Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

mynextmistake

Member
  • Posts

    902
  • Joined

Everything posted by mynextmistake

  1. I think the purpose of the receiving law is to be able to punish people who gather these images and send them along to others, but don’t actually keep them on their computers? It’s probably harder to make a case for possession if something is only in your custody for a very short time and then you delete it?
  2. That’s not Derick, nor is that Jill or either of their two boys.
  3. Where I live, we have a center dedicated to suspected CSA cases. The environment is comfortable and child friendly. The center is staffed by police officers, social workers, and SART nurses who have special training in CSA interview and examination. The children can have a trusted adult present during all phases of the process, but it can’t be an adult who is suspected of committing or being complicit in the abuse, and the adult isn’t allowed to comment on anything related to the suspected abuse. I believe a lot more jurisdictions are opening these centers, but I don’t know if Fayetteville has one.
  4. Well that was dumb on the part of the LEOs. This is an interesting area of law. Some courts have found that requests for counsel before interrogation begins aren’t valid and police can begin questioning suspects later. In this case, it sounds like Josh asked for a lawyer when first served with the warrant, prior to the commencement of any questioning. That might have been too soon. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/27/you-have-a-right-to-a-lawyer-but-cant-assert-it-yet/
  5. Pursue what angle though? Unless they are going to say that the statement was made as a direct response to a question, there’s no angle to be worked here. If that is what they say, the judge will have to weigh Josh’s credibility against that of the federal agents who would say the statement was voluntarily made. Who would you believe?
  6. Even if it was after he asked for his lawyer, the statement is admissible if it’s made voluntarily (I.e. not in response to questioning). All a request for counsel means is that law enforcement needs to stop asking questions. They don’t have to put their fingers in their ears and chant “I can’t hear you” if the suspect makes unprompted statements.
  7. A common misconception is that one juror voting not guilty means acquittal. It doesn’t. It means a hung jury, which means the Feds can retry the case if they choose to do so. Realistically it probably means they would offer a favorable plea deal and hope Josh took it so they could be done. Also, this was a bond hearing, not trial. They didn’t present all their evidence today. The feds will be assigning some of their best prosecutors to this case because it’s in the public eye. If they screen out all the fundies, they’ll have a jury panel who is going to be so disgusted by this material that they are going to want to convict. The evidence presented today is enough to convince a reasonable juror that Josh is guilty. The fact that he didn’t download additional images later isn’t dispositive; possibly the 265 images he had were enough and he was smart enough to realize that he was rolling the dice every time he looked for that type of image online. To acquit you’d have to get 12 people to believe that Josh got on the computer, got off the computer, someone else got on the computer, used his password, downloaded CSA images, got off the computer, and Josh got right back on it without noticing anything was amiss. Seems like quite a stretch to me. I wonder if Anna’s going to move to the TTH for the duration? If she stays where she is she’s going to get a whole lot of “happy mail” and drive-bys.
  8. Yep. She was all but flashing “no! no! no!” in semaphore and the judge was like “welp, cool, enjoy your new houseguest.”
  9. She could go to court and asked to be removed as a third-party. Josh will be remanded until his defense team proposed another third-party and that person got accepted.
  10. As a Christian I try not to wish ill on anyone but I honestly hope she loses her kids. Until today I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but now I’m honestly not convinced those kids wouldn’t be better off with someone besides their ridiculously subservient trifling-ass enabling excuse for a mother. Maybe in foster care the girls would at least have a chance for a normal life, and the boys wouldn’t grow up thinking that women were put on earth only to serve them and their needs. HE HAD PICTURES OF TODDLERS. Toddlers. And Anna is standing by her man? I look forward to the In Touch photos of CPS ripping M7 from her arms right after delivery. I truly do.
  11. I know you’re right. I’m just MAD. This is CRAZY. And you know Mrs. Reamer is lying through her brainwashed fundie teeth. she’ll call her husband before she calls anybody else and they’ll try to sweep whatever Josh does under the rug. sometimes it is hard to stay objective when you’re smacked in the face with how little girls and women mean in our society. And not just in fundie circles. Everywhere. This is not OK. I hope in touch or some other publication parks a car in front of the reamers house 24/7 until trial and take photos of everything Josh does. And they have someone follow him so they can see where he’s going. Because it ain’t to work. I hope the amount of public shame that is heaped on Anna is significant enough that she decides it would be better for the kids to just stay home until daddy goes to trial. I hope Jill told her siblings exactly what was said at this hearing, so that nobody can delude themselves any longer into thinking it is safe for Josh to be around their kids. And I hope smirky-ass Josh tries to violate his conditions, just once and ends up back in the slammer.
  12. Sounds like Josh has this case in the bag. I’m not surprised he got out on bail, I pretty much accepted that would happen. But allowing him access to the kids when only their brainwashed zombie mother is around does surprise, and horrify me.
  13. I have no idea why the Vuolos agreed to the California visit. I don’t think either Jinger or Jeremy like Josh or Anna, and having the Joads come to town and camp in your driveway is not particularly representative of the young Christian hipster image the Vuolos seem to be trying to cultivate. I sort of assumed Jim Bob had a hand in it.
  14. A questionable decision, to be sure, but letting Josh and family visit and sleep in the driveway is a far cry from aiding and abetting a felon who is fleeing federal court. No way in hell Jeremy is putting his freedom or reputation on the line to help Josh. He probably wouldn’t even do that for his own siblings, and he presumably likes them.
  15. Interesting. Where did you see that? Release to a third party isn’t considered release, it’s considered an alternative to detention, like an ankle monitor. It might seem to be a semantic difference but it impacts likelihood of release. This is an interesting piece on federal pretrial release considerations. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/73_2_1_0.pdf
  16. Spouses are frequently appointed as third parties. It could happen. But I do think any sensible judge will keep the no unsupervised minors rule, and should realize that a pregnant woman with six kids will be unable to guarantee she will always be able to supervise the kids in Josh’s presence. I expect the defense will put forth either Jana (with JB proposing a new address she can live at with Josh during the pendency of the case) or Jed. None of the other kids would be suitable because they have children, and I honestly can’t imagine any of them signing up for this duty anyway. And Josh doesn’t give two beans about being with Anna when she’s pregnant. His lawyer just thinks that’s what will make him sound most sympathetic to the bail judge.
  17. No, that’s not how this works. Defendants are entitled to bond hearings because except in a very small proportion of cases they’re entitled to pretrial bondl. It’s in the 8th Amendment. There are some cases where the prosecution could argue that they only way to protect the public interest pending trial is to keep a defendant behind bars, but this would be really unusual. In most cases, bond has to be granted. The court can impose conditions on it that will protect the public interest, such as a third party custodian, a high bail amount, and rules like no contact with unaccompanied minors, but they usually can’t deny bond outright. They also can’t deny a request for a bond hearing, because the defendant has a right to present a case for bond. I am afraid that people are going to be really disappointed tomorrow. The sole purpose for bail conditions is to ensure that the public interests are upheld before trial. They are to keep the defendant from absconding, and make sure he or she does not commit any additional offenses in the pre-trial period. They aren’t punitive. The judge cannot keep Josh in jail just because he thinks he’s a scummy pervert. Furthermore, if Jed or one of the other siblings without children in the home were to present as a third-party custodian, there’s a very good chance that they would get approved. As long as they are willing to agree to monitor Josh 24/7 and make sure he follows his bail conditions, there’s no reason for a judge not to approve them. The prosecution is free to argue that they’re all under JB‘s thumb and unlikely to be good third-party custodians, but frankly a judge a bond hearing doesn’t have time to get into a psychoanalysis of an entire family. I think we forget the most people in the world don’t know as much about these folks as we do. ETA so I’ve done some more research and it turns out more people get held pretrial for federal offenses than I thought. About half (51%) of defendants who have no criminal record are released pretrial. This is confusing because the statistics don’t distinguish between those who aren’t granted bond and those who are but can’t pay it. I can’t imagine that denying bond outright to half your detainees would pass constitutional muster, so I’m thinking a relatively high proportion of the 49% who remain in jail couldn’t pay bond. Also, sometimes release to a third party is considered release and sometimes it isn’t, so I don’t know how that would impact these statistics. Conclusion: Josh will probably still get out, but it’s less of a sure thing than I originally thought.
  18. It’s also possible he views doing the show and his YouTube stuff as work. I don’t think he’s a natural extrovert and I doubt he enjoys making those videos. He’s doing it to get paid. And while at the time I think he viewed his appearances on the show as a ministry, I have no problem with the idea that looking back, after leaving the show and having to hire a lawyer to get money out of JB, he might now view it as work for which he was compensated. Claiming to have been working and attending school since he was five, though, is pretty clearly just made up. Although the either/or explanation makes some sense there too.
  19. Yeah who is that guy? And why is Jeremy dressed like Ronald McDonald?
  20. I was going to say it looked like something my grandmother would wear, but I’d never insult my grandmother like that. The color was bad, but the style was so unflattering. When you have large upper arms with broad shoulders and a weak chin (no shade on Meghan, I’m built that way myself) you generally don’t want a top with a tight high neck and a lot of volume in the sleeves. If she’s choosing her own wardrobe she needs to hire a stylist. If she has a stylist, they hate her and she needs to hire another one.
  21. Sure, if they want to throw good money after bad. Only about 6% of federal criminal appeals are successful, so the odds aren’t good.
  22. Wow, that seems awfully harsh to the dirt. And roots.
  23. That top, that hair, that makeup... whoever they have styling Meghan McCain really, really, REALLY hates her, don’t they?
  24. ... you know, Josiah did work at the car lot. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if he had been subpoenaed. One of the elements they would have had to demonstrate before the grand jury was that there was probable cause to believe the images found were Josh’s. That would have required some testimony about how the computers worked there (e.g who had access, what identity protections there were, etc).
×
×
  • Create New...