Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

Really? It wouldn’t take much viewing of the material for the jury to want to vote to have him drawn and quartered right there in the courtroom. He’d be a fool to choose anything other than a plea.

I think he actually would plead guilty, in order to control the story. He's charged with possessing/downloading the material. He can "admit" to that and spin it his own way, as is typical. He "admitted" to molesting his sisters, but it was spun as a sinful, confused teenager making mistakes (...over and over) and he was counseled and punished, and has repented. He and the family can spin this as well--he can admit his guilt, and frame it as a momentary lapse in judgment (...over and over) which is part of his ongoing addiction, for which he is in treatment/being counseled/praying for deliverance, etc. To plead not guilty and then be convicted would be allowing someone in power to outright determine that he is a liar, and that can never happen. He's never faced any consequences, and pleading guilty allows him to avoid the most serious ones.

Not in federal court. Pleading guilty in federal court is very different than state court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

Really? It wouldn’t take much viewing of the material for the jury to want to vote to have him drawn and quartered right there in the courtroom. He’d be a fool to choose anything other than a plea.

I think he actually would plead guilty, in order to control the story. He's charged with possessing/downloading the material. He can "admit" to that and spin it his own way, as is typical. He "admitted" to molesting his sisters, but it was spun as a sinful, confused teenager making mistakes (...over and over) and he was counseled and punished, and has repented. He and the family can spin this as well--he can admit his guilt, and frame it as a momentary lapse in judgment (...over and over) which is part of his ongoing addiction, for which he is in treatment/being counseled/praying for deliverance, etc. To plead not guilty and then be convicted would be allowing someone in power to outright determine that he is a liar, and that can never happen. He's never faced any consequences, and pleading guilty allows him to avoid the most serious ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

Really? It wouldn’t take much viewing of the material for the jury to want to vote to have him drawn and quartered right there in the courtroom. He’d be a fool to choose anything other than a plea.

I think he actually would plead guilty, in order to control the story. He's charged with possessing/downloading the material. He can "admit" to that and spin it his own way, as is typical. He "admitted" to molesting his sisters, but it was spun as a sinful, confused teenager making mistakes (...over and over) and he was counseled and punished, and has repented. He and the family can spin this as well--he can admit his guilt, and frame it as a momentary lapse in judgment (...over and over) which is part of his ongoing addiction, for which he is in treatment/being counseled/praying for deliverance, etc. To plead not guilty and then be convicted would be allowing someone in power to outright determine that he is a liar, and that can never happen. He's never faced any consequences, and pleading guilty allows him to avoid the most serious ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

Really? It wouldn’t take much viewing of the material for the jury to want to vote to have him drawn and quartered right there in the courtroom. He’d be a fool to choose anything other than a plea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

Really? It wouldn’t take much viewing of the material for the jury to want to vote to have him drawn and quartered right there in the courtroom. He’d be a fool to choose anything other than a plea.

Of course he’d be a fool to do anything other than take a plea. That’s the point - he is a fool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But maybe there's some argument that whatever he said to DHS while they were there could be suppressed bc he said he wanted to call his lawyer?

Regard the prior bad acts, wouldn't his public statements about them be admissible as statements by an opposing party, FRE 801?

Even if what he said isn’t admissible, they have the computer, and Lenox wall and the password to the Lenox wall that matches so many other of his personal account passwords, on top of the GPS and text evidence. Do they need his statements? The feds asked if they knew why he was there, and he asked if someone had been downloading child porn. Even if they toss that, they still have a solid case.

Yes, agree they don't need that stupid statement to convict him. I think the real danger is if there is any "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument regarding what they confiscated that day.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But maybe there's some argument that whatever he said to DHS while they were there could be suppressed bc he said he wanted to call his lawyer?

Regard the prior bad acts, wouldn't his public statements about them be admissible as statements by an opposing party, FRE 801?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

Really? It wouldn’t take much viewing of the material for the jury to want to vote to have him drawn and quartered right there in the courtroom. He’d be a fool to choose anything other than a plea.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But maybe there's some argument that whatever he said to DHS while they were there could be suppressed bc he said he wanted to call his lawyer?

Regard the prior bad acts, wouldn't his public statements about them be admissible as statements by an opposing party, FRE 801?

Even if what he said isn’t admissible, they have the computer, and Lenox wall and the password to the Lenox wall that matches so many other of his personal account passwords, on top of the GPS and text evidence. Do they need his statements? The feds asked if they knew why he was there, and he asked if someone had been downloading child porn. Even if they toss that, they still have a solid case.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

But maybe there's some argument that whatever he said to DHS while they were there could be suppressed bc he said he wanted to call his lawyer?

Regard the prior bad acts, wouldn't his public statements about them be admissible as statements by an opposing party, FRE 801?

Anonymous wrote:I don’t see him pleading guilty because he had never faced any consequences for anything he has done.

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?

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?

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.