Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

maraleia

By maraleia
in Counting On

Recommended Posts

hathorlive

hathorlive

And another issue I've not seen much discussion on:  Duggar's download timeframe.  I've had defense attorneys say "it was only over a period of two years, following his divorce, that Mr. Scumbag engaged in this sad behavior".  

Josh's download period was over a couple of days, if I'm not mistaken?  Now, he could have just been getting started.  He might have engaged in downloading for years if not caught.  But there is a discussion about belonging to a CP community, i.e. interacting with pervs online in groups, etc.  And that engagement takes into consideration how long you've been downloading.  

I personally think one day is enough.  But it's something to consider, that the Judge might apply to the sentence in a deductive way.

  • Useful 14
  • Love 2
  • Replies 39.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GeeGolly

    1526

  • Churchhoney

    1075

  • JoanArc

    1061

  • Sew Sumi

    1049

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

hoosier80
hoosier80

New show title: 10 to 20 Years and Counting 

MargeGunderson
MargeGunderson

Someone on Reddit just described Josh’s face as a glistening glazed ham. I am considering divorcing my husband and marrying that poster. 

doodlebug
doodlebug

Well, for many of us, it's the difference between 'imperfect' and 'non-PC' and being a criminal.  Josh is a child molester and his parents actively intervened in his situation to avoid him being punis

Posted Images

madpsych78

madpsych78

24 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

 The Federal guidelines for CSAM were recently revised, mainly because judges were giving lower sentences for people convicted of receipt, possession, AND Distribution.  I see many attempts to get rid of receipt/possession, or make both a mandatory minimum.  I'm happy that Congress realizes there is very little difference between the two charges.

I've never been able to figure out why these two were separate charges. I can't imagine a scenario in which receiving could exist without possessing and vice versa. (Well...maybe possessing if someone else received it and put it on the computer.) Whereas I can understand how producing and distributing are two very different actions.

  • Love 4
hathorlive

hathorlive

16 minutes ago, madpsych78 said:

I've never been able to figure out why these two were separate charges. I can't imagine a scenario in which receiving could exist without possessing and vice versa. (Well...maybe possessing if someone else received it and put it on the computer.) Whereas I can understand how producing and distributing are two very different actions.

I've had arguments with AUSA's who struggled to explain the difference.  They would very much like a case with emails that say "here is the cp you requested" in the subject line, to make it easier.  What's worse, one of the charges may not get any jail time, and the other does, if my reading of the guidelines is correct.  Either way, get rid of the language and stop trying to work around it and twist things to fit the convoluted definition.  If you have it on your computer, it's possession.  You can't possess something without receiving it.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 5
Tuxcat

Tuxcat

(edited)
1 hour ago, hathorlive said:

Josh's download period was over a couple of days, if I'm not mistaken?

Forgive me but I have not read all prior posts. Probably the below has already been discussed?

To me the short window has always been the strongest piece for the defense. Was he just getting started or-  as they could have argued- he just stumbled across it as he was looking for other stuff. Don't get me wrong. I fully believe he had done this before. I believe he had a variety of "categories of interest" that he downloaded. He was not strictly CSAM but it was not accident that he downloaded the material.

But how much does the length of time and number of images actually factor into sentencing? I had been thinking 6-8 lately mainly because of the pattern of behavior established from the abuse of his sisters. But I'm not sure I can how the judge could go any higher.

Edited by Tuxcat
  • Love 2
hathorlive

hathorlive

28 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Forgive me but I have not read all prior posts. Probably the below has already been discussed?

To me the short window has always been the strongest piece for the defense. Was he just getting started or-  as they could have argued- he just stumbled across it as he was looking for other stuff. Don't get me wrong. I fully believe he had done this before. I believe he had a variety of "categories of interest" that he downloaded. He was not strictly CSAM but it was not accident that he downloaded the material.

But how much does the length of time and number of images actually factor into sentencing? I had been thinking 6-8 lately mainly because of the pattern of behavior established from the abuse of his sisters. But I'm not sure I can how the judge could go any higher.

Number of images should be an enhancement.  However, the number of images/videos that Josh had was miniscule compared to the image count in most CP cases.  I have NO idea what they will do with the time issue.  I'm just saying that defense attorneys have always brought that up in sentencing hearings, to which I point out that there was only activity for x number of months because the computer had a new OS installed x number of months ago. 

Pervs will reinstall the OS, which doesn't do as much damage as you would think.  They use external encrypted drives, where I can see file names going to said drive but not content.  And the most sophisticated are those who use virtual machines to do their CP surfing and downloading, then they export the files to a thumb drive  and delete the virtual machine.  Then I have NO system artifacts that indicate illegal activity.  Actually, a lot of fraud crimes use virtual machines.  This is why I side eyed the prosecutor's "sophisticated computer user who took extraordinary means to download CP" argument.  Well, not really.  If he was that good, he wouldn't have been caught.  

24 minutes ago, SusanM said:

Based on what everyone is saying I have decided to be happy with any sentence that guarantees Smuggar sits in prison for the full 5 years.  Anything longer than that will be cake.

I honestly think he'll get around 10 years.  For me, that's a huge home run.  Anything more and I'll be ecstatic.  But the average US sentence for this, give or take similar circumstances, is about 8.5.  I can't do the math, but those are the numbers they give us at conferences, from people who DO do the math.

  • Useful 5
  • Love 6
quarks

quarks

4 hours ago, ginger90 said:

Have the exclusions changed? At one time the crime he has been found guilty of would have made him ineligible under disqualifying offenses.

I don't know what the situation was prior to 2018. But, as of 2018, and again now in 2022, the current guidelines at the official federal website for the Bureau of Prisons say nothing about the nature/type of crimes, only the length of the sentence, and state that these guidelines apply to all inmates. The only exclusions are for people serving life sentences and people serving sentences of less than one year. 

These are federal guidelines, not state guidelines. It's extremely possible that Arkansas, for instance, does not allow for time off for good behavior for anyone convicted of a CSAM crime. 

  • Useful 3
ginger90

ginger90

17 minutes ago, quarks said:

I don't know what the situation was prior to 2018. But, as of 2018, and again now in 2022, the current guidelines at the official federal website for the Bureau of Prisons say nothing about the nature/type of crimes, only the length of the sentence, and state that these guidelines apply to all inmates. The only exclusions are for people serving life sentences and people serving sentences of less than one year. 

These are federal guidelines, not state guidelines. It's extremely possible that Arkansas, for instance, does not allow for time off for good behavior for anyone convicted of a CSAM crime. 

This is what I saw:

https://www.bop.gov/resources/fsa/time_credits_disqualifying_offenses.jsp

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Tikichick

Tikichick

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

And another issue I've not seen much discussion on:  Duggar's download timeframe.  I've had defense attorneys say "it was only over a period of two years, following his divorce, that Mr. Scumbag engaged in this sad behavior".  

Josh's download period was over a couple of days, if I'm not mistaken?  Now, he could have just been getting started.  He might have engaged in downloading for years if not caught.  But there is a discussion about belonging to a CP community, i.e. interacting with pervs online in groups, etc.  And that engagement takes into consideration how long you've been downloading.  

I personally think one day is enough.  But it's something to consider, that the Judge might apply to the sentence in a deductive way.

If the duration of time he is proven to actively been downloading can be used as a mitigating factor, can the bifurcation of the hard drive in order to evade the monitoring software be used to demonstrate he was setting up a longer-term plan to go forward also?

31 minutes ago, quarks said:

I don't know what the situation was prior to 2018. But, as of 2018, and again now in 2022, the current guidelines at the official federal website for the Bureau of Prisons say nothing about the nature/type of crimes, only the length of the sentence, and state that these guidelines apply to all inmates. The only exclusions are for people serving life sentences and people serving sentences of less than one year. 

These are federal guidelines, not state guidelines. It's extremely possible that Arkansas, for instance, does not allow for time off for good behavior for anyone convicted of a CSAM crime. 

He was tried federally, so Arkansas laws do not apply regarding his sentencing, only the federal ones.

  • Love 3
quarks

quarks

28 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

This is what I saw:

https://www.bop.gov/resources/fsa/time_credits_disqualifying_offenses.jsp

Interesting, since although that page cites the 2018 law which the 2022 guidelines are supposedly following, the pages about the 2022 guidelines are pretty clear that the factors to be considered are the length of the sentence, not any disqualifying offenses.  

There's also the possibility that Josh's sentence could include both prison time and supervised release, which the feds discuss here:

https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/authority-probation-supervised-release-conditions

I assume we'll hear more about that possibility tomorrow.

  • Love 2
libgirl2

libgirl2

1 minute ago, SusanM said:

Please tell me there will be at least some camera footage in the courtroom tomorrow!  I feel bad saying this but I really want to see Smuggar's face when he is sentenced.  Because honestly part of me still thinks he believes he's going to get a last minute reprieve and will be walking out a free man.

No cameras allowed, but we can see people's expressions when they leave the courthouse! 

  • Love 12
GeeGolly

GeeGolly

2 minutes ago, SusanM said:

Please tell me there will be at least some camera footage in the courtroom tomorrow!  I feel bad saying this but I really want to see Smuggar's face when he is sentenced.  Because honestly part of me still thinks he believes he's going to get a last minute reprieve and will be walking out a free man.

Me too. I want to see him in shackles and cuffs when he walks in and would love to see his face at sentencing. Unfortunately I think we'll only get a sketch. But maybe we'll see him crying as he exits the building.

  • Love 8
Minivanessa

Minivanessa

11 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Me too. I want to see him in shackles and cuffs when he walks in and would love to see his face at sentencing. Unfortunately I think we'll only get a sketch. But maybe we'll see him crying as he exits the building.

I think there's a secure back or garage entrance to the courthouse that they use when transporting persons who are in custody. Otherwise we would have seen FF being led out in cuffs after the verdict.  

  • Useful 5
  • Love 7
Gemma Violet

Gemma Violet

2 hours ago, hathorlive said:

And the most sophisticated are those who use virtual machines

Do you mean hacking other people's computers to do their dirty work?  If this is possible, now I'm even more terrified of being hacked.

All this past week, I thought the sentencing was today.  I was thinking today was the 25th.  I found out yesterday I had a whole additional day to wait.  What a disappointment.

  • LOL 3
  • Love 3
hathorlive

hathorlive

4 minutes ago, Gemma Violet said:

Do you mean hacking other people's computers to do their dirty work?  If this is possible, now I'm even more terrified of being hacked.

All this past week, I thought the sentencing was today.  I was thinking today was the 25th.  I found out yesterday I had a whole additional day to wait.  What a disappointment.

No, a virtual machine is a computer within your computer.  You set one up (the guest) using vm software and it runs inside your computer (the host).  You can turn it on and off and do things within the guest/vm system and those artifacts are not known to the Host machine.  So if Josh had created a vm within his HP computer, he could install any software, run any program and download any file and when the guest machine is off, the host machine has no idea what it was doing.  So you can use a VM to download CP, then delete the VM and all traces are gone.  Heck, I don't think many forensic examiners look for and mount vm's.  I do.  But you have to look for the VM files to see if its bootable.  If you delete that file, the activity is gone.

  • Useful 4
  • Love 3
Gemma Violet

Gemma Violet

(edited)

Thanks for the explanation, hathorlive.

Here's an article regarding the person responsible for the Duggars becoming famous:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/introduced-duggar-family-josh-19-kids-counting_n_6283f1dde4b04353eb0a5ece

Quote

I Introduced The Duggar Family To The World. Am I Responsible For Their Rise To Fame?

Edited by Gemma Violet
  • Useful 1
Minivanessa

Minivanessa

Today the court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the defense's post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. It's here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.156.0_2.pdf

It's nearly 30 pages long and I don't have time to read it right now. I did scan through the first six or seven pages. Warning: DO NOT start reading that part of the order if you don't want to see some references to the content of the CSAM - although they are made in passing, sort of. The issue under discussion at that point is the defense claim that Smuggar wasn't proven to have viewed the downloads. 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 3
hathorlive

hathorlive

(edited)
31 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Today the court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the defense's post-trial motion for judgment of acquittal. It's here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817/gov.uscourts.arwd.62817.156.0_2.pdf

It's nearly 30 pages long and I don't have time to read it right now. I did scan through the first six or seven pages. Warning: DO NOT start reading that part of the order if you don't want to see some references to the content of the CSAM - although they are made in passing, sort of. The issue under discussion at that point is the defense claim that Smuggar wasn't proven to have viewed the downloads. 

Descriptions of the images/videos begins on the bottom of page 3.  Pages 6 through 29 are clean, just a discussion of thumb nails and why they are important. There is a bit of language discussion sexual acts by minors but no details.

I love this judge's writing style.  From page 20: "Defense counsel is well aware that the sidebar conference was at least the third time the Court had addressed on the record the evidentiary foundation that would be required before alternative perpetrator evidence could be argued to the jury.  The defense team was not confused about this standard. Instead, they made the strategic decision not to call Mr. Williams to the stand because: (1) they knew they could not lay a nonspeculative foundation for his testimony, and (2) any such attempt to do so would invite the Government’s proffered rebuttal testimony."

The argument by defense that  "a new trial is warranted due to the Government’s failure to disclose certain demonstrative exhibits Mr. Fottrell used during his rebuttal testimony. The “exhibits” were screenshots Mr. Fottrell printed while working with Oracle VirtualBox, which was described as “a very popular piece of virtualization software.”"

Seriously?  Fotrell took the forensic image and mounted it in virtualization software.  You can do the same thing with freeware, and it's not the forensic experts job to do the work the defense expert should be doing for your side.  When I provide a findings disk to the defense, I don't go over it and explain the ramifications of the artifacts to them.  It's their job to hire an expert to do that.  Similiarly, I'll provide them access to a forensic image, but I don't run my software tools over it for the defense expert to look at.  She gets to do that all on her own. 

Edited by hathorlive
added more details.
  • Useful 12
  • Love 4
Natalie68

Natalie68

7 hours ago, SMama said:

Anna’s smugness in that picture irritates me to no end. Karma is a bitch, Anna, and now your constant companion. There’s no redemption tour for the monster you married and still support. You’ll never become Michelle 2.0. The only talking heads will be you talking to the mirror. Your children will be pitied because of the heinous crime their father committed, and because their mother is full of hate. Want to talk about sins of the father, Anna? Go ahead, try that smug look tomorrow as you leave court. Enjoy obscurity you hateful bitch. 

There is always Love After Lockup.  I hope the mofo gets the max.

  • LOL 4
  • Love 2
  • Popular Post
louannems

louannems

  • Popular Post
On 5/19/2022 at 11:20 AM, lascuba said:

I have a major work thing on the 25th from that's going to last all day and I am distraught that I won't be here learning about the sentencing as it happens. DISTRAUGHT!

On the 25th, I will be on my sixth day in recovery from double hip replacement surgery.  So I have all the time in the world as my only obligations are rest, ice and elevate.

So I'll be here with you guys, except I keep snoozing and snoring, being on my back and doped up on Dilaudid.  But I'll be here!

  • LOL 1
  • Love 32
xwordfanatik

xwordfanatik

12 minutes ago, louannems said:

On the 25th, I will be on my sixth day in recovery from double hip replacement surgery.  So I have all the time in the world as my only obligations are rest, ice and elevate.

So I'll be here with you guys, except I keep snoozing and snoring, being on my back and doped up on Dilaudid.  But I'll be here!

Wishing you a speedy recovery!  I'll be here, too!

  • Love 16
lascuba

lascuba

25 minutes ago, louannems said:

On the 25th, I will be on my sixth day in recovery from double hip replacement surgery.  So I have all the time in the world as my only obligations are rest, ice and elevate.

So I'll be here with you guys, except I keep snoozing and snoring, being on my back and doped up on Dilaudid.  But I'll be here!

I hope recovery is going well!

  • Love 11
  • Popular Post
sagittarius sue

sagittarius sue

  • Popular Post

A sampling from Reddit/Duggarsnark;

Twas the night before sentencing and all through the Big House, not a Duggar was stirring not even J’mouse.

Their low expectations were coupled with prayer, in hopes that Judge Brooks would forget the Pest’s lair.

The Duggars were tucked all smug in their beds, while visions of tater tots danced in their heads.

I tried to post the link, but it ended up pasting the entire thing.

  • LOL 22
  • Love 4
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...