Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[JoanArc]

2 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

What's her name? It's possible that she is a Magistrate Judge. That's not the same thing as a U.S. District Court Judge. Those Judges are appointed by the President, confirmed by Congress, and serve for life.  

Magistrate Judges are essentially "assistant judges" - who are appointed by the Judges in the Federal Court district, and serve for eight year terms if full time and four year terms if part time. "Magistrate judges generally oversee first appearances of criminal defendants, set bail, and conduct other administrative duties," to quote the Wikipedia article.

Reddit link

Admittedly I don’t know anything about the law or what to believe. Hopefully our legal people here can explain things.

[Tabbygirl521]

4 minutes ago, Clawdel said:

If Reber gave a shit about his wife and daughter, he wouldn't have a predator in his house. These Quiverfull men are real bastards. 

Well, come on, we know it will be completely her fault if Josh “sins” In her presence. (Vomit)

Edited May 6, 2021 by Tabbygirl521

[Nysha]

Why no bail? One of my sons got high, stole a pop & some Nyquil from Walmart, and ran into the window trying to get away from security, which cracked the window. His bail was $10,000.

[emmawoodhouse]

Just now, Nysha said:

Why no bail? One of my sons got high, stole a pop & some Nyquil from Walmart, and ran into the window trying to get away from security, which cracked the window. His bail was $10,000.

I'm pretty sure it's a Federal Court thing. 

[Jeeves]

1 minute ago, JoanArc said:

Reddit link

Admittedly I don’t know anything about the law or what to believe. Hopefully our legal people here can explain things.

So if Christy Comstock did the hearing today, yep, she's a newly appointed Magistrate Judge.

I looked her up on LInkedIn. She's a 1992 graduate of the U of Arkansas Law School. Her experience shows her as a partner in litigation firms for 14 years (since 2007). Not sure if she has been in practice continuously since graduating from law school and just didn't list those positions in her LinkedIn profile. In any event, she's no legal novice by any means. 

[Marshmallow Mollie]

Very curious to see how soon Josh sees Anna and sees Anna plus kids. And will it be Anna alone, or Anna with a minder.

And I am still wondering if Anna can live in the guest house without a headship or if she has to move back into the TTH.

[3girlsforus]

1 minute ago, Nysha said:

Why no bail? One of my sons got high, stole a pop & some Nyquil from Walmart, and ran into the window trying to get away from security, which cracked the window. His bail was $10,000.

Someone above explained that in federal court it’s either release with determined restrictions or no release. It’s not a money thing like in state court. I didn’t know this either. 

[Gigi43]

Since was able to get around Covenant Eyes I think that mean the dipshits that raised him and covered for the first crimes, really will blame Anna for not knowing about the TOR that snowed it?

Man. To think there was a time where I thought the Gosselins were the worst TLC could do. 

[Nysha]

53 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

SIXTY-FIVE???!!!???  And he’s not in jail??!!

The Feds found 200 other images that he had deleted without realizing that nothing is ever deleted on a computer.

ETA: I'm not surprised he's allowed total access to his kids as long as Anna supervised. The entire US court system is set up under the premise that children belong to & with their parents. I did foster care for several years, plus adopted kids from the foster care system. You'd be horrified at how many parents who were charged with CSA charges were allowed to go back to their own homes on the basis they weren't being charged with abusing their own children. 

Granted, this was the 1989-1994 so things may have changed a bit but parents are still routinely given access to their children even though they've abused them.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Nysha

[3 is enough]

Poor Mrs Reber could not tell the judge “ Based on the testimony I heard today I do not want Josh Duggar in my home”.  She tried her best to get her message across but had to stop short of going against her husband.  
At this point Josh’s mere existence is victimizing people. 🤬

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, MMEButterfly said:

I understand the judge allowing Josh to go to church, but I'm imagining all the little girls who will be there. I wouldn't be comfortable there with my granddaughters. 

I also question his time away for “work?” Was or ever specified what exactly that work entails?

[3girlsforus]

5 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I told the AUSA in my last big CP case that I wouldn't be happy with anything less than 20 years.  She told me before the sentencing that I was delusional.  I got …maybe 13? For hundreds of thousands of graphic videos.  It's nearly disheartening.

I just wanted to be 1000% clear that when I said 9+ years would be ‘yippee’ I just meant that it would be considered a prosecution win because it’s as good as it’s likely to be. I personally think he should rot until he’s very old. I just know it isn’t going to happen. 

[WinnieWinkle]

3 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

I also question his time away for “work?” Was or ever specified what exactly that work entails?

I think the list of exceptions wasn't really meant to be specific to Josh Duggar - they're the exceptions the court allows.  

[Boston]

2 hours ago, Jeeves said:

LaCount Reaver Reber is a guy JB knows from church I think. Reaver Reber works full time at the VA and does prison ministry on the side but hasn't been active with that since the pandemic locked down the jails. His wife Maria is a housewife. Their adult daughter (who I think lives elsewhere) sometimes gives piano lessons to children at the Reaver Reber home. The Reavers Rebers have a "mother in law" apartment in their home where Josh will stay, I don't know much about it except it has its own door to the outside. They also have six firearms in the house that aren't in a gun safe, just a bedroom closet. I'm not sure how well the Reavers Rebers know the Duggar family. Mrs. Reaver Reber testified that her husband decided to "help" Josh by giving him a place to stay and she "supports" that decision.  

ETA: The judge asked Mrs. Reaver Reber some rather savvy questions as @Gigi43 indicated. Including, if you know Josh has violated any of the release terms, you WILL call the federal probation office first? Not JB Duggar, or the church elders, or your husband? You will tell them AFTER you notify the probation office, right? 

Lord, help us all.  After seeing their name so much i thought it was REBA (Now THAT'S someone they should send him to)

[Marshmallow Mollie]

Zero chance he never was sloppy and looked at something that Covenant Eyes would have caught. Was Anna diligently checking Covenant Eyes reports? (Not blaming her by the way!!!!!!!) Did she willfully ignore? Was it set up but there was an understanding she would not go Josh or anyone else if something came back on the report?

[JoanArc]

6 minutes ago, Boston said:

Lord, help us all.  After seeing their name so much i thought it was REBA (Now THAT'S someone they should send him to)

LaCounting On

[Absolom]

31 minutes ago, Nysha said:

Why no bail? One of my sons got high, stole a pop & some Nyquil from Walmart, and ran into the window trying to get away from security, which cracked the window. His bail was $10,000.

State court and federal court don't work the same way is the simple answer.  Federal court usually would involve bond not bail if a financial backing for court attendance is required.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Absolom

[3 is enough]

I believe his court date is July 6.  Only 2 months. Bet he messes up before then though.

[LexieLily]

6 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

I believe his court date is July 6.  Only 2 months. Bet he messes up before then though.

If he messes up in any way he automatically goes back to jail, right? Are federal rules different than regular state charges where you disobey the conditions of your parole?

[Absolom]

I saw somewhere that if he doesn't follow the release order rules that he gets 10 years added to his sentence.  Is that true?

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, crazy8s said:

I was just coming here to say that - the redditt recaper must have mis heard the name on the zoom hearing

 

Maybe he wanted Josh's keepers to be cannibal pirates, just like I do. 

[3 is enough]

I saw that too.  Maybe one of our legal team members can enlighten us?

[General Days]

6 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Maybe he wanted Josh's keepers to be cannibal pirates, just like I do. 

You can't take the sky from me.

[Tuxcat]

11 minutes ago, Absolom said:

I saw somewhere that if he doesn't follow the release order rules that he gets 10 years added to his sentence.  Is that true?

There are over 10000 of us currently watching atty. Emily D. Baker on youtube breaking down the hearing today. She's very good but she's hasn't mentioned that (yet). She just said he'd go immediately back to jail.

[cereality]

One of the lawyers here - yes if he violates bond conditions, he goes to prison IF he’s reported on to the probation office. That’s the big IF. If he ends up using computers in that house (IDK their name) or if Anna stops by and Mrs R notices that she takes 1-2 kids to the park and leaves Josh alone w the rest of them or Michelle stops by with minor kids — will Mrs R who at first seemed like she’s afraid to be home with Josh — will she alert the probation officer? Though if she knows what’s good for her and wants him out ASAP, be a stickler and report him left and right so he leaves her house.

I don’t think it’s accurate that he gets 10 years added to his sentence for a release violation but I could see it being a sentencing variance/enhancement beyond the minimums bc it would be possible to argue — look this guy couldn’t control himself even for 2 months, he’s a bigger risk than he seems.

Edited May 6, 2021 by cereality

[Saylii]

One of the things I didn’t like for the prosecution was the fact that everything seemed to take place those 3 days in May.  If the prosecution can’t show more definitive proof that the CSA was accessed repeatedly between May and November, I do fear that the defense is going to claim that it was a set up by a scorned employee.  They may even win depending on what exactly the Feds have.

There’s a couple of things that I would have liked to see but didn’t: 

1) repeated evidence that the files were accessed multiple times over the course of the six months.

2) some kind of rebuttal for the ... easyness ... of everything.  Basically the partition, Tor, the BitTorrent and several big “public” files (including the Top 5 worst one) were all downloaded in quick succession and seemingly deleted all in the course of a few days.

3) better proof that it had to be Josh at the car lot that day.

It’s one thing for us to sit around and absolutely know it was Josh that downloaded everything, but his out of state lawyer seemed competent from the readings and the Feds seemed to have something missing that the Judge picked up on.  I kind of got the feeling that once the Feds realized they had Josh Duggar, they had their sights set on proving he did it without proving that no one else could’ve.

I think he’s guilty as hell, I’m not just 100% convinced a jury will see it that way without better evidence that is allowed to be entered as evidence.  I’m not sure a jury will hear the physical molestation accusations as a teenager.  Some of that gets squirrelly once it’s past the judge.

[sheshark]

8 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

There are over 10000 of us currently watching atty. Emily D. Baker on youtube breaking down the hearing today.

Well before I watch that I would like to ask if on July 6 his lawyers request a postponement does he continue to stay at the Rebers?

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, cereality said:

One of the lawyers here - yes if he violates bond conditions, he goes to prison IF he’s reported on to the probation office. That’s the big IF. If he ends up using computers in that house (IDK their name) or if Anna stops by and Mrs R notices that she takes 1-2 kids to the park and leaves Josh alone w the rest of them or Michelle stops by with minor kids — will Mrs R who at first seemed like she’s afraid to be home with Josh — will she alert the probation officer? Though if she knows what’s good for her and wants him out ASAP, be a stickler and report him left and right so he leaves her house.

Emily D. Baker just covered this. In her testimony, Mrs. Rebers said that yes, she will contact probation before contacting her husband, Boob, or anyone else. We have to take her at her word. 

[cereality]

1 minute ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Emily D. Baker just covered this. In her testimony, Mrs. Rebers said that yes, she will contact probation before contacting her husband, Boob, or anyone else. We have to take her at her word. 

Yep we have to take her word as does the court bc what other guarantees are there. But knowing what we know re wives in this cult, I’ll believe it when I see it. If she has the sense that her husband and JB 100% want Josh not in prison, she’ll pretend not to see certain things. I mean who else will tell - Anna? Lol no.

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, Saylii said:

One of the things I didn’t like for the prosecution was the fact that everything seemed to take place those 3 days in May.  If the prosecution can’t show more definitive proof that the CSA was accessed repeatedly between May and November, I do fear that the defense is going to claim that it was a set up by a scorned employee.  They may even win depending on what exactly the Feds have.

There’s a couple of things that I would have liked to see but didn’t: 

1) repeated evidence that the files were accessed multiple times over the course of the six months.

2) some kind of rebuttal for the ... easyness ... of everything.  Basically the partition, Tor, the BitTorrent and several big “public” files (including the Top 5 worst one) were all downloaded in quick succession and seemingly deleted all in the course of a few days.

3) better proof that it had to be Josh at the car lot that day.

It’s one thing for us to sit around and absolutely know it was Josh that downloaded everything, but his out of state lawyer seemed competent from the readings and the Feds seemed to have something missing that the Judge picked up on.  I kind of got the feeling that once the Feds realized they had Josh Duggar, they had their sights set on proving he did it without proving that no one else could’ve.

I think he’s guilty as hell, I’m not just 100% convinced a jury will see it that way without better evidence that is allowed to be entered as evidence.  I’m not sure a jury will hear the physical molestation accusations as a teenager.  Some of that gets squirrelly once it’s past the judge.

They laid out what I thought was pretty strong evidence it was him, including how the computer was clearly being used by Josh on both of those days in between downloading the material. The breakdown on Reddit--which has now mercifully been scrubbed of the graphic descriptions of the material found--explains all of the ways that it was clearly Josh and not another person. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Zella

[Heathen]

6 minutes ago, cereality said:

Though if she knows what’s good for her and wants him out ASAP, be a stickler and report him left and right so he leaves her house.

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

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

They laid out what I thought was pretty strong evidence it was him, including how the computer was clearly being used by Josh on both of those in between downloading the material. The breakdown on Reddit--which has now mercifully been scrubbed of the graphic descriptions of the material found--explains all of the ways that it was clearly Josh and not another person. 

The password evidence is especially damning. 

[Zella]

Just now, emmawoodhouse said:

The password evidence is especially damning. 

Yep! They also mentioned having evidence that he was the only person there those days. 

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, cereality said:

Yep we have to take her word as does the court bc what other guarantees are there. But knowing what we know re wives in this cult, I’ll believe it when I see it. If she has the sense that her husband and JB 100% want Josh not in prison, she’ll pretend not to see certain things. I mean who else will tell - Anna? Lol no.

She seemed pretty reluctant to even take this on. I think she might go pretty tough on him. As tough as a meek woman can, at any rate.

[cereality]

7 minutes ago, Saylii said:

One of the things I didn’t like for the prosecution was the fact that everything seemed to take place those 3 days in May.  If the prosecution can’t show more definitive proof that the CSA was accessed repeatedly between May and November, I do fear that the defense is going to claim that it was a set up by a scorned employee.  They may even win depending on what exactly the Feds have.

There’s a couple of things that I would have liked to see but didn’t: 

1) repeated evidence that the files were accessed multiple times over the course of the six months.

2) some kind of rebuttal for the ... easyness ... of everything.  Basically the partition, Tor, the BitTorrent and several big “public” files (including the Top 5 worst one) were all downloaded in quick succession and seemingly deleted all in the course of a few days.

3) better proof that it had to be Josh at the car lot that day.

It’s one thing for us to sit around and absolutely know it was Josh that downloaded everything, but his out of state lawyer seemed competent from the readings and the Feds seemed to have something missing that the Judge picked up on.  I kind of got the feeling that once the Feds realized they had Josh Duggar, they had their sights set on proving he did it without proving that no one else could’ve.

I think he’s guilty as hell, I’m not just 100% convinced a jury will see it that way without better evidence that is allowed to be entered as evidence.  I’m not sure a jury will hear the physical molestation accusations as a teenager.  Some of that gets squirrelly once it’s past the judge.

We don’t know that they don’t have the evidence on the preceding - esp proving that it was no one but Josh. This was a bond hearing. It isn’t the governments burden to prove the case at the bond hearing nor do they want to show all their cards. I’d be surprised if this goes to trial. I think we see a plea to get it done quietly. It’s already going to be a light sentence, a plea makes it even a bit lighter - at least that’s how it typically worked in my fed court days.

[Saylii]

Just now, Zella said:

They laid out what I thought was pretty strong evidence it was him, including how the computer was clearly being used by Josh on both of those in between downloading the material. The breakdown on Reddit--which has now mercifully been scrubbed of the graphic descriptions of the material found--explains all of the ways that it was clearly Josh and not another person. 

I read that and I had the opposite feeling. They proved Josh was at the car lot that day, not necessarily that he was the only one that could have had access.  I would have liked to see a stronger rebuttal on why it absolutely had to be Josh on the computer.  From what I understood, the more private accessed electronics - the MacBook and the iPhone - did not have CSA on it.

The biggest connection the Feds has is the password that contained his birth year, but apparently that was pretty widely known as a common password.  If they get a brother or two up on the stand to say that yes, the master password for the computer contained Josh’s birth year, it’s not good.

[Tuxcat]

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

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

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

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, Saylii said:

I read that and I had the opposite feeling. They proved Josh was at the car lot that day, not necessarily that he was the only one that could have had access.  I would have liked to see a stronger rebuttal on why it absolutely had to be Josh on the computer.  From what I understood, the more private accessed electronics - the MacBook and the iPhone - did not have CSA on it.

The biggest connection the Feds has is the password that contained his birth year, but apparently that was pretty widely known as a common password.  If they get a brother or two up on the stand to say that yes, the master password for the computer contained Josh’s birth year, it’s not good.

Well, as others have noted, he wasn't being tried today. This was a bond hearing. I seriously doubt this is the only evidence they have. 

Also him being the only one there is something they said they had reason to believe, at least. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Zella

[cmr2014]

24 minutes ago, Saylii said:

One of the things I didn’t like for the prosecution was the fact that everything seemed to take place those 3 days in May.  If the prosecution can’t show more definitive proof that the CSA was accessed repeatedly between May and November, I do fear that the defense is going to claim that it was a set up by a scorned employee.  They may even win depending on what exactly the Feds have.

There’s a couple of things that I would have liked to see but didn’t: 

1) repeated evidence that the files were accessed multiple times over the course of the six months.

2) some kind of rebuttal for the ... easyness ... of everything.  Basically the partition, Tor, the BitTorrent and several big “public” files (including the Top 5 worst one) were all downloaded in quick succession and seemingly deleted all in the course of a few days.

3) better proof that it had to be Josh at the car lot that day.

It’s one thing for us to sit around and absolutely know it was Josh that downloaded everything, but his out of state lawyer seemed competent from the readings and the Feds seemed to have something missing that the Judge picked up on.  I kind of got the feeling that once the Feds realized they had Josh Duggar, they had their sights set on proving he did it without proving that no one else could’ve.

I think he’s guilty as hell, I’m not just 100% convinced a jury will see it that way without better evidence that is allowed to be entered as evidence.  I’m not sure a jury will hear the physical molestation accusations as a teenager.  Some of that gets squirrelly once it’s past the judge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited May 6, 2021 by cmr2014
one more thing

[Oldernowiser]

4 minutes ago, Saylii said:

If they get a brother or two up on the stand to say that yes, the master password for the computer contained Josh’s birth year, it’s not good.

Those same brothers Josh is trying to drag down with him? The same brothers who know he groped their sisters? The same brothers who know how much money Josh’s problems have cost the family? If they’re not at the screw that guy season of life, I’d be shocked.

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

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

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

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

They noted that Smuggar used the same password for his banking, social media, and other things. This password shouldn't be known by anyone other than him. 

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

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

Josh himself blows that theory out of the water by immediately asking the Homeland Security guys searching the premises if someone had been downloading child pornography before he's told why they are there.

Because that's totally what an innocent person being framed says. 

 

[cmr2014]

2 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Those same brothers Josh is trying to drag down with him? The same brothers who know he groped their sisters? The same brothers who know how much money Josh’s problems have cost the family? If they’re not at the screw that guy season of life, I’d be shocked.

Yeah, even for Josh that's pretty low. We'll have to see what goes down at trial, and if he tries to blame some phantom ex-con who worked at the car lot, that will be bad, but if he actually tries to smear his brothers I think that JB might even turn on him.

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

Yeah, even for Josh that's pretty low. We'll have to see what goes down at trial, and if he tries to blame some phantom ex-con who worked at the car lot, that will be bad, but if he actually tries to smear his brothers I think that JB might even turn on him.

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

[cereality]

Which brothers used to work at the car lot around 2019? Anyone know? I feel like JD has always done other things like towing or pilot lessons but what about the rest?

[Saylii]

7 minutes ago, Oldernowiser said:

Those same brothers Josh is trying to drag down with him? The same brothers who know he groped their sisters? The same brothers who know how much money Josh’s problems have cost the family? If they’re not at the screw that guy season of life, I’d be shocked.

Yeah but would they lie on the stand and say nope, they had no idea what the password was and Josh always unlocked the computer himself, especially if they thought (or knew) forensics would show otherwise?  

Like I said, I think Josh is guilty.  But I also think there are more holes in the case then people realize with what we saw today.  I’m sure the Feds have a lot more breakdown of everything, but if this was supposed to be their best synopsis to keep Josh in jail today... it didn’t work.  Now whether that’s because the judge is a Duggar sympathizer or because something was missing is yet to be seen.

[3girlsforus]

Just now, Zella said:

Josh himself blows that theory out of the water by immediately asking the Homeland Security guys searching the premises if someone had been downloading child pornography before he's told why they are there.

Because that's totally what an innocent person being framed says. 

 

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

[Lady Whistleup]

I did a little lurking on FB threads that were dominated by very conservative evangelicals. The news articles with the graphic descriptions shocked people I think. The overall reaction to Josh is one of pure disgust.

It seems as if child porn is a bridge too far for the most hardcore leg humpers. 

[Zella]

Just now, 3girlsforus said:

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

Yeah honestly if Homeland Security showed up to search me, I'd assume they were investigating terrorism, so my "I'm innocent" blurt out would have been "Hey, I'm not a terrorist!" 

[cmr2014]

7 minutes ago, Zella said:

Josh himself blows that theory out of the water by immediately asking the Homeland Security guys searching the premises if someone had been downloading child pornography before he's told why they are there.

Because that's totally what an innocent person being framed says. 

 

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

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