Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 #2

[IzzyBlanche]

I believe he will parrot Waller's testimony, "everyone 'knows' the passwords for Josh's computer". And verify when he was there, other employees. Try to deflect the CSAM, it could have been anyone...create reasonable doubt.

Well yeah, it could have been "anyone"

But

What are the chances of more than one employee being interested in CSAM, which is pretty rare actually (the interest, I mean)

The most likely suspect is the one who molested his underage sisters, according to Occam.

 

[Ruminations]

Once the judge permitted his sexual offense history to be brought up during the trial, why wasn’t his bail revoked? It seems like that situation has now been confirmed and should show a history/pattern of escalating behavior. Why would we care to accommodate his freedom at this point?

As @gitana1 recalls, the foundational principles of how God, male humans and female humans all hang together in this sect make it impossible for Anna to do more than to sweetly point out that Josh appears to be getting tempted to sin- like his little accountability helper. If a wife stops obeying her husband, she is going against god, and losing god’s protection of her soul. So that was one reason the terms of “home confinement” involving contact with his own children under Anna’s supervisor never made sense. (It is analogous to a secretary can remind a boss that the boss has to leave now for a meeting to arrive on time, indeed it might be the secretary’s responsibility to do so. But the boss is still the boss, and the secretary could be reprimanded for reminding or failing to remind by the boss, the secretary can not reprimand the boss for failing to show up for the meeting on time. The difference is the secretary could lose a job, while a wife who disobeys her husband could lose her eternal soul.)

Besides, I can’t imagine the logistics for how Anna could possibly protect so many children even if she were the “headship.” As was established, he was known to stealthily victimize much younger girls in his youth. He he standing trial accused of stealthily victimizing infants, toddlers and children he doesn’t know by swapping CSAM. I don’t see how anyone could manage 6-7 children and babies and Josh, and keep the children safe, given how sneaky Josh is.

Still, Josh was bonded out. And this information is not new to the judge. It is only new that it is admissible. I don’t see how anything other than Josh’s behavior could get the bond arrangement changed now. For instance if he attempted to flee or took actions suggesting he was preparing to do so, or if he violated the terms of his release by going where he may not, or took actions suggesting he was preparing to do so.

His bond arrangement sickens me, but I don’t see how it could fairly be changed now unless he violates it, or there is some law change about pretrial/presentence incarceration. (Which is on my wishlist- holy disparities, Batman!)

 

[mickey2942]

Well yeah, it could have been "anyone"

But

What are the chances of more than one employee being interested in CSAM, which is pretty rare actually (the interest, I mean)

The most likely suspect is the one who molested his underage sisters, according to Occam.

Exactly. That is why allowing the information in about Josh's molestation of his sisters is so important to this case.

I am sure that this will be an appellate issue. He was underage, and never charged...blah, blah...but it established his prior pedophilia. That is why Jill's testimony is absolutely crucial to this case. As a victim, she has every right to testify to the abuse she received from the defendant.

The entire situation is heart wrenching. I am sure, given the attitude of JB Duggar, that he will blame Jill if Josh Duggar is convicted. He won't see that Josh Duggar is the problem here.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I believe he will parrot Waller's testimony, "everyone 'knows' the passwords for Josh's computer". And verify when he was there, other employees. Try to deflect the CSAM, it could have been anyone...create reasonable doubt.

Fortunately (for us, not for Josh), it appears that he sent Anna texts during the downloading time frame, establishing he was alone at the lot, and I believe he also took photos during that same time frame which place him (well, his phone) at the car lot. He even did some other regular car-sales work on the computer during that time (ordered something online, or posted car info, can't recall the details but along those lines).

And the car sales office is apparently so small that on another discussion board they are calling it "the tollbooth".

So I don't think any claims of someone else being there and using the computer at that same time will hold up in court.

The defense seems to be trying to suggest the download was done remotely but the tech folks testifying seem to be making it clear that the way the computer was set up, a person had to be physically present at the computer to access the Linux side and then the Tor browser.

In addition there was apparently testimony by LE that showed that after the files were downloaded, they were accessed multiple times (like hundreds).

It seems that any contorted explanation that removes Josh from that scene would be far beyond reasonable doubt, IMO.

 

[Knox]

Exactly. That is why allowing the information in about Josh's molestation of his sisters is so important to this case.

I am sure that this will be an appellate issue. He was underage, and never charged...blah, blah...but it established his prior pedophilia. That is why Jill's testimony is absolutely crucial to this case. As a victim, she has every right to testify to the abuse she received from the defendant.

The entire situation is heart wrenching. I am sure, given the attitude of JB Duggar, that he will blame Jill if Josh Duggar is convicted. He won't see that Josh Duggar is the problem here.

I don't disagree with anything you state. However, there are many other cases where prior acts are ruled inadmissible for this very reason. It doesn't do any good to gain a conviction, only to have it overturned later. This concerns me, I want him behind bars for a good long time!! The evidence seems to be strong enough to gain a conviction on it's own?

 

[mickey2942]

I don't disagree with anything you state. However, there are many other cases where prior acts are ruled inadmissible for this very reason. It doesn't do any good to gain a conviction, only to have it overturned later. This concerns me, I want him behind bars for a good long time!! The evidence seems to be strong enough to gain a conviction on it's own?

Jill's testimony will establish Josh Duggar as a pedophile. And, if I was on the jury, it would be the key.

It will be interesting to see how to defense deals with her, and treats her testimony.

 

[Quiet Time]

I hope she gets to testify!

Is there any reason they could change their minds, and decide not to have her take the stand?

 

[Scrapper18]

Well yeah, it could have been "anyone"

But

What are the chances of more than one employee being interested in CSAM, which is pretty rare actually (the interest, I mean)

The most likely suspect is the one who molested his underage sisters, according to Occam.

Due to TOS, I can not mention names. However, one person the defense mentioned, in there hinting at remote access, did serve jail time for statutory rape. JMO/MOO

 

[Shamrock1]

Due to TOS, I can not mention names. However, one person the defense mentioned, in there hinting at remote access, did serve jail time for statutory rape. JMO/MOO

Is that person the same person who was in jail for the dates in question?

 

[mickey2942]

Is that person the same person who was in jail for the dates in question?

I don't think so, it was someone who had accessed adult at the car dealership at night. That is clearly in the evidence regarding internet history.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

I don't think so, it was someone who had accessed adult at the car dealership at night. That is clearly in the evidence regarding internet history.

I think that person was shown to be out of state on the relevant date. Or at least that's the assertion.

 

[mickey2942]

I think that person was shown to be out of state on the relevant date. Or at least that's the assertion.

That is why, I believe that the defense is going to try to create some sort of magical theory that anyone could have accessed the internet IP remotely.

I could be wrong, and the government has already pointed out the flaws here. That somehow, they have video footage of Josh at his computer, the same time the downloads occurred.

Which doesn't negate the "magical" theory. But definitely creates a problem. I am very interested in the defense, maybe they can produce some magical unicorn. This defense team is spot on so far.

 

[BeckyF]

I don't disagree with anything you state. However, there are many other cases where prior acts are ruled inadmissible for this very reason. It doesn't do any good to gain a conviction, only to have it overturned later. This concerns me, I want him behind bars for a good long time!! The evidence seems to be strong enough to gain a conviction on it's own?

I’ve had the same concern. Please read Gitana1’s response to me when I voiced the same concern. The judge cited several precedents when he made his decision to allow the testimony.

 

[Knox]

I’ve had the same concern. Please read Gitana1’s response to me when I voiced the same concern. The judge cited several precedents when he made his decision to allow the testimony.

Thank you, I'd love to read G's post, can you bring it forward?

 

[Knox]

Jill's testimony will establish Josh Duggar as a pedophile. And, if I was on the jury, it would be the key.

It will be interesting to see how to defense deals with her, and treats her testimony.

Again, I am not disagreeing with the powerful nature of Jill's testimony or that jurors should hear it. Only the concern that a crafty defense attorney can use it in appellate court after a conviction is handed down.

 

[BeckyF]

Thank you, I'd love to read G's post, can you bring it forward?

Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 #2 | Page 39 (websleuths.com)

 

[Zella]

Again, I am not disagreeing with the powerful nature of Jill's testimony or that jurors should hear it. Only the concern that a crafty defense attorney can use it in appellate court after a conviction is handed down.

Per an article I've quoted here before, the judge has noted that this circuit court has never reversed a decision for including prior acts. They have reversed one decision for not doing so. I really don't think it is a big concern.

"The judge acknowledged taking “a fairly deep dive” on rule 414, finding “pretty strong case law” to admit the prior acts of molestation as evidence. He noted that the 8th circuit has never reversed a case of admitting it, while one case was reversed for not admitting such evidence."

Judge calls for evidentiary hearing during Josh Duggar child pre-trial conference

 

[mickey2942]

Again, I am not disagreeing with the powerful nature of Jill's testimony or that jurors should hear it. Only the concern that a crafty defense attorney can use it in appellate court after a conviction is handed down.

A lot of the testimony about previous bad acts is going to have more weight in the sentencing phase. The appellate court could knock it out for sentencing, but not for the jury findings.

Just be glad that this is not the 9th circuit Court, which is like a crazy clown car. The 8th circuit court is one of the most conservative courts in the nation. Lawyers actively try to not get in front of this court.

Look up the 8th circuit court, where Justice Brett Kavanagh, used to be Chief Justice.

 

[Zella]

I agree with Mickey it will probably factor more in the sentencing. But it also functions as explanation of motive. It shows Josh has a longstanding documented sexual interest in prepubescent girls, which is directly relevant to the CSAM found on his computer.

 

[Knox]

Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 #2 | Page 39 (websleuths.com)

Thanks!