone else knew Josh' password and downloaded it while he was there? 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SorenaJ said:

From a legal point of view, is it "enough" that they know Josh was at the car lot at the time it was downloaded, and it was his password? Could his defence not s that someone else knew Josh' password and downloaded it while he was there? 

From what I can tell they can also prove no other employees were clocked in and he was texting Anna that he was at the car lot working late. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a person in the legal field who did a Reddit AMA, and they said there are wives who will take the stand to testify about their husband’s character even in cases like these. I could definitely see Anna wanting to be a witness to the sentencing judge if Josh is found guilty by trial.

The person also estimated that a very high % of CSA cases are resolved through pleas. Very, very few go to trial.

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

3 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

From a legal point of view, is it "enough" that they know Josh was at the car lot at the time it was downloaded, and it was his password? Could his defence not say that someone else knew Josh' password and downloaded it while he was there? 

This is why they're so focused on the texts he sent to Anna, photos he took, the payroll, and the fact that he left a review for a contractor mid-download. (Which continues to shock me.) 

I am honestly unsure what would happen in a case of a truly shared device at like a library or office. Probably would be way more complicated and we've already seen a lot of detail work put it in to proving he was the one who did it. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Anna will take the stand. She probably going to try & tell the judge that’s he’s a wonderful husband & father. 
 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Disgust 3
  • Rufus Bless 2
  • WTF 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Anna will take the stand. She probably going to try & tell the judge that’s he’s a wonderful husband & father. 
 
 
 

The good thing about that though is legally if the defense decides to open the door and bring in a character witness the prosecution can now do the same.
I think Anna will take the stand. She probably going to try & tell the judge that’s he’s a wonderful husband & father. 
 
 
 

The good thing about that though is legally if the defense decides to open the door and bring in a character witness the prosecution can now do the same.
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anna isn’t (AFAIK) a witness to the facts- she could only be a character witness. And then what could she say - he’s never downloaded child abuse material in my presence- to paraphrase a comment from an infamous British trial , well he wouldn’t, would he? 
She’d be open to cross examination about any other glowing reference - how did you learn about the abuse of girls when he was a teenager? How did you find out about his use of pornography and sex workers? 

  • Upvote 18
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Idlewild said:

Anna isn’t (AFAIK) a witness to the facts- she could only be a character witness. And then what could she say - he’s never downloaded child abuse material in my presence- to paraphrase a comment from an infamous British trial , well he wouldn’t, would he? 
She’d be open to cross examination about any other glowing reference - how did you learn about the abuse of girls when he was a teenager? How did you find out about his use of pornography and sex workers? 

Character Witness for Josh Duggar, what an oxymoron. Rufus bless us all!

  • Upvote 10
  • Rufus Bless 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was debate on the topic title and warnings. I appreciate how it was handled, warning but not explicit. I usually head into any comments on the Josh topic figuring that there is something nasty happening. It's his life. Mention Josh and it usually is bad. But thanks for handling the topic and warnings well.

  • Upvote 8
  • I Agree 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been guessing this name for the past 2 (?) M babies so I will stick with it:

Money Redemption Duggar 

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Coconut Flan 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.