I agree. Why didn't he plea. Maybe he tried.

The guy is so unlikeable. That will erase any doubt they jurors may have. yes, it isn't supposed to work that way, but c'mon.

And his priors are coming in.

I can’t believe his lawyer didn’t advise him to try and seek a plea deal. The Feds have a very high conviction rate in general and I’m sure they will be crossing all their ts and dotting their is in something this high profile.

I guess a lifetime of doing this and getting away with it has made him falsely confident he’ll get another slap on the wrist.

A couple things I thought about since the Duggars are fond of buying used, if the computer was purchased used, the partition may have already existed and he just never knew. If you are just a typical consumer purchasing a used computer you might not consider looking for a partition or a even a second drive being installed. I also wonder when you are into downloading that kind of material if the setup isn't to access a remote server, perform some actions there to have the files pushed down to your computer remotely thereby making it appear that you did not initiate that remote session and just happened to have the bad luck of some bad person who chose your computer to park those images / files on...

They've established that the partition was created the day before the downloads started to occur. The defense is trying to suggest that someone basically used Josh's computer as a server, and that they could have remotely used his computer to do the download, and then remotely stream the content. The defense claims that without the router logs, they don't know if another device was accessing the router during this time, so they can't rule out a remote user theory, but they're ignoring that the computer would log remote activity as well.

The partition was installed manually during the timeframe that he owned the computer. They tried to pin it on a friend but they guy had moved out of state before it was installed.

They have him dead to rights from what I can tell. I’m glad more of his siblings have shown up at trial, hopefully getting a fuller understanding of what a monster he and their parents are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fair enough, sorry. Between here the Duggar sub-reddit (where people screeched and moaned for weeks that he shouldn't get to bail out because they personally found the accusations so offensive) it's really hard to tell sometimes.

I would have preferred someone with that much access to small kids not to have been given bail. Especially given that his family has a history of not thinking any of this is a big deal.

Those charged with these crimes don’t usually get bond, but the feds didn’t have much of an answer for “if he’s a danger to society now, why wasn’t he when you found this material?”

Because of covid, the search warrants took a lot longer than usual, and the feds were kind of stuck. Once they had enough evidence to charge, more than a year had passed. I think the total from raid to arrest was 18 months. Doesn’t the whole right to a trial play into this?

The right to a speedy trial covers the period between arrest and trial, not between raid and arrest. And I think a lot of the delays were due to the defense as well as Covid. Go back a ways in this thread and you can see what was slowing it down - lots of motions etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The prosecutors should try to refute the possibility of unidentified user with remote access / download / viewing capabilities on cross-examination. Was the computer set up to be accessed remotely? Could the Linux partition be accessed remotely? Would it be obvious to someone (Josh) using the computer in person at the car lot that the computer was being accessed remotely? Could the Linux partition be accessed remotely while an in-person user is using the Windows partition? Would remote access leave a trace on the computer, and was that evidence found on the computer? I'm sure they'll get on this today.

The Government will have to be careful cross-examining the computer witness for the defense bc she may not say what they want her to say; she is a hired defense witness. Hopefully they already know the answers to the questions they will ask on cross-ex and can back that up. Can the Government recall their own computer witness on rebuttal or call a new tech witness?

I haven't followed as closely the last two days but yes, the can figure out if something else accessed the device but depending on the type of activities it might be harder to pinpoint what the remote access session did when it connected.

A couple things I thought about since the Duggars are fond of buying used, if the computer was purchased used, the partition may have already existed and he just never knew. If you are just a typical consumer purchasing a used computer you might not consider looking for a partition or a even a second drive being installed. I also wonder when you are into downloading that kind of material if the setup isn't to access a remote server, perform some actions there to have the files pushed down to your computer remotely thereby making it appear that you did not initiate that remote session and just happened to have the bad luck of some bad person who chose your computer to park those images / files on...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fair enough, sorry. Between here the Duggar sub-reddit (where people screeched and moaned for weeks that he shouldn't get to bail out because they personally found the accusations so offensive) it's really hard to tell sometimes.

I would have preferred someone with that much access to small kids not to have been given bail. Especially given that his family has a history of not thinking any of this is a big deal.

Those charged with these crimes don’t usually get bond, but the feds didn’t have much of an answer for “if he’s a danger to society now, why wasn’t he when you found this material?”

Because of covid, the search warrants took a lot longer than usual, and the feds were kind of stuck. Once they had enough evidence to charge, more than a year had passed. I think the total from raid to arrest was 18 months. Doesn’t the whole right to a trial play into this?

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe in much, but I do believe the government/feds are smarter than Josh Dugger. Big time.

Right?! Lol seriously and thank you

I don't believe in much, but I do believe the government/feds are smarter than Josh Dugger. Big time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The prosecutors should try to refute the possibility of unidentified user with remote access / download / viewing capabilities on cross-examination. Was the computer set up to be accessed remotely? Could the Linux partition be accessed remotely? Would it be obvious to someone (Josh) using the computer in person at the car lot that the computer was being accessed remotely? Could the Linux partition be accessed remotely while an in-person user is using the Windows partition? Would remote access leave a trace on the computer, and was that evidence found on the computer? I'm sure they'll get on this today.

The Government will have to be careful cross-examining the computer witness for the defense bc she may not say what they want her to say; she is a hired defense witness. Hopefully they already know the answers to the questions they will ask on cross-ex and can back that up. Can the Government recall their own computer witness on rebuttal or call a new tech witness?

This one is the most important, because it will rule out the importance of the router that they keep on focusing on. The computer keeps track of who is accessing them and when, similar to the router. The router would add a lot of noise, because customers may be connecting to it when they're at the car lot, and we only really care about who was accessing the machine that has the CSAM on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fair enough, sorry. Between here the Duggar sub-reddit (where people screeched and moaned for weeks that he shouldn't get to bail out because they personally found the accusations so offensive) it's really hard to tell sometimes.

I would have preferred someone with that much access to small kids not to have been given bail. Especially given that his family has a history of not thinking any of this is a big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The prosecutors should try to refute the possibility of unidentified user with remote access / download / viewing capabilities on cross-examination. Was the computer set up to be accessed remotely? Could the Linux partition be accessed remotely? Would it be obvious to someone (Josh) using the computer in person at the car lot that the computer was being accessed remotely? Could the Linux partition be accessed remotely while an in-person user is using the Windows partition? Would remote access leave a trace on the computer, and was that evidence found on the computer? I'm sure they'll get on this today.

The Government will have to be careful cross-examining the computer witness for the defense bc she may not say what they want her to say; she is a hired defense witness. Hopefully they already know the answers to the questions they will ask on cross-ex and can back that up. Can the Government recall their own computer witness on rebuttal or call a new tech witness?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Fair enough, sorry. Between here the Duggar sub-reddit (where people screeched and moaned for weeks that he shouldn't get to bail out because they personally found the accusations so offensive) it's really hard to tell sometimes.

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what the precedent is for convicting in this kind of case. Is it not enough that the cp is on his own computer because it was possibly shared? If that’s the case how can any of these cases result in convictions. Anyone in a similar situation can say they were hacked or that someone else used their device.

The feds have a strong case, and a very high conviction rate in this sort of stuff. The defense is doing what they were hired to do: try to poke holes in the prosecution’s facts and theories. They’re also trying to confuse the jury with things that are irrelevant, like the router.

I hope the prosecutor hammers on the password and Josh’s “I’m not going to deny my guilt” statement.

I wonder what the precedent is for convicting in this kind of case. Is it not enough that the cp is on his own computer because it was possibly shared? If that’s the case how can any of these cases result in convictions. Anyone in a similar situation can say they were hacked or that someone else used their device.