Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[ElsieEm]

Wow, I haven't watched the show in years and mostly just keep up with the older sisters on Instagram, but my stomach dropped reading the news today. 

I hope that Anna will find the courage to do what she needs to do and leave him. If I remember, at least one member of her family has offered her an out before. I so hope they are more supportive of her leaving now.

And I hope the older sisters (and Josh's other victims) are getting support as well, this could be quite triggering for them. Sadly I doubt it... 😞

[3girlsforus]

9 minutes ago, Tdoc72 said:

I agree. And this is probably not a popular opinion: but if I were on a jury, I’d have a problem sentencing someone to jail for 20 years if they had 1-2 child photos thrown in with thousands of adults photos. One could argue that it was an accident/bad batch/whatever. And I’m definitely not saying that he (or anyone) shouldn’t face punishment.  I don’t know what an acceptable ratio wouldn’t be. 

I am not defending Josh here or anyone’s possession/receiving of inappropriate  illegal child photos.  Just trying to look at it logically.

through this season of life. 

I think this is why these cases take a long time to pull together. They have to be able to prove it wasn't just part of a batch that someone had a legitimate reason to believe was legal, adult porn. They have to show it was his computer and he was the one who downloaded it.  I'm sure there are a lot of other legal i's to dot and ts to cross. I doubt he had one or two photos because it would be pretty easy to wiggle out of, plus as sad as it sounds, when it comes to child porn there would be much bigger fish to fry than a guy with 1 photo on his computer.  What I do think might be likely in terms of why there are only 2 charges is that they can currently prove two specific times he received and possessed the materials, not 2 photos. 

[Future Cat Lady]

2 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

 It probably depends on how borderline the images of here. Obviously, Josh is dealing in immature children so yeah is not an accident. The accidental stuff is more like a mature looking teenager who intentionally posted themselves to the web. 

A lot of teen pics are not intentional. Porn Hub has recently been called out. A lot  are posted against the girls consents by boyfriends or exes. They may have taken the pics, but did not consent to them being posted online.

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, Grrarrggh said:

If they came as a shock it's only because they let it be, just like Mommy and Daddy. And anyone who uses their children to make money should lose that income.

Agree 💯. They can get fucking jobs like everyone else now.

[JoanArc]

4 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

A lot of teen pics are not intentional. Porn Hub has recently been called out. A lot  are posted against the girls consents by boyfriends or exes. They may have taken the pics, but did not consent to them being posted online.

 Yes, I have heard about porn hub. They were also cases of underage teens posting on there to make money, without the administration cracking down. Any sort of online porn that is not commercially produced will likely have some sort of questions attached to it. Let’s not even get inot  those kids who have been charged with producing child porn because they took pictures of themselves on their phone and didn’t even send them to anyone. 

To bring things back to Josh, I don’t think chargers would’ve been brought if it wasn’t an airtight case. He didn’t accidentally download a couple pictures of boobs, not delete them, I’m going to spend 50 years in prison because of it. Whatever he’s got is bad.

[RedDelicious]

20 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Hmm, if they found them on a work computer, you're right, how do they know. Unless Josh had them on other devices as well maybe? I don't know, but great question.

I was thinking it might be in connection with a Google account, for example if you have a GMail address, you're logged into Google the entire time you're on-line, if you stay signed in to GMail. Missing persons have been tracked that way. His search and app activity would be geo-tagged to the car lot. It could be as simple as law enforcement taking photos of him sitting at his desk while logged into his computer and accessing the dark web. Unless the curtains were closed and the laptop cam was covered, all things are possible.

ETA: A person close to me works in covert surveillance for law enforcement. The stuff they are able to do with modern technology is absolutely mind blowing. 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by RedDelicious

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Future Cat Lady said:

A lot of teen pics are not intentional. Porn Hub has recently been called out. A lot  are posted against the girls consents by boyfriends or exes. They may have taken the pics, but did not consent to them being posted online.

I know of a case where a teen took a picture of herself, sent it to her boyfriend, who viewed it while with his buddies, one friend grabbed the phone and showed it to more friends, wound up in yet another friend's hands while he was looking at it with more friends.   After a lot of wrangling the case was eventually dropped, but the teen who took the picture, the boyfriend and all of the friends who had their hands on the phone at some point in time were at one point charged with various allegations of child porn.  

[xtwheeler]

2 hours ago, Tikichick said:

The ban on cameras no doubt refers to media coverage, which is a different thing.

As a general rule courtrooms and court proceedings are and must be public.   Yes, there is such a thing as confidential proceedings, but this does not qualify.  If the public does not have access to the courtroom and the proceedings, such as in a pandemic, livestreaming has been used to satisfy the requirement.   

When proceedings here resumed as Zoom hearings after a few days closure last year livestreaming wasn't initially happening.  Very quickly motions began to crop up regarding due process and State Court Administrators Office notified all State Courts that proceedings had to be publicly available (livestreamed) with the exception of those rare matters that would not have had open courtrooms if conducted in person.  It gets very confusing when you deal with matters for which the files are confidential, yet the proceedings are in fact livestreamed because the courtroom is technically open to the public.   You can watch the hearing live, yet if you attempt to look up the case online or request records from the court you are prevented because the file is confidential.  I don't make the rules, I just have to follow them. 

FRCP § 53 explicitly prohibits broadcast and photos from federal courts for criminal proceedings. "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states, "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."

"Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has banned photography and broadcasting of any federal criminal proceedings since 1946, and this policy remains in effect." 

Here's the history of those federal rules:https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts

There may be some nuance of livestreaming that I'm not understanding, but broadcasts from criminal trial are generally considered prejudicial and not in the interests of justice. Especially in a case where children are involved, as here, the privacy of the children overrides. 

Generly, allowing the press in live, as well as members of the public satisfies the due process requirements for publically open trials. For example, today the media was not allowed to even post to social media until the hearing was over. 

Example: we are only seeing drawings from the Ghislaine Maxwell court appearance because not even still cameras are allowed in. Federal Court, criminal charges, children involved. 

Again, I'm not barred in that particular state or federal district, and I'm sitting here waiting for them to take me into surgery, so this may not be my most cogent legal analysis! 

 

[mynextmistake]

5 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

 Yes, I have heard about porn hub. They were also cases of underage teens posting on there to make money, without the administration cracking down. Any sort of online porn that is not commercially produced will likely have some sort of questions attached to it. Let’s not even get inot  those kids who have been charged with producing child porn because they took pictures of themselves on their phone and didn’t even send them to anyone. 

To bring things back to Josh, I don’t think chargers would’ve been brought if it wasn’t an airtight case. He didn’t accidentally download a couple pictures of boobs, not delete them, I’m going to spend 50 years in prison because of it. Whatever he’s got is bad.

Exactly. I have heard of cases where people went to sites like Porn Hub assuming all content there was 18+ and inadvertently viewed a video of a 17-year-old, but I doubt those cases get prosecuted. There’s no way you can look at a picture of an 11-year-old and think it’s of an adult.

Edited April 30, 2021 by mynextmistake

[Future Cat Lady]

3 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I know of a case where a teen took a picture of herself, sent it to her boyfriend, who viewed it while with his buddies, one friend grabbed the phone and showed it to more friends, wound up in yet another friend's hands while he was looking at it with more friends.   After a lot of wrangling the case was eventually dropped, but the teen who took the picture, the boyfriend and all of the friends who had their hands on the phone at some point in time were at one point charged with various allegations of child porn.  

From what I understand, any minors taking/sharing naked pictures of themselves is illegal. 

[WinnieWinkle]

Can TLC just drop the Duggars?  Another show  on a different channel dropped a host and it looks like they are going to have to pay out a significant amount of money to make that person go away.  I guess it depends on the kind of contract signed but I would hope if they cancel the show it won't mean a big final paycheque.

Edited April 30, 2021 by WinnieWinkle

[GeeGolly]

Just now, WinnieWinkle said:

Can TLC just drop the Duggars?  Another show dropped a host and it looks like they are going to have to payout a significant amount of money to make that person go away.  I guess it depends on the kind of contract signed but I would hope if the cancel the show it won't mean a big final paycheque.

Reality TV controls it all. They can drop them and be done with no financial payouts.

[MargeGunderson]

8 minutes ago, RedDelicious said:

I was thinking it might be in connection with a Google account, for example if you have a GMail address, you're logged into Google the entire time you're on-line, if you stay signed in to GMail. Missing persons have been tracked that way. His search and app activity would be geo-tagged to the car lot. It could be as simple as law enforcement taking photos of him sitting at his desk while logged into his computer and accessing the dark web. Unless the curtains were closed and the laptop cam was off, all things are possible.

ETA: A person close to me works in covert surveillance for law enforcement. The stuff they are able to do with modern technology is absolutely mind blowing. 

 

I’m sure the Feds tracked the IP address of the computer. I don’t see Josh as smart enough to take the kind of evasive measures needed to cover his tracks on the web. 

[Oldernowiser]

If TLC’s lawyers didn’t write an extensive morals clause into the Counting On contract afterJoshgate 2.0 I would be shocked. 

The Duggars made their brand all about children and holier than thou and they’ve never backed off on either. Joshgate 3.0 clobbers that brand on both counts. I don’t see them coming back from this one.

Bye, J’chelle. Hope you saved some money to help feed all those people.

[3girlsforus]

6 minutes ago, WinnieWinkle said:

Can TLC just drop the Duggars?  Another show  on a different channel dropped a host and it looks like they are going to have to pay out a significant amount of money to make that person go away.  I guess it depends on the kind of contract signed but I would hope if they cancel the show it won't mean a big final paycheque.

Discovery can cancel whatever they want. But their lineup is pretty crappy and Covid has made developing new shows difficult. So if they want to continue the show I figure they will use the justification that Josh isn't on this show. In fact his early victims are. So they won't cancel their show because of their molester brother. Only TLC/Discovery knows their lineup situation and what their plan would be if they cancel them. But if they do cancel, it will be because it makes financial sense, not because they are altruistic. 

[RedDelicious]

5 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I’m sure the Feds tracked the IP address of the computer. I don’t see Josh as smart enough to take the kind of evasive measures needed to cover his tracks on the web. 

Definitely on both. But an IP address wouldn't prove who was at the keyboard. ETA: Also a MAC address would identify the device but not the user.

Edited April 30, 2021 by RedDelicious

[iwantcookies]

4 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

If TLC’s lawyers didn’t write an extensive morals clause into the Counting On contract afterJoshgate 2.0 I would be shocked. 

The Duggars made their brand all about children and holier than thou and they’ve never backed off on either. Joshgate 3.0 clobbers that brand on both counts. I don’t see them coming back from this one.

Bye, J’chelle. Hope you saved some money to help feed all those people.

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by iwantcookies

[LavendarRose]

It’s just after 6am on the East Coast of Australia.  I have been awake for far too long following this thread and on other sites to keep up with what happened and to try to make some sort of sense out of it.  Thanks to everyone who has posted links, given legal information and expressed their feelings on this.  It has helped me settle my own thoughts and helped me know I am not alone in my reaction.

Why I have been following this circus from half a world away is another story. But as the sun comes up here (and I hear kookaburras greeting it) it is time to finally get some sleep.  Keep safe everyone and hold your loved ones close to you.

[MargeGunderson]

1 minute ago, RedDelicious said:

Definitely on both. But an IP address wouldn't prove who was at the keyboard. 

You’re right it doesn’t, but I’m assuming that the IP address is one of the building blocks of the whole picture. My guess is that Josh also set a log in and password for the computer (so no one can find his porn) and that is going to come back on him. Especially if he was the only employee of the car lot and the only person with access to the computer.

[JoanArc]

11 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I’m sure the Feds tracked the IP address of the computer. I don’t see Josh as smart enough to take the kind of evasive measures needed to cover his tracks on the web. 

 I actually see him as smart enough to cover his tracks, but dumb enough to give his full name and address to the first ‘12yo’ girl to email him ( girl is actually a 45-year-old homeland security investigator). Remember how he used his own credit card for Ashley Madison! The fool didn’t even learn anything from that. Thanks dining room table.

 

Quote

But an IP address wouldn't prove who was at the keyboard

Yeah, I think it has been determined that IP address alone cannot be legally used to confirm identity. I have seen it mentioned in non-porn cases.

Edited April 30, 2021 by JoanArc

[bobalina]

2 hours ago, iwantcookies said:

https://www.duggarfamily.com/2021/04/duggar-family-statement-2/?fbclid=IwAR0Ud_lJXq3ftn1uiz2VUH1QkanikzmXerZ6nXQbVSR9KxgLABwQ2PnL_Ew

Thats a very interesting way to say that

[iwantcookies]

3 minutes ago, LavendarRose said:

It’s just after 6am on the East Coast of Australia.  I have been awake for far too long following this thread and on other sites to keep up with what happened and to try to make some sort of sense out of it.  Thanks to everyone who has posted links, given legal information and expressed their feelings on this.  It has helped me settle my own thoughts and helped me know I am not alone in my reaction.

Why I have been following this circus from half a world away is another story. But as the sun comes up here (and I hear kookaburras greeting it) it is time to finally get some sleep.  Keep safe everyone and hold your loved ones close to you.

Good night !

[WinnieWinkle]

3 minutes ago, bobalina said:

Thats a very interesting way to say that

Reading it over again it made me think they are getting ready to throw Anna under the bus.  Based on the fundie related experience I'm familiar with that's a pretty normal response.  It is ALWAYS the woman's fault.

[BitterApple]

1 minute ago, Spazamanaz said:

. Honestly I always thought he would end up being a violent sexual predator. 

I agree. It's not like Josh's teenage incidents were a case where he accidentally walked in on a sister while she was getting changed and snuck a quick peek. They were calculated, planned and deliberate. Also, recall on that Ashley Madison profile where they asked something along the lines of "Do you feel women owe you sex?" and Josh responded, "Yes." He's a sick fuck. 

3 minutes ago, bobalina said:

Thats a very interesting way to say that

"Resolved in a timely manner" sounds like they're talking about an insurance claim for a fender bender, not a deviant son arrested for possession of depraved material. 

[Tikichick]

19 minutes ago, xtwheeler said:

FRCP § 53 explicitly prohibits broadcast and photos from federal courts for criminal proceedings. "Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 53 states, "Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom."

"Rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has banned photography and broadcasting of any federal criminal proceedings since 1946, and this policy remains in effect." 

Here's the history of those federal rules:https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts

There may be some nuance of livestreaming that I'm not understanding, but broadcasts from criminal trial are generally considered prejudicial and not in the interests of justice. Especially in a case where children are involved, as here, the privacy of the children overrides. 

Generly, allowing the press in live, as well as members of the public satisfies the due process requirements for publically open trials. For example, today the media was not allowed to even post to social media until the hearing was over. 

Example: we are only seeing drawings from the Ghislaine Maxwell court appearance because not even still cameras are allowed in. Federal Court, criminal charges, children involved. 

Again, I'm not barred in that particular state or federal district, and I'm sitting here waiting for them to take me into surgery, so this may not be my most cogent legal analysis! 

 

It's very good info.   And good luck with your surgery!

If the public and the press were allowed in the courtroom today there would have been no need for livestreaming, because the fact the courtroom was publicly open would satisfy the requirement.   I believe someone posted earlier the hearing was being conducted on Zoom, so perhaps they let the public and the media log into the Zoom and that was considered sufficient satisfaction of due process?   That would be interesting, and come with other complications, including creating a clean record.   Even if staff muted all observers, as I'm sure they must have, I know from the way things are happening in our courthouse, the more people sitting in on a Zoom, the more glitchy things become. 

[RedDelicious]

3 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

You’re right it doesn’t, but I’m assuming that the IP address is one of the building blocks of the whole picture. My guess is that Josh also set a log in and password for the computer (so no one can find his porn) and that is going to come back on him. Especially if he was the only employee of the car lot and the only person with access to the computer.

I was thinking more along the lines of he was probably stupid enough to think a button lock on his office door was enough to keep him safe. (I can't do deadbolts, but I my college years with roommates we were all accidentally locked out enough times that I became a master at shimmying locks and windows. You don't need a locksmith when you know RD 😄)

But besides that, I don't know how surveillance warrants work but I do know that they could get a camera on him without even physically entering the building. His car was probably bugged too (even though that's easy).  And you're right, the IP/MAC would offer an entire trove of history. 

[Zella]

There was absolutely no public access to this hearing through Zoom that I saw. Reporters talked about being on the call, but I saw no way for the public to access it in any form anywhere.

[AZChristian]

Something we found out accidentally this past week that helped me to understand how some of these folks get caught.

If they upload porn (especially child porn) to something like Dropbox or other online cloud storage, they are increasing their chances of getting caught.  Many/most of the online storage platforms will report child pornography (or other illegal activities) to authorities.

But here's something we found out while cleaning out our own photo files.  About 5 years ago, I snapped an ornery picture of my husband "mooning" me.  We're in our 70s, and this was in our own bedroom, and is the closest we've ever come to having a nude photo.  We laughed and I deleted it within 30 seconds.  

Imagine my shock this week to learn that not only did we have an Amazon Prime photo account, but that it automatically uploaded pictures from my phone to our "cloud" account.  Yep.  There he was, in a picture that - to be honest - we had long since forgotten had ever been taken.  As I said, I deleted it immediately after taking it, showing it to him, and having a good laugh.  

Child pornographers aren't just evil . . . a lot of them are just plain stupid.  They provide the evidence for their own arrests.

 

[MargeGunderson]

1 minute ago, RedDelicious said:

I was thinking more along the lines of he was probably stupid enough to think a button lock on his office door was enough to keep him safe. (I can't do deadbolts, but I my college years with roommates we were all accidentally locked out enough times that I became a master at shimmying locks and windows. You don't need a locksmith when you know RD 😄)

But besides that, I don't know how surveillance warrants work but I do know that they could get a camera on him without even physically entering the building. His car was probably bugged too (even though that's easy).  And you're right, the IP/MAC would offer an entire trove of history. 

I wonder if there was a security camera on the car lot at the time that shows he was the only one on the premises at the time.

[Tikichick]

17 minutes ago, RedDelicious said:

Definitely on both. But an IP address wouldn't prove who was at the keyboard. ETA: Also a MAC address would identify the device but not the user.

 

13 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

You’re right it doesn’t, but I’m assuming that the IP address is one of the building blocks of the whole picture. My guess is that Josh also set a log in and password for the computer (so no one can find his porn) and that is going to come back on him. Especially if he was the only employee of the car lot and the only person with access to the computer.

Frequently they do use things such as password log-ins -- but of course that winds up being a dogfight about someone else being aware of the password, the computer being left on and someone else using it -- or things like a fight with a boyfriend/girlfriend and they have supposedly used the computer maliciously to set up their former partner, etc.   

Many times they prove who was operating the computer at certain times by linking it to other transactions conducted within close proximity of time before and after, all pointing to a consistent user. 

27 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

From what I understand, any minors taking/sharing naked pictures of themselves is illegal. 

Yes, the same way sexual activity with someone under the age of consent is illegal.  But sometimes the law can't be or shouldn't be looked at so black and white with something like that -- such as two 15 year olds engaging in sex together.   Should they both be charged as sexual offenders?  

[WinnieWinkle]

2 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

Child pornographers aren't just evil . . . a lot of them are just plain stupid.  They provide the evidence for their own arrests.

If this past year has taught me nothing else it has taught me that there really are some very stupid people out there who think they're smarter than everyone else.  I believe Josh Duggar is one of those people.  He acts like someone who genuinely thinks he's better than everyone else and that the entire world owes him a living.  

[Minivanessa]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

There was absolutely no public access to this hearing through Zoom that I saw. Reporters talked about being on the call, but I saw no way for the public to access it in any form anywhere.

I think there must have been some way to view the Zoom hearing live. I went to the YT channel "Without a Crystal Ball," who reported that she was able to log into the hearing. But her "reporting" of the events displayed such a massive ignorance of what the heck she had seen, that I clicked it off after a very short time. She was clearly in over her head, didn't understand that Josh had simply waived having the magistrate judge read out the charges - and I just couldn't stand another second of that twit. I can't take much of her in any event. Just wanted to say that she somehow managed to "attend" the hearing virtually. 

Did I mention, she's such an effing twit that I can't take more than a minute of her? Just saying.

[JoanArc]

3 minutes ago, AZChristian said:

If they upload porn (especially child porn) to something like Dropbox or other online cloud storage, they are increasing their chances of getting caught.  Many/most of the online storage platforms will report child pornography (or other illegal activities) to authorities.

Yes, the meta-data of everything uploaded to cloud storage is scanned. It catches porn like this but also a lot of financial crimes.  Basically confirms that you’re in possession of something that is known to be illegal. 

[the-grey-lady]

49 minutes ago, PopTart16 said:

CHILDREN WERE HARMED AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE HARMED BECAUSE THEIR IMAGES ARE IN THE HAND OF PEDOPHILES. 

Keep saying that until there's no longer a need. Please.

[AZChristian]

2 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I wonder if there was a security camera on the car lot at the time that shows he was the only one on the premises at the time.

Cell phone towers track locations.  If he was at the car lot at a particular time, that can be tracked if his phone was on.

[Oldernowiser]

Just now, Tikichick said:

Many times they prove who was operating the computer at certain times by linking it to other transactions conducted within close proximity of time before and after, all pointing to a consistent user. 

Josh probably used Apple Pay with his own thumbprint for verification. He’s just that stupid.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I think there must have been some way to view the Zoom hearing live. I went to the YT channel "Without a Crystal Ball," who reported that she was able to log into the hearing. But her "reporting" of the events displayed such a massive ignorance of what the heck she had seen, that I clicked it off after a very short time. She was clearly in over her head, didn't understand that Josh had simply waived having the magistrate judge read out the charges - and I just couldn't stand another second of that twit. I can't take much of her in any event. Just wanted to say that she somehow managed to "attend" the hearing virtually. 

Did I mention, she's such an effing twit that I can't take more than a minute of her? Just saying.

I wonder if she has somehow wrangled press credentials. 

[JoanArc]

Just now, Zella said:

I wonder if she has somehow wrangled press credentials. 

Thank God we’ll be done with this woman, too.

[Picture It. Sicily]

I feel sick.  I had myself convinced it was financial crimes. Probably because I didn't want anyone else to have suffered from this sick fuck's demented urges. But of course it's images of child abuse. He never got any real intervention when he molested his sisters. His parents and church guaranteed this would happen sooner or later. 

[Future Cat Lady]

3 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Yes, the same way sexual activity with someone under the age of consent is illegal.  But sometimes the law can't be or shouldn't be looked at so black and white with something like that -- such as two 15 year olds engaging in sex together.   Should they both be charged as sexual offenders?  

I agree that there nothing wrong about two teenagers having consensual sex or a girl sending a nude pic to her boyfriend. However, it is technically possible someone could be charge with statutory rape or child pornography. 

[Pingaponga]

Josh is scum, and the sisters he molested need to get therapy, now. They were told (convinced?) at the time that it was "no big deal" and "he was just curious". This must not only be triggering, but must also be casting (well deserved) doubt on everything they were told.

The charges against their brother clearly show that what happened to them was most certainly a big deal, he was not "just curious", and he has not changed.

I can not imagine what the four of them must be going through right now. I hope their husbands are being supportive and helping them in whatever way they need.

(Okay, they also needed to get therapy when they were molested. And when it all became public knowledge. But even if they had, and we know they didn't, they should be getting it again now.)

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

Josh probably used Apple Pay with his own thumbprint for verification. He’s just that stupid.

Maybe.   I was referring to more mundane things like logging into email, etc.   Let's say he logged into his work email, took care of whatever was in there.   Decided he had earned the right to go "entertain" himself on line for 20 minutes because he had put in some hard work.  Then he logged into some car auction site he routinely used for his business or some other site like that.   If they can demonstrate 1:45 p.m. to 2:07 p.m. email engagement.   Then they can show 2:08 p.m. to 2:47 p.m. criminal activity.   2:49 to 3:18 car auction browsing.   They can probably reasonably assert one person was using the machine that entire time.  When the person who logged onto the machine, the email user, and the car auction browsing are all identified as Josh, they can reasonably infer the criminal activity to emanate from him as well.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, Future Cat Lady said:

I agree that there nothing wrong about two teenagers having consensual sex or a girl sending a nude pic to her boyfriend. However, it is technically possible someone could be charge with statutory rape or child pornography. 

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you.   I was just pointing out how this area of the law gets murky and twisted up quickly, and if rational thinking isn't applied suddenly kids doing some petty nonsense are charged with a major crime that can dog them for the rest of their life.  That kind of punishment should be reserved for those who prey on children IMO, not teenagers with no idea  what kind of fire they're playing with.

[BitterApple]

I thought I'd take a moment and review some of the wonderful men JimBob and Michelle Duggar have allowed close access to their children: (Trigger warning for those of whom sex crimes is a sensitive subject). 

Josh Duggar: sexual assault of five minors, possession of child pornography 

Caleb Williams: sexual assault of minor between ages of 13-17, impregnated his victim, current Registered Sex Offender 

Tim Robertson: Convicted of rape after sodomizing an incapacitated woman, former Registered Sex Offender 

Bill Gothard: accused by over 30 women (including minors) of molestation, harassment and assault

But Jill can't be at the TTH without Boob's permission......

Sad as it is, Josh isn't even an anomaly in this crowd.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by BitterApple

[mittsigirl]

5 hours ago, JoanArc said:

Oh Jesus, it’s central time! God why has thou forsaken me?

Your hilarious comment nearly made me piss my pants!!

[Future Cat Lady]

7 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you.   I was just pointing out how this area of the law gets murky and twisted up quickly, and if rational thinking isn't applied suddenly kids doing some petty nonsense are charged with a major crime that can dog them for the rest of their life.  That kind of punishment should be reserved for those who prey on children IMO, not teenagers with no idea  what kind of fire they're playing with.

I agree this is fucked up, specially when you have (white priviledged) teen rapists not getting jail time because it might ruin their future.

[Future Cat Lady]

15 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

I thought I'd take a moment and review some of the wonderful men JimBob and Michelle Duggar have allowed close access to their children: (Trigger warning for those of whom sex crimes is a sensitive subject). 

Josh Duggar: sexual assault of five minors, possession of child pornography 

Caleb Williams: sexual assault of minor between ages of 13-17, impregnated his victim, current Registered Sex Offender 

Tim Robertson: Convicted of rape after sodomizing an incapacitated woman, former Registered Sex Offender 

But Jill can't be at the TTH without Boob's permission......

Sad as it is, Josh isn't even an anomaly in this crowd.

 

 

Well, their brand of religion is perfect for predators. The men have all the power over women and kids and their authority cannot be questionned. If they do something wrong, it's always the victim's fault for tempting them. And everything is forgiven if you believe in the right Jesus.

You also should add Bill Gothard to the list.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2021 by Future Cat Lady

[Arkay]

38 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

"Resolved in a timely manner" sounds like they're talking about an insurance claim for a fender bender, not a deviant son arrested for possession of depraved material. 

IMO a “timely manner” would be 30 years behind bars. Then when he’s released he needs to be forbidden from seeing the 100 grandchildren he will have by then. 

[Ljohnson1987]

Anna was pregnant with Maryella when Josh was doing this. 

[Oldernowiser]

Maybe the best thing for his children is just to have Josh stay in jail until the trial. That way they can stay in their home and continue to be with their primary parent, fucked up as she is.

The single greatest argument against leaving them with Anna is that she has consistently, publicly, and recently posted about how wonderful Josh is. It’s possible she actually believes that…denial is an amazing thing. She’s a poster child for Stockholm syndrome, if true. If he’s out on bail, that denial is definitely strong enough that she’ll ignore the mandate that he not be around minor children, because she would refuse to believe anything bad could happen. Hey, I’ve seen it before, and in my own family.

Leave him in custody, Duggars. Besides, you’ll probably lose your bail money anyway.