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

[karenb4729]

In the end Josh did himself in with the recorded interview when the feds/cops first approached him.  To ask to them "what's this about, was someone downloading child porn on my computer".  The only defense is that some stranger somewhere was doing it?  I love the feds, they made a pretty airtight case.  

[Buzzard]

1 hour ago, neuroticcat said:

I hope I can post a screen grab from Reddit here, because I’m reading there and thought this was a really interesting point. 

Gently, NO.

There is no “my parents are idiots and I was raised in a cult” affirmative defense.  

In sentencing he can attempt to raise “I didn’t know better because I was raised by boob,” but the problem is he knew better- he deleted it.  They put nanny software on his devices! His only prayer in mitigation is that- prayer.  

[neuroticcat]

Boom. This seems pretty damning to me. I can’t imagine the jury confused still at this point? 

[TuringMachine]

After seeing Chad Daybell's children defend him despite, and I'm putting this in a spoiler because the whole case is as horrifying as it is heartbreaking

Spoiler

the children's bodies were found in his backyard

It would not surprise me if Anna is still fully convinced of Pest's innocence.

[Buzzard]

19 minutes ago, gustava said:

I have no doubt that Anna loves her children and wishes she could be with her newborn.  Tonight, is she with her children or the perv husband?  I'm guessing she needs to pump...

Replying under a spoiler because I’m sad I’m saying this

Spoiler

How many more days after the birth of a girl is she free from him?

 

That may dictate if she gets to be with her baby or her headship.

 

[neuroticcat]

1 minute ago, TuringMachine said:

After seeing Chad Daybell's children defend him despite, and I'm putting this in a spoiler because the whole case is as horrifying as it is heartbreaking

  Reveal hidden contents

the children's bodies were found in his backyard

It would not surprise me if Anna is still fully convinced of Pest's innocence.

Ugh. I’m not familiar with the case but this trial is making me think for all our familiarity with the cult we don’t really know how deep the brainwashing and toxic hold on everyone involved goes. yes, yes, they are all adults and theoretically have outs but the reality of victims and survivors who stay with their abusers who horribly hurt them is that it’s not a rarity.

[hoipolloi]

2 minutes ago, TuringMachine said:

After seeing Chad Daybell's children defend him

Sadly, nothing is too improbable. At this point, I will be surprised if Anna leaves him & takes the kids. 

[fundiesarefascinating]

I can't even wrap my brain around what sort of conversation Anna and Smuggar would have when they are finally alone this evening. Completely unfathomable to me. 

[neuroticcat]

4 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Gently, NO.

There is no “my parents are idiots and I was raised in a cult” affirmative defense.  

In sentencing he can attempt to raise “I didn’t know better because I was raised by boob,” but the problem is he knew better- he deleted it.  They put nanny software on his devices! His only prayer in mitigation is that- prayer.  

I don’t personally believe it is a valid defense, but I think it would garner him more sympathy from the jury than the I-was-framed-by-a-guy-at-MickeyDs plan. I am interested as to why they rejected an approach like this - if indeed it came up but protection of family and cult brand won out?

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, fundiesarefascinating said:

I can't even wrap my brain around what sort of conversation Anna and Smuggar would have when they are finally alone this evening. Completely unfathomable to me. 

I’m guessing something like “I’m so sorry those ebil heathens framed me.  I will serve my time until jebus frees me.”

[JermajestyDuggar]

1 hour ago, TuringMachine said:

After seeing Chad Daybell's children defend him despite, and I'm putting this in a spoiler because the whole case is as horrifying as it is heartbreaking

  Hide contents

the children's bodies were found in his backyard

It would not surprise me if Anna is still fully convinced of Pest's innocence.

I watch a lot of true crime and it’s extremely common for the children of convicted killers to believe he/she is innocent. When the children say flat out they think their parent did it, I’m like, “damn they must’ve been really awful parents.” And usually they were. Children who believe their parent is innocent tend to only see their parents as the loving person who tucked them in at night and hugged them when they got hurt. They can’t wrap their mind around their parent having a harmful side to them. Unless they actually witnessed that side in action. Like abusing them or their other parent. That is usually when a child will say they think their parent is guilty. This is just based on my own observations.  

Edited December 8, 2021 by JermajestyDuggar

[ncb]

I'm surprised Bush didn't get her IT certification from ITonramp (one-ton onramp for all you Maxwell fans out there!)

Edited December 8, 2021 by ncb

[onekidanddone]

I hope this judge has enough sense to remand the pest to jail until his sentencing. I see Josh as a flight risk and a danger to others 

[neuroticcat]

I’d be pretty mad at this point if I was a jury member who had to sit through that trial, see the horrible images, listen to boring IT smoke and mirrors for what seems pretty open and shut. Right? RIGHT?

[ToriAmos]

How much do you hate that Jim Bob, Jana et al. only trot out to hear the defence, and none of the prosecution. Just kids with fingers in their ears chanting 'LA LA LA'. It should be child abuse to raise your kids in such wilful, belligerent ignorance.

[mpheels]

49 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

Oh I predicted it would go to jury mid morning tomorrow.  Closing goes Prosecution first, Defense second and the Prosecution again for final comments.  Can we hope for a verdict tomorrow by end of day?  There isn't much reasonable doubts when it comes to the defense.

The one time I sat on a jury, it was a two-week long civil trial. We went into deliberations at 11am, with the promise of boxed lunches delivered at 1pm if we were still deliberating. We had consensus on a verdict in favor of the defense by noon, but decided to keep discussing a little bit longer, just in case, and finally we’re able to reach a verdict at 1:30.

[ihaveanexamintwodays]

6 minutes ago, ToriAmos said:

How much do you hate that Jim Bob, Jana et al. only trot out to hear the defence, and none of the prosecution. Just kids with fingers in their ears chanting 'LA LA LA'. It should be child abuse to raise your kids in such wilful, belligerent ignorance.

Isn't Jana the one who said as a teen on one of the specials - you hear people talk about evolution and you might think, oh that could make sense, but then you read the Bible and that's obviously just not the truth?

So (as fundie-brain is static and controlled...) it would stand to reason that - you hear a prosecution lay out a timeline of was near the computer/what was on the computer/how the computer might have been accessed, and you might think, oh it sure sounds like my big bro Josh is the logical culprit, but then you listen to Daddy Jim Bob who represents God's word and that's obviously just not the truth?

Edited December 8, 2021 by ihaveanexamintwodays

[Magenta]

5 minutes ago, mpheels said:

The one time I sat on a jury, it was a two-week long civil trial. We went into deliberations at 11am, with the promise of boxed lunches delivered at 1pm if we were still deliberating. We had consensus on a verdict in favor of the defense by noon, but decided to keep discussing a little bit longer, just in case, and finally we’re able to reach a verdict at 1:30.

What was for lunch? 

[gustava]

30 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

In the end Josh did himself in with the recorded interview when the feds/cops first approached him.  To ask to them "what's this about, was someone downloading child porn on my computer".  The only defense is that some stranger somewhere was doing it?  I love the feds, they made a pretty airtight case.  

Did the jury hear this??

[ihaveanexamintwodays]

27 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

In the end Josh did himself in with the recorded interview when the feds/cops first approached him.  To ask to them "what's this about, was someone downloading child porn on my computer".  The only defense is that some stranger somewhere was doing it?  I love the feds, they made a pretty airtight case.  

Also just to point out - the recorded audio from law enforcement day-of 2019 raid, did NOT catch Josh implicating "is this about child porn". Unfortunately the prosecution has no confirmation that statement was ever made, other than report from the officers involved. 

[Jackie3]

29 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Gently, NO.

There is no “my parents are idiots and I was raised in a cult” affirmative defense.  

In sentencing he can attempt to raise “I didn’t know better because I was raised by boob,” but the problem is he knew better- he deleted it.  They put nanny software on his devices! His only prayer in mitigation is that- prayer.  

It's not that. An affirmative defense will only work if there is common law (or statute) to support it. I think it's unlikely that there's prior cases excusing a defendant because he was raised in a crazy family. You can't just invent a defense without law to support it.

[adidas]

I have been stupidly busy lately but I’ve been trying to catch the news regarding the trial. I am desperately hoping that the jury sees that there is no reasonable doubt. 

[detroitrockcity]

9 minutes ago, mpheels said:

The one time I sat on a jury, it was a two-week long civil trial. We went into deliberations at 11am, with the promise of boxed lunches delivered at 1pm if we were still deliberating. We had consensus on a verdict in favor of the defense by noon, but decided to keep discussing a little bit longer, just in case, and finally we’re able to reach a verdict at 1:30.

A free lunch is a free lunch! Especially when you have to sit for 2 weeks in a jury.  In my city- they only feed juries when we are deliberating.  During the trial- we had to feed ourselves.  

[karenb4729]

10 minutes ago, mpheels said:

The one time I sat on a jury, it was a two-week long civil trial. We went into deliberations at 11am, with the promise of boxed lunches delivered at 1pm if we were still deliberating. We had consensus on a verdict in favor of the defense by noon, but decided to keep discussing a little bit longer, just in case, and finally we’re able to reach a verdict at 1:30.

Best to reach a verdict while munching on court provided lunch. 😂

5 minutes ago, ihaveanexamintwodays said:

Also just to point out - the recorded audio from law enforcement day-of 2019 raid, did NOT catch Josh implicating "is this about child porn". Unfortunately the prosecution has no confirmation that statement was ever made, other than report from the officers involved. 

I thought I read that it had been in the recorded portion.  Maybe I misunderstood what I read.

[Jackie3]

1 hour ago, missaudrey said:

I hope it’s ok to ask this, with regards to the M’s being examined, I always though those sorts of physical exams only indicate abuse that may have happened within the previous few days. Is it possible to know if abuse has ever occurred or only if it was recent?

Children who have been abused have things like genital warts, abrasions, permanent scarring and damage. Things that will remain for weeks, months or years.

1 hour ago, imokit said:

No, I'd be shocked if the M's even know Daddy's been arrested.

The oldest M is not a normal 12/13 year old with internet access.  Its easier to keep them sheltered.

Of course they know. They aren't deaf. They go visit the big house, where there are a multitude of people talking. Tweens like Josie and teenagers like Johannah have overheard even more, and you can bet they pass it on to the Ms.