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

[gitana1]

But this still begs the question.....
If someone wanted to frame Josh, they wouldn't have buried the deed deep in his computer. They would have made it obvious. Because framing someone doesn't work unless it's visible.
In this case, the bad deeds were only visible because the Feds went digging, and the data showed up in their regular course of business.

How can you frame someone if you hide what you're trying to frame them with?

Of course. But Satan is sinister. I think that’s what they’d say.

 

[CharlestonGal]

And.....that's it. The defense has rested. Dude should have taken a plea. He is toast.

 

[jessarox]

I came here to post that they had rested their case as well. WOW, the defense had 1 witness and she was ripped to shreds in cross examination. Just wow. Hopefully he won't be able to argue ineffective assistance of counsel in the future because they royally forked up.

 

[gitana1]

Just before 3 p.m. Tuesday, the defense rested their case. The prosecution is presenting counter-evidence at this time.

Live Updates: Josh Duggar Child Trial - Week 2 | 5newsonline.com

The defense rests. Based on what I read, the defense was super weak.

 

[EGirl]

I came here to post that they had rested their case as well. WOW, the defense had 1 witness and she was ripped to shreds in cross examination. Just wow. Hopefully he won't be able to argue ineffective assistance of counsel in the future because they royally forked up.

That's my only concern..... reason for appeal being ineffective counsel. Their single witness was inept at best.

 

[gitana1]

I came here to post that they had rested their case as well. WOW, the defense had 1 witness and she was ripped to shreds in cross examination. Just wow. Hopefully he won't be able to argue ineffective assistance of counsel in the future because they royally forked up.

You can’t argue ineffective assistance of counsel because “I’m guilty and my team had nothing.”

 

[jessarox]

You can’t argue ineffective assistance of counsel because “I’m guilty and my team had nothing.”

I figured that but they had other witnesses on the list and didn't call them, couldn't that be called into question?

 

[gitana1]

That's my only concern..... reason for appeal being ineffective counsel. Their single witness was inept at best.

Not having a defense is not ineffective assistance of counsel. They attempted to introduce doubt through their expert. They failed because nothing she had to say was reasonable. That’s not because the lawyers are ineffective. It’s because their client is guilty.

 

[EGirl]

Not having a defense is not ineffective assistance of counsel. They attempted to introduce doubt through their expert. They failed because nothing she had to say was reasonable. That’s not because the lawyers are ineffective. It’s because their client is guilty.

100% GUILTY

 

[gitana1]

I figured that but they had other witnesses on the list and didn't call them, couldn't that be called into question?

Only if those witnesses were exculpatory and they somehow lost their minds and refused to put them on the stand.

 

[MsJosie]

Yes she does. Can't believe they put her on the stand.

I wonder if the defense computer expert is picked by the lawyers OR is she picked by JimBob and is she a church member, therefore JimBob sho is paying for the defense bill is saying who can testify …..moo and just wondering.

I came here to post that they had rested their case as well. WOW, the defense had 1 witness and she was ripped to shreds in cross examination. Just wow. Hopefully he won't be able to argue ineffective assistance of counsel in the future because they royally forked up.

IMO….the defense lawyers were limited in who they called because dad was running the trial from behind the curtains…..I really feel he has a huge HUGE influence

 

[jessarox]

Only if those witnesses were exculpatory and they somehow lost their minds and refused to put them on the stand.

Phew, that is good to hear because I sincerely doubt that that was the case. Thank you so much for sharing your legal knowledge with us!

 

[RickshawFan]

I came here to post that they had rested their case as well. WOW, the defense had 1 witness and she was ripped to shreds in cross examination. Just wow. Hopefully he won't be able to argue ineffective assistance of counsel in the future because they royally forked up.

They only had one witness? Wow. I guess all the "alibi witnesses" the defense proffered before the trial began (didn't the judge call their bluff and want a list or something?)....anyway, I guess they didn't materialize..
They didn't provide any "witness" who could point to someone else and say they might have done it?
No one to say, "Josh is a good guy, he'd never have done something like that." or even "Josh is waaaaay too dumb for all this computer stuff". Even if it was BS, they could at least have made an attempt..... On second thoughts, Josh (or Jim Bob) probably wouldn't have allowed any witness who described him as "stupid".

 

[Simply Southern]

They only had one witness? Wow. I guess all the "alibi witnesses" the defense proffered before the trial began (didn't the judge call their bluff and want a list or something?)....anyway, I guess they didn't materialize..
They didn't provide any "witness" who could point to someone else and say they might have done it?
No one to say, "Josh is a good guy, he'd never have done something like that." or even "Josh is waaaaay too dumb for all this computer stuff". Even if it was BS, they could at least have made an attempt..... On second thoughts, Josh (or Jim Bob) probably wouldn't have allowed any witness who described him as "stupid".

@gitana1, Good to have your expertise. Always a pleasure when you're around

Would character witnesses be allowed at the trial or during sentencing only?

 

[LadyL]

She’s not the only one. I think technology when it came to the internet/computers was a big deal in their sect back then.

idk I'm not buying it
I still think he's guilty, I just don't believe that witness

 

[LadyL]

what does CSAM stand for?
I keep seeing it referenced in posts
guessing 'child sexual ... ' something or other?

 

[Jax49]

what does CSAM stand for?
I keep seeing it referenced in posts
guessing 'child sexual ... ' something or other?

Child Sexual Abuse Material

 

[gitana1]

@gitana1, Good to have your expertise. Always a pleasure when you're around

Would character witnesses be allowed at the trial or during sentencing only?

Typically only sentencing. But if they opened the door themselves then the feds get to delve deep into that in rebuttal!!

 

[gitana1]

idk I'm not buying it
I still think he's guilty, I just don't believe that witness

You may be interested in goggling, "[S01 Episode 1] "Duggars & JCPenney" - I Pray You Put This Journal Away Podcast" . And go from there, if you have time.

IMO, this is not the first time Josh was caught accessing sexual materials on the internet, although I do not believe they were sexual abuse materials when he was caught previously. In any event, also, IMO, in their sect/church, church confessionals either public or more private, were a big part of patriarchs and/or future patriarchs getting right with the Lord again.

Remember, (also IMO), these people do not believe in psychotherapy. Dealing with kids and/or adults who may have issues that others would address with professionals, are dealt with via counsel of church members.

So, Bobye Holt may very well be telling the truth.

 

[jessarox]

idk I'm not buying it
I still think he's guilty, I just don't believe that witness

Along with what gitana1 said, google "sin in the camp" and Josh Duggar. There's a reason that Jim Holt might remember a computer-related conversation with Josh from over a decade ago...