Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Oldernowiser]

1 minute ago, BitterApple said:

I can't remember if it was the L.A. visit or what, but an observer saw them out and about and said Josh did nothing to help with his kids. I think being holed up on some remote property is a dream come true for him. No wife, no kids, and I'm sure Boob will send Jana over to cook, clean and shop. So Josh gets to continue his legacy of being a lazy, useless slug and the rest of the family pays the price.

Except I would assume officially he won’t have internet access. Nothing to do but watch regular cable and listen to the cicadas…if he’s wearing a monitoring device they’ll know if he even walks down to the mailbox. 

[cereality]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

Except I would assume officially he won’t have internet access. Nothing to do but watch regular cable and listen to the cicadas…if he’s wearing a monitoring device they’ll know if he even walks down to the mailbox. 

In the 80s-90s there used to be all these ads on TV in the middle of the day re correspondence courses that you could basically do on paper -- like they'd send you books, you'd do your work on paper and mail it back. Pre internet. How great if any of those still exist and Josh can take a course on book keeping or whatever.

LOL. Not that he'd do anything useful. He has an addiction. JB should just get him hooked on video games. I know guys his age who can play video games 12 hrs a day, eat and sleep and the day is done. Just reward him and his behavior with an xbox, he'll be fine.

[MargeGunderson]

4 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Prior bad acts and criminal record is absolutely permitted at bond hearings.   The prohibition comes in when the matter goes before the finder of fact, a judge or a jury, for a decision regarding the actual allegations.

I'm unclear whether the molestations can legally be considered a factor since there was no conviction.   

They weren't questioning him, so they weren't forcing him to talk to them without legal counsel.   They were there on a court authorized warrant, which apparently covered his phone among other things.   They were under no obligation to let him use the phone and had every right to take custody of it.

It would definitely be expected that they push back against the search warrant in any way possible during pretrial motions in order to quash any and all evidence possible.   That has zero to do with JB's legal mind.   If the actual attorneys neglect to take every run at the warrant and the raid it opens the door for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a bid for appeal.   

A search warrant authorized by the court is a court order.   There is no such thing as holding off execution for a suspect's attorney to be satisfied there is probable cause.   The judge who authorized the warrant found probable cause in the warrant request already.  Interfering with the execution of an authorized warrant can relate in other charges, same with any other court order.   A defense attorney's time to attack the warrant is in the pretrial phase -- and then potentially again in the appellate phase via claims that the court made some error in not quashing the warrant and evidence resulting from it during the pretrial motions.  

Agree with all. I don’t think there is any constitutional right to contact your lawyer unless you are arrested. Since it was only a search warrant, and he wasn’t arrested at the time of the search, I’m not sure he has a valid argument. (Please note my law degree is from Hudson University, which you may have heard of on Law & Order)

Edited May 5, 2021 by MargeGunderson
Clarity

[IndianPaintbrush]

I don't think he has a valid argument either - he wasn't being arrested, and it's not like the agents denied him the right to call his lawyer. He just had to do it from a different phone. However, as others have pointed out, his lawyers have to try everything - I won't be surprised if they move to dismiss even if it's based on a really shoddy argument.

[Rabbittron]

7 minutes ago, cereality said:

In the 80s-90s there used to be all these ads on TV in the middle of the day re correspondence courses that you could basically do on paper -- like they'd send you books, you'd do your work on paper and mail it back. Pre internet. How great if any of those still exist and Josh can take a course on book keeping or whatever.

LOL. Not that he'd do anything useful. He has an addiction. JB should just get him hooked on video games. I know guys his age who can play video games 12 hrs a day, eat and sleep and the day is done. Just reward him and his behavior with an xbox, he'll be fine.

He can't go play video games because all of the gaming systems are internet capable. 

[cereality]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

 

A search warrant authorized by the court is a court order.   There is no such thing as holding off execution for a suspect's attorney to be satisfied there is probable cause.   The judge who authorized the warrant found probable cause in the warrant request already.  Interfering with the execution of an authorized warrant can relate in other charges, same with any other court order.   A defense attorney's time to attack the warrant is in the pretrial phase -- and then potentially again in the appellate phase via claims that the court made some error in not quashing the warrant and evidence resulting from it during the pretrial motions.  

You can absolutely ask for probable cause if someone comes to execute a search. Often in practice they don't necessarily hand you the warrant, they just say they're the feds here to execute a search and people consent. But if you ask for the warrant, they must provide it. And yes I've litigated for 15 years I know that by the time there's a warrant, there's probable cause already and you don't have to satisfy anyone's attorney BUT IRL at least in my (east coast) federal district, let's be honest -- often a white male defendant CAN say, I want to call my lawyer about this and yes the FBI will cool their heels for 5 min and 100% of the attorneys you'll call will say -- the FBI is at your door with a warrant, they get to search, step aside.

3 minutes ago, IndianPaintbrush said:

I don't think he has a valid argument either - he wasn't being arrested, and it's not like the agents denied him the right to call his lawyer. He just had to do it from a different phone. However, as others have pointed out, his lawyers have to try everything - I won't be surprised if they move to dismiss even if it's based on a really shoddy argument.

Yep 100% there will be a motion to dismiss as a matter of law. It's not about winning the motion or not but if you don't make the motion, it suggests you have no confidence in your own case. It won't be about the facts of what Josh did but more than the government can't prove every element of the crime so he can't be convicted anyway so let's just dismiss it.

[Oldernowiser]

Does anyone know what the percentage of the bail money that JB will have to actually shell out to get his Best Boy out of jail pending trial? It seems like I remember it being less than the actual amount the bond is set for? But maybe that’s for lesser crimes in lesser courts?

[Tuxcat]

9 minutes ago, cereality said:

You can absolutely ask for probable cause if someone comes to execute a search. Often in practice they don't necessarily hand you the warrant, they just say they're the feds here to execute a search and people consent. But if you ask for the warrant, they must provide it. And yes I've litigated for 15 years I know that by the time there's a warrant, there's probable cause already and you don't have to satisfy anyone's attorney BUT IRL at least in my (east coast) federal district, let's be honest -- often a white male defendant CAN say, I want to call my lawyer about this and yes the FBI will cool their heels for 5 min and 100% of the attorneys you'll call will say -- the FBI is at your door with a warrant, they get to search, step aside.

Yep 100% there will be a motion to dismiss as a matter of law. It's not about winning the motion or not but if you don't make the motion, it suggests you have no confidence in your own case. It won't be about the facts of what Josh did but more than the government can't prove every element of the crime so he can't be convicted anyway so let's just dismiss it.

By this point in the proceedings (bond hearing), have Josh's lawyers seen the prosecution's evidence? I don't know the law at all, but there is something about discovery et cetera? At what point do the defendants lawyers fully understand what they are up against?

[Whyyouneedaname]

5 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Does anyone know what the percentage of the bail money that JB will have to actually shell out to get his Best Boy out of jail pending trial? It seems like I remember it being less than the actual amount the bond is set for? But maybe that’s for lesser crimes in lesser courts?

I was always under the impression it was 10% of the actual bail. 

edit to add: does anyone know the time of the bond hearing today?

Edited May 5, 2021 by Whyyouneedaname
ask a ?

[PrincessPurrsALot]

So I know I used part of this Bible verse as a joke, but it has been ruminating with me.

Quote

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and. cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee. that one of thy members should perish, and not. that thy whole body should be cast into hell. - Matthew 5:30

Josh offends me. He offends us all; that is, all decent members of society (even if we're not what the Duggars would think of as decent).  It is profitable to JB to cast Josh away.  So do it.  Shun him.  Let him rot in jail until trial (if given an option).  Stop providing the best possible counsel. It really is time for the Duggars to stop defending Josh and for him to feel the full consequences of his abhorrent actions. 

On a completely separate note, would anyone roll up to that car lot and think, "yeah, this looks legit; I want to buy a car from this greasy, sweaty guy at his hut in a field." 

[cereality]

1 minute ago, Tuxcat said:

By this point in the proceedings (bond hearing), have Josh's lawyers seen the prosecution's evidence? I don't know the law at all, but there is something about discovery et cetera? At what point do the defendants lawyers fully understand what they are up against?

This is the very first step right after Josh was publicly advised of the charges last week. The case is ongoing but no meaningful discovery yet. I haven't seen a scheduling order yet -- that'll tell the lawyers the dates by which they need to exchange documents; take depositions if any including tech/forensic experts etc. So no his lawyers at this point realistically don't fully know what they're up against -- they mostly know what Josh is telling them (they do have access to their client but right now have been focused on getting him out of prison first).

[Oldernowiser]

1 minute ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

It is profitable to JB to cast Josh away.

That’s kind of where I was heading with wondering how much liability JB takes on if he bails Josh out. I would imagine the thought of handing Josh a bunch of cash and a beater car and telling him to head to Mexico and stay there has crossed JB’s mind more than once.

The hitch in that plan is Anna and the grandchildren. She isn’t going to give up on Joshie, ever, and it’s not the kids’ fault that their daddy is a giant ass and that they have too many siblings to feed. 

[cereality]

Any idea where Josh is living once bond is posted? It won't be with Anna since the judge has already said that if there is bond, one of the conditions is no minor children in the home. I mean I guess he could live with Anna if she gives away her children but even still I don't think any court would trust an arrangement where the kids are easily accessible to Josh at the TTH. I imagine all of the married kids in Arkansas have told JB HELL NO; the married kids outside Arkansas aren't an option because the court isn't going to let him live out of state. 

Didn't Jer have an apartment with Jed at one point; it was kind of for show but they did seem to have some living set up there to be able to say of course Jed the politician has his own place in the right district. I guess Josh could live there with Jer? Though Jer is probably trying to get himself married off by tomorrow so he too can have the ability to say no like his siblings with spouses.

I would hope that for something so heinous ALL the kids are given the opportunity to tell JB no I can't/won't do this. I mean probably not but for something like this it is NO siblings responsibility to take one for the team.

Though I'm unclear on why he has to live with someone. I wonder if that'll be a release condition from the court. It isn't any other person's obligation to watch you. Throw an ankle monitor on him so the Probation Office (I know he isn't on probation but that's usually the office in federal court that monitors supervised release of all types) can keep tabs on him and throw him in some unused warehouse and that's that.

[Tikichick]

29 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I don’t think there is any constitutional right to contact your lawyer unless you are arrested. Since it was only a search warrant, and he wasn’t arrested at the time of the search, I’m not sure he has a valid argument. (Please note my law degree is from Hudson University, which you may have heard of on Law & Order)

???  I didn't say he had a constitutional right to contact his lawyer.   I said they weren't questioning him, weren't forcing him to talk to them.   If they're not detaining him they're not required to provide him means to contact his lawyer.  (Please note this is from a layperson's working familiarity of the protections afforded under cases such as Miranda v. Arizona.)    

[Zella]

1 minute ago, cereality said:

Didn't Jer have an apartment with Jed at one point; it was kind of for show but they did seem to have some living set up there to be able to say of course Jed the politician has his own place in the right district.

They were "living" in a small house in Springdale that wasn't JB owned. I can't remember all the details, but I think someone who pops up a fair amount in their real estate dealings owned the house. I don't know if it would still be available because I think there was some talk about it being advertised as for rent or even being sold. I don't have time to check, but @crazy8s might remember or be able to check. 

[dariafan]

37 minutes ago, MargeGunderson said:

I don’t think there is any constitutional right to contact your lawyer unless you are arrested. Since it was only a search warrant, and he wasn’t arrested at the time of the search, I’m not sure he has a valid argument. (Please note my law degree is from Hudson University, which you may have heard of on Law & Order)

And castle !   I follow them on Twitter. I don’t think even Joshy could get into Hudson 🤣🤣😂😂🤣

[Tuxcat]

6 minutes ago, cereality said:

Though I'm unclear on why he has to live with someone. I wonder if that'll be a release condition from the court. It isn't any other person's obligation to watch you. Throw an ankle monitor on him so the Probation Office (I know he isn't on probation but that's usually the office in federal court that monitors supervised release of all types) can keep tabs on him and throw him in some unused warehouse and that's that.

Yes this part has been bothering me as well. Why does he have to live with anyone? Is it the custodian's job to "watch" Josh 24/7 and make sure he doesn't access computers? And could Josh be on the Duggar property and housed in a trailer so long as he doesn't have unsupervised access to kids?

[iwantcookies]

1 minute ago, dariafan said:

And castle !   I follow them on Twitter. I don’t think even Joshy could get into Hudson 🤣🤣😂😂🤣

I miss Castle. It was such a good/quorky show

I can totally picture Josh in college. Josh would have been a really gross frat brother. Blech. Sweaty, BO, thinking he is Gods gift to women. 
 

 

[PrincessPurrsALot]

7 minutes ago, dariafan said:

And castle !   I follow them on Twitter. I don’t think even Joshy could get into Hudson 🤣🤣😂😂🤣

Hudson University, where you send the kids if you want them to be assaulted or murdered!  Or so I've learned from L&O:SVU. 

Lightening the mood while we wait for the news.  😄

[Rabbittron]

25 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Does anyone know what the percentage of the bail money that JB will have to actually shell out to get his Best Boy out of jail pending trial? It seems like I remember it being less than the actual amount the bond is set for? But maybe that’s for lesser crimes in lesser courts?

It could be 10% or it could be 100%. Cash only. 

[MargeGunderson]

5 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

???  I didn't say he had a constitutional right to contact his lawyer.   I said they weren't questioning him, weren't forcing him to talk to them.   If they're not detaining him they're not required to provide him means to contact his lawyer.  (Please note this is from a layperson's working familiarity of the protections afforded under cases such as Miranda v. Arizona.)    

Sorry, I wasn’t clear - I was agreeing with you; yours was the last post I saw to reply to about the issue. 

[Oldernowiser]

2 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Yes this part has been bothering me as well. Why does he have to live with anyone? Is it the custodian's job to "watch" Josh 24/7 and make sure he doesn't access computers? And could Josh be on the Duggar property and housed in a trailer so long as he doesn't have unsupervised access to kids?

Does anybody really have any faith in Josh’s word for anything at this point? He’s shown a pretty good track record of letting his compulsions rule his behavior, damn the consequences to anyone. 

The Duggars have approximately a zillion little kids around. Who’s going to make sure none of them get anywhere near their uncle if he’s right there on the property, especially since Ma and Pa don’t really think they answer to anyone who isn’t God or Gothard, and maybe not even them?

 

[doodlebug]

36 minutes ago, cereality said:

 

Yep 100% there will be a motion to dismiss as a matter of law. It's not about winning the motion or not but if you don't make the motion, it suggests you have no confidence in your own case. It won't be about the facts of what Josh did but more than the government can't prove every element of the crime so he can't be convicted anyway so let's just dismiss it.

I only know about this from civil suits, but, in those, the attorneys for the plaintiff have to name every defendant and all charges against them from the start because they cannot add to the case later.  So, if an attorney files a malpractice suit, often the attending physician as well as any residents, consultants, anesthesiologists or nurse practitioners involved in the care will also be named.  They may well be dropped later as the case moves towards court, but, if they're not in the original complaint, they cannot be added to the case later.

So, in the request for bond, is a lot of what we see stuff that the attorneys are already pretty certain is irrelevant and that the judge will probably dismiss; but the defense is just trying to cover all the bases, just in case?

[cereality]

8 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Yes this part has been bothering me as well. Why does he have to live with anyone? Is it the custodian's job to "watch" Josh 24/7 and make sure he doesn't access computers? And could Josh be on the Duggar property and housed in a trailer so long as he doesn't have unsupervised access to kids?

In terms of can he live on the property but just in a trailer -- depends on how they convince the judge and what she agrees to. I'd venture to guess no just because of the sheer number of kids on that property -- his own but also the younger kids in the TTH as well as the nieces/nephews who live in different homes on that compound. Don't Joe and JD have houses on that property? Who is going to watch him all day long to make sure no kid goes into his trailer? I mean I guess the kids' parents should be watching them at all times but IDK that family strikes me as chaos and I'm unclear who watches the kids anyway -- though no way they're saying that in front of a judge. Watching him is easier insofar as the probation office can set the ankle monitor so alarms go off if he wanders more than x ft away from his trailer.

The other problem of forcing an adult to live with him -- likely that person can't have a computer or phone or anything. I mean Josh has a problem and likely can't have any access to devices, so the person who lives with him can't have devices laying around tempting Josh. I suppose the court would/could allow a phone (on the theory that the minder is to keep the phone on his person at all times) but not a computer.

[cereality]

7 minutes ago, doodlebug said:

I only know about this from civil suits, but, in those, the attorneys for the plaintiff have to name every defendant and all charges against them from the start because they cannot add to the case later.  So, if an attorney files a malpractice suit, often the attending physician as well as any residents, consultants, anesthesiologists or nurse practitioners involved in the care will also be named.  They may well be dropped later as the case moves towards court, but, if they're not in the original complaint, they cannot be added to the case later.

So, in the request for bond, is a lot of what we see stuff that the attorneys are already pretty certain is irrelevant and that the judge will probably dismiss; but the defense is just trying to cover all the bases, just in case?

Yes and no. The motion for bond previewed their argument re he wasn't allowed to consult his attorney during the search; it previews that they will make a motion re the validity of the search and the search warrant but it is quite likely that they already know the search was fine -- they just need to make the motion just in case they can disqualify even a % of the evidence found against Josh.

But unlike civil cases though, charges can definitely be added on here. Judges hate it but it's done all the time -- the prosecutors charge what they have probable cause to charge right now but keep investigating and if such investigation shows hey here's another charge say for distribution of CP (just a hypothetical - not saying that's the case), they bring a superceding indictment adding that charge.

[Oldernowiser]

May I just say we have some super smart people on this board?

[humbleopinion]

21 minutes ago, cereality said:

Any idea where Josh is living once bond is posted?

The Carlot office is a solution.

Joshly can show the court that he is gainfully employed, being a productive member to society instead of a fetid leech sucking on his father's teat by selling used cars, meeting with adult fans to selling selfies with him dressed in a prison jumpsuit for $25.

Practice Prison Food hacks made with foods found in the Prison Store...ramen, Catsup, pepperoni, Cheetos, can chili

Get used to tiny space living.

Am sure there is some fencing to throw around the little hut.

Vote JimBlob or Chelle to be the guardian for their POSh*t evil spawn....

 

[JoanArc]

1 minute ago, humbleopinion said:

The Carlot office is a solution.

Joshly can show the court that he is gainfully employed, being a productive member to society instead of a fetid leech sucking on his father's teat by selling used cars, meeting with adult fans to selling selfies with him dressed in a prison jumpsuit for $25.

Practice Prison Food hacks made with foods found in the Prison Store...ramen, Catsup, pepperoni, Cheetos, can chili

Get used to tiny space living.

Am sure there is some fencing to throw around the little hut.

Vote JimBlob or Chelle to be the guardian for their POSh*t evil spawn....

 

The carlot Folded the week after the raid. I remember we looked at pictures of it from Google maps. It was always a transparent scam. I’m pretty sure Jed bought the inventory. 

They still have that RV park lot, right? Maybe he can go back to nature.

[Oldernowiser]

3 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

They still have that RV park lot, right? Maybe he can go back to nature.

Mother Nature called. She doesn’t want him either.

[JoanArc]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

Mother Nature called. She doesn’t want him either.

Are there any nuclear waste disposal sites in Northwest Arkansas?

[Oldernowiser]

Just now, JoanArc said:

Are there any nuclear waste disposal sites in Northwest Arkansas?

IIRC, they have some house that’s next to a massive landfill…?

[Zella]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

IIRC, they have some house that’s next to a massive landfill…?

It's the TTH! 

[peppergal]

12 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Here's the "car lot." Not much room for Smuggar and the "sleazy ex-con" to fit in there. And would you trust a sleazy ex con with your computer? Yeah, didn't think so...

 

Is it too much to hope that since the authorities specified a specific date range for the receipt charge, that they were observing the glass booth to document who was there?  Seems to me it would be quite easy to see all occupants of that little shed from the public right of way. 

This whole thing is awful, but it would make my day if it turned they had evidence like "on day X, IP address 1.2.3.4, which the ISP has verified was servicing the car lot at the time, downloaded this filth. Agent Y certifies that this series of photographs were taken at that time indicating that the defendant was the only person in the building at the time of receipt"

 

[JoanArc]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

IIRC, they have some house that’s next to a massive landfill…?

No, I’m talking spent cooling rods level of containment.

Perhaps an organ procurement ring would be interested.

[Tikichick]

30 minutes ago, cereality said:

You can absolutely ask for probable cause if someone comes to execute a search. Often in practice they don't necessarily hand you the warrant, they just say they're the feds here to execute a search and people consent. But if you ask for the warrant, they must provide it. And yes I've litigated for 15 years I know that by the time there's a warrant, there's probable cause already and you don't have to satisfy anyone's attorney BUT IRL at least in my (east coast) federal district, let's be honest -- often a white male defendant CAN say, I want to call my lawyer about this and yes the FBI will cool their heels for 5 min and 100% of the attorneys you'll call will say -- the FBI is at your door with a warrant, they get to search, step aside.

Yep 100% there will be a motion to dismiss as a matter of law. It's not about winning the motion or not but if you don't make the motion, it suggests you have no confidence in your own case. It won't be about the facts of what Josh did but more than the government can't prove every element of the crime so he can't be convicted anyway so let's just dismiss it.

I'm sure it's a regular occurrence when a search warrant is being executed that the subjects ask what's going on and inquire about the rights of LE to conduct the search and seize evidence.   That doesn't mean the subjects have the right at any point to say, hey, you can't do this, you can't come in, you can't take that unless my lawyer is satisfied there's probable cause.  LE may choose to offer the courtesy of pausing and allowing the subjects to contact their lawyer, but it's not a protected right they must respect.  My previous comments about this concerned the idea that an attorney could simply say, no, they don't have probable cause, which is not possible.  That would mean counsel for one side in a dispute has more power than the judge and would remove the People's right to a fair trial and equal treatment under the law.    We're used to hearing more about a defendant's rights in criminal trials, but the People actually have the right to a fair hearing of the issues as well. 

Having the right to physically receive a copy of the search warrant IMO is somewhat equivalent to the right to be presented with the charging documents that outline the charges being leveled against you when you are arraigned.   The government doesn't have the right to come into your property and take your belongings without a warrant signed by the court and they don't have the right to detain you, drag you into court and tell you you are being charged with crimes without telling you what crimes you're being charged with and will face trial for.

I know I saw a comment further upthread that said after today things will be quiet until July, but IMO that's not likely.   I would expect several hearings on pretrial motions before then, including at least one hearing on a motion to quash the evidence seized because of wrangling over the warrant itself  or technical details about the execution, such as arguing about whether they had the authorization to take each and every item seized, or challenging every detail in the application to obtain the warrant in the first place.   The defense target is removing any and everything the government could use to prove the charges.   Sometimes they get lucky enough to pull even one or two dominoes that are key, making prosecution impossible and the case is dismissed.   In this case it would be a huge defense victory if they could force the prosecution to dismiss one of the charges.  My suspicion is they've gone over their case with a microscope and are confident they obtained all of the evidence according to the letter of the law and it will satisfy every element of both charges resulting in a conviction.  

[Tuxcat]

34 minutes ago, cereality said:

The other problem of forcing an adult to live with him -- likely that person can't have a computer or phone or anything. I mean Josh has a problem and likely can't have any access to devices, so the person who lives with him can't have devices laying around tempting Josh. I suppose the court would/could allow a phone (on the theory that the minder is to keep the phone on his person at all times) but not a computer.

I guess its possible that the family might secure a "counselor" or "elder" to live with Josh while out on bond, off the property, (in one of their rentals). Perhaps they simultaneously  appease members of the "church" community by stating that Josh will be undergoing intensive "training" during his bond release time. In that way, no phones or computers will also be part of his "treatment."  There is something to be said for the rumors that state Josh could be labeled "damned," and cast out. So maybe JB will want to comply with the court order but also attempt to quell any possible outrage within the Fundie community (I know most say things like it's the child's fault...and they believe Josh...but others might mark him out).

Of course we know how that training worked out the last several times. 

I do wonder how wide reaching this scandal might be within that community? It will be interesting to see if any other people are indicted for suspected CP in the next few months.

Edited May 5, 2021 by Tuxcat

[humbleopinion]

Did the Dugg Construction Company pick up and transport the building somewhere?

Plop that puppy down on an isolated from society plot of land in the vast Dugg land holdings.

 Have the boys start pouring a concrete slab...

Perhaps like the original concrete slab where the made for first teevee TLC home, the one place JD  Joe got teary eyed  when asked to go to a sentimental, meaningful site to him...

 

Edited May 5, 2021 by humbleopinion

[Tuxcat]

5 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

The government doesn't have the right to come into your property and take your belongings without a warrant signed by the court and they don't have the right to detain you, drag you into court and tell you you are being charged with crimes without telling you what crimes you're being charged with and will face trial for.

Assuming the warrant specified the search and seizure of electronic equipment on the property, how likely could the defendant argue that the phone was in fact not part of that order? 

Assuming they didn't perform an illegal search, and Josh did in fact pull the phone from his pocket, I assume that means its fair game as others have said.

But is there any chance the defense argues it's not?

[libgirl2]

6 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

I guess its possible that the family might secure a "counselor" or "elder" to live with Josh while out on bond, off the property, (in one of their rentals). Perhaps they simultaneously  appease members of the "church" community by stating that Josh will be undergoing intensive "training" during his bond release time. In that way, no phones or computers will also be part of his "treatment."  There is something to be said for the rumors that state Josh could be labeled "damned," and cast out. So maybe JB will want to comply with the court order but also attempt to quell any possible outrage within the Fundie community (I know most say things like it's the child's fault...and the believe Josh...but others might mark him out).

Of course we know how that training worked out the last several times. 

I do wonder how wide reaching this scandal might be within that community? It will be interesting to see if any other people indicted for suspected CP in the next few months.

That is something I can see happening. 

I haven't heard the rumors about him being case out though. 

[JoanArc]

7 minutes ago, humbleopinion said:

Have the boys start pouring a concrete slab...

Would Josh be above, or below the slab?

[Oldernowiser]

1 minute ago, Tuxcat said:

I do wonder how wide reaching this scandal might be within that community? It will be interesting to see if any other people indicted for suspected CP in the next few months.

Yikes. That hadn’t even occurred to me, probably because I always assume Duggars don’t really have friends, just fans or lesser-thans they enjoy condescending to. I would assume it takes a special kind of bond (eyeroll) to have co-conspirators in CP.

 

7 minutes ago, humbleopinion said:

Perhaps like the original concrete slab where the made for first teevee TLC, the one place JD got teary eyed  when asked to go to a sentimental, meaningful site to him...

 

Okay, I tried very hard to resist and I think I lasted a whole five minutes…what???

[3 is enough]

The thing that bothers me most is the hypocrisy.  Josh is a POS who molested his sisters, cheated on his wife, and got off looking at images of little children being abused.  But as long as he repents and says he has sinned all is forgiven.  

Meanwhile, they condemn LGBT people for just existing the way God made them. 

Somewhere Jesus is weeping.

Edited May 5, 2021 by 3 is enough

[Tuxcat]

1 minute ago, Oldernowiser said:

11 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

I do wonder how wide reaching this scandal might be within that community? It will be interesting to see if any other people indicted for suspected CP in the next few months.

Yikes. That hadn’t even occurred to me, probably because I always assume Duggars don’t really have friends, just fans or lesser-thans they enjoy condescending to. I would assume it takes a special kind of bond (eyeroll) to have co-conspirators in CP.

It just occurred to me that Josh might be part of a network.  The law enforcement officer from the molestation events,  Hutchens is away on his own CP charges. If you read the Hutchens documents, it seems he was frequently "chatting" with similarly minded groups of people.  So it's possible that Josh is part of a sort of network. It's just a theory.

6 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

That is something I can see happening. 

I haven't heard the rumors about him being case out though. 

Rumors of him being labeled damned and cast out are just rumors. Crystal Ball lady did a video on it and indicated the fundie community was all over the spectrum with regards to how to deal with Josh. Many believe he was framed. Others believe he is not capable of being saved...

[humbleopinion]

It was Joe who got all teary eyed when asked to reminisce about a sentimental place to ask Kendra to marry him...

I found what I wrote in this forum....in 2017...

Joe asked Kendrab to take "it to the next level" at a SLAB of concrete...not a field.

Don't make it sound romantic...so hillbilly to have a sentimental concrete slab....

The related story...

https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2017/09/joseph-duggar-and-kendra-caldwell-excited-to-finally-side-hug/

40 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

Would Josh be above, or below the slab?

In the middle..a Concrete Josh Sandwich.....

Edited May 5, 2021 by humbleopinion

[dariafan]

1 hour ago, PrincessPurrsALot said:

Hudson University, where you send the kids if you want them to be assaulted or murdered!  Or so I've learned from L&O:SVU. 

Lightening the mood while we wait for the news.  😄

The these are their stories podcast even has a tune for them “ we are Hudson. Where the bad guys go to school “

how many episodes have been Inspired by Duggar’s ???

[Tikichick]

I never understood until seeing the picture today what the physical set up of the car lot was.  It's gotten me thinking about a possible avenue the prosecution could choose to go down to demonstrate how Josh orchestrated his crimes -- and how it will apply pressure and make public interest go through the roof.

If that property changed hands through the typical Duggar three-card Monty style of transferring ownership it may well have been controlled by JB or an entity for which JB is listed as the official officer prior to being either transferred to Josh to operate his business, or ostensibly leased to Josh to operate the business.   This opens up the potential that JB could be called as a witness to testify how it was that Josh's car lot happened to operate from that location.

Why is that important?  Seeing the premises and realizing the building is the size of an old Fotomat location struck me -- for the most part that building would be only be selected if the business was intended to run most of the time as a one-man operation.   Sure theoretically there are times two people might be there working, but overall it would be a one-man operation because you also need to allow for space for customers to come inside and complete transactions.   Yeah, okay, still why is that important?   Josh isn't guaranteed, required or even likely to testify, but JB can be called and the prosecution can probe how it is the business came to locate there.   If he testifies Josh selected the location the prosecution is likely to raise that issue in closing as potential planning on Josh's part to set up the means to conduct his crimes unobserved.   No matter how the location was chosen, I have no doubt that Josh came to appreciate the location's unexpected benefits of giving him the ability to work alone in a place where it was very easy for him to be very aware of anyone approaching and observing what he was up to.  It's a remote possibility, but the potential is there.

I'm also wondering if any other family members will be on the prosecution's witness list and if Josh and Anna's home was raided along with the car lot?   I keep thinking back to the family asserting in no uncertain terms that the TTH was not raided, contrary to rumors.   

[crazy8s]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

They were "living" in a small house in Springdale that wasn't JB owned. I can't remember all the details, but I think someone who pops up a fair amount in their real estate dealings owned the house. I don't know if it would still be available because I think there was some talk about it being advertised as for rent or even being sold. I don't have time to check, but @crazy8s might remember or be able to check. 

If I remember correctly it was the JB realtor friend Tom Joseph who owned it

[Zella]

Just now, crazy8s said:

If I remember correctly it was the JB realtor friend Tom Joseph who owned it

Thanks! That's who I thought but I was hesitant to say without looking. 

[3girlsforus]

2 hours ago, Oldernowiser said:

Except I would assume officially he won’t have internet access. Nothing to do but watch regular cable and listen to the cicadas…if he’s wearing a monitoring device they’ll know if he even walks down to the mailbox. 

Unfortunately no on the ankle monitor. Sure they can find out if they go look but usually they only do that after there is a suspected issue with someone wearing one. Contrary to popular belief, they crossing a threshold out of the area they are restricted to doesn’t set off alarms and deploy a gaggle of well armed men to grab his delinquent butt and put it back in the clink. It’s actually kind of scary how much they are relied upon and yet don’t work in the way that is expected. 

[JoanArc]

Here

 Is the link to the podcast by that person who did the AMA and grew up around Josh. It is very raw and emotional. Two hours long, Probably a lot of good information. Hopefully someone will listen and do a recap for us.