(CW: CSA) Josh & Anna 43: Defense Rested After an Expert Witness with No Expertise

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Defense rested after calling an expert with no expertise.  Prosecution has their IT expert up for rebuttal after the break.  Then closing arguments and to the jury.

 

Continued from here...

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[Strawbernana]

Here’s an excerpt from the latest KNWA article for those who can’t access it:

Clayman asked again whether there was any evidence that the HP had been accessed remotely during the May 2019 dates.

“I did not find any evidence from what I have seen,” she replied.

Bush also confirmed that she has never been to the car lot, doesn’t know their business hours, and didn’t research those when conducting her examination of the seized electronic devices.

The router came up yet again, with Clayman wondering if she ever asked the defense to retrieve it for her to examine.

“I’m not going out to try to find additional evidence,” she said.

[Buzzard]

I have a meeting tonight so I'll be gone for a while (darnit).  I expected they'd recall Fortrell. He's going to shred whatever little bit of dignity is left in the defense "experts" testimony. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Buzzard said:

I have a meeting tonight so I'll be gone for a while (darnit).  I expected they'd recall Fortrell. He's going to shred whatever little bit of dignity is left in the defense "experts" testimony. 

He's been called - will take stand after they get back from break.

[gustava]

4 minutes ago, Strawbernana said:

“I’m not going out to try to find additional evidence,” she said.

My guess is that she didn't know to ask for it.  Then someone on the defense or in her company said to make it an issue.

Her f*cking job is to FIND evidence to help her client!

[justoneoftwo]

2 minutes ago, gustava said:

My guess is that she didn't know to ask for it.  Then someone on the defense or in her company said to make it an issue.

Her f*cking job is to FIND evidence to help her client!

No its not. Her job is to show the government did not find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. Them not looking at something could create that, she should not look into it because it could remove that doubt.

[AuntKrazy]

1 minute ago, gustava said:

My guess is that she didn't know to ask for it.  Then someone on the defense or in her company said to make it an issue.

Her f*cking job is to FIND evidence to help her client!

I think it was deliberate in order to argue this red herring defense as well as setting up an appeal for inadequate counsel. (the expert said ____, and his defense team didn't pursue what would clear him")

[FiveAcres]

This was from the article from No Candles (CC McCandless, KNWA). That a reporter would throw this much shade in the paragraph would indicate to me that the prosecutor's cross of Bush was a bloodbath. 

https://www.nwahomepage.com/josh-duggar-trial/josh-duggar-trial-day-5-prosecution-hammers-credibility-of-defense-expert-witness-in-cross-examination/

Quote

 

The fifth day of the trial began with the prosecution cross-examining defense digital forensics expert witness Michele Bush.

Cracks in the honesty of her testimony the day before became evident almost immediately.

 

The was Bush's first Federal trial as an expert witness. 

I

[SimplyMe]

This is from the now closed previous thread so I don’t think I can quote, but someone said he won’t actually be behind bars until Jan/Feb?!  Seriously????  Gahhh!  I thought it would be this week. 
 

By then, Anna will damn sure be pregnant again, especially if she’s not been pumping throughout this trial, there’s a good chance her cycles will return earlier than after previous deliveries where she was with her newborn all of the time.  
 

What a horrible thought, I had hoped he’d be behind bars before he had an opportunity to knock her up again.  

[karenb4729]

OMG, that 2nd witness was nothing.  Why even bother calling him.  All he did was in October 2019 be undercover to check out the business.  He went to the car lot and met up with Josh and Randall Berry.  WTF does that show?

 

[neuroticcat]

2 minutes ago, FiveAcres said:

This was from the article from No Candles (CC McCandless, KNWA). That a reporter would throw this much shade in the paragraph would indicate to me that the prosecutor's cross of Bush was a bloodbath. 

https://www.nwahomepage.com/josh-duggar-trial/josh-duggar-trial-day-5-prosecution-hammers-credibility-of-defense-expert-witness-in-cross-examination/

The was Bush's first Federal trial as an expert witness. 

I

Though the reporter has been compromised! He’s become active in the Reddit snark group and seems to be snarky himself. Haha!

[SongRed7]

11 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

an expert with no expertise

Suggestion for thread title: The one with an expert with no expertise

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, FiveAcres said:

That a reporter would throw this much shade in the paragraph would indicate to me that the prosecutor's cross of Bush was a bloodbath. 

He's deep into the reddit community so he's playing to his audience.  The other day he posted about a pay site he'd set up for people to join and read his other work.  

[neuroticcat]

1 minute ago, karenb4729 said:

OMG, that 2nd witness was nothing.  Why even bother calling him.  All he did was in October 2019 be undercover to check out the business.  He went to the car lot and met up with Josh and Randall Berry.  WTF does that show?

 

I was wondering the same thing. And it said that there was a search warrant never executed for the home. Why not I wonder?

.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, SimplyMe said:

This is from the now closed previous thread so I don’t think I can quote, but someone said he won’t actually be behind bars until Jan/Feb?!  Seriously????  Gahhh!  I thought it would be this week. 
 

By then, Anna will damn sure be pregnant again, especially if she’s not been pumping throughout this trial, there’s a good chance her cycles will return earlier than after previous deliveries where she was with her newborn all of the time.  
 

What a horrible thought, I had hoped he’d be behind bars before he had an opportunity to knock her up again.  

Sentencing can take up to 75 days if in custody and 90 days if out on bond awaiting sentencing.  How being allowed out to await sentencing after a conviction is legal i'll never know, but that shit needs to change.  There is no presumption of innocence at that stage.

[Giraffe]

1 minute ago, SongRed7 said:

Suggestion for thread title: The one with an expert with no expertise

In defense of her can we maybe not? She was thrown into the deep end and probably drew the short stick. I'm actually feeling rather sorry for her at this point. I'm guessing she's getting way more publicity than any at her firm expected.

[karenb4729]

1 minute ago, neuroticcat said:

I was wondering the same thing. And it said that there was a search warrant never executed for the home. Why not I wonder?

.

I'm guessing it was because they had his laptop, Iphone, and office computer.  They probably felt they didn't need to go into the home to retrieve anything.  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, SongRed7 said:

Suggestion for thread title: The one with an expert with no expertise

That's what I had first - Expert testimony without expertise.  Then I blanked on the rest of the wording and just wanted to get it up there lol

1 minute ago, Giraffe said:

In defense of her can we maybe not? She was thrown into the deep end and probably drew the short stick. I'm actually feeling rather sorry for her at this point. I'm guessing she's getting way more publicity than any at her firm expected.

Nah - she's co owner of that firm with her mom.  No sympathy if you go around presenting yourself as an expert.  She wasn't drafted.

[Giraffe]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

That's what I had first - Expert testimony without expertise.  Then I blanked on the rest of the wording and just wanted to get it up there lol

"Desperate & fumbling defense rests"

[SimplyMe]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Sentencing can take up to 75 days if in custody and 90 days if out on bond awaiting sentencing.  How being allowed out to await sentencing after a conviction is legal i'll never know, but that shit needs to change.  There is no presumption of innocence at that stage.

Wow - I didn’t know that.  Does this only apply because he was allowed out before the trial?  Like surely a murderer isn’t allowed to be free until their sentencing, right?  Can a judge just decide the Pest should be behind bars until then?  
 

I’m not well versed on any of this kind of legal information.  I appreciate that there are others here who are! 

[ContrastingButtons]

17 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

I have a meeting tonight so I'll be gone for a while (darnit).  I expected they'd recall Fortrell. He's going to shred whatever little bit of dignity is left in the defense "experts" testimony. 

I sure hope so!  

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, SimplyMe said:

Wow - I didn’t know that.  Does this only apply because he was allowed out before the trial?  Like surely a murderer isn’t allowed to be free until their sentencing, right?  Can a judge just decide the Pest should be behind bars until then?  
 

I’m not well versed on any of this kind of legal information.  I appreciate that there are others here who are! 

The base it on risk to the community as they see it.  However, IMO once someone is convicted it changes the game because their mental state is unknown at that point and desperate terrified people can be dangerous.  

[Magenta]

My job is to write reports for court and I get subpoenaed on occasion. Two things stand out when i think of this 'expert'

1)  I do not get defensive at all.  I have no dog in the fight.  I am not not trial.  Sure opposing counsel will call out my credentials and experience or whatever, that's ok.  It's part of the deal. They are not the judge or jury.  My job is simply to report facts as I see them, based on my expertise,  in the most neutral way possible.  I make recommendations etc. straight from the facts.  If someone else sees it differently, fine by me.  There are many ways to view the same thing.  

2) If a file landed on my desk that I was not okay with doing because I felt I may be too biased for whatever reason and it would impact my ability to do my job well, I would decline.  Nobody is forcing me to take on every file. 

[neuroticcat]

Oh wow. Seems like defense is pissed. Looks like Fottrell literally did the download in the courtroom and showed the jury how the defenses tech cases fall apart. Then this bit “The witness, Fottrell, was then passed to Gelfand with the defense. 

Gelfand asked when the exhibits with Ubuntu were prepared and Fottrell said within the last two weeks.

Gelfand questioned why it was shared at that point and Fottrell said he wasn't sure it was relevant.

Gelfand asked if Fottrell was plugged into the internet and Fottrell confirmed. Gelfand said what was available now was not available in May 2019 and Fottrell said he doesn't have a time machine.

Gelfand said Fottrell doesn't need a time machine when there's forensic evidence.”

Edited December 7, 2021 by neuroticcat

[Idlewild]

2 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

The base it on risk to the community as they see it.  However, IMO once someone is convicted it changes the game because their mental state is unknown at that point and desperate terrified people can be dangerous.  

Also, are the Rebers willing to house a convicted criminal? Is Josh a flight risk- does he have a passport and means to get away? I believe one of his brothers is a pilot with links to the Philippines.