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

[BeckyF]

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

So you think all of the other evidence presented last week by the computer forensics experts was also too difficult for the jurors to understand because according to you the average literacy level is 7th grade? You are insulting the jurors and the prosecutors. IMO, he will be found guilty based on the ton of evidence already presented.

 

[mickey2942]

So you think all of the other evidence presented last week by the computer forensics experts was also too difficult for the jurors to understand because according to you the average literacy level is 7th grade? You are insulting the jurors and the prosecutors. IMO, he will be found guilty based on the ton of evidence already presented.

No. Simply identifying a potential weakness in the prosecution.

Josh Duggar's attorneys are some of the best. I am trying to figure out their strategy. Because if any case looked like a "done deal" and take the plea, it is this one.

 

[Zella]

I think Gelfand is pretty solid, but Travis Story seems as dumb as a bag of hammers to me. Them pointing the finger at someone whom he represented and should have known was in jail at the time of the offense is some of the worst lawyering mine eyes have ever witnessed.

 

[MsJosie]

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

Maybe but I bet there is a computer savvy person on the jury….they will know, explain to the rest of the jury.

 

[RickshawFan]

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

My experience with technology stuff is that folks like to hear the complicated words AND they like someone to translate it for them. They'll believe the complicated and feel reassured by the plain English.
I set up a team like this back in the day. I was the "translator". The other person—a guy—was my systems engineer. He was very techie, I could sound like one of the customers. The team was extremely successful. But my experience was, they always believed my partner; he had more credibility. But by "translating", I enhanced it.

Also, from my experience in that context: they'll believe a guy lots faster than a woman. The prosecution had mostly guys on the stand? Except for the one witness? There may be something about the jury we don't know, like a meaningful sexist bias. (This could be why they didn't call Jill?)

Defense should have brought in a GUY to be the tech expert witness IMO.

Regular folks are just as likely to not understand the significance of a router. Sure, they might have one at home, but they might not have programmed it, and they might be quite certain no one can access it but themselves in their home. So, the defense expert can babble on, but without doing a heck of a lot of instruction on how a router can theoretically be accessed from another place, and why a business would do that, and the settings that might be involved that most businesses don't use—why would a used car dealership allow remote access to a router?— I wouldn't jump to the assumption that the jury will believe it was. All this reinforced by their home experience.

I'm not sure what good it would have done for the prosecution to have a physical router. The only thing that matters is the settings. And they might have the settings. The wifi company has the settings? The wifi company would presumably know if there were hotspots on.

But really, on balance, I don't think the average person thinks their own router can be reached from outside the house, and IMO they'd extend that notion to a small business.

And if they've ever tried to log on to McDonalds' wifi from out in the parking lot (doesn't work), they'd get reinforcement for the idea that the router is for inside at a business.

Plus, the prosecution's tech-spertise was all LE? This will have weight IMO. And their woman tech was LE, too? Authority....

What is defense trying to argue, anyway? Someone else magically put CSAM on Josh's computer? What for?

 

[BeckyF]

No. Simply identifying a potential weakness in the prosecution.

Josh Duggar's attorneys are some of the best. I am trying to figure out their strategy. Because if any case looked like a "done deal" and take the plea, it is this one.

Too late for that. And no one knows if they tried to convince their client to take a plea or not. Maybe they hoped for jurors that aren’t very intelligent.

 

[Zella]

And no one knows if they tried to convince their client to take a plea or not.

My guess is they repeatedly urged him to take a plea due to the fact it's a federal case and the incredibly damaging evidence law enforcement has placing him at the scene while the downloads were happening, and he refused, so they're working with the best they've got, which is pretty contradictory claims. (He's not smart enough to use these things! Actually, he's used them for years but for non-nefarious reasons! Someone else did it!)

 

[fred&edna]

I haven't really followed this case except for the basic news headlines. And now that I've read more (particularly ugly details from his past)... I just can't imagine how his wife is coping. Was she aware of this before their marriage?? I don't think I'd have the stomach for all this. jmo

 

[Cool Cats]

Josh Duggar Trial: Defense's Forensics Expert Theorizes 'Hit and Run' Hacker Was Responsible

Defense Forensic examiner Michele Bush _ VS _ The Department of Justice's Forensic examiner James Fottrell.

As Judge Timothy Brooks instructed the jury in introducing both Bush and Fottrell as experts, it will be up to the jurors to weigh their testimonies and believability to help reach a verdict.

Forensic examiner Michele Bush said that several things — perhaps many things — surprised her about three of Josh Duggar's electronic devices, which are now at the center of his ongoing trial on charges of knowing receipt and possession of child two years ago.

The former 19 Kids and Counting star, 33, has pleaded not guilty and on Monday, the fifth day he faced a jury in federal court in Arkansas, his defense team began to present their case.

Bush, a Phoenix-based digital forensics expert, was the first witness the defense called on Monday morning. Over approximately four hours of testimony under defense questioning (with a cross-examination still to follow on Tuesday), Bush described a parallel and sometimes contradictory set of facts from the analysis of the prosecution's main expert, the Department of Justice's James Fottrell.

 

[tayaway]

Josh Duggar Trial: Defense's Forensics Expert Theorizes 'Hit and Run' Hacker Was Responsible

Defense Forensic examiner Michele Bush _ VS _ The Department of Justice's Forensic examiner James Fottrell.

As Judge Timothy Brooks instructed the jury in introducing both Bush and Fottrell as experts, it will be up to the jurors to weigh their testimonies and believability to help reach a verdict.

Forensic examiner Michele Bush said that several things — perhaps many things — surprised her about three of Josh Duggar's electronic devices, which are now at the center of his ongoing trial on charges of knowing receipt and possession of child two years ago.

The former 19 Kids and Counting star, 33, has pleaded not guilty and on Monday, the fifth day he faced a jury in federal court in Arkansas, his defense team began to present their case.

Bush, a Phoenix-based digital forensics expert, was the first witness the defense called on Monday morning. Over approximately four hours of testimony under defense questioning (with a cross-examination still to follow on Tuesday), Bush described a parallel and sometimes contradictory set of facts from the analysis of the prosecution's main expert, the Department of Justice's James Fottrell.

And Bush said some of the applications used to obtain the child were likely manually installed via command lines, which are more sophisticated than would be capable by the version of Duggar (homeschooled, with no college degree) described by the defense.

Josh Duggar's experience with p2p, partitioning, etc... spans over a decade. He's not new to this game, and even if he was, he'd be able to google what command lines he needed. It's not that difficult, even for a newbie, which again, he is not.

But she couldn't know definitively, she said, as she discovered no log of the commands used on the Linux side of the computer. "The lack of that file certainly jumped out at me," she said.

Maybe Josh deleted the logs? Lost data recovery maybe?

...(On the other hand, says the prosecution, Duggar had used an anonymous browser and various programs on those electronics — similar software as was used on his office desktop.)

Ok, so let's say this theory about an anonymous hacker that targeted Josh specifically is true, why did Josh install p2p on 3 devices including his phone too? Why did he need file sharing software? What was he sharing? Was the Covenant Eyes program on his phone and laptop? Can you partition a cell phone?

In fact, she testified, she had only not been able to rule out remote access — but "the evidence leads me to believe that's a very viable possibility."

So how did this remote hacker know when Josh would be at the lot and not any of the other employees? Was it the remote hacker who failed to submit the hourly payroll of the days in question? Josh already publicly confessed to sexually assaulting children in the past and a addiction and cheating on his wife, so why would a hacker need to frame him, when he's already destroyed his own character and reputation?

Bush said on the stand that she just didn't know.

What does this 'expert' know?

 

[RickshawFan]

There’s no credible motive for a hacker. What would they gain? And if they really wanted to frame Josh, they’d have put the CSAM in plain sight on the Covenant software. ‘Cos how would you frame someone if no one noticed?

This is a bizarre testimony. “I’m only able not to rule out it’s seven or so in the morning.”

 

[BeckyF]

My guess is they repeatedly urged him to take a plea due to the fact it's a federal case and the incredibly damaging evidence law enforcement has placing him at the scene while the downloads were happening, and he refused, so they're working with the best they've got, which is pretty contradictory claims. (He's not smart enough to use these things! Actually, he's used them for years but for non-nefarious reasons! Someone else did it!)

I agree that they probably urged him to take a plea.

 

[MsJosie]

IMO the defense lawyers urged Josh to take a plea, but his father JimBob said no. Who is paying the bill, the dad. The smirk Josh has won his face could be his downfall, mask or no mask. JMO.

 

[HawthorneJuniper]

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.

Exactly. It’s all ridiculous. Todays cross should be a hoot if any of this was at all funny. That expert got a few things wrong and did not find anything amounting to reasonable doubt IMO.

The defense wants to talk about thumb drives & routers & remote access instead of about what was found on his computer & downloaded while he was sitting there as shown by photo evidence.

 

[Cool Cats]

There’s no credible motive for a hacker. What would they gain? And if they really wanted to frame Josh, they’d have put the CSAM in plain sight on the Covenant software. ‘Cos how would you frame someone if no one noticed?

This is a bizarre testimony. “I’m only able not to rule out it’s seven or so in the morning.”

Good point:

they’d have put the CSAM in plain sight on the Covenant software. ‘Cos how would you frame someone if no one noticed?

How was it discovered again? It was a random discovery, not deliberately put out to be discovered.

 

[Cool Cats]

So Josh's defense is:

Someone else downloaded the material using the car lot computer.

Josh isn't knowledgeable enough to download all that.

Josh is being framed.

Any of this have credible evidence to back it up?

Hummm..........

 

[Shamrock1]

Josh’s phone was at the car lot at the time CSAM was accessed. Did the hacker put a tracker on Josh’s phone and only access CSAM when the phone was at the car lot?

Did the hacker grab any customer loan/credit card info or VINs while he was planting CSAM in a password-protected place?

 

[Zella]

Are any of you reading The Sun's live updates on the cross-examination? It is absolutely brutal, and the defense "expert" looks like a complete moron.

 

[EGirl]

Are any of you reading The Sun's live updates on the cross-examination? It is absolutely brutal, and the defense "expert" looks like a complete moron.

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

 

[Cool Cats]

LIVE UPDATES HERE:

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

ON TRIAL

Josh Duggar trial LIVE – Anna Duggar with husband at child hearing as Jill and Jedidiah expected to testify

- What to know about Josh Duggar’s sexual abuse scandal
- What has happened to Josh Duggar and what is he doing now?
- What you need to know about Josh Duggar’s wife Anna
- What is Josh Duggar's net worth?