Jump to content
IGNORED

(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 40 : Hope NWA Has Enough Booze* to Get the Jurors Through the Weekend


HerNameIsBuffy

Recommended Posts

Quote

[fluffernutter] Can someone with more knowledge on how this all works help me? So right now, it's looking good for him to get convicted. But isn't that just because right now it's the prosecution's turn? When the defense has their turn, won't they just have as much time to make their side look strong too?

5 hours ago, Antimony said:

You gotta consider cross. 

The defense has had ample opportunity to cross-examine all prosecution witnesses, and will continue to do so. And, frankly, they're not doing a great job of it. Just because it's the prosecution's turn doesn't mean the defense isn't already building a case. 

Similarly so for the defense. The prosecution will have a chance to cross-examine all defense witnesses. I can't even tell who the defense witnesses are. The prosecution has a huge witness list, including the Holts and Jill. The Defense is calling...four people.

Yes. The defense case can go a long way during cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses... attacking their credibility, getting them to admit to alternative explanations, introducing doubt, etc. I even saw one case where the defense didn't call any witnesses of their own; they rested after the prosecution did, and used closing arguments to remind the jury how they showed the prosecution didn't make their case.

I also often see the defense use a lot fewer witnesses. I think one reason is, juries get tired; they want to finish and go home. (The 2-week civil trial where I served on the jury was roughly 75% plaintiff 25% defendants between the opening and closing statements.) But in this case, I think the defense has just been dealt a bad hand... probably not many witnesses to choose from that will do more good than harm when the prosecution cross-examines them.

  • Upvote 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

The issue is, is that she is saying that some very shocking things were said when literally no one else is reporting they were said.  There is zero chance that the Sun wouldn't have jumped all over Ms. Holt's advice to get a bigger house but JB was too cheap. They would have devoted an entire dramatic article to just that. When all the people report back very similar things and one person reports back something totally different, that one person is almost certainly lying. It is beyond reason to think that none of the other people would have mentioned these shocking statements read by the prosecution. 

 

 

I googled “Bobye Holt Josh Duggar” and found multiple articles from days ago talking about her testimony at the pre-trial hearing Monday, where her testimony helped the judge decide to allow the facts of Josh’s past into the trial itself. I think there has been some confusion on the timing of that testimony, perhaps because it was mentioned again on Thursday or Friday (ie: the point at which these facts were in fact admitted in the trial, as it had been decided they could be earlier in the week). Not sure if this meant playing the video of her testifying, having her on the stand again, or just the facts of her testimony being read aloud.

I don’t see a mention about her advising Jim Bob to buy a bigger house, so I don’t know if that’s untrue, or if it was left out of the reports. The only reason I could think of why a publication might not include that detail, would be that the topic at hand is Josh and his behaviour. Possibly including a detail like that could be a sticky area legally since it’s more like hearsay about Jim Bob and his negligence and bad parenting, than accepted facts about Josh and his crimes? Maybe some more legally informed folks could weigh in on that….

It is always possible that part was an embellishment. But most of the facts of Bobye’s testimony seem to line up and the issue of when it happened seems to be just confusion so far as I can tell.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The other thing was they said a recording of Bobey's testimony was played in court.  It was completely incongruous as the entire day was about computer forensics.  And she's on the witness list, why play a tape even if it was relevant.  That makes no sense.

Didn’t it go from she was testifying to a recording was played of her testimony to the prosecution read parts of her testimony from Monday? I get things can get lost when people paraphrase, but those are wildly different stories. And, in the context of what we know took place that day it just doesn’t make sense. 
 

I’m not really understanding why people think that person told the truth. 

  • Upvote 14
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Not that josh's mom said:

Whatever happens with the trial, Anna will stand by Josh. He didn't download that  material, according to Anna, its a government plot against him. I don't think anything that happens or what anyone says will ever convince her otherwise. She is that brainwashed.

Forgive my ignorance,  has Anna said that or has JB said it's a government plot type thing?   Are we speculating because that generally how these folks think?  It's probably true but just wondering if any of them has said such a thing. 

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

18 minutes ago, zimona said:

Having grown up in Europe, having had a decent (public school) education, and having been exposed to maybe just 20% of the cultish programming that Anna must have had, I must say my heart really really goes out to her.

When the (cultish fundie) world as I had known it started to crumble and cognitive dissonance got stronger and stronger and just couldn*t be ignored any longer, I was young (early 20s), single and without any kids. I had an education and I knew I could use it to support myself. And still I was scared sh*tless, it felt like jumping out of an airplane without any parachute and I was really convinced that I would end up smashed and splattered on the ground.

(Cut)

I’m so sorry you had to go through those things. But having been through it, you can say it a lot better than I ever could.
It’s not a simple or easy choice for Anna to walk away, like it would maybe be for other people coming from different backgrounds. The wreckage left behind in her life will be the same either way though, and she’ll have to live with that no matter what, but I do empathize with her too. Walking away isn’t so simple.

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Antipatriarch said:

Yes. The defense case can go a long way during cross-examination of the prosecution's witnesses... attacking their credibility, getting them to admit to alternative explanations, introducing doubt, etc. I even saw one case where the defense didn't call any witnesses of their own; they rested after the prosecution did, and used closing arguments to remind the jury how they showed the prosecution didn't make their case.

I also often see the defense use a lot fewer witnesses. I think one reason is, juries get tired; they want to finish and go home. (The 2-week civil trial where I served on the jury was roughly 75% plaintiff 25% defendants between the opening and closing statements.) But in this case, I think the defense has just been dealt a bad hand... probably not many witnesses to choose from that will do more good than harm when the prosecution cross-examines them.

The one time I was a juror was a civil trial about medical malpractice. The plaintiff called either four or five witnesses. At the end, I was thinking "That was it?" The defense called so many witnesses. I think half the staff of the optamalogy department at the medical school in Denver was there at some point. I got so tired of listening to defense expert witnesses. These were experts who had to spend ten minutes just explaining their education, internships, residencies, advanced training, published papers, board certifications and practical experience before they presented the rest of their testimony.  And then the plaintiff counsel would cross examine and get absolutely nowhere. Although I got tired of listening to the expert witnesses for defense, I was pissed at plaintiff counsel for dragging it out by endless, repetitive cross examination. 

We found for the defense. Five of the six jurors were absolutely certain when they walked into deliberation room that there was no malpractice nor basis for awarding damages. It took us a while to talk the sixth around: she didn't want to award damages, but she thought something was "hinky."

Edited by FiveAcres
fixed several booboos
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

:whistle: :whistle:Has anyone ever seen WOACB & the admin of the FB group in the same room together? :whistle: :whistle:

  • Eyeroll 2
  • Haha 21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Gobsmacked said:

He has never been in any situation akin to prison. His ditch digging/house building whilst bald wasn’t the same at all. He is going to have very long days to fill. 

If Pray You Put This Journal Away Justin is to be believed, he was actually. The Not-Duggar Justin reports that during this pond digging, nobody in the family hosting him spoke to him and they would drop food at his door and walk away, wordlessly. They had him either in a shed or a tent (Justin isn't be to be believed) and when he was brought back for filming with TLC for the specials (who would do it in batches), he wasn't allowed to speak to his family unless cameras were on.

We can talk all day about how mismanaged Josh was but this strikes me as very much like prison, specifically like some parts of solitary, and incredibly inappropriate, developmentally speaking. I'm starting to be of the opinion that while Josh is clearly violent, malicious, etc., everything Jim Bob and Michelle prescribed simply fed that evil and amplified it all. It's hard to imagine a child coming out of a such a "treatment" with less anger, less violence, less resentment, etc. 

Edited by Antimony
double posted some paragraphs somehow
  • Upvote 34
  • Sad 1
  • I Agree 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Giraffe said:

 

:whistle: :whistle:Has anyone ever seen WOACB & the admin of the FB group in the same room together? :whistle: :whistle:

I really want to ask the admins in the group if they vetted the person posting the updates. It’s just bizarre that everything she shared lines up with what was reported elsewhere except for the thing with Bobye Holt’s testimony replay. It makes no sense to embellish that one thing. 

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kayleigh83 said:

don’t see a mention about her advising Jim Bob to buy a bigger house, so I don’t know if that’s untrue, or if it was left out of the reports. The only reason I could think of why a publication might not include that detail, would be that the topic at hand is Josh and his behaviour. Possibly including a detail like that could be a sticky area legally since it’s more like hearsay about Jim Bob and his negligence and bad parenting, than accepted facts about Josh and his crimes? Maybe some more legally informed folks could weigh in on that

The Sun reports every boring thing. If that statement was said then they would have reported it. None of the other people there that day said anything about such a statement being made on Monday or on Friday. 

6 minutes ago, Kayleigh83 said:

Not sure if this meant playing the video of her testifying, having her on the stand again, or just the facts of her testimony being read aloud.

Why would they play a video or read her statements when she is going to be called to testify in just a couple days? It makes no sense. 
 

4 minutes ago, Kayleigh83 said:

is always possible that part was an embellishment

This case needs absolutely no embellishments or just making stuff up. If the person reporting that is doing that then they aren’t reliable. 

It sounds like the person thought Bobye was going to testify and dramatically made stuff up based on what was said Monday and then had to keep trying to dig themselves out of a hole when she didn’t testify and what they said didn’t come close to matching what was taking place. That is more logical than everyone else forgetting to mention the shocking testimony. Maybe this person had insider knowledge that she spilled too soon and freaked out because it was obvious the reporting did line up to what was said? Who knows, but we do know the person didn’t accurately report what took place. 

  • Upvote 20
  • I Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

The Sun reports every boring thing. If that statement was said then they would have reported it. None of the other people there that day said anything about such a statement being made on Monday or on Friday. 

Why would they play a video or read her statements when she is going to be called to testify in just a couple days? It makes no sense. 
 

This case needs absolutely no embellishments or just making stuff up. If the person reporting that is doing that then they aren’t reliable. 

It sounds like the person thought Bobye was going to testify and dramatically made stuff up based on what was said Monday and then had to keep trying to dig themselves out of a hole when she didn’t testify and what they said didn’t come close to matching what was taking place. That is more logical than everyone else forgetting to mention the shocking testimony. Maybe this person had insider knowledge that she spilled too soon and freaked out because it was obvious the reporting did line up to what was said? Who knows, but we do know the person didn’t accurately report what took place. 

I messaged one of the admins for the group with my concerns and asked if the woman was verified at all. We’ll see. 

  • Upvote 5
  • Thank You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the judge say the whole trial is likely to be done and dusted by mid next week? If so, there aren’t going to be many defence witnesses if you include closing statements in that estimate. Any  defence expert is likely to be a lengthy testimony as would Josh himself. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Idlewild said:

Did the judge say the whole trial is likely to be done and dusted by mid next week? If so, there aren’t going to be many defence witnesses if you include closing statements in that estimate. Any  defence expert is likely to be a lengthy testimony as would Josh himself. 

I think I read that it’s expected to go to jury deliberation by mid week. I don’t know how quickly sentencing happens after the jury returns a verdict though. But potentially Josh could be behind bars by this time next week!

  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kayleigh83 said:

I don’t see a mention about her advising Jim Bob to buy a bigger house, so I don’t know if that’s untrue, or if it was left out of the reports. The only reason I could think of why a publication might not include that detail, would be that the topic at hand is Josh and his behaviour. Possibly including a detail like that could be a sticky area legally since it’s more like hearsay about Jim Bob and his negligence and bad parenting, than accepted facts about Josh and his crimes? Maybe some more legally informed folks could weigh in on that….

 

The youtube channel I mentioned, Emily D Baker wasn't reading news reports, she was going off the court transcripts and showed them on the screen.  There was nothing in there about a bigger house.  If it was said it wasn't said in court on Monday for pretrial.

  • Upvote 6
  • Thank You 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Idlewild said:

@G33kywife thank you. If we still have Jill and Jed to testify and any other police witness, it looks like the defence will not be calling many. I can imagine Josh has been advised not to testify.

I read somewhere the defense had 4, but I don't remember where.  McCandless maybe?

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The youtube channel I mentioned, Emily D Baker wasn't reading news reports, she was going off the court transcripts and showed them on the screen.  There was nothing in there about a bigger house.  If it was said it wasn't said in court on Monday for pretrial.

But the reports Emily D Baker had about Bobye's pretrial testimony didn't include full transcripts, right? I haven't seen any full transcripts get released yet and I'm itching for them (because I'm a Nosy Binch, y'all, and I love to see stuff for myself - I'd rather have primary documents if given the choice). If there are full transcripts, I want them, but I know Baker read the Judge's Motion to Include Past Bad Acts, but that document has only excerpts from her testimony. 

I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the prosecutions opening statement, to include some recordings, if they thought Holt would be on the Friday schedule, but I agree it's weird that it wasn't reported elsewhere. 

One person that might be worth asking is No Candles, since he's active on the Reddit, but I expect he's swamped with questions. 

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I read somewhere the defense had 4, but I don't remember where.  McCandless maybe?

Yes, it's one of his articles that came out about the Jury Selection, because that's where we first get the witness list in full. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Thank You 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Antimony said:

I'm not saying if only someone had done something, teenage-Josh-the-pest would never have turned into adult-Josh-the-sex-criminal. I don‘t know, maybe some people just have evil in them, and his actions then weren’t just excusable  teenager acting out stuff.  Maybe he would have changed, maybe he wouldn’t have, who can say? 
 

But it’s like these people did everything they could to make sure he would turn out the way he did.

And then spent the next almost twenty years trying to cover up everything. 



 
I lost the quote, can’t seem to get it back …

Edited by Shrubbery
Explain empty quote
  • Upvote 17
  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Antimony said:

But the reports Emily D Baker had about Bobye's pretrial testimony didn't include full transcripts, right? I haven't seen any full transcripts get released yet and I'm itching for them (because I'm a Nosy Binch, y'all, and I love to see stuff for myself - I'd rather have primary documents if given the choice). If there are full transcripts, I want them, but I know Baker read the Judge's Motion to Include Past Bad Acts, but that document has only excerpts from her testimony. 

I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the prosecutions opening statement, to include some recordings, if they thought Holt would be on the Friday schedule, but I agree it's weird that it wasn't reported elsewhere. 

One person that might be worth asking is No Candles, since he's active on the Reddit, but I expect he's swamped with questions. 

Yes, it's one of his articles that came out about the Jury Selection, because that's where we first get the witness list in full. 

She was reading primary source transcripts from Pacer,  but Idk if they were full or not.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

She was reading primary source transcripts from Pacer,  but Idk if they were full or not.

If it's the "Lawyer Reacts Live: Ethan Klein Sued by Ryan Kavanagh, Josh Duggar major loss in court." video from 1 day ago, I watched it, and I think she's reading the document titled "OPINION AND ORDER granting 68 Motion in Limine as to Joshua James Duggar (1); denying 72 Motion in Limine as to Joshua James Duggar (1). Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 1, 2021. (cc via CM/ECF: U.S. Probation Office, U.S. Marshals Service) (src) (Entered: 12/01/2021)" which I've read (it's free on Court Listener, no PACER required) and the only transcripts given are the following;

Quote

The following colloquy between the Government’s counsel and Mrs. Holt is compelling:
Q: Whenever you attended church with the Duggars, did you ever hold a position of authority within the church?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Were you ever a pastor of the church?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Were you ever an elder of the church?
A. No, ma’am.
Q. Were you ever on any sort of church council?
A. No.
Q. Did you hold any sort of role besides parishioner within the church?
A. No.

The rest of the document is summary and opinion of the Holt and Jim Bob testimonies and commentary on Rules 404 and 414 and precedent for including Past Bad Acts. This is, to my knowledge, the only snippet of transcript we've gotten so far from Bobye or anybody else. 

Edit: She also reads the minutes of one day of the trial for this, but they're just a list of who spoke when, no transcripts. The minutes from Friday are on PACER but must be bought. Other minutes are free on Court Listener. 

Edited by Antimony
  • Upvote 3
  • Thank You 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EvilAthiest said:

  WE ARE NOT WEAK.  WE ARE SURVIVORS.

I am so sorry you experienced what you did.

Survivors are often the strongest of us all; you have to be.

Wishing you well ❤

  • Love 14
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Saw on Reddit that Hillary Spivey posted something in defense of sweet Justin and his thumbs up pic.  I'm laughing so hard.

Can you summarise or screen shot please? And he is a married “adult” he should be doing the explaining. 

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zee_four said:

Are you on the Wasatch Front?

Their version of LDS is the more fundie type. I'm Polynesian and a good deal of my ohana is LDS and they're definitely not like that with really strong women leading families. I also lived in Utah myself but I was in Moab and the Four Corners region which at 30% LDS is like the least LDS part of Utah even PC is more LDS. But yeah Utah County and even SLC LDS is like Bible Belt fundies of Mormons. Not defending the LDS Church just letting you know there is some variation. Utah would be so great if it weren't for it being well Utah. 

I am in Carbon County.  About an hour and a half from Moab.  Yes, this part of Utah is generally much less LDS.  but I am in a little bity coal mining town of about 1700 so it more LDS than the rest of the county. The church and most of the families have been here for generations. Its really interesting because the newer generations are much more open.  The younger families tend to have stronger female family leads where the 60+generation is more fundie like.  Things are definitely changing slowly and that is a good thing.

on a side note, we opened a little metaphysical/herb shop in this little town almost a year ago and nobody has run us out of town yet.  and actually the LDS shop with us for the herbs and the herbal blend "teas" that don't actually contain tea. They just ignore the witchy stuff in the back room.  We will celebrate a year tomorrow. 

and yes I agree about Utah being great if well...it wasn't Utah.  lol

 

  • Upvote 14
  • Love 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • HerNameIsBuffy 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.