Josh Duggar arrested and in federal custody

[Anonymous]

The office was a shed? Yikes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, he's so ducked. There's NO way two people could be in that sized structure with one of them downloading CP without the other seeing it. And all the supporting evidence places Josh at the location on the days in question!

I think they're going to base the entire defense on someone being able to do these downloads remotely, but I don't know how they can support those claims when he was texting his wife that he was at the car lot and stayed late one evening to FINISH HIS DOWNLOAD.

Gosh, I also didn't realize that it was the size of a garden shed. Is that really all there was as far as an office on the property? It sounded like the tech witnesses' testimony (or maybe one of the detectives) disputed the remote download theory pretty directly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any criminal defense attorneys here concerned about the prior acts coming in at trial? The court's order on this seemed well reasoned and carefully researched, but I wonder whether it could be grounds for an appeal.

+1. I wonder if this was potentially risky to bring this in, as they seem to have a lot of evidence without it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Including the newborn????

She just has the baby not even 2 months ago.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it bad for the defense to have their expert witness admit that she had to use Google to find some command codes... you know, the same way Josh could have done even though he's not "tech savvy" according to them?

This is from The Sun live update:

15 MINUTES AGO
MICHELLE BUSH ON UTORRENT

Michelle Bush then discussed the uTorrent program.

She said it was used on the partition side of the HP computer.

Bush said it was not on Duggar's iPhone or Macbook and there wasn't evidence it was previously there.

She also did a demonstration on how to download Tor and the torrent program on the HP computer partition side with command codes.

She said she had to Google some command codes, despite her own experience.

I read that and immediately went, "are you serious?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Anna is capable of functioning alone? She always looks so out of it.

Considering she abandoned her kids for six months pre-trial to move in with Josh who was living in another couple as his halfway house...I'm going to say no.

Wait, what?!

I didn't know that either. She's a long lost cause.

Who watched the kids? Did the kids move in with the grandparents?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but isn't it bad for the defense to have their expert witness admit that she had to use Google to find some command codes... you know, the same way Josh could have done even though he's not "tech savvy" according to them?

This is from The Sun live update:

15 MINUTES AGO
MICHELLE BUSH ON UTORRENT

Michelle Bush then discussed the uTorrent program.

She said it was used on the partition side of the HP computer.

Bush said it was not on Duggar's iPhone or Macbook and there wasn't evidence it was previously there.

She also did a demonstration on how to download Tor and the torrent program on the HP computer partition side with command codes.

She said she had to Google some command codes, despite her own experience.

I read that and immediately went, "are you serious?"

Yep. But I think she also said she didn't find any evidence that he had Googled them on the devices she had reviewed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any criminal defense attorneys here concerned about the prior acts coming in at trial? The court's order on this seemed well reasoned and carefully researched, but I wonder whether it could be grounds for an appeal.

+1. I wonder if this was potentially risky to bring this in, as they seem to have a lot of evidence without it.

I honestly don't know the case law on this, much less the federal case law and I'm not a criminal defense attorney, but if it's directly relevant to the crime at hand and is well-documented, then I think it's likely to pass muster. you can't paint the defendant as a criminal/bad person based on acts totally unrelated - like if he had committed theft. It also rebuts his defense of "someone hacked in," but I am sure it would be a point on appeal. Even so, jury verdicts are given tremendous weight on appeal so the inclusion of prior acts would have to be found to be so prejudicial that it outweighed the rest of the evidence. Unlikely if the evidence is as has been described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hold up. So this whole time I've been reading about the raid on the office at the car lot, I've been picturing a proper office at a normal car lot.

I was so, so wrong.

THIS is the office? That itty bitty thing that is hardly bigger than my kid's old play house in our backyard?!

https://www.theashleysrealityroundup.com/2021/12/05/scene-of-the-crime-josh-duggars-shuttered-car-lot-sits-abandoned-during-his-trial-office-in-shambles-after-government-raid-exclusive-photos/

Oh, he's so ducked. There's NO way two people could be in that sized structure with one of them downloading CP without the other seeing it. And all the supporting evidence places Josh at the location on the days in question!

Thank you for that laugh. I needed that.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why his comment “oh are you here because someone downloaded CP?” isnt enough to convict him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re trying to set it up that someone hacked the computer remotely to set Josh up. It’s not a bad defense strategy and could well set up reasonable doubt for some…. The investigators failed to take all the equipment and can’t rule remote access out this far

I’m not computer savvy so I don’t understand what I’m about to repeat, but I heard they refuted any possibility of remoting in and were able to prove the downloads were done at a time they have photos of Josh at the computer while they were surveilling him.

Yes the computer specialist (?) they had in yesterday proved it all.

Josh had MESSAGES to his WIFE "still at work" at the EXACT time that the images were being viewed.

Yes, I've read this before, but this is hardly the same as what the PP above was saying -- that the FBI has pics of him at his computer at tthat time bc he was under surveillance by the FBI.

He sent photos of cars, and was texting his wife, and I think someone else when the CSAM videos/pics were being downloaded. The FBI didn’t see it, or photograph it. He took a photo inside the car lot office, with the HP in the photo, within minutes of the download.

They got this info from a backup of his iPhone that was saved on his Mac.

Maybe this also has something to do with the pictures of his hands? The one that shows a scar that he tried to keep out of court? I remember reading about that a while ago but not really understanding what it was about. Maybe one of the pictures he took from the time the stuff was being downloaded shows his hand and the computer in the frame?

I think it was a picture of himself in the frame, or what was being downloaded. He admitted he was the only one at the car lot that day. His location settings have him there when it was downloaded, on top of working on the non-partitioned side, sending run-of-the-mill texts, etc. One of the photos places him in the same room as the HP where CSAM was downloaded.

First line should be “I don’t think…”

Don’t judge me - I’ve been obsessed with the Duggars for years (I also went to Harvard!) …ok he took a photo - they found his old iPhone 8 photos synced to his MacBook and they now have photos that match all the times he was downloading the CSAM. Anyway the incriminating photo - he was sending a photo to a client but there is a human reflection in the monitor wearing a red hat - at the same time he downloaded a ton of CSAM. An hour or two later he posted a selfie at Lowes with Anna wearing … a red hat. I follow a Reddit thread and an attorney on tik tok who is attending the trial.

Not judging. Which thread is this?

The blogger I mentioned a few pages ago also said something about a hand pic. I just don’t know the details yet.

The thread is Duggar snark - they update it constantly during the trial - the tik tok attorney is Carrie Jernigan - I don’t have tik tok but can watch it when I google her and tik tok - she’s awesome

I’ve been following her also but don’t remember this whole red hat break down?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if Anna is capable of functioning alone? She always looks so out of it.

Considering she abandoned her kids for six months pre-trial to move in with Josh who was living in another couple as his halfway house...I'm going to say no.

Wait, what?!

I didn't know that either. She's a long lost cause.

Who watched the kids? Did the kids move in with the grandparents?

Yes

No

This isn't true. This is a stretch even if PP believes the gossip on "cafemom". Come on folks, there are enough real / credible things to snark and criticize about Josh and family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why his comment “oh are you here because someone downloaded CP?” isnt enough to convict him.

That's not how it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why his comment “oh are you here because someone downloaded CP?” isnt enough to convict him.

That's not how it works.

I was kidding. But for real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any criminal defense attorneys here concerned about the prior acts coming in at trial? The court's order on this seemed well reasoned and carefully researched, but I wonder whether it could be grounds for an appeal.

+1. I wonder if this was potentially risky to bring this in, as they seem to have a lot of evidence without it.

Rule 414 of evidence can be summed up by this layperson as: molestation of children + material for sexual gratification that shows violence against children = admissible.