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

[QuiverFullOfCondoms]

5 minutes ago, Dominionatrix said:

The fact that Michele Bush is now going on and on about how there is nothing bad on the MacBook when that is not even the relevant device in question is just fucking infuriating. However, as one of those people with a real mental block when it comes to tech stuff, this tactic also makes it easier for me to tell that the defense is full of shit. Like, you could get me good and confused about code and remote access and routers, but even I know that the forensics of a Mac are irrelevant to a crime committed in a PC. I hope and pray the jury sees through this. 

Defense be like: I can definitely tell it’s going to snow because my phone battery is low because I burned the apple pie.

[TuringMachine]

Also I agree with @CyborgKin "command codes" sounds like someone who doesn't understand computers. For the most part unix commands are just a way of navigating a computer without a mouse. They're not secret like the word "code" might imply. And since Linux and Mac are both Unix-like, they share the same commands**. 

Here's the "command code" for installing VLC on Linux

sudo snap install vlc

sudo - As the computer admin user do
snap - the name of the program I want to use, in this case Snap, which is an app store
install vlc - what I want the program to do, in this case install the application called VLC

It's the effectively the same as logging in, opening up the app store, navigating to the VLC page, and clicking install. Except you typed it out instead of clicking with a mouse. And I didn't need to do any special research to do this, VLC lists the command on their download page https://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ubuntu.html

** this specific command wouldn't work on Mac because Snap is a Ubuntu specific application. 

Edited December 6, 2021 by TuringMachine

[The Mother Dust]

45 minutes ago, Natalie22 said:

I mean, I think we all think we'd be great under pressure, but you'd be surprised at how people react against their better judgment when it actually happens.  Again, plugging Hunting Warhead, but when the person who created and ran several of these CSAM websites was arrested, he sang like a bird despite his big talk about how the feds would never get anything from him.  

I am interested in listening to this, but I want to ask you first....does this podcast contain details/detailed descriptions of the CSA or is that kept vague?  I don't want to know details, but if its kept vague I could handle it.

[imokit]

So she gets cross examined tomorrow, that will be interesting.

[Natalie22]

2 minutes ago, The Mother Dust said:

I am interested in listening to this, but I want to ask you first....does this podcast contain details/detailed descriptions of the CSA or is that kept vague?  I don't want to know details, but if its kept vague I could handle it.

It's not very descriptive of what is found.  They do talk about interviews they've had with people who have been caught viewing CSAM and their explanations as well as some parents of victims and others who knew the main criminal.

They do mention CSA and the rough description of what was done, but very few details.

[Father Son Holy Goat]

Do the Duggars read here?

Edited December 7, 2021 by Father Son Holy Goat

[Buzzard]

10 minutes ago, Dominionatrix said:

The fact that Michele Bush is now going on and on about how there is nothing bad on the MacBook when that is not even the relevant device in question is just fucking infuriating. However, as one of those people with a real mental block when it comes to tech stuff, this tactic also makes it easier for me to tell that the defense is full of shit. Like, you could get me good and confused about code and remote access and routers, but even I know that the forensics of a Mac are irrelevant to a crime committed in a PC. I hope and pray the jury sees through this. 

Exactly!

this is like saying “I searched every drawer in the house.  There were no illegal drugs in the kitchen, the guest room, the basement, the bathroom…”. The allegations are the drugs were in a hidden drawer under the bed.  The fact that there were no drugs in the other drawers has no bearing on the secret drawer where he hid shit.

[feministxtian]

I worked on a Unix based computer and got really good at typing in commands. For the life of me I couldn't tell you what they were but they had something to do with transferring files from the Unix machine to the PC to be opened with Autocad (don't ask, it was one of the dumbest things my employer did and they eventually found out what I had been yelling about for years). 

It was kind of like a "save as" application that took the files from their native CATIA format and converted them to the AutoCAD *.dwg files. 

[Letgo]

So let me see if I understand this correctly. The CSA accessed and downloaded could not have been reached by just anyone. The person had to be allowed to do so. They had to know where to go and be admitted, known, or have a prior visit or relationship with that stuff? A random person could not get to those videos and photos even if they knew how to get to the dark web. Is this correct?

Did Josh know exactly what he was getting? Are people able to preview the CSA with a few photos or snippets of video? Can pedophiles choose what type of CSA they want to view or do they get whatever they are sent? I know someone who claimed he had no idea there was CSA in the porn he downloaded. He believed it was adult stuff with a few dozen CSA photos that just happened to be among hundreds of adult ones. Even though the CSA was organized and labeled in HIS files.

Will the average juror understand all this tech stuff? I know nothing about any of this, MACs or PCs. I'm not stupid, just older, not employed, and not techy at all. My concern is that a lack of knowledge among jurors could work in Josh's favor.

Thanks to Buzzard for the explanations of the evidence!

[WiseGirl]

People magazine's update is here. https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-trial-jessa-duggar-attends-judge-denies-defenses-motion-to-acquit/

Posted 20 minutes ago but Rufus knows I can't keep up with these threads right now.

My favorite quote from the article after Josh's attorney tried to get the case dismissed "...Judge Timothy L. Brooks sided with the prosecution and said he found there was "well more than sufficient evidence." The judge agreed the evidence presented by the prosecution satisfied the conditions to move forward and stated that there was "a plethora of evidence here to suggest a reasonable jury from which they could find there was possession." " bolding is mine.

[hoipolloi]

7 minutes ago, Natalie22 said:

It's not very descriptive of what is found.  They do talk about interviews they've had with people who have been caught viewing CSAM and their explanations as well as some parents of victims and others who knew the main criminal.

There are transcripts for Episodes 1 and 2 which might give you an idea of the level of detail as well as general content. 

Didn't look more but there may be additional transcripts available for other episodes.

[imokit]

Nice sketch in the people article.

[Heidijoey]

People magazine's update is here. https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-trial-jessa-duggar-attends-judge-denies-defenses-motion-to-acquit/
Posted 20 minutes ago but Rufus knows I can't keep up with these threads right now.
My favorite quote from the article after Josh's attorney tried to get the case dismissed "...Judge Timothy L. Brooks sided with the prosecution and said he found there was "well more than sufficient evidence." The judge agreed the evidence presented by the prosecution satisfied the conditions to move forward and stated that there was "a plethora of evidence here to suggest a reasonable jury from which they could find there was possession." " bolding is mine.

Do the jury know that the defense tried to get it thrown out? ( if this is a recent development ) not that anybody should be on the fence but if the judge thinks there is enough evidence surely that’s a home run and he will be convicted

[Tatar-tot]

2 hours ago, QuiverFullOfCondoms said:

Free tater tot casserole for you!

Damn straight!!!

[hoipolloi]

4 minutes ago, Letgo said:

Did Josh know exactly what he was getting? Are people able to preview the CSA with a few photos or snippets of video? Can pedophiles choose what type of CSA they want to view or do they get whatever they are sent? I know someone who claimed he had no idea there was CSA in the porn he downloaded. He believed it was adult stuff with a few dozen CSA photos that just happened to be among hundreds of adult ones. Even though the CSA was organized and labeled in HIS files.

Yes, Josh knew because he looked for it & likely requested it from the source(s) he accessed. As @Buzzard said earlier, you can't just wander around online hoping you'll encounter CSAM for download -- the material that Josh sought is pretty much only in dark web sites that can only be accessed by vetted members. 

Re: your acquaintance who claimed that CSAM was incidentally included in adult porn he downloaded. IANAL and know nothing about the likelihood or incidence of such things actually happening. Perhaps his account is true but regardless I'm going to guess that the data associated with the file(s) will show the origins of the materials.

[Buzzard]

5 minutes ago, Heidijoey said:

Do the jury know that the defense tried to get it thrown out? ( if this is a recent development ) not that anybody should be on the fence but if the judge thinks there is enough evidence surely that’s a home run and he will be convicted

No.  It’s a motion for directed verdict and it’s made in every case after the prosecution rests.  It’s outside of the presence of the jury and is rarely granted.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Buzzard
I’m a PC gal and my Apple product is possessed

[smittykins]

5 minutes ago, Tatar-tot said:

Damn straight!!!

Plus Ice Cream Cake for dessert!(Two layers of ice cream sandwiches, whipped cream, and chocolate and caramel syrup.)

[EyesOpen]

So… when the defense stood up Today they were like… can we just acquit and go home? No? Well ok… I’ll call my witnesses then… wow 

I just don’t have any faith that good wins anymore so I am watching this circus just praying that justice is served… but honestly it doesn’t seem like the defense has any decent argument!

[Tatar-tot]

1 hour ago, Giraffe said:

Maybe she wasn't their first choice but she said yes so they went with her. 

I think it would be tough to engage an expert given the mountain of evidence.

 

[imokit]

No Pecan being defence gofer today.

[Tatar-tot]

1 hour ago, Jinderella said:

On Reddit Michelle Bush her CV was mentioned. She is from AZ, it’s an easy Google. How can she be considered an expert?

My husband actually has a master in IT and he has major questions about her knowledge and thinks it will be very easy to debunk her. Fingers crossed!

Is she on LinkedIn?  I am curious what her educational background is for her to hold herself out as an expert.

[Antimony]

6 minutes ago, Letgo said:

So let me see if I understand this correctly. The CSA accessed and downloaded could not have been reached by just anyone. The person had to be allowed to do so. They had to know where to go and be admitted, known, or have a prior visit or relationship with that stuff? A random person could not get to those videos and photos even if they knew how to get to the dark web. Is this correct?

Did Josh know exactly what he was getting? Are people able to preview the CSA with a few photos or snippets of video? Can pedophiles choose what type of CSA they want to view or do they get whatever they are sent? I know someone who claimed he had no idea there was CSA in the porn he downloaded. He believed it was adult stuff with a few dozen CSA photos that just happened to be among hundreds of adult ones. Even though the CSA was organized and labeled in HIS files.

Will the average juror understand all this tech stuff? I know nothing about any of this, MACs or PCs. I'm not stupid, just older, not employed, and not techy at all. My concern is that a lack of knowledge among jurors could work in Josh's favor.

Thanks to Buzzard for the explanations of the evidence!

Gonna try to explain this as vaguely as possible.

This has been misconstrued a little bit. Originally, yes, to get the Video We Don't Name, you would have to pay a high amount of money or trade something, and already be in an inner circle. Market of scarcity, right? But, that has been broken now because the investigation found The Guy We Don't Name and shut down his ring. But nothing leaves the internet forever so people reupload it, etc. Now, it is conceivable that you could acquire the video without having any connections to other pedophiles online. This doesn't mean Josh isn't a member of any such forum -- he could be -- but there's no evidence showing that he is. Such forums can only be accessed through Tor because they're not on the Clearnet. 

(The start of Hunting Warhead actually follows a vigilante who got into this forums after configuring his computer to not display images. [Side note: I've done this but because I had a fear of skeletons as a teenager but had to do some research for school or something and I would have lost my lunch if Wikipedia had shown me, like, a bog mummy.] Anyway, it was relatively easy for him to track a few of these guys down and read their posts without seeing anything and without saying anything to them.)

I believe 1000000% that Josh knew what he was downloading. It may have been in a big batch, but I think he knew. He even watched it a bunch of times. 

Here's the other thing -- for as big of a problem as CSAM is, there isn't that much of it numerically out there. At least, not as much as you'd think. Most of it is the same shit being passed around again and again because the risk of making it is so high. Many of these videos are known, the filenames or shorthand for them is known to LEOs, etc. It's relatively rare for them to see something new. No amount is good, obviously, but there's less than you'd expect (or, much less than I had expected when I started listening to Hunting Warhead after the news broke). It also means that it's a little easy to find because they know what these files look like and it's a little obvious when TorrentialDownpour pings something, I guess. 

I hesitate to draw this comparison because it's unfair but if you've ever been in a niche community (like, a really small fandom maybe), you know what it's like to see the same piece of media passed back and forth in a subculture. There's not a lot of new stuff being made and, like in other niche subcultures, many of the primary actors know each other. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, TuringMachine said:

What does that have to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing.  

[Tatar-tot]

29 minutes ago, imokit said:

So she gets cross examined tomorrow, that will be interesting.

I am sure the prosecutors are going to meeting with their IT team to tare apart her testimony byte by byte!!!! 🥸

[karenb4729]

I wonder how Anna feels knowing that he was accessing adult porn on his Iphone and her Covenant Eyes didn't prevent it.  It's not a stretch of the imagination that if he knew how to circumvent it on his Iphone he could circumvent it on his computer.  

 

So, with the two charges, Receiving and then Possessing, could he be convicted on one and not the other?