(Possible CSA Warning) Josh & Anna 36: Waiting for the Trial

[onekidanddone]

26 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

I think Joy has doubled down in the fundie lifestyle and I doubt she’d get involved to Josh’s detriment- I don’t think she’ll be acting as a character witness any time soon either. 
If the prosecution motion succeeds, that alone should make this turd plead guilty- having abused his sisters and others, they now have to relive having that abuse dragged up in court because of his appalling behaviour. They’ll cry persecution but this is squarely on Josh and his parents - his actions and the way they handled it and their gross neglect of the victims’ welfare.

Unless what I fear could happen is they the same things they did to Megan Kelly. 
It was just mild touching over clothes and they didn’t even know it happened. 
As if that proves he is innocent. 
 

[Idlewild]

7 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Unless what I fear could happen is they the same things they did to Megan Kelly. 
It was just mild touching over clothes and they didn’t even know it happened. 
As if that proves he is innocent. 
 

The court document is quite specific about the allegations it wants to adduce and says Josh made admissions to them. I’m not going to go into detail here but it’s in the documents. 

[BensAllergies]

What’s interesting is that it’s the same judge assigned to the Duggar women’s suit regarding the release of records that identified them as victims to the public. That trial starts December 9th.

[Mama Mia]

1 hour ago, onekidanddone said:

Unless what I fear could happen is they the same things they did to Megan Kelly. 
It was just mild touching over clothes and they didn’t even know it happened. 
As if that proves he is innocent. 
 

That was what happened with Jill and Jessa, and likely why they put them forward - while we all thought it was because they were the already married daughters - from the documents it appears that what happened to the other victim(s) was much worse than that. It also shows that despite getting caught the first time, his behavior not only continued but escalated, and focused on a target age that is the same age as the girls in the CSA videos.

Edited November 6, 2021 by Mama Mia

[FleeJanaFree]

To save someone else the rabbit trail of finding the correct document regarding the worse than touching over the clothes discussion: specifically, sexual contact of genitals and or anus. (Sexual

assault in the 2nd degree)
 

I hope he’s in jail the rest of his life. Those poor girls. 

[PinkGreyBrown]

The Duggar aversion to professional counseling means the 'counselors' they've used can't rely on confidentiality provisions to hide stuff now that they might get subpoenaed to court?

[Howl]

If his earlier sexual abuse is admissible at trial, stick a fork in Smuggar, he's done. 

2 hours ago, FleeJanaFree said:

To save someone else the rabbit trail of finding the correct document regarding the worse than touching over the clothes discussion: specifically, sexual contact of genitals and or anus. (Sexual assault in the 2nd degree)

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by Howl

[AussieKrissy]

On 11/6/2021 at 2:04 AM, Idlewild said:

I think he may eventually capitulate - it will be last minute amid much wailing of persecution and Satan and he’ll ask for sentencing to be after Christmas so he can host one last ugly sweater party.

Not if his not allowed near minors (other than his own)  isn’t changed. 

[marmalade]

No ugly sweater party for Smuggar this year. They usually have it in early December, which would coincide with his trial, presuming it lasts a couple of weeks. 

The Duggars will likely postpone any parties until after the trial or cancel them altogether if Smuggar is found guilty. Not that most of his siblings would care one way or another, but Boobchelle certainly have a lot at stake here. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by marmalade
Thought of a better word

[imokit]

@FleeJanaFree  Thank you for that, but at the same time I wish I hadn't seen.

 

Spoiler as trigger warning, I don't want people to see my discussion about what he did without warning.

Spoiler

I had naively assumed it was all just touching, horrific touching but OMFG.

I didn't realise there was penetration involved.

He should never have been allowed near children.  His parents should be charged with child neglect for not protecting their children from a known danger.  They knew, kept in the house and he did it again.

And JB & M trotting out the older two girls to say it was only touching and we dealt with it as a family just makes them even worse.  Even when pretending to be transparent they were still covering up his crimes and minimising them and using the girls to do so.  Thank heavens Jill has had proper therapy, I hope the others have had it too (though I would surprised if Jessa and Joy have, Jinger I could see having had it or not had it).

If their mishandling of it, gets Josh longer jail time, then that's the only saving grace in this.  But still not enough.  I'd rather Josh had less jail time, because it was a sealed juvie record but his sisters had been protected.

Arrgh!!!

 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

I don't see how his attorneys can think he has an actual shot at winning this.  And I don't see how Jim Bob could really believe a guilty verdict is somehow better than a guilty plea, when you consider that a plea would at least avoid an ugly trial.  There isn't any reasonable doubt here and guilty is guilty no matter how you get there.

I've always had the feeling the story involving the sisters was much worse than the Duggars portrayed.  I have the feeling it's even worse than we know now. Jim Bob and Michelle are unspeakably vile people for dragging the two older daughters into their (sadly successful) scheme to keep the show alive. I think we have a good sense of how Jill feels about the manipulation, but I do wonder if Jessa thinks the additional years of fame and money - most of which went to her father - were worth the whitewash she participated in. I understand she was a victim too, and still a young woman in a cult at the time of the Megyn Kelly interview, but I think I'd feel terrible about participating in that terrible circus.

[Jess]

8 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I don't see how his attorneys can think he has an actual shot at winning this.  And I don't see how Jim Bob could really believe a guilty verdict is somehow better than a guilty plea, when you consider that a plea would at least avoid an ugly trial.  There isn't any reasonable doubt here and guilty is guilty no matter how you get there.

I've always had the feeling the story involving the sisters was much worse than the Duggars portrayed.  I have the feeling it's even worse than we know now. Jim Bob and Michelle are unspeakably vile people for dragging the two older daughters into their (sadly successful) scheme to keep the show alive. I think we have a good sense of how Jill feels about the manipulation, but I do wonder if Jessa thinks the additional years of fame and money - most of which went to her father - were worth the whitewash she participated in. I understand she was a victim too, and still a young woman in a cult at the time of the Megyn Kelly interview, but I think I'd feel terrible about participating in that terrible circus.

I also have no idea how his attorneys think he is going to win. This is a clear case of should have taken the plea deal. I still think odds are high he pleads guilty when jury selection starts. 
 

As to Jim bob I get why he thinks this is a better plan for him not Josh. At the very least he can tell all his friends it was persecution blah blah blah. He isn’t doing the jail time. Also, he basically already has to financially support Josh forever so this gets him fewer M kids to support and Josh is off not being his problem for years. 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

1 minute ago, Jess said:

As to Jim bob I get why he thinks this is a better plan for him not Josh. At the very least he can tell all his friends it was persecution blah blah blah. He isn’t doing the jail time. Also, he basically already has to financially support Josh forever so this gets him fewer M kids to support and Josh is off not being his problem for years. 

You could be right, although I can't get into that creep's head. At the end of the day though, I think the attorneys are going to sit Josh down and tell him they strongly recommend he not go forward with a trial. They don't want to lose a high profile trial, and he still may get a better deal with a plea. His attorneys collected a ton of money from JB through the process, and have done as good a job as possible but they've lost at nearly every turn and he has no defenses.  Literally, not a single one.  Josh is only going to need commissary money for years to come, so JB's hold on him may drop considerably when he's faced with the final decision.  He can still claim persecution when taking a plea "in the best interests of his family".   

I'll be surprised if there is a trial.  Not shocked, because these people don't live in the real world, but a little surprised. 

 

[mpheels]

One rationale for going to trial could be the chance for appeal. If Josh pleads guilty at this point, after his $$ team has thrown everything they can think of at the case, he won’t have any grounds for appeal (as opposed to a defendant who takes a bad plea deal, and appeals on grounds that their representation was incompetent). If he goes to trial and is convicted, the team can keep trying every avenue for appeal.

I do think one deciding factor will be how the prosecutors decide to approach the prior history of molestation. Who are they going to call as a witness and how much damage will it cause for JB? I honestly don’t think they would put Joy on the stand - she was too young at the time and her testimony now wouldn’t be reliable. I could see them calling Jill - she’s the one who “tattled” about what Josh did to Joy, and I believe was interviewed as part of the police report? They could put her on the stand and just have her read her comments from the report. She was old enough at the time to be a reliable witness, and reading the report avoids concerns about poor recollection or any bias from the discord that has since developed with her family. It would probably be the end of any relationship she has with her parents, but I suspect she can (re)build a relationship with siblings who are already drifting away (and will drift faster/further as JB’s influence and money fade).

[BensAllergies]

JB&M attempted to minimize the crime by saying it was over clothing, but the law itself doesn’t differentiate between touching over or under clothes. I’ll put this quote from the #68 document in the spoiler due to the content warning. It’s the definition of what sexual assault in the second degree is as it’s codified in Arkansas state law.

Spoiler

Under Arkansas law, an individual is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree if that person engages in sexual contact—defined in pertinent part as “[a]n act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through the clothing, of the sex organs, buttocks, or anus or the breast of a female,” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(11)—with another person who is less than fourteen years of age and not the person’s spouse. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125(5)(A).

 

[Idlewild]

The prosecution states that Josh admitted the abuse and received counselling for it- to me that means they want to introduce evidence of that admission, rather than calling the victims of the abuse as witnesses- which really would be so unfair on those women.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

2 hours ago, Idlewild said:

The prosecution states that Josh admitted the abuse and received counselling for it- to me that means they want to introduce evidence of that admission, rather than calling the victims of the abuse as witnesses- which really would be so unfair on those women.

The prosecution is asking to use the information in a limited situation, that being if Josh tries to "argue at trial that he was not the individual who used his computer to download child sexual abuse material and is not interested in such material, placing his own interest in and motivations for downloading child pornography squarely at issue".

My emphasis. They're trying to take away the only argument Josh can use - "It could not have been me, I have no such interests and only a person with such interests would download that material".  Emily D. Baker, YouTube attorney, thinks the court will allow this as the prosecution is only asking to use the information if Josh tries to claim he's never had such interests, even though there is evidence that refutes this. Otherwise, bringing up something that he was never charged with would not be allowed. If the judge rules in the prosecution's favor (it's apparently not a slam dunk by any means), Josh's attorney would probably not want to go with "My client is an upstanding individual who has never shown any such interest in young children....." Further minimizing, if not finally eliminating what defense arguments Josh might raise.

It seems like a tactic being used by the prosecution to force Josh into a corner and possibly make him decide to plead guilty. If successful, they probably won't have to use the information, because Josh's attorney won't go there in the first place. So I don't think they are thinking about actual witnesses, although the implied threat would be there, also giving Jim Bob something to think about.

[Idlewild]

I really think JB is done thinking about it now- he’s tried his best by doing what he knows, ignoring it, throwing money at it and distracting with other ways to show what an awesome parent he is.
He is probably resigned to the fact Josh is going to prison and he will have to support Anna and the children indefinitely and he’s bored with it. He likes it when people are praising him and giving him money and privileges to listen to his drivel and where are hypocritical grifters welcomed ? Republican politics! 

[Antimony]

5 hours ago, mpheels said:

One rationale for going to trial could be the chance for appeal. If Josh pleads guilty at this point, after his $$ team has thrown everything they can think of at the case, he won’t have any grounds for appeal (as opposed to a defendant who takes a bad plea deal, and appeals on grounds that their representation was incompetent). If he goes to trial and is convicted, the team can keep trying every avenue for appeal.

This is correct, in my opinion. Taking a guilty plea is very rarely the correct option and only usually the correct option if you have no money to burn. This, apparently, despite some staggering estimates of the lawyers fees, not a concern for Camp Duggar and pleading guilty complicates making an appeal. Taking a plea when you can afford not to is not usually a sound decision and prosecutors are notorious for trying to pressure plea deals to people who shouldn't take them. (I think Josh should, but that doesn't change the overall habits of the legal landscape we live in.) 

Josh's lawyers may have told him the chances of winning are slim but it may not matter -- if you're famous, the point of a trial might be to cast as much doubt on the accusations as possible. Muck it all up and make it harder to follow than a guilty plea would be. It's a risky move because of discovery but it's certainly worked before for people who were already famous (OJ, I'm ignoring here that his trial also got him off -- the opinion shift on OJ has been profound in the past 20 years) or people who became famous as a result of their trial.

I am also really curious about who could or would be subpoenaed from Josh's past because they don't have medical confidentiality rights, I suspect, at Jesus camp. 

[DaysAgo]

Go to about minute 48 to hear new information about Josh's past molestations. It wasn't just over the clothes touching as his dad Jim Bob Duggar claimed.

https://old.reddit.com/r/DuggarsSnark/comments/qnnpc6/emily_baker_law_nerd_doing_live_tonight/

[Dandruff]

5 hours ago, BensAllergies said:

JB&M attempted to minimize the crime by saying it was over clothing, but the law itself doesn’t differentiate between touching over or under clothes.

Then they took the TV show offer and claimed it was a ministry.  Now he's running for office.  If the voters don't say no, then why would he stop?

[Bad Wolf]

If he's found not guilty (God forbid), there would be no restrictions on him. That is a terrifying thought.

[ifosterkittens]

I understand going to trial so you have the appeal option later on. If Josh goes to trial and is found guilty every single time they try to appeal it will be covered by the news. Josh Duggar oldest son of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar from 19 kids and Counting was found guilty of possessing CSAM in 2021. In 2015 it came to light he had "inappropriately touched" four of his sisters when they were children. Josh Duggar is appealing X bringing it back to the public eye. It doesn't appear the defense has a leg to stand on like the Cosby defense team did. Yes, I believe Cosby is guilty, but based on Emily D Baker's coverage I understand why the state supreme court ruling went the way it did. 

6 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

His attorneys collected a ton of money from JB through the process, and have done as good a job as possible but they've lost at nearly every turn and he has no defenses.  Literally, not a single one.

Exactly! All of Josh's statements, all of the evidence from the search are coming in. The evidence is really freaking bad. When the law enforcement officer says in his past decade of working these cases Josh's CSAM is in the top five worst he's seen that to me is damning. (No that comment won't be allowed at trial, but come on I think it paints a picture). Plus they have Josh using his cell phone, that is geo tagged to the car lot within minutes of him downloading the CSAM on the computer at the car lot. What defense can Josh use? If the judge grants the governments newest motions and are allowed to introduce Josh's acts against his sisters IF his lawyers try to claim it wasn't Josh and he has no interest in such material. Josh is used to daddy making his problems go away, and this time I hope that doesn't work. 

[Mama Mia]

6 hours ago, BensAllergies said:

JB&M attempted to minimize the crime by saying it was over clothing, but the law itself doesn’t differentiate between touching over or under clothes. I’ll put this quote from the #68 document in the spoiler due to the content warning. It’s the definition of what sexual assault in the second degree is as it’s codified in Arkansas state law.

  Reveal hidden contents

Under Arkansas law, an individual is guilty of sexual assault in the second degree if that person engages in sexual contact—defined in pertinent part as “[a]n act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through the clothing, of the sex organs, buttocks, or anus or the breast of a female,” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(11)—with another person who is less than fourteen years of age and not the person’s spouse. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125(5)(A).

 

Right, but they go on to specify acts, and ages, that don’t correlate with Jill and Jessa’s descriptions. And use those acts as the proof of prior interest in the particular CSA materials that were downloaded.

[Dandruff]

16 minutes ago, ifosterkittens said:

What defense can Josh use?

I can't think of a defense but I do expect the Rebers to attest to what a well-behaved, respectful, and obedient pest they've been harboring.  Doesn't Mr. Reber have work experience in the prison system?  If so, could a positive spin on Josh help him in some way?