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

[sndral]

32 minutes ago, karenb4729 said:

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.

IME security at courthouses want you out so that they can go home - so any long defense meetings should occur elsewhere. Sometimes the Judge & the lawyers will go over the final set of jury instructions to be given after all the evidence is in, and this can take a long time, in my jurisdiction the defendant had the right to be present when this happened & if they wanted to be present we’d go over instructions in the closed (not open to the public) courtroom, but most opted not to be present & we’d usually hash out the final version of the instructions in chambers, Fed Courts may be more formal, though. 
It’s possible they took a long time w/ the instructions & the press left before the defense left or as you said they were allowed out via another exit or maybe the Sun was so busy trying to correctly ID various Duggars that Josh & entourage slipped out unnoticed.

[neuroticcat]

11 minutes ago, CyborgKin said:

I

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

So funny (to me) story: When I was in college several decades ago, I was visiting my future father-in-law in a holiday break. He went on and on a with conservative taking points about public education, and I really had no concept about the argument or his politics and didn’t really care, but had listened to his monologues. So go back to school and the first week in to a sociology class the prof invites arguments against vouchers. Not sure why I decided to engage, but I repeated his talking points which were that voucher funded private education would allow the state to interfere in private education, and that would be bad for parents’ rights, etc. I could hear the crickets afterward. The prof was like…er…no, actually. So, I guess not all conservatives are pro voucher? 😳

[Travlr98]

[Funwithfundies]

2 minutes ago, Travlr98 said:

Yes please!

[QuiverFullOfCondoms]

10 minutes ago, Travlr98 said:

Love it 🤣🤣

[Dandruff]

Does no one appreciate that Josh doesn't use profanity and that his children are protected from the evil influences of public schools?

[Queen Of Hearts]

Guys, I think I've solved this whodunit!

 

[TuringMachine]

Well regardless of the outcome I can at least be grateful to this trial for giving me the phrase

Quote

self-serving, contradictory, and lacking in credibility

Never before have I heard a more apt description of a conservative white man.

Edited December 8, 2021 by TuringMachine

[molecule]

With closing arguments in the morning, it's likely that we will have a verdict in the next day or two. Can I just encourage us all to be proactive about our mental health? 

Through my son's legal mess, I've learned that I manage best if I have already planned something soothing for later in the day. I'll probably bake something tomorrow so I can look forward to a comforting dessert, or maybe I'll make a coffee and dessert date with my husband or a friend.  Doing something uplifting or life-affirming after a court decision shifts the trajectory of my thoughts and helps me deal with my feelings in a healthier way. 

If you already have effective self care strategies in place, yay, you! If you don't, though, maybe think ahead a bit about what would help you regain your mental  balance, especially if this trial is triggering for you. 

[MomJeans]

2 hours 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 

The instructions are practically the same.  The crimes are practically the same as well when receiving files through the internet. 

Link to Federal Jury Instructions (different circuit, but likely similar to what will be used tomorrow- also I knew where these instructions were, and I hate googling this subject), **Trigger warning**, discusses the legal definitions of CSA material.  https://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/sites/ca6/files/documents/pattern_jury/pdf/Chapter 16_0.pdf

Jury Instruction on pg 24:  received  (trigger warning) (in theory, this requires that the defendant purposefully obtained the images, but it doesn't require the defendant to save the images to be guilty).

Jury Instruction on pg. 28: possessed.  (trigger warning)  (in theory this requires the defendant to have purposefully saved the images to be guilty.)

Pre-internet, when CSAM was largely shared via mail, receiving was a necessary statutory violation, and not just possession, because distributors were intermediaries- they didn't hold onto it for long.  There wasn't necessarily much in their possession.  As soon as it was received it was sold again. Destruction of the evidence was also easier.  But this carried the higher minimum penalty because lawmakers believed that pursuing and punishing the profiteering of CSAM was the best way to fight CSAM, and it was inherently more morally corrupt and therefore, deserved more punishment. 

It's still theoretically possible that a perpetrator can erase evidence of one crime and not the other. 

There is some outcry to Congress to realign the two crimes to carry the same minimum sentencing of zero years, since "received" does not require an intent to distribute for money, thus, the original reasoning for the higher minimum sentencing does not apply.  Personally, I don't think there is a member of Congress who wants to publicly be responsible for lowering the minimum sentence for CSAM crime, so unless the Courts intervene, it's not going to happen. (I'm not advocating it. just giving background).

Edited December 8, 2021 by MomJeans
typos

[Giraffe]

I'll be in meetings or on the road most of the day tomorrow. I'm hoping for a verdict by the time I get to my destination in the early evening!

[Idlewild]

JB’s election FB page posted 3 times yesterday - if we thought he had any sense of shame then we stand corrected- he is still very much feeling entitled to be elected.

Early voting started yesterday- I think that’s why he turned up- so his name would be out there and people would feel sorry for him. Even if Josh goes to prison, JB will never go away and never stop thinking he’s the guy to tell everyone how to live.

[Dandruff]

11 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

JB’s election FB page posted 3 times yesterday - if we thought he had any sense of shame then we stand corrected- he is still very much feeling entitled to be elected.

I hope his opponents for that seat don't pull any punches and that the voters actually pay attention.  Reminders about protecting young daughters might help, as well as excerpts from the court document referencing JB's credibility.

[EmCatlyn]

20 minutes ago, Idlewild said:

JB’s election FB page posted 3 times yesterday - if we thought he had any sense of shame then we stand corrected- he is still very much feeling entitled to be elected.

Early voting started yesterday- I think that’s why he turned up- so his name would be out there and people would feel sorry for him. Even if Josh goes to prison, JB will never go away and never stop thinking he’s the guy to tell everyone how to live.

Yeah.  If he doesn’t get elected, his next shot may be at becoming some sort of preacher —he could use the pain he experienced when his son was attacked by Satan as a starting point.  He might write a book about his life and what God has taught him, etc.

There seems to be a crazy rumor (reported by some redditors) that Jim Bob has told his family and close friends that he is a “prophet of God,” whose message must be heeded.  I don’t believe there is any truth in this, but I wonder if the rumor started with some “followers” responding to hints that JB would not mind being offered a pulpit.

I really think that “Preacher” may be where JB goes next, if he loses the election.  He definitely has the narcissistic need to be some sort of leader.

[karenb4729]

Derrick made a comment to People magazine

[imokit]

Go Derrick!

I refuse to believe that he's the only one in that family thinking it. I'm not expecting anyone else to admit it publicly but go Derrick, use that law degree!

[Idlewild]

According to some reports JB was shaking his head when the prosecution expert said the router wasn’t relevant. You can see where this will go - the router will become the Hunter’s laptop of the Duggar cause. 

[3KidsAndStopped]

Today feels like a good day for justice to be served.

Let us hope for short closing statements, swift jury deliberations and for justice to be done.

[Sops2]

David Waller was there again yesterday- here he is walking out like one of Jim bob's lackeys.- just the 2 of them.

Not a good look for David- it's a thin line between supporting Anna and the family and supporting a paedophile. Read the room David, and have the sense not to show your face. You can support them without putting yourself in front of the cameras.Its sickening to see.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Sops2

[moriah]

54 minutes ago, imokit said:

Go Derrick!

I refuse to believe that he's the only one in that family thinking it. I'm not expecting anyone else to admit it publicly but go Derrick, use that law degree!

I'm not buying it, either.  

I'm honestly surprised they didn't feel persecuted enough to allege physical intrusion -- yes, theoretically if someone had broken into the dealership, thrown a KVM switch on the desktop, managed to hide it and its network cable from everyone, they COULD have done this remotely. 

But it would have required two separate physical intrusions, not just one -- one to get the thumb drive in and put a KVM in, then the other to remove the KVM.

Perhaps they did run that theory by the defense expert, and she wasn't willing to testify to it/felt the jury would buy someone from Paris doing it more than someone hating the Duggars enough to risk getting caught physically breaking and entering -- not just once, but twice.

-----

To clarify, I'm not sure which would be the bigger reach for the defense.  Maybe they considered alleging physical intrusion until passwords seemed to disprove it, so are going for the lame theory that he put a Linux partition on for adult pr0n and didn't realize there's plenty of free adult pr0n on the real web vs through the dark web/torrents.  

Both theories are so ridiculous they stretch the imagination.  But at least the two-physical-intrusion one is *possible*, should they have a techie on a NWA jury.  Still highly unreasonable, tho.

Edited December 8, 2021 by moriah
Clarficication

[AussieKrissy]

I remember the episode that was basically a pissing contest between Josh and pecan thief. They both acted like utter twat waffles drama babies. My impression is that pecan thief loves drama and being in the thick of things. He would be eating up being a support person/pastor just like fucktard Spivey women. Who should have had the common sense (as a mother) to clip Justin over the back of the head when he thumbs up for the paps. Or stopped him when he mentioned to her that he was thinking of doing something “positive” for the paps. 
drama attracts people who like to revel in it. Plus I bet a part of pecan thief is loving pests downfall. 

[Someone Out There]

8 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. 

Here is an article about Sweden who implemented it a while ago https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/10/sweden-schools-crisis-political-failure-education .  I don't see the USA having the proper oversight of the schools in question.  Personally I think that part of the issue with the system in the USA is that a chunk of funding is too locally focus i.e. it comes from school district taxes. This basically perpetuates disadvantage as districts that house lower incomes have less ability to raise taxes to fund the schools.

[sableduck]

1 hour ago, karenb4729 said:

Derrick made a comment to People magazine

I’m shocked that Derick Dillard thinks Josh is guilty. Shocked.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Derick did try to keep an open mind and listen to the evidence—no matter how we dislike someone everyone deserves a fair trial and a defense.  But by saying there’s only unreasonable doubt, Derick is using legalese to say the prosecution has proven its case, at least to him. 
even trying to keep an open mind, I’m pretty sure Derick knew the truth from the start. I’m going to enjoy his tell all someday.

[karenb4729]

3 minutes ago, sableduck said:

I’m shocked that Derick Dillard thinks Josh is guilty. Shocked.

It wouldn’t surprise me if Derick did try to keep an open mind and listen to the evidence—no matter how we dislike someone everyone deserves a fair trial and a defense.  But by saying there’s only unreasonable doubt, Derick is using legalese to say the prosecution has proven its case, at least to him. 
even trying to keep an open mind, I’m pretty sure Derick knew the truth from the start. I’m going to enjoy his tell all someday.

I think Derrick used this opportunity to use his law school knowledge.  He had his notebook and I'm sure listened and observed how everything was handled.  If I had been in law school I would want to watch just for the experience.  He has a vested interest in this case.  The article in People also said that Jill will not be with him tomorrow when this goes to the jury.  I'm glad she didn't need to testify, I think all this has really impacted her as it's impacted so many other people who have been victims.

[SongRed7]

12 hours ago, SongRed7 said:

12 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

an expert with no expertise

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

Omg. I wake up to find my suggestion was considered for the thread title (even though @HerNameIsBuffy said those words in the description! A FJ first for me!  Thank you! (And to anyone else who suggested it!)