Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[beckie]

21 minutes ago, Heathen said:

The problem with that scenario is that if she overreports or reports things that don't necessarily violate the rules, the federal probation office might very well stop listening to her. It reminds me of the fable of the boy who cried wolf. 

I doubt she'll report anything.  No matter what she told the court, if she's intimidated by her husband or JB, she'll do what they say.

[Zella]

Just now, cmr2014 said:

I have to agree that I make a weak case here. 

It's my nature to believe that people are innocent, and even I don't really believe that he is. Someone downloaded that CP, so someone isn't innocent, and the most likely suspect is Josh -- even without the passwords and the "are you here about the CP" comment.

My general rule of thumb is to give people the presumption of innocence, but I am also not a courtroom, so I don't have to. And in situations where someone has a long pattern of the behavior they are being accused of, well, I'm not going to lose too much sleep over presuming guilty. 

[3girlsforus]

3 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Emily seems to think he'll plea out. She says that most Federal cases end that way. 

I agree with her and I hope that’s what happens. I hate the idea of his siblings being dragged in to court to testify. And if they admit his molestation of his sisters they could be called to testify and grilled about how they claimed it was no big deal and they dealt with it. 

[hathorlive]

7 hours ago, On the Bias said:

I agree, in my experience it’s at the very low end, so low that I’m frankly surprised that the feds didn’t kick it over to state prosecutors.  Given JB’s political contacts, perhaps they kept the case to ensure the appearance of neutrality.  

Or a prosecutor is going to make a name by going after Josh.  It won't be the first time that someone tried to get a feather in their cap by taking a high profile case.   The case does meet criteria for a federal case, but we all know that the AUSAs always want "more".  More victims, more dollars stolen, more videos.  

I am worried by what the FBI person testified about regarding if the pictures were viewed or not.  Of course, without a transcript, I won't trust what a reporter says.  I've had write ups of my testimony be so bad that I've called my boss at home to state I did NOT say that on the stand.  He gets it.  Reporters write what they understand of a highly technical subject.

That said, I hope the FBI person was NOT the person doing forensics.  He very well could have played another role in the case, but that was not a difficult question for a forensic person to answer.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by hathorlive
tired and my fingers aren't working

[Tuxcat]

5 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

I agree that if this statement is allowed into evidence it’s pretty much over for Josh. I’m trying to imagine a scenario where that is ever a question an innocent person would ask and there just isn’t one. If he thought they wanted his financials I could imagine someone innocent saying ‘do you think I embezzled money’. That wouldn’t mean they did it. It’s an obvious assumption. But child porn is so heinous that it doesn’t even cross regular peoples’ minds as something they would ever be accused of. Most people don’t even think about it at all because it’s just so horrible (much gratitude to the people who work to put these monsters away and have to think about it). It seems impossible to me that he could be found not guilty if the jury gets to hear about this. 

He said the "is it CP" question after he said he wanted call his lawyer but before the interview officially started and miranda was read. So that sentence is at risk for getting thrown out.

[hathorlive]

6 hours ago, Crochetlady said:

From Twitter. 

Law enforcement dramatics.  Trust me, one video is NOT the worst five cases you have ever seen. Or maybe this is your first year on the job.   In 17 years of testifying as an expert witness in state and federal court, I have used that phrase one time.  And it was the most horrific case I've ever had.  I hate to see LE devalue the shock a truly horrible case gives us.

[Zella]

Just some other random thoughts: Josh made that statement asking what the search was about 6 MONTHS after he'd downloaded the material. 

Also, there were an additional 200 images that were deleted, which sounds like it was separate from the downloads he is being charged with. I really don't think this was a one-time thing for Josh. It's just what he caught doing. 

Just now, hathorlive said:

Law enforcement dramatics.  Trust me, one video is NOT the worst five cases you have ever seen. Or maybe this is your first year on the job.   In 17 years of testifying as an expert witness in state and federal court, I have used that phrase one time.  And it was the most horrific case I've ever had.  I hate to see LE devalue the shock a truly horrible case gives us.

I don't trust the phrasing that person is using.

My understanding from the transcription I saw from someone sitting in on the Zoom call is the law enforcement person said one of the file sets Josh downloaded is part of a known series and that series is in the top 5 of the worst he has encountered in his 11-year career of working on this. 

[Oldernowiser]

If this was the only time Josh had a scandal, he’d have more presumption of innocence. But all of these incidents have had to do with power, sex, and rage. He molested his sisters because he could. He raped that stripper violently because he could. He was trolling on Ashley Madison for what IMO would have been new victims of his violence, not consensual partners. Now all of these terrible images…ultimate perverse power over the innocent…and a giant angry middle finger to his family and their beliefs.

There’s a clear pattern here. What I find most troubling is these are the only incidents  that have come to light…there are more, undoubtedly. How bad were they and who were the victims?

[hathorlive]

6 hours ago, Future Cat Lady said:

Is it possible that he had a lot more than that but they're only focusing on the dates mentionned?

I find it hard to believe that they caught him the first time he did this.

Normally, we list what we find.  In our testimony, we'll discuss the number of images and videos and elaborate if they were organized (I've cases where the downloads are moved into folders by age, act, whatever).  If you move them from folder to folder, that means you can't say "I had no idea that was there).  Also, .LNK files and other OS artifacts like shimcache can show when programs or file were accessed.  Most people don't know about these things and wouldn't know to delete them.  Also, there are cache files that show the image was viewed. 

But even if the AUSA is only charging images from two days, the full total numbers would be mentioned by the forensics people.  

[Saylii]

Just now, hathorlive said:

Law enforcement dramatics.  Trust me, one video is NOT the worst five cases you have ever seen. Or maybe this is your first year on the job.   In 17 years of testifying as an expert witness in state and federal court, I have used that phrase one time.  And it was the most horrific case I've ever had.  I hate to see LE devalue the shock a truly horrible case gives us.

I believe it stems from one specific video/file that is one of the worst videos ever made and is well regarded as such.  It is also pretty infamous on the mainstream side: there are YouTube discussion videos and a Wikipedia entry about it.  So while it’s awful it was on this computer, this situation isn’t a top 5 situation.

[Tuxcat]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Just some other random thoughts: Josh made that statement asking what the search was about 6 MONTHS after he'd downloaded the material. 

Also, there were an additional 200 images that were deleted, which sounds like it was separate from the downloads he is being charged with. I really don't think this was a one-time thing for Josh. It's just what he caught doing. 

I have been assuming the charges were for the only 2 days in question because that is the only material they can forensically tie to Josh with certainty. However if it was ONLY those two days, that will feed the "I was framed theory."  It would seem strange to only do this for two days - if one does such a thing at all. Perhaps they were only allowed to search in the time frame from the initial ping. That first local ping to the ISP address is what lead them to search. Maybe they were not allowed to look back - or forward - past those dates.

[all fall down]

7 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Law enforcement dramatics.  Trust me, one video is NOT the worst five cases you have ever seen. Or maybe this is your first year on the job.   In 17 years of testifying as an expert witness in state and federal court, I have used that phrase one time.  And it was the most horrific case I've ever had.  I hate to see LE devalue the shock a truly horrible case gives us.

Having read the summaries, I don't think the investigator was saying Josh's case was one of the worst, but that the specific known file that he (allegedly) downloaded was one of the worst files out there. I was just listening to that Emily person's stream and she mentioned this file is well known as some of the worst content. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by christine falls

[Oldernowiser]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

My understanding from the transcription I saw from someone sitting in on the Zoom call is the law enforcement person said one of the file sets Josh downloaded is part of a known series and that series is in the top 5 of the worst he has encountered in his 11-year career of working on this. 

This is exactly how I interpreted it, as well. I think this Carol Twitter person is mistaken as to what the investigator was saying.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Oldernowiser

[hathorlive]

4 minutes ago, Zella said:

 

don't trust the phrasing that person is using.

My understanding from the transcription I saw from someone sitting in on the Zoom call is the law enforcement person said one of the file sets Josh downloaded is part of a known series and that series is in the top 5 of the worst he has encountered in his 11-year career of working on this. 

I need to read a good account of what was said.  I've been working all night and not had a chance to analyze who said what.  Deleted images count.  Images found in thumbcache count.  I really need to look at this before getting too deep into my concerns here.

[Zella]

Just now, Oldernowiser said:

This is exactly how I interpreted it, as well. I think this Carol person is mistaken as to what the investigator was saying.

Yeah I think Carol (whoever she is) is the one who is guilty of being melodramatic, not the guy who was testifying. 

[Saylii]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

Just some other random thoughts: Josh made that statement asking what the search was about 6 MONTHS after he'd downloaded the material. 

Also, there were an additional 200 images that were deleted, which sounds like it was separate from the downloads he is being charged with. I really don't think this was a one-time thing for Josh. It's just what he caught doing. 

I don't trust the phrasing that person is using.

My understanding from the transcription I saw from someone sitting in on the Zoom call is the law enforcement person said one of the file sets Josh downloaded is part of a known series and that series is in the top 5 of the worst he has encountered in his 11-year career of working on this. 

It’s hard to tell without seeing the transcript, but I gathered that 1 file set had 65 images in it and 200 files were deleted all together.  200 was the entirety of the collection.  But that was part of the Reddit recap so I’m not sure if those are the actual hard numbers or just the ones she recapped/presented.

[hathorlive]

2 minutes ago, Saylii said:

I believe it stems from one specific video/file that is one of the worst videos ever made and is well regarded as such.  It is also pretty infamous on the mainstream side: there are YouTube discussion videos and a Wikipedia entry about it.  So while it’s awful it was on this computer, this situation isn’t a top 5 situation.

Can you PM me the name?  Because my entire world is computer forensic people and trust me, we don't have a list of the top five horrible whatevers.  Every video is horrific in some manner.  

[Zella]

4 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

I need to read a good account of what was said.  I've been working all night and not had a chance to analyze who said what.  Deleted images count.  Images found in thumbcache count.  I really need to look at this before getting too deep into my concerns here.

This is what I was reading:

I found it very thorough, especially the embedded links that recap what each witness said. Some of it has been omitted because the descriptions of the content was very graphic. It honesty made me teary-eyed and queasy at work, so I am glad that that was redacted, but otherwise it seems like a pretty good summary of what happened. 

2 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Can you PM me the name?  Because my entire world is computer forensic people and trust me, we don't have a list of the top five horrible whatevers.  Every video is horrific in some manner.  

The name is including in the Reddit thing I linked. It's under a spoiler bar in the sublink from the prosecution's first witness. He says it is specifically in the top 5 of the worst he has personally encountered, not in some general acknowledged ranking. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Zella

[hathorlive]

6 hours ago, LexieLily said:

Assuming the reports actually did go to Anna and not another account that would be rerouted to Josh, if she did nothing and still allowed him access to their six minor children three of which are little girls, I don't quite know what to say about that.

Assuming that this program can track TOR traffic when TOR traffic is notorious hard to track.  It logically follows that this program didn't know what to do with TOR.  I know that I have some pretty awesome forensic tools and once TOR is fired up, I lose activity quickly.

[Zella]

1 minute ago, hathorlive said:

Assuming that this program can track TOR traffic when TOR traffic is notorious hard to track.  It logically follows that this program didn't know what to do with TOR.  I know that I have some pretty awesome forensic tools and once TOR is fired up, I lose activity quickly.

From what I read, Josh had a partitioned hard drive, too, which was password protected. He was downloading the material to the password protected part, and the program didn't have access to that but it did to the rest of the hard drive. I'd say the combined effect of that and the TOR browser probably was way too much for the program they were using to monitor him. 

[hathorlive]

6 hours ago, Pingaponga said:

Which indicates that there was no "accidental" viewing of the images.

How does anyone even figure out how to do a workaround for something? I have enough trouble remembering how to power on/off my iPhone.

So I work with HPs a lot. I examine them, my agency uses them for everything, just not my lab equipment. I have NEVER seen an HP with a default Linux partition.  So, does Josh have the knowledge to repartition the hard drive and create/carve a partition to make a Linux partition?  That definitely explains why a Windows program didn't see the activity.  Maybe Josh took it to an IT shop. I just have to think if he's that smart, then he would have used a VPN to hide his location.

14 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

This is exactly how I interpreted it, as well. I think this Carol Twitter person is mistaken as to what the investigator was saying.

To be fair, it is really really difficult to translate tech speak.  I hope we can get a transcript of what was said in the hearing.

[Tuxcat]

10 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Assuming that this program can track TOR traffic when TOR traffic is notorious hard to track.  It logically follows that this program didn't know what to do with TOR.  I know that I have some pretty awesome forensic tools and once TOR is fired up, I lose activity quickly.

He had his computer partitioned. The TOR was on the other side. Anna would not have seen it in the covenant eye reports.

[Saylii]

2 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

So I work with HPs a lot. I examine them, my agency uses them for everything, just not my lab equipment. I have NEVER seen an HP with a default Linux partition.  So, does Josh have the knowledge to repartition the hard drive and create/carve a partition to make a Linux partition?  That definitely explains why a Windows program didn't see the activity.  Maybe Josh took it to an IT shop. I just have to think if he's that smart, then he would have used a VPN to hide his location.

That’s kind of what I saw an issue with.  It’s like he was 90% of the way there on brains, but the last 10% was so dumb it seemingly negates the 90%.  I mean that probably pretty well describes Josh Duggar, but from a court guilty perspective it’s a red flag.

[3girlsforus]

One thing that struck me is that the judge asked Ms Reber if she understood Josh could be there for 6 months. His trial is scheduled for 2 months from now and it certainly seems unlikely it would take 4 months. So do they just assume there will be delays and continuances?

[Clawdel]

41 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

but if he actually tries to smear his brothers I think that JB might even turn on him.

No, Jim Bob will never turn on Josh. Josh is the favorite son. Even now. 

[Tuxcat]

3 minutes ago, Saylii said:

That’s kind of what I saw an issue with.  It’s like he was 90% of the way there on brains, but the last 10% was so dumb it seemingly negates the 90%.  I mean that probably pretty well describes Josh Duggar, but from a court guilty perspective it’s a red flag.

I had the same thought and made the argument earlier about being both dumb (using a birthday passcode) and smart (partitioning a computer). It leads to doubt.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Tuxcat

[LexieLily]

How far along is Anna? If he's not found guilty by then and in prison, will be allowed to be there for the birth of M7?

[Heathen]

34 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

I do think it's possible that Josh is innocent. I'd like to see him in jail just on general principles, but it's possible.

The family is disliked by a LOT of people. The earlier molestations were outed because of the vile robo-calls that J'chelle made. The family is a bunch of saccharine sweetness layered over a lot of horrific beliefs.

Josh is really unlikeable. From his early days narrating the specials that (for me) earned him the nickname "Smuggar," he's palpably unpleasant: smarmy, self-satisfied, and, well, smug.

He has a history: the molestations and the Ashley Madison scandals. I also believe that he assaulted the porn star -- even if she was unable to prove it.

Also, as an adult, Josh was busted for his account on Ashley Madison -- an adult dating site, and for attacking an adult porn star. I'm no expert on pedophilia, but it's my understanding that people who are attracted to children aren't interested in adult women.

If someone really hated this family, and really wanted to put the final nail in the coffin, this would do it. 

Just to be clear, I 100% believe that he did this, but I acknowledge that there is a possibility that he didn't. The fact that his own family hasn't made a peep about his innocence speaks pretty loudly.

That's false. Some convicted abusers have maintained consensual relationships with adults even while abusing children. "Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles. Roughly 9% to 40% of pedophiles are homosexual in their orientation toward children — but that is not the same as saying they are homosexual. Homosexual adults are no more likely than heterosexuals to abuse children." (bolding mine) (This article uses clinical language but can still be disturbing.) 

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/pessimism-about-pedophilia

Good information in this article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/conditions/pedophilia

 

[hathorlive]

18 minutes ago, Zella said:

 

The name is including in the Reddit thing I linked. It's under a spoiler bar in the sublink from the prosecution's first witness. He says it is specifically in the top 5 of the worst he has personally encountered, not in some general acknowledged ranking. 

Thanks for the clarification all!

[Oldernowiser]

1 minute ago, Saylii said:

That’s kind of what I saw an issue with.  It’s like he was 90% of the way there on brains, but the last 10% was so dumb it seemingly negates the 90%.  I mean that probably pretty well describes Josh Duggar, but from a court guilty perspective it’s a red flag.

Maybe that’s part of the sick thrill? Walking just along the edge? 

Or he’s just not that thorough. It’s not like he ever in his life had to make a sustained effort at anything, so I can see him just neglecting a major detail.

Or he was creating an alibi.

Or he’s just that arrogant and assumed after nothing showed up on Anna’s porn monitoring app that he was safe.

 

[hathorlive]

6 minutes ago, Saylii said:

That’s kind of what I saw an issue with.  It’s like he was 90% of the way there on brains, but the last 10% was so dumb it seemingly negates the 90%.  I mean that probably pretty well describes Josh Duggar, but from a court guilty perspective it’s a red flag.

Have you ever seen the3rd Indian Jones film, where Professor Jones tells his class that X never, ever marks the spot? And then of course, later on, X does mark the spot?  I have a guy make folder on his desktop called "My child porn".  I've told people for decades, it's not like they hide this stuff in a folder on the desktop called "porn".  There's always ONE guy...

[Zella]

6 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

I had the same thought and made the argument earlier about being both dumb (using a birthday passcode) and smart (partitioning a computer). It leads to doubt.

To me, it doesn't. I know a lot of people who do things that are simultaneously both very dumb and very smart. I know a lot of people who know better but reuse the same password. I did before I started using a password manager! 

I can definitely see him going above and beyond to hide what he was doing from his wife while also lazily reusing the same password over and over again because he's lazy. I guarantee you that Josh was way more concerned about getting caught downloading what he was downloading than he was anyone hacking his accounts. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Zella

[Oldernowiser]

4 minutes ago, Clawdel said:

No, Jim Bob will never turn on Josh. Josh is the favorite son. Even now. 

I think it’s less about Josh the individual and more about how Josh the eldest son and heir to the throne reflects on JimBob. This hits JB’s ego.

[Zella]

For folks wondering why Josh didn't use a VPN, my guess is he is too cheap to pay for one. 

[Tuxcat]

4 minutes ago, Zella said:

To me, it doesn't. I know a lot of people who do things that are simultaneously both very dumb and very smart. I know a lot of people who know better but reuse the same password. I did before I started using a password manager! 

I can definitely see him going above and beyond to hide what he was doing from his wife while also lazily reusing the same password over and over again because he's lazy. I guarantee you that Josh was way more concerned about getting caught downloading what he was downloading than he was anyone hacking his accounts. 

I absolutely agree and it makes perfect sense to me because I have an idea of who Josh is in my mind. I think its very plausible that he is dumb and smart.  It sounds just like him!

But to a JURY who may not have this idea in mind, and who hears all the potential holes in the case. I could see some doubt - as an unfortunate possibility. This one area in particular but also all the other potential holes.

Also I heard that although the court allowed the molestation offenses to be part of the proceedings today, they will likely not be part of the trial. Not sure if that's correct since it was a public admission. But lawyers yesterday said it wouldn't be allowed in front of jury.

So there is so much that they will potentially not know. 

[Oldernowiser]

18 minutes ago, 3girlsforus said:

One thing that struck me is that the judge asked Ms Reber if she understood Josh could be there for 6 months. His trial is scheduled for 2 months from now and it certainly seems unlikely it would take 4 months. So do they just assume there will be delays and continuances?

If this drags on for that long JB may have to choose between keeping his money versus continuing to pay for Josh’s high-priced lawyers. At some point, my guess he tells Josh to take a plea deal.

[Zella]

This seemed . . . relevant to the discussion we're having.

 

[lilwhitelion]

It was mentioned that his MacBook and iPhone didn't have images of CSA.  Maybe that's because he knew how to do the split screen division with TOR on a PC, but couldn't configure an Apple product in the same way.

[Tdoc72]

1 hour ago, cmr2014 said:

I have to agree that I make a weak case here. 

It's my nature to believe that people are innocent, and even I don't really believe that he is. Someone downloaded that CP, so someone isn't innocent, and the most likely suspect is Josh -- even without the passwords and the "are you here about the CP" comment.

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.  

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Emily seems to think he'll plea out. She says that most Federal cases end that way. 

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.

1 hour ago, Tuxcat said:

He said the "is it CP" question after he said he wanted call his lawyer but before the interview officially started and miranda was read. So that sentence is at risk for getting thrown out.

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).  

[Boston]

nm

[mynextmistake]

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. 

[Tuxcat]

43 minutes ago, Tdoc72 said:

2 hours ago, Tuxcat said:

He said the "is it CP" question after he said he wanted call his lawyer but before the interview officially started and miranda was read. So that sentence is at risk for getting thrown out.

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).

When they arrived, he produced his phone saying he wanted to contact his lawyer.They said no and took his phone which is legal. He was not being detained. He was free to leave. He was free to go call some other way. Later they asked if he wanted to talk. They got in the car and that's when Josh said "is this about CP." That is when the officers made sure to Mirandize (which isn't technically necessary as he was again NOT being detained). The rest of the questions followed.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Tuxcat

[mynextmistake]

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. 

[Tuxcat]

5 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

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. 

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. They began recording after.

And it was a question. "Do you know why we're here?"

Edited May 6, 2021 by Tuxcat

[mynextmistake]

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? 

[Tuxcat]

3 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

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? 

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.

[mynextmistake]

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/

[Gweilo]

I'd sure love to be a fly on the wall in the Covenant Eyes marketing department right about now.

[GeeGolly]

I don't know if this was stated - again I'm only skimming posts to avoid graphic details - I think Josh's question about if the raid was because of CP, is irrelevant due to other evidence, but it could be argued either way. Josh could say he asked because he knew it was on the computer when he "accidentally" accessed it. Or it could be seen as an excited utterance of guilt, which are often deemed truthful. But either way, I don't think it will make a difference in the trial.

[Snow Fairy]

Yeah, because you accidentally have 200+65 images of CP on your computer, and you just stumble on that. I don't think that would be any defense for him

I think most of us have on some point watched at porn, and you  can't find CP on normal porn sites