(CW: Possible CSA) Josh & Anna 37: Saving the Cocktail Dresses for Court

[nokidsmom]

37 minutes ago, nolongerIFBx said:

I think because they did actually believe at first it was "just" curiosity. Like playing doctor or I'll show you mine if you show me yours. (They didn't take into account that both of those scenarios are consensual.) Even on FJ, we discussed that he was still young enough that he did not fit the definition of a pedophile because  of his age. Bobye came to realize that it was a good deal more than they thought/were told. Three years is beyond "just curious."

I agree and I can see why Bobye might had taken it as "being curious" and perhaps by giving him another chance she unwittingly gave herself the chance to see it was way more than that.  Still it gets me she was still hoping that he would get together with her own daughter.  Even if she was convinced it was simple curiosity it seems to me that it should give her pause when it came to her daughter IMHO.   Oh well, the main thing is that she finally got it and her daughter avoided Anna's fate. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by nokidsmom

[feministxtian]

HOLY SHIT!!!! JB must be pooping his pants now. All his hubris and posturing and attempting to be the "alpha male" got him nada. I would not want to be anywhere near him or Meeechelle right now. For all their "aw shucks" and smiling, I wouldn't doubt both of them have awful tempers and have no problem taking it out on the kids. 

[Howl]

22 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

Question for US lawyers/ legal people. Does the defence have to outline its defence? In England for a crown court trial, the defence has to submit a defence statement pre trial saying what evidence they take issue with etc.

 

Not a lawyer or legal person, but a quick search brought up the Brady doctrine (also called Brady rule or Brady disclosure) in US law: The Brady doctrine is a pretrial discovery rule that was established by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland (1963). The rule requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a criminal case. Exculpatory evidence is evidence that might exonerate the defendant.

WIKI: Brady disclosure 

There was a fairly famous case in my area where an innocent man, Michael Morton,  spent 25 years in prison for the murder of his wife because the District Attorney withheld potentially exculpatory evidence.  The real killer  went on to murder another woman; the District Attorney ultimately spent five DAYS in jail and lost his law license. 

[punkiepie]

I love this footnote from the order:

”Jim Bob Duggar testified clearly that there were only three leaders of their church in 2002 and 2003: himself, Mr. Holt, and another man named Clark Wilson. Later in his testimony, Mr. Duggar claimed that his wife and Mrs. Holt could be thought of as “joint elders” of the church, simply because they were married to elders and would “help with special things.” The Court rejects this testimony as self-serving, contradictory, and lacking in credibility.”

Super trustworthy there, Jim Bob!  Maybe I’m reading snark into it, but I feel like the judge was being a little snarky and I’m here for it!

[Integriste]

1 hour ago, Alisamer said:

Maybe more info will come out in the trial - he can't have just been plain old fundie Josh Duggar and suddenly just known how to access this nastiness. How did he figure it out? He had to have learned somewhere. And if he'd been googling it or on an email list or communicating with other offenders online surely Covenant Eyes would have caught part of it. 

There's a step missing that hasn't been talked about yet. Josh is a tool but he's not a sharp one, yet he somehow figured all this out on his own with nobody explaining anything to him and was able to access and download part of one of the most notorious CSA videos ever made? 

I don't buy it. He learned how to get this stuff from somebody or some place. He had to have known where to look, how to access it, etc. Hopefully part of the purpose of this trial is also to help find out how he managed all this, and who else is involved. Josh Duggar is a small fish, but hopefully he'll lead the police to bigger fish. 

 

I don’t think you actually have to be a very sharp tool to understand most of the technical things involved. Justin from “I pray you put this journal away” says Josh understood Linux partitions and security filters as an early teen.  Other people I know who are into technology confirm that this stuff is pretty basic.  Now - finding the actual CSA files is a different story…. you have to know where to look for those.  

[onekidanddone]

27 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

Always thought Joy and Austin were fairly independent, as Austin came into their marriage with some skills and Joy works with him.  I actually worried when Derick quit Walmart as I feared both he and Jill would become too dependent on JB but that obviously changed.

The ones that I thought were pretty doomed to dependence on JB were Jessa and Ben.   They were dependent from the start and Ben has not done anything to reverse that unlike Derick.   The Vuolos, now them I can't quite put a finger on.   They have a pricey lifestyle while Jeremy is doing theological studies and the married theology students with families that I knew were certainly not living pricey lifestyles like these two are.  Their attempts at building their brand / influencing etc. seems to fall flat, money has to be coming in from somewhere.   On one hand, it seems the source would be JB but at the same time Jinger/Jeremy seem to keep their distance.  So often the price to pay for "economic outpatient care" from a parent is more involvement so not sure if the money might be from Jeremy's earnings when he was professionally playing soccer or some other source.  OTOH,  They were able to buy their home in Laredo and it seemed independent of any JB involvement.    I can certainly see control freak JB demanding more from them if he was subsidizing their lifestyle, even if partly.   

ETA: Then again, I always got the vibe that Jeremy really doesn't like JB, tolerates him probably for Jinger's sake but no way would want to be beholden to him.  Actually I think that from the start Jeremy had JB's number.   

I always thought Derick might quit Walmart because JimBlob told he had to because his working there didn’t fit JB’s vision for the show 

Edited December 1, 2021 by onekidanddone

[EmCatlyn]

Aside from the ruling itself, which made me dance with joy, my favorite part of the judge’s decision was his characterization of Jim Bob’s testimony.  

 “The court found Mr. Duggar’s selective lapses of memory not credible.”

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by EmCatlyn
Trying to put image under spoiler

[Laura2730]

1 minute ago, EmCatlyn said:

Aside from the ruling itself, which made me dance with joy, my favorite part of the judge’s decision was his characterization of Jim Bob’s testimony.  

This part 'The Court found Mr. Duggar’s selective lapse in memory to be not credible; he was obviously reluctant to testify against his son.'

[Howl]

  

17 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Aside from the ruling itself, which made me dance with joy, my favorite part of the judge’s decision was his characterization of Jim Bob’s testimony.  

 “The court found Mr. Duggar’s selective lapses of memory not credible.”

This is not the judge's first "Gosh, I just can't remember/I don't recall" rodeo. 

I thought "the defendant's father, Jim Bob" was a bit of a sly dig.  They didn't grant him the dignity of identifying him with his full name. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by Howl

[feministxtian]

13 minutes ago, Laura2730 said:

This part 'The Court found Mr. Duggar’s selective lapse in memory to be not credible; he was obviously reluctant to testify against his son.'

That's "Judgese" for "Mr. Duggar is a lying sack of shit and I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue". Like, no shit dude!

[Knight of Ni]

He can ask for a plea all he wants but it would up to the prosecution or judge on if it's accepted. One of the defendants in the Arbery case asked for a plea in the middle of the trial and it was rejected. 

[nokidsmom]

29 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Aside from the ruling itself, which made me dance with joy, my favorite part of the judge’s decision was his characterization of Jim Bob’s testimony.  

 “The court found Mr. Duggar’s selective lapses of memory not credible.”

I honestly was amazed at JB's vague and rather arrogant testimony.   I know I shouldn't have been surprised but honestly how can you claim not remembering own kid abusing your other kids and something as serious as molestation?    

Seems JB is really that arrogant and doesn't understand how the real work works.   I would think that so many situations with his son he might have understood that his son's errant behavior is a really big deal, they are crimes, not something that can be prayed away, go to Jesus Jail, just blow it off, just say you don't remember and everyone will believe you because you're JB.   This obviously is OK in the Duggar's bubble but they are not OK in the real world.   And this trial is as real world as you can get.

33 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

I always thought Derick might quit Walmart because JimBlob told he had to because his working there didn’t fit JB’s vision for the show 

When I heard of Derick leaving Walmart one possibility that floated through my head was that he quit because he couldn't work there and be available for filming.   And given "Duggar time" there would be no allowance for his work schedule.   There's no understanding of what it takes to work a real job.   The filming would be a priority and if there was a conflict no doubt the job would have to go.  But I agree that working a normal job wouldn't fit in JB's vision for the show, for the brand, hell, why should it, not working a regular job has worked for him, so Derick's job was dispensable in his mind.

Edited December 1, 2021 by nokidsmom

[JermajestyDuggar]

I think he will be convicted. However I’m very afraid a juror or two will feel sorry for him and give him a light sentence. 

[nokidsmom]

10 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

That's "Judgese" for "Mr. Duggar is a lying sack of shit and I wouldn't believe him if he told me the sky was blue". Like, no shit dude!

Or as one of my friends used to say about a lying relative "she's told so many fibs that if she said it was raining, I would have to go outside and check".

[karenb4729]

2 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think he will be convicted. However I’m very afraid a juror or two will feel sorry for him and give him a light sentence. 

Is it up to the jury to sentence? Or is it up to the judge to pronounce sentence? I'm not sure how federal court works. 

 

[Laura2730]

4 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think he will be convicted. However I’m very afraid a juror or two will feel sorry for him and give him a light sentence. 

I didn't think it was the jury that decide sentencing. They only decide whether the D is guilty or not guilty of each charge. Based on that the judge then will hold a sentencing hearing outlining how many years + fines D will get.

1 minute ago, karenb4729 said:

Is it up to the jury to sentence? Or is it up to the judge to pronounce sentence? I'm not sure how federal court works. 

 

Judge not jury decides sentencing.

[Not that josh's mom]

11 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think he will be convicted. However I’m very afraid a juror or two will feel sorry for him and give him a light sentence. 

Is the sentence up to the jury or the judge? I thought it was the judge.

Wow, you're fast Laura2730!   Thank you!

Edited December 1, 2021 by Not that josh's mom

[nokidsmom]

Just now, Laura2730 said:

I didn't think it was the jury that decide sentencing. They only decide whether the D is guilty or not guilty of each charge. Based on that the judge then will hold a sentencing hearing outlining how many years + fines D will get.

I could be wrong on this but usually when I have heard of jury determining sentencing was in death sentence cases.  There's the trial phase and the sentencing phase.  There could be other situations where this happens; perhaps other legal eagle FJer's can clarify.   

[sixcatatty]

2 hours ago, sndral said:

Depositions happen in civil cases as part of discovery, they are very rare in criminal cases (see Federal criminal procedure rule 15.) The US attorneys have most likely spoken with all of their witnesses including Jill. There is a Federal Victim Assistance program that would support vulnerable victims & witnesses including among other services accompanying them to court.

I’m curious how the Judge will rule on the prosecution’s motion to admit Josh’s prior bad acts since, unlike traditional Rule 404 type evidence, Rule 414(a) - applicable only in child molestation cases - clearly allows introduction of “[t]he defendant’s commission of another offense or offenses of child molestation…[which] may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant.”

Typically when 404 evidence comes in there’s a jury instruction advising the jury that the evidence is only relevant to the specific reason it came in, the broad language of 414 suggests to me that if the evidence comes in there’ll be no need for a limiting jury instruction.

There's a movement here in Kentucky to enact our own version of Rule 414(a). It--and our version--are awfully broad and the case law surrounding pro-admission of the evidence.

[somanybooks]

Hey Jim Bob, welcome to 21st century America where, unlike in Bible times, a woman’s testimony is sufficient.

[tsukinokawa]

sorry if this has been posted before but here is observe ( who is youtuber who specializes in body language) has posted video where he analyzes Josh's body language from some old clips. 

he is actually roasting Josh a lot but I was more surprised how he said that Anna's body language during the proposal was anything but joyful. 

[Alisamer]

2 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

I could be wrong on this but usually when I have heard of jury determining sentencing was in death sentence cases.  There's the trial phase and the sentencing phase.  There could be other situations where this happens; perhaps other legal eagle FJer's can clarify.   

I think it's in the end up the judge - I think even in cases with jury sentencing they only make recommendations and the judge doesn't have to follow those. 

[arareyeah]

28 minutes ago, Integriste said:

I don’t think you actually have to be a very sharp tool to understand most of the technical things involved. Justin from “I pray you put this journal away” says Josh understood Linux partitions and security filters as an early teen.  Other people I know who are into technology confirm that this stuff is pretty basic.  Now - finding the actual CSA files is a different story…. you have to know where to look for those.  

Okay I'm the same age with Smuggar. Back in 2005, when I started college, I vividly remember that I stumbled into a blog while looking for something and the ad banner was, I KID YOU NOT, CSA video. At first I didn't notice it because I thought it was regular porn ad (which is pretty common at the time I guess?) so I pay it no mind until I realized something is really really wrong with the size of the girl involved in the video. Immediately closed the site and puked.

If Smuggar as an early teen already knows about Linux partitions and stuff, could it be he's been looking at CSA since then because it was easier to get, in contact with fellow creeps in some sort of forum for years, and this time he already knew what and where to look for it?

[Giraffe]

With the judge allowing his prior allegations I'm starting to feel hopeful he'll actually be convicted. I'm with others who think it will a light sentence though. 

[FiveAcres]

14 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

I think he will be convicted. However I’m very afraid a juror or two will feel sorry for him and give him a light sentence. 

I believe (IANAL) that in Federal cases, the judge determines the sentence. However, there are very strict guidelines that the judge has to follow depending on the crime and additional factors.