Josh and Anna 56: AMA and Stuck in Duggarville?

[Coconut Flan]

From my understanding of the trial, there wasn't much material for Gelfand to work with on the appeal.  I didn't listen.  I tried, but gave up quickly.  

[waltraute]

21 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

What else can you take from someone already in prison?  No pudding tonight?

In Josh's case, he has good time credit that can and should be revoked. In my mind, using an internet device, even if only once, should be grounds to eliminate all possibility of good time credit during his incarceration, seeing as how he came to be in prison in the first place. If I'm figuring correctly, removing the credit entirely would mean adding almost another 2 years to when he could have been released. Give him all the pudding he wants, just keep him in there.

Also, I'm not convinced any of this has actually happened. I'd love to see this info coming from a reliable source.

[Coconut Flan]

Since possession of a cell phone by an inmate is a federal crime, they can not only remove good time credit, they may add a year to his sentence for each offense if, indeed, he was caught with a cell phone.  

[Satan'sFortress]

re: solitary confinement, if anyone is in the greater Philadelphia region, it is worth a trip to the Eastern State Penitentiary. You learn that solitary confinement was intended to be a prison reform--where prisoners would be alone and allowed to give great time and thought (i.e. be penitent) as a way to be redeemed. In practice, that didn't work out so well. read more here

It has great information about the current state of the US prison system. as well.  Spoiler alert--it isn't good.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Satan'sFortress
added link

[Giraffe]

1 hour ago, waltraute said:

Also, I'm not convinced any of this has actually happened. I'd love to see this info coming from a reliable source.

Same. While it’s plausible I’m taking it with a grain of salt until it’s confirmed in some other way.

[Antimony]

15 hours ago, Chickenbutt said:

Josh had his appellate hearing today. WOACB is airing (it is audio only. No cameras)  the entire hearing (she comments occasionally). Its about 45 minutes. I listened and in my mind it didn't go well for Josh. His attorney is focusing on Caleb, Josh invoking his right to an attorney, and the Meta Data stuff, which is all BS IMO. The Government was concise in their answers and Gelfand sounded like he was whining. 

 

Almost all of that was ruled in during or before court, which is bad for Gelfand as far as appelate work goes. The right to an attorney stuff came up pre-trial, and Caleb's issue was ruled on in Chambers. The Meta Data stuff is maybe the best but I can't remember what the issue was...something about testimony from a non-expert on that data? If so, that seems like it would be a Defense error, because they didnt try to stop it during the proceedings. 

I just don't think there's a lot.

[Chickenbutt]

@AntimonyThe Meta Data stuff....I think Gelfands issue is that his expert wasn't allowed to dispute the prosecutions expert. I could be wrong though.

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

4 hours ago, waltraute said:

In Josh's case, he has good time credit that can and should be revoked. In my mind, using an internet device, even if only once, should be grounds to eliminate all possibility of good time credit during his incarceration, seeing as how he came to be in prison in the first place. If I'm figuring correctly, removing the credit entirely would mean adding almost another 2 years to when he could have been released. Give him all the pudding he wants, just keep him in there.

Also, I'm not convinced any of this has actually happened. I'd love to see this info coming from a reliable source.

An investigation has to happen first, before anything can change with an inmate's sentence or good time credit.  It's my understanding that the inmate caught with contraband is removed from general population and is segregated/isolated while the investigation goes forward.  Seems reasonable to me. 

I agree that we can't know what actually did or didn't happen because Katie Joy generally can't be trusted. But her source or sources who are apparently family members of inmates in Seagoville do seem to at least be real. Not sure how good their intel is though. With that said, Josh probably misses his damn phone more than he does his kids. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

21 hours ago, Anne Of Gray Gables said:

An investigation has to happen first, before anything can change with an inmate's sentence or good time credit.  It's my understanding that the inmate caught with contraband is removed from general population and is segregated/isolated while the investigation goes forward.  Seems reasonable to me. 

I agree that we can't know what actually did or didn't happen because Katie Joy generally can't be trusted. But her source or sources who are apparently family members of inmates in Seagoville do seem to at least be real. Not sure how good their intel is though. With that said, Josh probably misses his damn phone more than he does his kids. 

If he did actually have a contraband cell phone I hope they throw the book at him.

[Giraffe]

50 minutes ago, Father Son Holy Goat said:

If he did actually have a contraband cell phone I hope they throw the book at him.

Exactly. I will do a happy dance if at some point he gets time added to his sentence to breaking rules. 

[Jana814]

4 hours ago, Giraffe said:

Exactly. I will do a happy dance if at some point he gets time added to his sentence to breaking rules. 

Same with me. 

[Father Son Holy Goat]

8 hours ago, Giraffe said:

Exactly. I will do a happy dance if at some point he gets time added to his sentence to breaking rules. 

Maybe I will get my wish- 19 years and counting!

[Father Son Holy Goat]

Whether or not the story is true it seems to be gaining traction.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/josh-duggar-placed-prison-solitary-174949010.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS91cmw_cT1odHRwcyUzQSUyRiUyRnd3dy55YWhvby5jb20lMkZub3clMkZqb3NoLWR1Z2dhci1wbGFjZWQtcHJpc29uLXNvbGl0YXJ5LTE3NDk0OTAxMC5odG1sJnNhPVUmdmVkPTJhaFVLRXdpWnVfVEN5YXI5QWhYNEVsa0ZIWlh1QnAwNENoQVdlZ1FJQkJBQiZ1c2c9QU92VmF3M09hSmhFeXh5UjBjMmJqNEF5ZTc0Zg&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGxVX9uqYt5KNeVzQu2CzU31XhIk-yO6E0Y1rguBVkK2jf1oSl6wnj5CzNIeH-Xanl-wwee-4slJEzUMpCt3xuJpVONKeAVvjUHv9k5XE4putByX5cWYmFh4UE-nu-S8Vb__FOWYkj1mXHH6IVFf96WgGeaiCakT6mzwLqPLi5WP

[Bobology]

From the article:
"The father of seven was found guilty of receiving and possessing child pornography in December 2021; however, his attorneys are arguing that the evidence presented by prosecution did not prove that Josh viewed the pornography downloaded to his computer."

Josh wasn't charged with or convicted of 'viewing' CSAM, was he? Is there such a thing as being convicted of 'viewing' it? This quote from the article linked in FSHG's post above seems weird. I do realize that journalists will sometimes add quotes to info, as if it were a real statement. Why does Josh's viewing or not viewing the imagery have anything to do with his conviction? Was there any burden of proof of Josh viewing the CSAM in order to be convicted of receiving and possessing it? 

 

[sableduck]

Amy thinks it’s true; she’s talking about it on her TikTok.  I somehow doubt that she knows much more about Josh’s prison life than the general public though, since JB and Anna probably aren’t confiding in her and Josh probably isn’t writing her letters.

[Coconut Flan]

1 hour ago, Bobology said:

Why does Josh's viewing or not viewing the imagery have anything to do with his conviction? Was there any burden of proof of Josh viewing the CSAM in order to be convicted of receiving and possessing it? 

Nope.  The legal charge is possessing.  If he had it, that's a crime.  Receiving is a lesser included of possessing.  If you have it, you obviously received it.  I could have some sitting in my front hall that a neighbor dropped on their way out the door and I didn't notice.  If my house was raided, I could still be charged and quite possibly convicted of possession.  Home owners are responsible for everything in their house.  It's a scary thought for parents of teens.

[Bethy]

2 hours ago, Bobology said:

Josh wasn't charged with or convicted of 'viewing' CSAM, was he? Is there such a thing as being convicted of 'viewing' it? 
 

I should hope not. That would make criminals out of anyone whose Zoom ever got hacked by someone with CSAM to share.

27 minutes ago, Coconut Flan said:

Nope.  The legal charge is possessing.  If he had it, that's a crime.  Receiving is a lesser included of possessing.  If you have it, you obviously received it.  I could have some sitting in my front hall that a neighbor dropped on their way out the door and I didn't notice.  If my house was raided, I could still be charged and quite possibly convicted of possession.  Home owners are responsible for everything in their house.  It's a scary thought for parents of teens.

Earlier in my teaching career, when cell phones with picture-taking capacity became a thing, I remember being taught not to confiscate a student's cell phone, no matter how disruptive they were being in class with it, because if that student had taken any inappropriate pictures with it (of him/herself or others) and my fingerprints were on the phone, I would now have taken "possession" of CSAM materials and could be criminally charged. I actually held off for a REALLY long time on getting a phone that could take or receive pictures because I was afraid someone would either intentionally (to sabotage my career) or accidentally (legitimate wrong number) send me inappropriate photos and I would land in jail.

[Bobology]

19 hours ago, Bethy said:

I actually held off for a REALLY long time on getting a phone that could take or receive pictures because I was afraid someone would either intentionally (to sabotage my career) or accidentally (legitimate wrong number) send me inappropriate photos and I would land in jail.

I suppose if you know "Caleb" then it was a legitimate fear. (For the record, I am also cautious about potential problems; I'm making fun of Josh's attorneys here, not you.)

[OldFadedStar]

23 hours ago, Bethy said:

I should hope not. That would make criminals out of anyone whose Zoom ever got hacked by someone with CSAM to share.

Earlier in my teaching career, when cell phones with picture-taking capacity became a thing, I remember being taught not to confiscate a student's cell phone, no matter how disruptive they were being in class with it, because if that student had taken any inappropriate pictures with it (of him/herself or others) and my fingerprints were on the phone, I would now have taken "possession" of CSAM materials and could be criminally charged. I actually held off for a REALLY long time on getting a phone that could take or receive pictures because I was afraid someone would either intentionally (to sabotage my career) or accidentally (legitimate wrong number) send me inappropriate photos and I would land in jail.

When I was doing student teaching, the school I was at had special ziploc bags to put cell phones in. The student was to put their phone in the bag for it to be confiscated. This was so there would be no adult fingerprints on it for the reason you mentioned above. This was 2010

[Coconut Flan]

According to The Ashley, Josh has lost 10 days of good time credit due to the possession of a cell phone.  Apparently he's still in the SHU with no known release date.  

[Mrs Ms]

How reliable is The Ashley? 

[Anne Of Gray Gables]

26 minutes ago, Mrs Ms said:

How reliable is The Ashley? 

I saw some screen prints on Reddit that seemed to confirm 10 days have indeed been added to the original release date posted at the BOP site. Not sure about the rest, but it sounds like he has been punished. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by Anne Of Gray Gables

[waltraute]

Only 10 days good time credit lost for having a cell phone? Considering the nature of his crime I would think he should have lost a year or more. Won't staying offline be the condition of his release? And here he is in jail already breaking that rule.

 

[Coconut Flan]

There is a list of punishments and he'll be getting more than just the loss of good time credit.  They need room for greater punishment if he commits more offenses.  This occurred less than a year into his sentence.

I'm not trying to defend it really.  I was surprised it was only ten days.  I would have thought he would have lost half to all the good time credit he had so far.  

Edited March 11, 2023 by Coconut Flan

[marmalade]

They could add more time. We don't know how recently the change was made. As the article stated, possession of a cell phone is one of the most serious offenses, so I don't think they're done punishing him yet.