Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bid to dismiss case is denied.

As was a motion to dismiss photos of his hands and feet.

Can someone explain why the hell photos would be taken of his hands and feet?! Or do I not want to know?!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089805/Josh-Duggar-loses-bid-suppress-photographs-photographs-hands-feet-trial.html

Authorities believe that his hands and possibly feet are in some of the child porn photos. He has a scar on his hand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bid to dismiss case is denied.

As was a motion to dismiss photos of his hands and feet.

Can someone explain why the hell photos would be taken of his hands and feet?! Or do I not want to know?!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089805/Josh-Duggar-loses-bid-suppress-photographs-photographs-hands-feet-trial.html

Authorities believe that his hands and possibly feet are in some of the child porn photos. He has a scar on his hand.

Disgusting. And surely a good wife would recognize her own husband's extremities in a lewd-and-lascivious pose with underage minors?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bid to dismiss case is denied.

As was a motion to dismiss photos of his hands and feet.

Can someone explain why the hell photos would be taken of his hands and feet?! Or do I not want to know?!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089805/Josh-Duggar-loses-bid-suppress-photographs-photographs-hands-feet-trial.html

Authorities believe that his hands and possibly feet are in some of the child porn photos. He has a scar on his hand.

Anonymous wrote:Bid to dismiss case is denied.

As was a motion to dismiss photos of his hands and feet.

Can someone explain why the hell photos would be taken of his hands and feet?! Or do I not want to know?!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089805/Josh-Duggar-loses-bid-suppress-photographs-photographs-hands-feet-trial.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that Anna literally believes her husband is innocent and that is why she is standing by. him - not bc she has to stand by him but because she really believes him. I don't know how though! He is EVIL.

I wouldn’t be so sure. According to a former friend of Josh’s AMA on Reddit everyone knew and Josh had an engagement fall through because of it. Anna’s alternative to being married to Josh is living in a trailer with her family and their billion kids. I think she truly does not care.

Well, she is one of five kids, most of whom are grown and out of the house - so she'd be living with her parents and her youngest brother.

In any case, as a woman in the cult, Anna is charged with marrying and having a billion kids. Marriage is everything, you are nothing if you are not married with kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmekSnNCdok

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way I see reasonable doubt created at trial without him testifying is if a case can be made that someone else (another employee?) had access to that computer and could have downloaded. However, I seem to recall that it was partitioned and password-protected and that the same PW was used on other accounts owned by him. Besides that, I think the other employees were family members, correct, so that defense would entail pointing the finger at one of them (not that I'd put that past him).

I said this way at the beginning of this thread- they hired some ex con to work there and I guarantee they’re going to suggest it was him. I believe they hired him solely to throw under the bus when they knew this was inevitable. I know the defense has already suggested it but I think it will be a main defense. It won’t work, based on this ridiculously long podcast I listened to about how they put Josh behind the keyboard and why it took them so long to indict. But I think it’s coming.

What’s the podcast?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to feel sorry for Anna. Now, I think she is almost as pathetic as he is.

Same. I used to be very sympathetic towards Anna because I know two people who left the Fundie movement once they reached 18. One is female and the level of education she received is appalling. Her skillset was basically caregiving and homemaking. I met them both through my job years ago and I've seen their struggles to adapt to the traditional world around them... learning technology, learning social norms, job struggles, and the biggest of all, educational struggles. It took them both years of hard work to be able to just survive a bit above the poverty line, but they are now thriving.

It can be done IF the person wants it... and I don't see that from Anna. She doesn't want to be free of the Duggars or the Fundie movement. She has plenty of resources that others who leave the lifestyle could only dream of having!

What really made me change my mind is when I read the article that said she had left the kids with Jim Bob & Michelle so she could live with Josh fulltime at his location. She CHOSE him over her own kids. Pathetic!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way I see reasonable doubt created at trial without him testifying is if a case can be made that someone else (another employee?) had access to that computer and could have downloaded. However, I seem to recall that it was partitioned and password-protected and that the same PW was used on other accounts owned by him. Besides that, I think the other employees were family members, correct, so that defense would entail pointing the finger at one of them (not that I'd put that past him).

I said this way at the beginning of this thread- they hired some ex con to work there and I guarantee they’re going to suggest it was him. I believe they hired him solely to throw under the bus when they knew this was inevitable. I know the defense has already suggested it but I think it will be a main defense. It won’t work, based on this ridiculously long podcast I listened to about how they put Josh behind the keyboard and why it took them so long to indict. But I think it’s coming.

Anonymous wrote:The only way I see reasonable doubt created at trial without him testifying is if a case can be made that someone else (another employee?) had access to that computer and could have downloaded. However, I seem to recall that it was partitioned and password-protected and that the same PW was used on other accounts owned by him. Besides that, I think the other employees were family members, correct, so that defense would entail pointing the finger at one of them (not that I'd put that past him).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that Anna literally believes her husband is innocent and that is why she is standing by. him - not bc she has to stand by him but because she really believes him. I don't know how though! He is EVIL.

I wouldn’t be so sure. According to a former friend of Josh’s AMA on Reddit everyone knew and Josh had an engagement fall through because of it. Anna’s alternative to being married to Josh is living in a trailer with her family and their billion kids. I think she truly does not care.

Anonymous wrote:The only way I see reasonable doubt created at trial without him testifying is if a case can be made that someone else (another employee?) had access to that computer and could have downloaded. However, I seem to recall that it was partitioned and password-protected and that the same PW was used on other accounts owned by him. Besides that, I think the other employees were family members, correct, so that defense would entail pointing the finger at one of them (not that I'd put that past him).