Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 *guilty* #3

[Ruminations]

Interesting that the prosecution rests...they didn't call the jail cellmate or Josh's sister. I sincerely hope that she isn't being called for the defense.

Can't each side cross examine; this just means that the prosecution can only bring up whatever the defense brought up, yet I think that is enough.

The prosecution is trying to protect victims, not revictimize them. So whoever calls Jill first and brings up being molested (or protecting/getting told something by a little buddy, being that the older children looked after assigned "buddies"), is going to be making Jill really uncomfortable, IMO, or I imagine.

If she wants to lie, or not recall stuff, she will hurt the prosecution. If she lies about the ample public ally available information or waters dawn Bobye, the prosecution can cross examine very sensitively ask her to correct the record, saying that they didn't want to bring this up, but since the meanies on defense started it, we have to make sure the facts are clear.

Jill is on her own journey. A lot of posters on multiple forums are projecting their testimony fantasies (If it were me, I'd say...) And people are encouraging her.

But we really have no idea what pressures are on her or what she wants to do. And she is the one who has to live with the consequences, not us.

One more thing: she can't free-style. She has to answer the questions she is asked on the stand. Every uncomfortable question sounds worse on direct rather than cross. (IANAL, I just love the jargon.)

If I were the prosecution and I thought they would do it, I would have let the call "the candidate," too. But the defense has nothing to gain from Boob, that I can see.

 

[MsJosie]

The prosecution may have Jill testify to rebut anything Josh might say if he gets on the stand to defen himself. We don’t know yet if he is going to testify….have to wait and see if he will get on the stand.

moo

 

[Sneaker33]

someone remembers a conversation about computer from 11 years ago? interesting

I have a particularly good memory at times so it does not surprise me.

 

[mickey2942]

Just having Jill on the witness list, as a potential witness, if she was on the list for the prosecution may have been a complete gamechanger for the defense.

 

[jessarox]

Can't each side cross examine; this just means that the prosecution can only bring up whatever the defense brought up, yet I think that is enough.

Prosecution goes first so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this?

The prosecution is trying to protect victims, not revictimize them. So whoever calls Jill first and brings up being molested (or protecting/getting told something by a little buddy, being that the older children looked after assigned "buddies"), is going to be making Jill really uncomfortable, IMO, or I imagine.

If she wants to lie, or not recall stuff, she will hurt the prosecution. If she lies about the ample public ally available information or waters dawn Bobye, the prosecution can cross examine very sensitively ask her to correct the record, saying that they didn't want to bring this up, but since the meanies on defense started it, we have to make sure the facts are clear.

Jill is on her own journey. A lot of posters on multiple forums are projecting their testimony fantasies (If it were me, I'd say...) And people are encouraging her.

But we really have no idea what pressures are on her or what she wants to do. And she is the one who has to live with the consequences, not us.

One more thing: she can't free-style. She has to answer the questions she is asked on the stand. Every uncomfortable question sounds worse on direct rather than cross. (IANAL, I just love the jargon.)

If I were the prosecution and I thought they would do it, I would have let the call "the candidate," too. But the defense has nothing to gain from Boob, that I can see.

I definitely think that both sides are avoiding putting Jill on the stand. The prosecution doesn't want to re-victimize/re-traumatize her and the defense doesn't want her firsthand knowledge of the molestation to be on display.

I definitely find it strange that so many people are projecting their testimony fantasies as you put it. I think a lot of people are wishing they could confront their own abusers and projecting it onto Jill.

I truly hope she doesn't have to testify at all. I can't imagine having to face my abuser in court. I wish that I could sometimes but I also don't think I'm strong enough for that.

 

[mickey2942]

Anna with Josh at child trial as 'Jill and Jedidiah to testify'

Day Three Summary

• JUST NOW
  UNABLE TO RULE OUT
  
  'Michelle Bush then said Linux and Tor were downloaded on May 13.
  
  She tried to rule out remote access but was unable to rule it out without the router to see how secure the network was."

Now, that is interesting testimony. Remote access is NOT ruled out.

 

[jessarox]

Anna with Josh at child trial as 'Jill and Jedidiah to testify'

Day Three Summary

• JUST NOW
  UNABLE TO RULE OUT
  
  'Michelle Bush then said Linux and Tor were downloaded on May 13.
  
  She tried to rule out remote access but was unable to rule it out without the router to see how secure the network was."

Now, that is interesting testimony. Remote access is NOT ruled out.

That's according to an "expert" who was paid to be there and mostly testifies on behalf of defendants facing similar charges. Just FYI.

If the router was sooooo important, why didn't the defense take the router and have it examined? That's what I want to know. The prosecution didn't take it so Josh should have still had it and if he was innocent, why haven't they introduced any proof via his router as their bombshell evidence? Because no one accessed the computer remotely, they just want people to think that they did.

 

[jessarox]

Also, I wanted to add that even the court has called Michele Bush unreliable, I'm not just mocking her for no reason.

Read starting on the bottom of page 24 and don't forget to read footnote #7: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.45.0.pdf

She's extremely problematic to say the least.

 

[Zella]

Also, I wanted to add that even the court has called Michele Bush unreliable, I'm not just mocking her for no reason.

Read starting on the bottom of page 24 and don't forget to read footnote #7: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.45.0.pdf

She's extremely problematic to say the least.

Yeah I am honestly more interested in the results of her being cross-examined by the prosecution than anything she testified to today with the defense asking her questions.

 

[Scrapper18]

That's according to an "expert" who was paid to be there and mostly testifies on behalf of defendants facing similar charges. Just FYI.

If the router was sooooo important, why didn't the defense take the router and have it examined? That's what I want to know. The prosecution didn't take it so Josh should have still had it and if he was innocent, why haven't they introduced any proof via his router as their bombshell evidence? Because no one accessed the computer remotely, they just want people to think that they did.

All the defense has to do is show it’s possible to create reasonable doubt. I think the feds made a mistake by not taking the router and being able to 100% rule out remote access. Not saying the defense will be successful. Just think this is one loose end. JMO/MOO

 

[Tutter]

Anna with Josh at child trial as 'Jill and Jedidiah to testify'

Day Three Summary

• JUST NOW
  UNABLE TO RULE OUT
  
  'Michelle Bush then said Linux and Tor were downloaded on May 13.
  
  She tried to rule out remote access but was unable to rule it out without the router to see how secure the network was."

Now, that is interesting testimony. Remote access is NOT ruled out.

sure…but Josh was proven there at the times of the download/ viewing. The only one there every time it was accessed and viewed, iirc, established with photos, texts and work done In this very small shed building. Huge coincidence, eh? IMO

 

[BeckyF]

All the defense has to do is show it’s possible to create reasonable doubt. I think the feds made a mistake by not taking the router and being able to 100% rule out remote access. Not saying the defense will be successful. Just think this is one loose end. JMO/MOO

The individuals that investigated this crime have many years of combined experience and expertise in computer forensics and investigating crimes of this nature. I believe if they thought the router should have been collected, they would have done it. There is SO much more incriminating evidence against him. I think the jury will believe the testimony of the government experts.
JMO

 

[Ruminations]

Interesting that the prosecution rests...they didn't call the jail cellmate or Josh's sister. I sincerely hope that she isn't being called for the defense.

Can't each side cross examine; this just means that the prosecution can only bring up whatever the defense brought up, yet I think that is enough.

The prosecution is trying to protect victims, not revictimize them. So whoever calls Jill first and brings up being molested (or protecting/getting told something by a little buddy, being that the older children looked after assigned "buddies"), is going to be making Jill really uncomfortable, IMO, or I imagine.

If she wants to lie, or not recall stuff, she will hurt the prosecution. If she lies about the ample public ally available information or waters dawn Bobye, the prosecution can cross examine very sensitively ask her to correct the record, saying that they didn't want to bring this up, but since the meanies on defense started it, we have to make sure the facts are clear.

Jill is on her own journey. A lot of posters on multiple forums are projecting their testimony fantasies (If it were me, I'd say...) And people are encouraging her.

But we really have no idea what pressures are on her or what she wants to do. And she is the one who has to live with the consequences, not us.

One more thing: she can't free-style. She has to answer the questions she is asked on the stand. Every uncomfortable question sounds worse on direct rather than cross. (IANAL, I just love the jargon.)

If I were the prosecution and I thought they would do it, I would have let the call "the candidate," too. But the defense has nothing to gain from Boob, that I can see.

Prosecution goes first so I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this?



I definitely think that both sides are avoiding putting Jill on the stand. The prosecution doesn't want to re-victimize/re-traumatize her and the defense doesn't want her firsthand knowledge of the molestation to be on display.

I definitely find it strange that so many people are projecting their testimony fantasies as you put it. I think a lot of people are wishing they could confront their own abusers and projecting it onto Jill.

I truly hope she doesn't have to testify at all. I can't imagine having to face my abuser in court. I wish that I could sometimes but I also don't think I'm strong enough for that.

IANAL, but the defense could call a defense witness first. Then, the prosecution’s questions would be cross-examination.

I don’t foresee a reason for her testimony- I guess I will see with the rest of the world if she is called.

(I think I broke my typo record on the post you discussed.
How embarrassing!)

MOO

 

[Ruminations]

That's according to an "expert" who was paid to be there and mostly testifies on behalf of defendants facing similar charges. Just FYI.

If the router was sooooo important, why didn't the defense take the router and have it examined? That's what I want to know. The prosecution didn't take it so Josh should have still had it and if he was innocent, why haven't they introduced any proof via his router as their bombshell evidence? Because no one accessed the computer remotely, they just want people to think that they did.

Excellent point about the router! If analysis of it had any chance of revealing exculpatory evidence, this well-funded defense would have had it analyzed.

 

[Ruminations]

Anna with Josh at child trial as 'Jill and Jedidiah to testify'

Day Three Summary

• JUST NOW
  UNABLE TO RULE OUT
  
  'Michelle Bush then said Linux and Tor were downloaded on May 13.
  
  She tried to rule out remote access but was unable to rule it out without the router to see how secure the network was."

Now, that is interesting testimony. Remote access is NOT ruled out.

Remote access is different from remotely being able to boot up the CSAM partition of the computer.

 

[mickey2942]

Remote access is different from remotely being able to boot up the CSAM partition of the computer.

But, will the jurors understand that distinction?

 

[BeckyF]

But, will the jurors understand that distinction?

Why wouldn't they if it's explained by the government experts on cross examination? Do you think they are unintelligent?

 

[mickey2942]

Why wouldn't they if it's explained by the government experts on cross examination? Do you think they are unintelligent?

I think that the government expert is a man, who is very smart. And the defense has a woman, who is saying stuff, not using big words...that might make more sense to a layperson who does not have a lot of advanced computer knowledge.

It only takes one juror for a mistrial.

Don't overestimate the intelligence of the average person in the United States. The average literacy level is 7th grade.

Literacy Needs in Arkansas - Adult Learning Alliance of Arkansas

Low Literacy Levels Among U.S. Adults Could Be Costing The Economy $2.2 Trillion A Year

 

[Shamrock1]

I think that the government expert is a man, who is very smart. And the defense has a woman, who is saying stuff, not using big words...that might make more sense to a layperson who does not have a lot of advanced computer knowledge.

It only takes one juror for a mistrial.

Don't overestimate the intelligence of the average person in the United States. The average literacy level is 7th grade.

Low Literacy Levels Among U.S. Adults Could Be Costing The Economy $2.2 Trillion A Year

I agree. Sound bites matter. In any population, 49% is below average. (I don’t think you were insulting anyone’s intelligence, to be clear). This is why attorneys hire juror consultants. JMO.

 

[JayWill]

I think that the government expert is a man, who is very smart. And the defense has a woman, who is saying stuff, not using big words...that might make more sense to a layperson who does not have a lot of advanced computer knowledge.

It only takes one juror for a mistrial.

Don't overestimate the intelligence of the average person in the United States. The average literacy level is 7th grade.

Literacy Needs in Arkansas - Adult Learning Alliance of Arkansas

Low Literacy Levels Among U.S. Adults Could Be Costing The Economy $2.2 Trillion A Year

I volunteer teach English as a foreign language to refugees, most of them already have a little English and sometimes two other languages. Their mother tongue and the language of where they have been in refugee camps, sometimes for years.