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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will be very glad when he’s convicted and imprisoned for a very long time. His wife cannot be a well person.
?
Are we back to somehow blaming the wife? If not what do these sentences have to do with each other?
What part of "well" do you not understand? PP was not blaming the wife. The wife is not well. She has spent her entire life brainwashed. What can you expect of such a person? Not much.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will be very glad when he’s convicted and imprisoned for a very long time. His wife cannot be a well person.
?
Are we back to somehow blaming the wife? If not what do these sentences have to do with each other?
What part of "well" do you not understand? PP was not blaming the wife. The wife is not well. She has spent her entire life brainwashed. What can you expect of such a person? Not much.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I got an answer, from a journalist. If anyone wants to see her reporting, she can be found here: https://youtube.com/c/ WithoutACrystalBall
The DD video was fragmented, and was not viewable, but after the evidence that came out yesterday, the reporting is going to stop saying “kids as young as 7,” as that is not accurate. If you want to hear why, feel free to watch yesterday’s coverage of what happened in court. He tried to blame two close friends, who weren’t at the dealership when it was downloaded. Also, the feds found Josh’s name and address in the partitioned side of the computer.
I’m fairly confident he will be spending decades in federal prison. His enabling family members can rot in hell. It’s obvious they don’t care about girls.
NP. This hack is NOT a journalist!! Breaking the link in the quote, to not inadvertently drive more clicks to her "reporting".
Pardon me. I’ve been following several people who are reporting on what’s happening in the courtroom. I mixed her up with Anna Darling, who is an actual journalist.
The YouTube person is a blogger, who’s been reporting courtroom facts on YouTube videos, along with info from sources close to the family. You can take it or leave it.
Emily D Baker has been going over the court documents.
PP. My sincere apologies for getting a little um passionate in my reply. Was meant towards the YouTuber not the poster here. So sorry!
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will be very glad when he’s convicted and imprisoned for a very long time. His wife cannot be a well person.
?
Are we back to somehow blaming the wife? If not what do these sentences have to do with each other?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I will be very glad when he’s convicted and imprisoned for a very long time. His wife cannot be a well person.
?
Are we back to somehow blaming the wife? If not what do these sentences have to do with each other?
Anonymous wrote:I will be very glad when he’s convicted and imprisoned for a very long time. His wife cannot be a well person.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I got an answer, from a journalist. If anyone wants to see her reporting, she can be found here: https://youtube.com/c/ WithoutACrystalBall
The DD video was fragmented, and was not viewable, but after the evidence that came out yesterday, the reporting is going to stop saying “kids as young as 7,” as that is not accurate. If you want to hear why, feel free to watch yesterday’s coverage of what happened in court. He tried to blame two close friends, who weren’t at the dealership when it was downloaded. Also, the feds found Josh’s name and address in the partitioned side of the computer.
I’m fairly confident he will be spending decades in federal prison. His enabling family members can rot in hell. It’s obvious they don’t care about girls.
NP. This hack is NOT a journalist!! Breaking the link in the quote, to not inadvertently drive more clicks to her "reporting".
Pardon me. I’ve been following several people who are reporting on what’s happening in the courtroom. I mixed her up with Anna Darling, who is an actual journalist.
The YouTube person is a blogger, who’s been reporting courtroom facts on YouTube videos, along with info from sources close to the family. You can take it or leave it.
Emily D Baker has been going over the court documents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I got an answer, from a journalist. If anyone wants to see her reporting, she can be found here: https://youtube.com/c/ WithoutACrystalBall
The DD video was fragmented, and was not viewable, but after the evidence that came out yesterday, the reporting is going to stop saying “kids as young as 7,” as that is not accurate. If you want to hear why, feel free to watch yesterday’s coverage of what happened in court. He tried to blame two close friends, who weren’t at the dealership when it was downloaded. Also, the feds found Josh’s name and address in the partitioned side of the computer.
I’m fairly confident he will be spending decades in federal prison. His enabling family members can rot in hell. It’s obvious they don’t care about girls.
NP. This hack is NOT a journalist!! Breaking the link in the quote, to not inadvertently drive more clicks to her "reporting".
Pardon me. I’ve been following several people who are reporting on what’s happening in the courtroom. I mixed her up with Anna Darling, who is an actual journalist.
The YouTube person is a blogger, who’s been reporting courtroom facts on YouTube videos, along with info from sources close to the family. You can take it or leave it.
Emily D Baker has been going over the court documents.
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.
Oh that's brilliant. That's just LOVELY. His Defense attorneys have nothing - they can't counterdict an FBI surveillance team watching him access the computer with the same password and download the porn. His butt is fried.
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
Yeah I'm sure the remote hacker who had the password to his work computer, bank account and family Instagram account just used it to download child porn to a secret partition on his work computer and nothing else.![]()
But the burden is not on him to prove it wasn't his computer. The burden is on the prosecution to prove Josh Duggar was knowingly in possession of this material.
Pretty easy burden to prove when the FBI surveillance team is on his @ss.![]()
Reminds me of that idiot Annapolis couple that tried to sell American intelligence secrets, not only were they ratted out by a foreign country, but the FBI was watching their every move for months too.