(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 42: Prosecution Rested. After His Conviction Maybe We Can, Too

[EmCatlyn]

3 hours ago, 3KidsAndStopped said:

Anna's brother David is also in attendance. Derrick is also there

Austin is sat with Jim Bob. I am fascinated for the big turn out today.

I kind of thought JB and his Duggar minions would come out when the defense was presenting.  They “know Josh is innocent” 🤑 so they don’t need to listen to the prosecution. 🙄   Now they are there to “show support.”

The saddest thing about all this is that they are still a family.  The husbands of Josh’s victims, and even the victims themselves will sit and chat with the members of the family who are rooting for Josh to be acquitted.  And maybe the victims are torn.  He is their brother.  They are used to being told that they must forgive.  It is surely not “Christian” of them to want him to go to prison.

3 hours ago, onekidanddone said:

So did he finally remember he had daughters?

 

No. He is there for his son.

[Nutella Ace]

3 hours ago, Mama Mia said:

Do you know where the 100’s of times info came from? I’ve seen it commented on frequently, but don’t recall the original source. And it seems like something the Prosecution would be hammering on.

I went back into the thread from Friday morning and it looks like that reference to the “hundreds of views” came from the person in the Fundie Wonderland group who has proven to be unreliable. So unless someone has an actual media reporting about that, I don’t think it is accurate information. 

[fundiefan]

8 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

 

Let me translate that as best I can: "Ignore the fact my son is a sex offender, I will fight against mask mandates in schools, any laws that make homeschooling accountable in any way, and the right to not vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. I am against the government telling you what to do in any way (unless you're a woman, of course)."

So, standard GOP MO. 

[Bobology]

All the discussion of the 29 seconds then deleted business, I want to know how many seconds into a CSAM video does the actual CSAM begin? Do the videos start with a title? "Credits?" Snippets of what is to come?  Do most of them begin with something else entirely so as to throw off someone who may stumble upon a criminal's file video? Without knowing how a CSAM video typically begins, the 29  seconds doesn't mean much at all, really.

[Lovebug]

19 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

🙄🙄🙄

Back in the early Jurassic, when I was an undergrad, some people used to triple-space when typing their papers, thinking it would fool the prof.

I would actually be interested to read her & Fottrell's reports if they are ever made available. I'm guessing I'd learn much more in the 2-3 pages of his report than I will from the 100 pages of hers.

Honestly, I really cannot fathom what makes a person decided to defend people being charged with CSAM as it is.

But then to think she had to make the conscious decision to say hey, let me go over and above and write a 100-page detailed analysis of my proof, because I want to be extra thorough when helping this person get an acquittal for these heinous crimes.

It's just yuck.

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

 

Let me translate that as best I can: "Ignore the fact my son is a sex offender, I will fight against mask mandates in schools, any laws that make homeschooling accountable in any way, and the right to not vaccinate your kids if you don't want to. I am against the government telling you what to do in any way (unless you're a woman, of course)."

I hope you don't mind if I add on to your translation:

I will keep the government away from your children and grandchildren when they want to a psychologist to examine them when they have been in close contact/living with a serial child predator.  

 

4 minutes ago, Lovebug said:

Honestly, I really cannot fathom what makes a person decided to defend people being charged with CSAM as it is.

But then to think she had to make the conscious decision to say hey, let me go over and above and write a 100-page detailed analysis of my proof, because I want to be extra thorough when helping this person get an acquittal for these heinous crimes.

It's just yuck.

 

Yesterday I thought I could see why her firm, owned by her mom I believe, may have wanted her to do this case as it's a way to cut her teeth and get some experience on a trial where no matter how bad she f'ed up it wouldn't impact the verdict.  But the more I think about it, no way would I throw my kid to the wolves to be professionally disgraced.  This case was too high profile for a novice with no evidence, they should have passed.  

I'm just grateful it's so obvious she's inexperienced and not credible.  Some expert witness testimony is given too much credence based on the reputation of the professional in question, definitely not the case here.

11 minutes ago, Bobology said:

All the discussion of the 29 seconds then deleted business, I want to know how many seconds into a CSAM video does the actual CSAM begin? Do the videos start with a title? "Credits?" Snippets of what is to come?  Do most of them begin with something else entirely so as to throw off someone who may stumble upon a criminal's file video? Without knowing how a CSAM video typically begins, the 29  seconds doesn't mean much at all, really.

I really doubt anyone here would know, but I can't imagine there are credits and a plot.  

[Mama Mia]

3 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I hope you don't mind if I add on to your translation:

I will keep the government away from your children and grandchildren when they want to a psychologist to examine them when they have been in close contact/living with a serial child predator.  

 

Do we have confirmation that happened? I would be really, really shocked if the Duggar’s had any say in whether the kids were interviewed, or really even any official outlet to protest their being interviewed. They could call and complain to whatever agency was in charge, I guess, but that means zero in the process. 

[hoipolloi]

13 minutes ago, Lovebug said:

I really cannot fathom what makes a person decided to defend people being charged with CSAM as it is.

Giving Ms. Bush the benefit of the doubt, expert witnesses are supposed to be neutral. They are called or retained by the defense or the prosecution but, technically, they don't have an opinion on a defendant's guilt. They are there to provide expert testimony on some sort of evidence. Are there ambulance-chasing expert witnesses who will take a buck for anything and who are well-known to certain members of the legal community? Sure, but the witness is not in court to speak to guilt or innocence per se.

The fact that the defense ended up with Ms. Bush as their IT expert suggests to me that they could not get anyone more experienced to take the case. She also may not have realized what a damning case the Feds had against Josh until after she was retained & reviewed the evidence. She probably hoped that the 100-page report + her testimony would fool someone on the jury into agreeing with her.

Edited December 7, 2021 by hoipolloi
Adding info

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, Nutella Ace said:

I went back into the thread from Friday morning and it looks like that reference to the “hundreds of views” came from the person in the Fundie Wonderland group who has proven to be unreliable. So unless someone has an actual media reporting about that, I don’t think it is accurate information. 

Thanks.  I wanted to go through the factual stuff that was reported and make a chart of the facts and from which witness or statement it came from but I couldn't bring myself to wade through it last night.  

Someone upthread posted a link to where they have a great summary on r/DuggarSnark.  Not the kind of document I was going to make, but a good run down of what's happened up until now.  

[gustava]

14 minutes ago, Lovebug said:

Honestly, I really cannot fathom what makes a person decided to defend people being charged with CSAM as it is

Our legal system works ONLY if the alleged perpetrator has legal representation.  If jB didn't shell out cash, Smuggar would have been given an attorney.  Unfortunately, too many people cannot obtain adequate legal representation.

[Mama Mia]

14 minutes ago, Nutella Ace said:

I went back into the thread from Friday morning and it looks like that reference to the “hundreds of views” came from the person in the Fundie Wonderland group who has proven to be unreliable. So unless someone has an actual media reporting about that, I don’t think it is accurate information. 

Well that puts a really different spin on it. I really hate when people decide to embellish /make up details in what is an already very  bad situation. 

[Sullie06]

5 hours ago, meee said:

Pardon me if this is been asked before. When he gets out of prison, he’s going to be on the sex offender registry list, isn’t he? I would assume that he would never be allowed around children again, presumably including his own. There’s no way he’s going to be allowed to move back in with Anna and his kids and resume fundie life… right? I don’t mean to speculate, but I’m also not going to assume that his daughters are presumed safe around him, given that he had no problem molesting his sisters.

From my experience he will likely be able to be around his children and even live in the same home as them. We have a number of offenders on for different levels of CP related offenses and many of them still reside with their families. You would be shocked the number of women who chose to stay with their husbands after a conviction, it's not just Fundie women. 

[Meggo]

37 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Back when I was in grad school, I had a teacher who had a page LIMIT. He would say, “any more than blank number of pages is just BS.” I loved it. Because I’m the type of person who gets straight to the point on all my papers. No extra BS. 

I hated page length requirements. I was pretty thrifty with my word count and felt it was a waste of time to add to it just to hit a page length. 
That said - I did have an exam once where the prof said "You don't need to write paragraphs - bullet points are fine." 
YESSSSS that was awesome. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Do we have confirmation that happened? I would be really, really shocked if the Duggar’s had any say in whether the kids were interviewed, or really even any official outlet to protest their being interviewed. They could call and complain to whatever agency was in charge, I guess, but that means zero in the process. 

I'll have to look for the source, but after he was first taken in there were reports that Anna refused to allow the forensic exams of her kids.  Idk if that's happened since, and we shouldn't know as I don't want the kiddos privacy invaded.  But she wouldn't have refused if JB and M weren't supportive of that and these people fear the government taking their kids so it's a pretty common mindset for them to want to "handle things in house" as JB said they tried to do.  

I never heard anything about them asking for exams of Josh's minor sisters, just the M kids. 

To be clear when talking about forensic exams they're psychologic exams with a professional with expertise in working with children at risk for CSA, not a physical exam.  

[EmCatlyn]

2 hours ago, sndral said:

The defense in these types of cases is always about what the investigators didn’t do. If they’d seized the router then the defense expert would be testifying about something else that they didn’t seize or investigate.

Realize that these experts make a lot of money testifying. The defense can hire an expert to examine the evidence & if that expert can’t help their case the defense can chose to not use that expert & they don’t have to discover that expert’s report to the prosecution, the defense can even keep searching until they find an expert w/ a more helpful take on the evidence & use them at trial.

Many prosecution experts are government employees & whatever the prosecution’s expert’s reports say - positive or negative - is discovered to the defense. 

During Jury selection the defense was questioning potential jurors about their tech knowledge. I never saw a run down of how each side used their peremptory challenges, but the defense had 10 peremptory challenges to use to excuse potential jurors & given what the defense is, I assume they used their peremptories to excuse tech savvy jurors.

There was a guy on Reddit who had been in the jury pool who believed he was excused for being tech savvy.  Tech knowledge was definitely one of the questions asked.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

6 minutes ago, Mama Mia said:

Well that puts a really different spin on it. I really hate when people decide to embellish /make up details in what is an already very  bad situation. 

Tbf the stuff FW was reporting prior to the Bobye stuff was the same as what was being reported by the Sun and McCandless.  When I get home I'll try to find another source for this, and I'm not defending FW - I have no idea who she is and I don't do FB and think the Bobye stuff was such a mess and leaves her with no credibility....but that doesn't discount the stuff she had that was verified.

2 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

There was a guy on Reddit who had been in the jury pool who believed he was excused for being tech savvy.  Tech knowledge was definitely one of the questions asked.

Lemme guess which side didn't want him there?  

[smittykins]

31 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

No. He is there for his son.

And himself.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

I keep wondering how Michelle is taking this.  Not being snarky, but if I had to guess I'd say upping her meds (I don't care what they say, I think she's been on something for years) and vacillating between isolating in her room and raging over little stuff because she can't yell about what she's really mad about in front of the kids.  

Of course it's all speculation, but I am beginning to wonder if her being out of sight it a choice or if she's just in no position to be seen right now.  

I think she should be blaming herself for much of this but as much as I think she's the more dominant of the two I bet she's just fine using the cult teachings to shift blame to JB for letting this happen.  You know, because she's just a lil' ol' woman with no authority.  I would bet serious money she went at him over this hard.  

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I keep wondering how Michelle is taking this.  Not being snarky, but if I had to guess I'd say upping her meds (I don't care what they say, I think she's been on something for years) and vacillating between isolating in her room and raging over little stuff because she can't yell about what she's really mad about in front of the kids.  

Of course it's all speculation, but I am beginning to wonder if her being out of sight it a choice or if she's just in no position to be seen right now.  

I think she should be blaming herself for much of this but as much as I think she's the more dominant of the two I bet she's just fine using the cult teachings to shift blame to JB for letting this happen.  You know, because she's just a lil' ol' woman with no authority.  I would bet serious money she went at him over this hard.  

Wasn't she in that parade that boob was in for the upcoming election? 

[marmalade]

3 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

Wasn't she in that parade that boob was in for the upcoming election? 

Yes. 

[libgirl2]

Just now, marmalade said:

Yes. 

So I don't think she is necessarily in hiding and is a mess. I think she is choosing to not be there and pretend none of it is happening. Or she letting Boob take care of it. Who knows? We might still see her? 

[SongRed7]

2 hours ago, 3KidsAndStopped said:

If "Jana" turns out to be a court clerk, they are DONE, done I tell you 😂

I'm still convinced the "Jessa" they saw was really the Jana's friend Laura D.  who was pictured walking out with Jason and James yesterday. 

[JermajestyDuggar]

Hannah and David have been married for about 2.5 weeks and they choose to attend a trial on CSAM. That would be the last place I would be if I was newly married. But I guess David is part of the Duggar borg now and doesn’t have much of a choice. 

[metheglyn]

2 minutes ago, JermajestyDuggar said:

Hannah and David have been married for about 2.5 weeks and they choose to attend a trial on CSAM. That would be the last place I would be if I was newly married. But I guess David is part of the Duggar borg now and doesn’t have much of a choice. 

Well, her parents took him in and it upended her life and livelihood due to not being able to teach children in the house with him there. She might want to see what the outcome of that disruption actually is. And yeah, he's David's brother-in-law, so that makes it doubly impactful.

[SongRed7]

I just realized one upside of this trial!   I don't give one fudge about Lori Alexander (who?) this week! LOL (except I know she has shingles) It's been an eventful 2 weeks. Ha!