Anonymous wrote:Child advocacy groups and the federal government are both trying to get the language changed from Child Pornography to Child Sexual Abuse Material. Many are already using this term. The laws haven’t caught up yet so they have to charge him officially with CP for now.

I agree with the problematic language, because if you think about it, there can be no such thing as "child porn."

Child advocacy groups and the federal government are both trying to get the language changed from Child Pornography to Child Sexual Abuse Material. Many are already using this term. The laws haven’t caught up yet so they have to charge him officially with CP for now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer and would like to talk about the legal aspect. Do you think there's a danger that evidence will be suppressed bc DHS took his cell phone and wouldn't give it to him when he said he wanted to call a lawyer? I think the evidence is pretty strong with the text messages placing him at the car lot around the same time the material was downloaded and the car photos placing him there as well. Basically, the defense would have to show that others were there at the same time and those others also had the computer password for the partition to create any doubt. Unless that can be done, I see him pleading guilty. I do wonder about evidence suppression arguments, though. Also, would the prior acts of molesting his sisters be admissible at trial, since he publicly admitted it?

Regarding the phone, I thought about that, too. But I don't think they can say they kept him from calling a lawyer. The car dealership must have other phones. Staff have phones he could have borrowed. His phone wasn't the only way to reach his lawyer, even if his contact information was stored in it. Look it up, use the car dealership's landline. I don't think evidence will be suppressed from them taking his phone. It's SOP (apparently - I'm not a criminal lawyer either) to take all things electronic when there's a cyber-related crime, and the phone was on the list of items to take. It's not like they arbitrarily took the phone.

I DO think they'll be able to use the prior acts if they relate to any argument. It's public that he admitted it. They can't call it a conviction, obviously, but to the extent that it's relevant (that will be the issue) I don't see anything prohibiting acknowledging that he admitted to molesting his sisters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer and would like to talk about the legal aspect. Do you think there's a danger that evidence will be suppressed bc DHS took his cell phone and wouldn't give it to him when he said he wanted to call a lawyer? I think the evidence is pretty strong with the text messages placing him at the car lot around the same time the material was downloaded and the car photos placing him there as well. Basically, the defense would have to show that others were there at the same time and those others also had the computer password for the partition to create any doubt. Unless that can be done, I see him pleading guilty. I do wonder about evidence suppression arguments, though. Also, would the prior acts of molesting his sisters be admissible at trial, since he publicly admitted it?

Would it make a difference that it (him molesting his sisters) happened when he was a minor?

Typically, a juvenile record would be sealed, but he was never charged with anything as a juvenile. He publicly admitted to the acts after the 2006 report (taken 3-4 years after the incidents occurred) was unearthed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer and would like to talk about the legal aspect. Do you think there's a danger that evidence will be suppressed bc DHS took his cell phone and wouldn't give it to him when he said he wanted to call a lawyer? I think the evidence is pretty strong with the text messages placing him at the car lot around the same time the material was downloaded and the car photos placing him there as well. Basically, the defense would have to show that others were there at the same time and those others also had the computer password for the partition to create any doubt. Unless that can be done, I see him pleading guilty. I do wonder about evidence suppression arguments, though. Also, would the prior acts of molesting his sisters be admissible at trial, since he publicly admitted it?

Would it make a difference that it (him molesting his sisters) happened when he was a minor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer and would like to talk about the legal aspect. Do you think there's a danger that evidence will be suppressed bc DHS took his cell phone and wouldn't give it to him when he said he wanted to call a lawyer? I think the evidence is pretty strong with the text messages placing him at the car lot around the same time the material was downloaded and the car photos placing him there as well. Basically, the defense would have to show that others were there at the same time and those others also had the computer password for the partition to create any doubt. Unless that can be done, I see him pleading guilty. I do wonder about evidence suppression arguments, though. Also, would the prior acts of molesting his sisters be admissible at trial, since he publicly admitted it?

I thought he already plead not guilty? If he pleads guilty, how does it change?

Yes, he pled not guilty, but he can change his plea before going to trial (or at trial) and plead guilty. Most people plead guilty at some point and don't go to trial, especially since federal crimes carry mandatory minimum sentences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer and would like to talk about the legal aspect. Do you think there's a danger that evidence will be suppressed bc DHS took his cell phone and wouldn't give it to him when he said he wanted to call a lawyer? I think the evidence is pretty strong with the text messages placing him at the car lot around the same time the material was downloaded and the car photos placing him there as well. Basically, the defense would have to show that others were there at the same time and those others also had the computer password for the partition to create any doubt. Unless that can be done, I see him pleading guilty. I do wonder about evidence suppression arguments, though. Also, would the prior acts of molesting his sisters be admissible at trial, since he publicly admitted it?

I thought he already plead not guilty? If he pleads guilty, how does it change?

(For example the Duggars coming out and saying Josh has a pornography addiction. Like, no, he doesn’t. He has an addiction to something much darker.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who saw a few of the graphic posts before they were removed. “Little kids and torture, not just teens showing their breasts” gives an inkling of the horror without being truly graphic. I don’t need to know all the horrific details to know there’s evil in the world.

FYI every post I made with the word torture in it got deleted. And I didn’t even describe the alleged video. I just said it wasn’t porn it was torture and should be described as such to the public so that people don’t brush these crimes off as teens showing their breasts, to take your example.

Whoever on here who keeps saying what Duggar downloaded and possessed wasn't CP -- if you're right, then he shouldn't have been charged with those crimes and won't be convicted of the crimes he was charged with, so I don't know why you keep phrasing it that way.

I feel like you’re baiting people into arguing this point with you, or discuss how something can be one but also the other, so that you can flag the post yet again or get the whole thread deleted. If you really want to stop this line of discussion you should stop engaging.

No, I'm annoyed at the person who keeps saying it "isn't CP." It's poor phrasing.

But if it’s then described as ...... (fill in the blank to describe something that isn’t in essence “porn” with images or videos of sexually explicit material, but happens to feature individuals without clothes on who are underage hence the “CP” designation).... you see the issue?

The point is to discuss why things of this nature are , in a sense, “brushed off” as being a type of pornography, which makes fundamentalists treat it the same as they treat masturbating or looking at playboy. I argue that lumping it into that category- even if that category includes illegal and exploitative things- is problematic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who saw a few of the graphic posts before they were removed. “Little kids and torture, not just teens showing their breasts” gives an inkling of the horror without being truly graphic. I don’t need to know all the horrific details to know there’s evil in the world.

FYI every post I made with the word torture in it got deleted. And I didn’t even describe the alleged video. I just said it wasn’t porn it was torture and should be described as such to the public so that people don’t brush these crimes off as teens showing their breasts, to take your example.

Whoever on here who keeps saying what Duggar downloaded and possessed wasn't CP -- if you're right, then he shouldn't have been charged with those crimes and won't be convicted of the crimes he was charged with, so I don't know why you keep phrasing it that way.

I feel like you’re baiting people into arguing this point with you, or discuss how something can be one but also the other, so that you can flag the post yet again or get the whole thread deleted. If you really want to stop this line of discussion you should stop engaging.

No, I'm annoyed at the person who keeps saying it "isn't CP." It's poor phrasing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who saw a few of the graphic posts before they were removed. “Little kids and torture, not just teens showing their breasts” gives an inkling of the horror without being truly graphic. I don’t need to know all the horrific details to know there’s evil in the world.

FYI every post I made with the word torture in it got deleted. And I didn’t even describe the alleged video. I just said it wasn’t porn it was torture and should be described as such to the public so that people don’t brush these crimes off as teens showing their breasts, to take your example.

Whoever on here who keeps saying what Duggar downloaded and possessed wasn't CP -- if you're right, then he shouldn't have been charged with those crimes and won't be convicted of the crimes he was charged with, so I don't know why you keep phrasing it that way.

I feel like you’re baiting people into arguing this point with you, or discuss how something can be one but also the other, so that you can flag the post yet again or get the whole thread deleted. If you really want to stop this line of discussion you should stop engaging.

Anonymous wrote:PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

I'm a lawyer but not a criminal lawyer and would like to talk about the legal aspect. Do you think there's a danger that evidence will be suppressed bc DHS took his cell phone and wouldn't give it to him when he said he wanted to call a lawyer? I think the evidence is pretty strong with the text messages placing him at the car lot around the same time the material was downloaded and the car photos placing him there as well. Basically, the defense would have to show that others were there at the same time and those others also had the computer password for the partition to create any doubt. Unless that can be done, I see him pleading guilty. I do wonder about evidence suppression arguments, though. Also, would the prior acts of molesting his sisters be admissible at trial, since he publicly admitted it?

PP please, it’s like you’re debating with yourself. We get it.

As for why I/others frequent this board: to talk about the family as a whole, speculate, compare news stories, though question the family, etc. I like hearing the legal info because I’m not a lawyer at all.

We absolutely do not need to discuss the nuances of his crimes, unless it turns that way during his trial and is the basis of arguments.

This need you have to drill it into our heads what exactly he viewed is off putting, and we are going to get this thread locked! :-/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who saw a few of the graphic posts before they were removed. “Little kids and torture, not just teens showing their breasts” gives an inkling of the horror without being truly graphic. I don’t need to know all the horrific details to know there’s evil in the world.

FYI every post I made with the word torture in it got deleted. And I didn’t even describe the alleged video. I just said it wasn’t porn it was torture and should be described as such to the public so that people don’t brush these crimes off as teens showing their breasts, to take your example.

Whoever on here who keeps saying what Duggar downloaded and possessed wasn't CP -- if you're right, then he shouldn't have been charged with those crimes and won't be convicted of the crimes he was charged with, so I don't know why you keep phrasing it that way.

Also, what you're describing with children/teens is also completely exploitative and wrong; please stop downplaying that as "just regular CP."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP who saw a few of the graphic posts before they were removed. “Little kids and torture, not just teens showing their breasts” gives an inkling of the horror without being truly graphic. I don’t need to know all the horrific details to know there’s evil in the world.

FYI every post I made with the word torture in it got deleted. And I didn’t even describe the alleged video. I just said it wasn’t porn it was torture and should be described as such to the public so that people don’t brush these crimes off as teens showing their breasts, to take your example.

Whoever on here who keeps saying what Duggar downloaded and possessed wasn't CP -- if you're right, then he shouldn't have been charged with those crimes and won't be convicted of the crimes he was charged with, so I don't know why you keep phrasing it that way.