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

[sixcatatty]

2 hours ago, church_of_dog said:

I have an awkward question -- awkward because I don't want to be seen as defending Josh, and also awkward because I don't want to suggest that anyone here would know the answer to this, although some of you in the legal world may have some knowledge from past CSAM cases.

My question is this:  would a person have an opportunity to view the actual content of the CSAM before deciding to download it?  Or would they only see perhaps a title and maybe a description before choosing which files to download?

I'm stuck on the apparent violence in the video and can't imagine someone  -- even a pedophile -- intentionally choosing it, although obviously some people have done so.

The "titles" may give some idea of what the picture/video contain. The expert from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children who testified in my trial said the trading that occurs on the dark web is where folk who want to download it get an idea of whether it's the type they want.

[nokidsmom]

4 minutes ago, Giraffe said:

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. 

At this point, I would be very surprised if he's not convicted.   However, things certainly have started out on the wrong foot as far as the defense is concerned and obviously JB didn't help at all.    I wonder if things continue to go south with this trial, that Josh might not get a light sentence because it will be clear he's one sick dude who needs to be put away.  Might not get maximum but they might not go easy on him either.

[Bassett Lady]

55 minutes ago, punkiepie said:

The Court rejects this testimony as self-serving, contradictory, and lacking in credibility.”

Well, that sums up Jim Bob Duggar’s testimony pretty well, but also Works as a description of him as a human being in general. 
 

I am really starting to like this judge. 

[Insertwittiernamehere]

Quick question as I'm not in the US so not familiar with federal cases- Do all the jury members have to find him guilty or just a majority of them for him to be convicted?

[MomJeans]

1 hour 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.

 

I don't think so.  Full disclosure- I never did Federal criminal cases, but my state followed most of the same rules, and we did not have to dispute evidence prior to the trial.  

Though I don't recommend it, the defense can even change tactics and strategies during trial, but you are limited to your evidence and witness lists which are exchanged prior to trial.  The prosecution is pinned down, not the defense.  

What will be more interesting today is that typically in opening statements the defense attorney will tell the jury what he/she is going to do to defeat the prosecution's accusations.  Typically this is where we get to hear a summary of what the defense strategy will be.

 

Edited December 1, 2021 by MomJeans
typo

[Alisamer]

13 minutes ago, Insertwittiernamehere said:

Quick question as I'm not in the US so not familiar with federal cases- Do all the jury members have to find him guilty or just a majority of them for him to be convicted?

In the US it has to be a unanimous verdict or it's considered a "hung jury" and there has to be a retrial. That's my understanding, anyway.

[nokidsmom]

42 minutes ago, Howl said:

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. 

Yeah, saying James Robert might have blunted the impact a little bit.  

I have been long of the opinion that the Duggars are not not that popular in their neck of the woods at least amongst the general population.   They either are not known in spite of their reality show fame because people don't care or if known not everyone believes / agrees / identifies with the family in general.   And I think they have pissed off their share of folks which incidentally is why Joshley's molestations came to national attention in the first place.  J'chelle must really regret making that robocall. 

I know judges are supposed to be impartial but since Jim Bob does go by Jim Bob, well why not go with his more widely known name and get in a subtle dig at the same time?  

[karenb4729]

Part of the opening statement from the prosecutors

"You're going to see images of children, some as young as seven. These children are being sexually assaulted, violated, and exploited," the prosecution said aloud, according to a Sun reporter in court.

"We ask that you hold him accountable," the prosecution continued after speaking of the charges the former television star is facing.

I wonder if that will have any impact on Anna if she sees all that in court.  She may not fully understand what CSA is but she will after all is said and done.  

 

 

 

[Bassett Lady]

1 minute ago, nokidsmom said:

I know judges are supposed to be impartial but since Jim Bob does go by Jim Bob

I think the “dig” is that he was not referred to as Jim Bob Duggar or Mr. Jim Bob Duggar. 
 

Referring to an adult male by only his first name, in such circumstances, is inherently demeaning.

[justmy2cents]

4 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

Part of the opening statement from the prosecutors

"You're going to see images of children, some as young as seven. These children are being sexually assaulted, violated, and exploited," the prosecution said aloud, according to a Sun reporter in court.

"We ask that you hold him accountable," the prosecution continued after speaking of the charges the former television star is facing.

I wonder if that will have any impact on Anna if she sees all that in court.  She may not fully understand what CSA is but she will after all is said and done.  

 

 

 

Anna doesn’t believe he downloaded those images, so even if she gets how awful they are she won’t see him as the sick f**k that he is.

[nokidsmom]

4 minutes ago, Bassett Lady said:

I think the “dig” is that he was not referred to as Jim Bob Duggar or Mr. Jim Bob Duggar. 
 

Referring to an adult male by only his first name, in such circumstances, is inherently demeaning.

Ah yes, I see what you are saying.  I was thinking more in terms of his full formal name as opposed to the lack of last name.  Didn't catch that!  

 

[Magenta]

8 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

 

I wonder if that will have any impact on Anna if she sees all that in court.  She may not fully understand what CSA is but she will after all is said and done.  

 

 

 

I mean...unless she has been living under a literal rock she would have to know.  

 

I have seen cases (dateline etc.  😏) where family supported the person charged and then changed their minds during the trial.  So there is hope! 

[FiveAcres]

The Sun (take it with a grain of salt) has something of a live blog of the trial:

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/4174486/josh-duggar-trial-live-updates-child-pornography-arrest-verdict/

Defense is saying Josh is too ignorant to know how to partition the drive.

 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

14 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

I wonder if that will have any impact on Anna if she sees all that in court.  She may not fully understand what CSA is but she will after all is said and done.  

I don't think she'll see anything as no photos will be shown in open court. Not sure about descriptions though.

[nokidsmom]

I think Anna is in for a real shock.   I would not be surprised if it's reported that she started crying or shows some other strong reaction during the proceedings at some point.  Now how she processes it regarding her belief in Josh's innocence / guilt remains to be seen.  

She should understand what CSA means but somehow I really don't think she does.   And I don't think seeing the evidence in court will change her mind.  It should, but she may come out all the more convinced that someone else did it / Josh was set up, etc. 

4 minutes ago, FiveAcres said:

Defense is saying Josh is too ignorant to know how to partition the drive.

Where we go...the "aw shucks, he's just ignorant, yer honor" defense.   

[theotherelise]

According to the Sun:

Quote

 

ANNA DUGGAR NOT PRESENT WHEN ABUSE MATERIALS SHOWN TO COURT

Notably, Anna Duggar, who is Josh Duggar's wife, was not present when the aforementioned video and images were shown to the jury, according to a Sun reporter present at the trial.

 

 

[Howl]

7 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I don't think she'll see anything as no photos will be shown in open court. Not sure about descriptions though.

So only the jury/lawyers/judge/defendant will see the actual images/video to protect the identity of the victims?

[Alisamer]

Wow the images and video have already been shown to the jury? Seems like they are being hit with the nasty facts first and leaving Josh to have to try and climb his way out of the grave they are digging.

[karenb4729]

5 minutes ago, Howl said:

So only the jury/lawyers/judge/defendant will see the actual images/video to protect the identity of the victims?

It sounds like from the report it was shown to the entire court according to the Sun reporter

[nokidsmom]

1 minute ago, Alisamer said:

Wow the images and video have already been shown to the jury? Seems like they are being hit with the nasty facts first and leaving Josh to have to try and climb his way out of the grave they are digging.

They aren't wasting any time.  A bit surprised it's being shown this early in the trial but makes sense as a prosecution strategy.

[karenb4729]

I find it interesting that Derick is sitting in the family section.

DERICK DILLARD IN COURTROOM ON WEDNESDAY

Derick Dillard, Jill Duggar Dillard's husband, showed up sitting in the family section in the courtroom on Wednesday, according to a reporter for the Sun at the trial.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

8 minutes ago, Howl said:

So only the jury/lawyers/judge/defendant will see the actual images/video to protect the identity of the victims?

That, and there is no reason to subject these horrors to anyone aside from necessary parties. 

My sister was on a jury for Federal CP distribution case some years back and even they didn't see everything, and some photos were still heavily redacted.  

[Laura2730]

[JermajestyDuggar]

It seems to me, that CSA material should not be shown to anyone in the audience of the courtroom. That just seems wrong to me. Only those who need to see it should see it. 

[nst]

why of all people would derick be there ? if his wife is not testifying today?