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

[FunFunFundie]

Does anybody know if there is, like, a pro-Josh forum? I’d really love to see any of this from the perspective of somebody who thinks he is innocent. Mostly, I want to know if there’s any possibility the jurors are seeing the evidence differently than we are. I am certain we are correct in our assessment - but I definitely didn’t start out with an unbiased opinion. I’m wondering if there are rational people saying things like “without the router, you truly can’t convict him, the evidence is all circumstantial.”

I want to believe that nobody could see it differently than I do, but I also know I could be very wrong about that.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

13 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Two.  One for receiving and one for possessing.

I've not been able to figure out what the difference is.  If one receives, one possesses or possessed.  If one possesses, one must have received. 

Thoughts on this?  I'm assuming the judge will need to instruct the jury.

Only one has a 5 year minimum 

[Dominionatrix]

9 minutes ago, MaryOrMartha said:

How much longer is the trial expected to go?

Closing arguments begin tomorrow morning, and some here have estimated that the jury could begin deliberations by midday. We don’t know how long deliberations will take, although I’d be interested to know what a normal range in a high stakes case is. 

[karenb4729]

4 minutes ago, Dominionatrix said:

Closing arguments begin tomorrow morning, and some here have estimated that the jury could begin deliberations by midday. We don’t know how long deliberations will take, although I’d be interested to know what a normal range in a high stakes case is. 

Factors Affecting the Length of Time a Jury Deliberates: Case Characteristics and Jury Composition, Brunell, Thomas L. / Dave, Chetan / Morgan, Nicholas C., Review of Law & Economics. Volume 5, Issue 1, Pages 555–578, ISSN (Online) 1555-5879, DOI: 10.2202/1555-5879.1334, October 2009 [Full PDF]

This paper (page 16,20) suggests guilty verdicts are returned faster than innocent verdicts for 12 person jury criminal trials from Oregon.

Guilty verdicts take less time than verdicts that declare the defendant not guilty. This is interesting and could be indicative of cases that are so clearly presented and evidenced so as to leave little doubt in the minds of jurors about the innocence or guilt of the defendant, thereby speeding up the decision-making process.

Edited December 8, 2021 by karenb4729

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

1 hour ago, mpheels said:

That’s exactly why cameras are not allowed. Federal judges generally see cameras as a distraction and invasive. Trials are pretty mundane most of the time, and judges like it that way. They don’t want the courtroom to become a soap opera set (see footage of Kyle Rittenhouse “crying” during his testimony). There have been several pilot projects allowing limited use of cameras under certain circumstances, and every time the court administrators decide to stick with the existing ban.

I think cameras need to be in every courtroom for criminal trials.

Take the West Memphis 3. No cameras then there's no HBO. No HBO, no Free The Three movement.  No Free The Three movement, Damien Echols would have been executed 20 years ago and the other two would still be rotting in prison. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

2 hours ago, QuiverFullofBooks said:

He’s probably too busy binge eating to talk. I watched the proposal episode not long ago, and there was a shot of his suitcase with about half a dozen cans of Pringles. He was probably looking forward to eating them in the guest trailer without having to share.

@Buzzard

Is it possible Josh has a binge eating disorder? I think it’s the combination of going to my eating disorder group tonight and hearing the mention of the cans of pringles that made me think of it.

I certainly hope not, eating disorders are hell. No one deserves it.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 minute ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Is it possible Josh has a binge eating disorder? I think it’s the combination of going to my eating disorder group tonight and hearing the mention of the cans of pringles that made me think of it.

I certainly hope not, eating disorders are hell. No one deserves it.

All of what I wish for Josh are a hell of a lot worse than ED.  

 

[Galbin]

1 minute ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Is it possible Josh has a binge eating disorder? I think it’s the combination of going to my eating disorder group tonight and hearing the mention of the cans of pringles that made me think of it.

I certainly hope not, eating disorders are hell. No one deserves it.

He could do. However, it also could be the fact that he likely wasn't taught how to eat a balanced diet. If all you eat are white processed carbs you will likely become insulin resistant over time. IR makes you feel hungry a lot and you also crave simply carbs/sugars. So in Josh's case his poor diet could cause such cravings or the IR resulting from said diet could do it. 

He may have BED too, but interestingly BED has been associated with IR in the research literature. 

[karenb4729]

 Josh needs a new shirt.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

12 minutes ago, FunFunFundie said:

Does anybody know if there is, like, a pro-Josh forum? I’d really love to see any of this from the perspective of somebody who thinks he is innocent. Mostly, I want to know if there’s any possibility the jurors are seeing the evidence differently than we are. I am certain we are correct in our assessment - but I definitely didn’t start out with an unbiased opinion. I’m wondering if there are rational people saying things like “without the router, you truly can’t convict him, the evidence is all circumstantial.”

I want to believe that nobody could see it differently than I do, but I also know I could be very wrong about that.

These are the kind of crimes you aren't going to find a lot of supporters outside of like minded people.  

96%+ Fed trials result in convictions and it's easy to see why.  You'll be hard pressed to find someone who can argue this one has reasonable doubt.

And no one can argue he's innocent on the molestations because he admitted it.  

[Xan]

12 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I've not been able to figure out what the difference is.  If one receives, one possesses or possessed.  If one possesses, one must have received. 

Thoughts on this?  I'm assuming the judge will need to instruct the jury.

Only one has a 5 year minimum 

I looked this up and it's still a bit puzzling.  Receipt is getting it from someone else or some other source.  Possessing it is keeping it after receiving it.  Some sites say there is very little distinction.  I suppose you could receive a file, view it online, but not download it and that would mean that you didn't "possess" it.  I agree that, in order to possess it, you would have had to have received it to start with.

[Beermeet]

34 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

Before the gallery adjourned, KNWA/FOX24 spoke to Jim Bob Duggar, the defendant’s father, asking him about his thoughts on the day’s testimony.

“We just want the truth to come out,” he said. “And we appreciate your prayers for our family.”

He's talking about his desired truth, of course.  Dickweed. 

[Mlissmartin]

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

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

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.

Ummm no there is not always physical issues 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

2 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

You can love your children and still be a crappy parent. You can love your children and be in denial. YOu can love your children and make terrible decisions on their behalf.

CW/TW: Goat’s crappy childhood

Spoiler

I disagree with this sentiment, strongly. Love certainly is an emotion that a parent can feel towards a child but it is also the actions a parent takes to provide and protect a child. Excluding extreme scenarios, making sure there’s enough food is love, making sure they can go to school and get an education is love, speaking kindly to them is love, being there is love.

My parents may have felt love but they frequently did not show it. Abusing my siblings and I, making us compete for resources, not having enough food, only supporting us in ways that made the parent feel good, being told to put your kid in special Ed and not doing it because it would effect your life and your own sense of self too much, choosing not to get involved with your youngest child’s school and telling them you weren’t interested because you already did that, that wasn’t love regardless of how they felt.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by Father Son Holy Goat
Goat has a very messed up childhoo

[Bobology]

3 hours ago, Jackie3 said:

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.

Ethan Couch... "affluenza"...  judge bought it. Basically Ethan didn't know better, couldn't know better, because his parents were such permissive non-parents. The term "affluenza" was made up because there was no other cogent defense.

Edited to add: I caught up on this thread and saw that @HarleyQuinn already mentioned Affluenza. It really happened and was really disgusting.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Bobology
affluenza already mentioned

[karenb4729]

46 minutes ago, FunFunFundie said:

Does anybody know if there is, like, a pro-Josh forum?

UPDATED, sorry it looks like that instagram acct was created after the molestations came out and there is nothing new on it.  Although there are recent comments from the last few weeks.

 

Not a forum but a support page that was created after the molestations came out.

https://www.instagram.com/we_support_josh_duggar

Edited December 8, 2021 by karenb4729

[Dana723]

Is an Alford plea an option in this case? 

[OrchidBlossom]

42 minutes ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

I've not been able to figure out what the difference is.  If one receives, one possesses or possessed.  If one possesses, one must have received. 

Thoughts on this?  I'm assuming the judge will need to instruct the jury.

Only one has a 5 year minimum 

Thoughts under spoiler

Spoiler

So, this isn't entirely true, at least from my reading of the law but please note this is not my area of expertise! In layman's terms, yes. But legally speaking (and I'm simplifying here!) receipt is the act of downloading it, only. That singular moment. Possession requires knowingly keeping it in your control, so if you download it by accident or something, you may arguably have received it but you didn't possess it.

Now to be fair, yeah, they are basically intertwined, but there is a very subtle difference. Also, one can possess because one created, which I would imagine is why they are separated out in this way.

 

2 minutes ago, Dana723 said:

Is an Alford plea an option in this case? 

They've gone through everything except the closings, I doubt they'll change their plea now. 

[karenb4729]

The Sun has had no pictures of Anna or Josh leaving the courthouse today.  They usually have one each day.  Maybe he had a long meeting with his lawyers after today's proceedings or maybe they took him out some back door.  I wonder if his lawyers sat him down and told him he's screwed.

[EmCatlyn]

1 minute ago, Dana723 said:

Is an Alford plea an option in this case? 

I think the time for an Alford plea is before the trial.  The defendant says that he is not guilty but chooses to plead guilty to get a shorter sentence because he knows the evidence is against him.

In any case, I believe it was discussed weeks ago that federal court doesn’t accept Alford pleas.  (Someone correct me if I am wrong.)

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

4 minutes ago, Dana723 said:

Is an Alford plea an option in this case? 

The prosecution would have had to offer/agree to such a plea and I don't see why they would. But regardless, my understanding is the only thing Josh could do now is plead guilty and let the judge sentence him before the jury gets the case.  I don't see any point in that, unless it would take a little time off his sentence. 

[sndral]

55 minutes ago, BensAllergies said:

It was a different judge (a woman) who oversaw the bond hearing. It was a disappointment but I do believe it was an unbiased judgment. He was and is innocent (legally) and had proven not to be a flight risk. Also, the family has privilege and thus had a place for him to live that met the bond conditions. If he had been from a low socioeconomic background then it would have been different.

I also hope that the judge remands him into custody if he is convicted because it changes things. The bond judge implied that it was against her judgment to release him into the community just based on the prior molestation admission. Now he will have two major counts against him (molestation; possession and/or distribution). 

 

53 minutes ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

Obviously we can't function as an official support group of any kind, but if you're talking about a bunch of people who know the pain being there for each other then absolutely.  I am so sorry you've been through what you have, I'm glad you started posting.

I was thinking about this earlier as well, we will all rejoice in a guilty verdict but the trauma this has stirred up for many of us isn't going to go away when they leave the court room.  We need to be kind to each other and ourselves.

And as much as I can get caught up in my own head, reading what some of you have survived has me in awe at your strength and resilience.  You people are a bunch of bad asses meant as the highest compliment.  

I believe it was a different judge pre-trial, or am I mistaken.  I thought it was a woman.

Oops, I forgot he wasn’t the one who let Josh out pretrial, thanks. 
Now that both sides have rested, it’s interesting to me that none of the other witnesses testified - not Jill or Jed, not the inmate the Feds noticed they were bringing in, it’s possible they were potential witnesses to rebut Josh if he testified - the prosecution would only have known that Josh wasn’t taking the stand when they heard “Your Honor the defense rests” rather than “the defense calls Joshua Duggar.” Or perhaps the prosecution felt the case was strong & didn’t want to give the defense a chance to muddy the waters.

I think I read earlier on this or the last thread that the defense had a second expert on their witness list - I wonder did they not call that expert because they thought the expert they did call created enough doubt, or for some other reason?

 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

7 minutes ago, sndral said:

 

Oops, I forgot he wasn’t the one who let Josh out pretrial, thanks. 
Now that both sides have rested, it’s interesting to me that none of the other witnesses testified - not Jill or Jed, not the inmate the Feds noticed they were bringing in, it’s possible they were potential witnesses to rebut Josh if he testified - the prosecution would only have known that Josh wasn’t taking the stand when they heard “Your Honor the defense rests” rather than “the defense calls Joshua Duggar.” Or perhaps the prosecution felt the case was strong & didn’t want to give the defense a chance to muddy the waters.

I think I read earlier on this or the last thread that the defense had a second expert on their witness list - I wonder did they not call that expert because they thought the expert they did call created enough doubt, or for some other reason?

 

 

IMO no way they thought she was creating doubt, but more likely they know there is no legit defense from a technical aspect so they didn't want to make it worse.  

[CyborgKin]

3 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

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

I think it was Universal Plug and Play.

from Wikipedia:

Quote

Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) is a set of networking protocols that permits networked devices, such as personal computers, printers, Internet gateways, Wi-Fi access points and mobile devices to seamlessly discover each other's presence on the network and establish functional network services.

3 hours ago, anjulibai said:

No, they are a very bad idea and designed to fuck with public educaation. Vouchers take money away from public schools.  Descent private schools generally cost way more than voucher systems give, so it's still out of reach to those vouches are alleged to help. Those private schools that vouchers cover the cost generally have substandard curricula and teachers. Plus, private schools of any sort don't take just anyone. They don't provide all services. Your kid has special needs, they can just kick your kid out. 

No, sorry, vouchers fucking suck and are a conservative gimic to destroy the secular public education. 

Ah so that's why my dad said vouchers are a good idea: he's explicitly pro destruction of secular public education.

[neuroticcat]

1 hour ago, karenb4729 said:

Before the gallery adjourned, KNWA/FOX24 spoke to Jim Bob Duggar, the defendant’s father, asking him about his thoughts on the day’s testimony.

“We just want the truth to come out,” he said. “And we appreciate your prayers for our family.”

That seems a significantly diplomatic answer. I mean, they haven’t told the truth about Josh. They have absolutely not wanted the truth to come out despite many opportunities along the way to do so. This makes it sound like they were hoodwinked victims too or something. If, for some reason, Josh walks - they can be like: we knew all along he was framed by McBurglar! If he gets sentenced, they can be in the side of truth as law abiding truth-loving citizens. 🙄This is a political answer with campaign and family image in mind. I wonder if here is any disconnect for him anymore or has the consciousness of public image been so ingrained it feels authentic. 

1 hour ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

Is it possible Josh has a binge eating disorder? I think it’s the combination of going to my eating disorder group tonight and hearing the mention of the cans of pringles that made me think of it.

I certainly hope not, eating disorders are hell. No one deserves it.

I mean, I think a lot of them have disordered eating, but so does most of America. I think it’s probably a given that the weird shift from scarcity/poverty (Jill’s accidental confession of scarfing food in the bathroom) to abundance with the show’s success caused strange issues. Add to that the coping mechanism of control of food in abusive situations - I remember reading Jana going to WW as a teen and eating two eggs a day every day and it pinging my own orthorexia radar - and I’d be surprised if it wasn’t connected. I think Josh’s weight fluctuations could just be typical packing on the pounds when he could eat whatever whenever and had Anna cooking large family sized meals for the two of them, but it seemed to get worse post scandal.