[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

1 minute ago, Spazamanaz said:

I have a question... what is the difference between receiving and possessing? I know you have to receive something in order to possess it, but why are they considered different charges? Or did I just answer my own question? Is it to help stack up charges against a person? 

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? 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

4 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I think this link was posted upthread as well as on the media thread, however, I didn’t see anyone comment on the people shown at the very end of the clip.  At the very end, the camera shows a child, back of woman’s head and a man in a car in the parking lot as Josh’s vehicle pulls away.  The man resembles Derrick to me.  Can anyone tell?  
https://pagesix.com/2021/05/06/josh-duggar-released-on-bail-after-child-porn-allegation/

 

 

That’s not Derick, nor is that Jill or either of their two boys. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

6 hours ago, Tikichick said:

In child protective matters where sexual abuse in particular is suspected or possible here CPS does not interview the children.   Because of the way the legal process is conducted it is preferred as few people as possible have interviewed the children.   The way defense attorneys attack that aspect of how a case was handled is not for the faint of heart.   It can legitimately be all but impossible to stifle all instinctive reactions in a hearing when that's going on.

Here children are interviewed by people specially trained in proper techniques to interview children regarding abuse.  It must be conducted in a way where everything, absolutely everything can be attributed to the child and only the child and never approach any hint of suggestion from the interviewer. 

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.

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

11 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Two reports I read said that the agent said "do you want to talk?" and then they got in the car which is when Josh said the CP statement. Two more reports said the agent said "do you know why we're here?" to which Josh said "Is this about CP?" Technically those are questions asked after he had asked to call a lawyer. This was all hashed out by a few attorneys over on reddit. Long shots. And of course we don't know what the investigator even actually said in court today. But the attys were indicating the defense will question the issue since in both the bond hearing notice and in court today, they addressed it.

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/

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

Just now, Tuxcat said:

Yes of course - but the defense has already twice now indicated that they plan to pursue this angle and the CP statement is not part of the recorded interview. The began recording after.

 

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? 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

41 minutes ago, Tdoc72 said:

I thought the worst piece of evidence I read about today was him texting on his iPhone that he was stuck at work and 10 mins later the Cp was downloaded.  

I think this would be the smartest route (based on what I’ve read) but I just can’t see Josh admitting to it. If he goes to trial and loses, he (and JB) could still maintain the I’m innocent facade.

Are you sure?  I thought he said that when they served the search warrant.  He wasn’t under arrest and later, willingly talked to them.  They also didn’t say no, but that they needed to take the device (per the warrant).  

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. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

1 hour ago, Tuxcat said:

We have no idea if the evidence we all heard today will be admissible. The fact that he internet provider first gave "the wrong address" is an issue. The initial tag may be an issue. When they miranda in the car may be an issue.

The password was also used apparently on Duggar Family social media accounts. With the Duggars, they could absolutely claim that another family member knew that code. Yes it involves throwing a brother under the bus but Josh doesn't care. All they need is one juror to doubt.

There are both good signs (well tied together case) and iffy signs but we have no idea what will be allowed at trial.

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. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

I'm really scratching my head on the Reavers being deemed suitable guardians. I felt like Mrs. Reaver was practically BEGGING the judge to say "Hell No!" with all the red flags she was dropping during her testimony. 

Minors in the home, weapons in the home, room with outside access, wife admitting she's not comfortable alone, wife admitting she's only doing this out of deference to her husband, adult daughter not comfortable with set-up, etc. Seriously, who in their right mind adds up those factors and thinks, "Yep, Mrs. Reaver has the right constitution to deal with a pedophile." What the actual fuck is going on here?

Yep. She was all but flashing “no! no! no!” in semaphore and the judge was like “welp, cool, enjoy your new houseguest.” 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

3 minutes ago, satrunrose said:

Question for anyone with knowledge about this 3rd party custody business: What happens if tonight or at some point in the next while, Mrs Reaver realizes what she got herself signed up for (ie. the revelations about the details of the charges, or that you just know the smug perv will be laying around snapping his fingers for cokes) and decides she's done being a good little helpmeet. Do they find someone else? Does the sly one go to jail? Is she just stuck with him?

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.

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

15 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I'm not at all surprised that Josh will be released. He's a white Christian male, after all. But no bail? NO BAIL?!

It's confirmed that the family knew about the investigation. So Anna got pregnant knowing Josh was being investigated and would likely be charged with possession of csa material. I've never had much sympathy for Anna but now? I hope her enabling ass nothing but misery.

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. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

Does anyone know how much federal judges earn? 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

2 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I don't think the judge is all that clueless. She specifically asked Mrs. Reaver about what she'd do if she knew Josh had violated one of the conditions of his release - who would she call first? The judge got across the message that Mrs. Reaver would have to call the federal probation office FIRST to notify them. Not JB Duggar, not the church elders, not Mr. Reaver. She could tell those people later. 

I could be wrong but I think that at this hearing the prosecution had the burden of persuading the judge that Josh shouldn't be released. Generally even in federal criminal cases, American law is that people pending trial (not yet convicted of a crime) should be eligible for release, except in special situations. (In most state court systems, for instance, being charged with a capital offense which is usually first degree murder is the main situation rendering someone not eligible for bail.)

In this case the prosecution didn't quite convince the judge that even with that long list of conditions, it would be unacceptable for Josh to be released pending trial. As disgusting as the charges are, and it appears there's a strong probable cause case for the charges, those charges don't mean that Josh is not ineligible for pre-trial release as a matter of law. The judge had to weigh the evidence against factors that I'm sure are laid out in a list, and the prosecution came up short in keeping Josh from pretrial release. She's probably not enthused about the Reavers but they got up and testified under oath and answered the questions, and said they would call the federal probation office if Josh breaks the rules. I suspect the prosecution came close to carrying the burden of persuasion, but this isn't horse shoes, and they lose.

Someone more familiar with the federal system will address this, I hope. But generally I believe that it's not usual for a court to deny bail completely to a defendant with ties to the community and no prior convictions, whose facing charges short of capital crimes.

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.

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

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. 

 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

They can refuse to have their own children near Josh. They are the headships, after all.

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.

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Jeremy recently hosted the abuser in his LA home, with his toddler daughter present .

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. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

13 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

Just saw this:

In general, there is a rebuttable presumption that release should not be granted if it is alleged that a defendant has committed a crime for which the term of imprisonment is ten years of more, a defendant has committed an act of terrorism, a defendant has trafficked in humans, or the crime committed involved a minor.

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

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

2 minutes ago, coconspirator said:

According to TMZ Smuggar wants to be released so that he can be with Anna while she's pregnant. Surely the feds won't allow her to be his third party and won't allow him to be around his children while on bail. I expect him to be delusional and entitled, I just hope the prosecutors hold the line and burst his little smug bubble. 

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. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

8 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Since Josh's lawyers requested the bond hearing, we know JB is onboard. Does that mean as long as Josh has everything lined up, his release will be automatically be approved?

I would think if the answer would be no, the hearing would have been denied to begin with.

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. 

[Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!]

2 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Maybe it's too many years working in a court setting, but reading that I can see a witness saying -- I was answering how I pay for law school.   That money went to pay for our home or to pay our other bills, not law school.

The guy's got a degree in accounting and is attending law school.  He has more than a passing familiarity with parsing things to a fine point as he chooses.  

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.

[The Duggalos: Jinger and the Holy Goalie]

On 5/2/2021 at 10:36 AM, BitterApple said:

Looking at this picture, does it strike anyone else as funny that Jeremy is walking distanced from Jinger and the other guy? If you didn't know the context, you'd think he's the celebrity and they're his staff: nanny and bodyguard. 

It just reminds me of when celebrities do famewhore strolls through airports. They always make sure they're photographed holding the kids while their employees trail behind them wrangling the luggage. 

Yeah who is that guy? And why is Jeremy dressed like Ronald McDonald?

[The View: Week of 5/3/2021]

27 minutes ago, gatopretoNYC said:

That top looks like a nightgown from the 1800s.

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. 

[Jill, Derick & the Kids: Moving On!!]

5 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

And then, if he’s convicted, that much again for the appeal?

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. 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

54 minutes ago, Nysha said:

Depends, is there furniture or fixtures in the room? He might be the smartest guy in a dirt root cellar...as long as there aren't any bugs, rats, or root vegetables in there with him.

Wow, that seems awfully harsh to the dirt. And roots. 

[The View: Week of 5/3/2021]

That top, that hair, that makeup... whoever they have styling Meghan McCain really, really, REALLY hates her, don’t they? 

[Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events]

4 hours ago, Tikichick said:

I've started to wonder if they actually got looped into Josh's situation over the past month or two and that's helping propel this wild change in behaviors and attitudes, and lack of attempt to promote the book at all?

If you think about it, they're not the only married couple to make some unexplained changes of direction over the past couple months.   If it's true that charges were brought after a grand jury hearing I'm wondering if Josiah happened to be subpoenaed to testify -- leading to the abrupt disappearance from social media from their family? 

... 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).