Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[emmawoodhouse]

6 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Am I correct that GotHard has never married nor perhaps ever “known” a woman? In fact, he’s a foot-fetishist creep, right? Why the hell does ANYONE ever listen to this POS?

That's the $64,000 question. 

[JoanArc]

7 minutes ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Am I correct that GotHard has never married nor perhaps ever “known” a woman? In fact, he’s a foot-fetishist creep, right? Why the hell does ANYONE ever listen to this POS?

 Charisma’s a hell of a drug. Where he pulls it from I don’t know. He and his brothers are all a bunch of scumbags of various types. Some people just have the ability to pull in others.  and really, it’s a very seductive system that makes loser men kings, and women capable of multiple childbirth queens. A fairly low effort heaven on earth, as Long as you give him a decent amount of money and are able to scrape by in poverty.

that, and I think people with weird sexual habits can sense it and other people.

[GeeGolly]

Isn't Gothard more or less fired at this point? While he likely had charisma, I think what he was promising is what brought folks in, and now others including the Bates and Wallers continue to shill the promise, as do the Duggars. 

In a video I watched, a guy was explaining why his parents bought into the bullshit. In addition to a first class seat in heaven, their pitch included creating a problem free wholesome family that made Beaver Cleaver's antics look almost criminal.

I can see why young couples or new families could fall for the promise and I'm guessing the ones that stay ignore the many red flags as they crop up, much like others who get sucked into cults.

[Hpmec]

It boggles my mind that in this day and age with multiple sources of easily available information, people fall in line like a bunch of sheep and follow charlatan snake oil salesmen. On one end of the spectrum you have the Duggars and like cults with their Father Knows Best bullshit and on the other you have guys like Joel Osteen who fleece people at every opportunity to fund their lavish lifestyle. People who get taken in must be extremely gullible and, dare I say it, stupid. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Hpmec

[libgirl2]

34 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

It boggles my mind that in this day and age with multiple sources of easily available information, people fall in line like a bunch of sheep and follow charlatan snake oil salesmen. On one end of the spectrum you have the Duggars and like cults with their Father Knows Best bullshit and on the other you have guys like Joel Osteen who fleece people at every opportunity to fund their lavish lifestyle. People who get taken in must be extremely gullible and, dare I say it, stupid. 

I always saw him as less preacher and more motivational speaker. When my first husband left and I was going through divorce, I enjoyed watching him on TV for a half hour every week, made me feel better about myself. I never saw it as out and out religion. I also remember him getting into trouble when he said about people being able to get into heaven even if they weren't saved or something like that. He changed on that! But I agree, he makes an awful lot of money. I never sent him any. 

[BitterApple]

40 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

It boggles my mind that in this day and age with multiple sources of easily available information, people fall in line like a bunch of sheep and follow charlatan snake oil salesmen. On one end of the spectrum you have the Duggars and like cults with their Father Knows Best bullshit and on the other you have guys like Joel Osteen who fleece people at every opportunity to fund their lavish lifestyle. People who get taken in must be extremely gullible and, dare I say it, stupid. 

Osteen doesn't even quote Scripture. He's basically a life coach who gives the same sermon over and over. 

[Cinnabon]

2 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Osteen doesn't even quote Scripture. He's basically a life coach who gives the same sermon over and over. 

A tax exempt life coach?

[Ijustwantsomechips]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. People get sucked into or stick with these cults and wack-a-doodle belief systems like Gothardism because of superiority.  It makes people like Jim Bob, Michelle, Josh, Anna, Jessa, Ben, and RFP feel better about thinking they are somehow better than.  Sure, they pose it as Christianity and caring for the souls of man but in reality, they want to be different and special.
You may have disobedient children or a non-submissive wife, but they won’t have those problems because their beliefs are right and pure, and therefore life will be so much easier for them.  Any challenges they face will surely be overcome because they’re better equipped to handle such tribulations.

They exhibit a level of smugness that no charitable act or spiritual platitude can erase.  In their minds, they are doing things right have favor with God, and because you don’t believe what they do, you don’t.  

They have no idea that God is not the least bit impressed.

[zenme]

1 hour ago, Ijustwantsomechips said:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. People get sucked into or stick with these cults and wack-a-doodle belief systems like Gothardism because of superiority.  It makes people like Jim Bob, Michelle, Josh, Anna, Jessa, Ben, and RFP feel better about thinking they are somehow better than.  Sure, they pose it as Christianity and caring for the souls of man but in reality, they want to be different and special.
You may have disobedient children or a non-submissive wife, but they won’t have those problems because their beliefs are right and pure, and therefore life will be so much easier for them.  Any challenges they face will surely be overcome because they’re better equipped to handle such tribulations.

They exhibit a level of smugness that no charitable act or spiritual platitude can erase.  In their minds, they are doing things right have favor with God, and because you don’t believe what they do, you don’t.  

They have no idea that God is not the least bit impressed.

Well said! I’m always so skeptical of people who have to tell you “I’m a Christian.”  Don’t tell me. Show me. And for what it’s worth, some friends of mine who are atheist have so much integrity and morals, one would be surprised!  

Edited July 27, 2021 by zenme

[BigBingerBro]

JOSH FIGHTS BACK Josh Duggar demands to see government’s evidence in child pornography case and slams police’s ‘credibility’

[zenme]

8 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

JOSH FIGHTS BACK Josh Duggar demands to see government’s evidence in child pornography case and slams police’s ‘credibility’

This bitch! 
He’s got a lot of damn nerve. Smugger indeed.

[Hpmec]

21 minutes ago, zenme said:

Well said! I’m always so skeptical of people who have to tell you “I’m a Christian.”  Don’t tell me. Show me. And for what it’s worth, some friends of mine who are atheist have so much integrity and morals, one would be surprised!  

Not surprising at all that many who aren't religious have integrity and morals. They are living by the Golden Rule and not basing their actions on fear of God's wrath. I was raised Catholic and taught all about punishment for sin. As a little kid, I was ushered into the confessional to tell the priest all the bad things I had done. Frankly, I couldn't think of anything worthy of confessing, so I had to resort to making some up. I was given a few "Hail Mary's"as a penance and told not to sin again. My non religious friends were and are  good and kind people who never had to spill their misdeeds to a priest, and it dawned on me at an early age that some of the most Christian people I know aren't Christian at all. 

[Churchhoney]

17 hours ago, Tabbygirl521 said:

Am I correct that GotHard has never married nor perhaps ever “known” a woman? In fact, he’s a foot-fetishist creep, right? Why the hell does ANYONE ever listen to this POS?

Because he promised people he'd give them total control over stuff they felt they were losing any control of, I think...............He worked hard to do that for decades, and he was right on the money about what a certain number of fearful, insecure, maybe kinda jealous and envious people want. 

If you can locate somebody's big fears and desires and promise easy step-by-step solutions, all laid out and ready for them, which he did, you can probably become their lord regardless of how absurd a loser you are yourself, looks like. 

Edited July 27, 2021 by Churchhoney

[zenme]

3 minutes ago, Hpmec said:

Not surprising at all that many who aren't religious have integrity and morals. They are living by the Golden Rule and not basing their actions on fear of God's wrath. I was raised Catholic and taught all about punishment for sin. As a little kid, I was ushered into the confessional to tell the priest all the bad things I had done. Frankly, I couldn't think of anything worthy of confessing, so I had to resort to making some up. I was given a few "Hail Mary's"as a penance and told not to sin again. My non religious friends were and are  good and kind people who never had to spill their misdeeds to a priest, and it dawned on me at an early age that some of the most Christian people I know aren't Christian at all. 

Yes! Same here! Raised Catholic. Catholic school and the whole 9  yards, but now I’m more culturally Catholic. The Golden Rule! Very simple. The Duggar’s don’t practice that. 

[GeeGolly]

As Josh proves, as do so many others, claiming faith, or having faith, does not automatically make you a better person, or a good person, for that matter. I for one, don't give automatic gold stars to "Christians", not the Duggars, nor any of my friends or acquaintances. Its my experience that one's faith actually has very little to do with character.

[Heathen]

1 hour ago, zenme said:

Well said! I’m always so skeptical of people who have to tell you “I’m a Christian.”  Don’t tell me. Show me. And for what it’s worth, some friends of mine who are atheist have so much integrity and morals, one would be surprised!  

Why would one be surprised that atheists have integrity and morals? 

That "news" article, from the Sun, has about as much credibility as Smuggar himself. You might as well read the National Enquirer.

[zenme]

7 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Why would one be surprised that atheists have integrity and morals?

Hell, I don’t know, but they do!

[ginger90]

1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

JOSH FIGHTS BACK Josh Duggar demands to see government’s evidence in child pornography case and slams police’s ‘credibility’

From this article:

”As The Sun reported, Josh pleaded guilty to the two child pornography counts.”

When did this happen?

[OpieTaylor]

1 hour ago, BigBingerBro said:

JOSH FIGHTS BACK Josh Duggar demands to see government’s evidence in child pornography case and slams police’s ‘credibility’

This article has typos and it says Josh pleaded guilty to 2 counts of possessing cp. I thought, He did?!? Then I see another linked headline that says he pled not guilty. 

[JoanArc]

Josh gets testy

Quote

In court papers exclusively obtained by The Sun, Josh’s legal team filed a Motion to Compel requesting the government provide them with “an undated screen shot” and “all law enforcement reports and related discovery prepared by the Little Rock.” 

The document read: “The Government disclosed to the defense a screen shot. However, the screen shot does not identify what it is a screen shot of and the Government has not provided any information concerning the ‘Summary' or ‘Investigative Activity.’"

Josh’s team has “repeatedly attempted to obtain this unambiguously discoverable evidence,” but the Government has “refused to produce this evidence.”

They claim the government is also refusing to disclose to them police reports and related evidence from the Little Rock, Arkansas police department. 

The court papers read: “Government has responded to these discovery requests in a way that strongly suggests the discovery exists but the prosecution simply refuses to turn it over.”

Josh’s team claims he is “legally and constitutionally entitled to” the evidence, but  “the government has flat-out refused to produce it.”

They believe Josh’s computer forensics expert should have access to the data.

The 19 Kids and Counting star’s attorney then took aim at authorities, including Special Agent Faulkner, who spoke at Josh’s detention hearing.

The court papers claimed he omitted the “alleged investigative activities of two other law enforcement agencies” when testifying at the hearing under oath.

They believe the evidence shouldn’t be allowed and they question his “credibility.”

As The Sun reported, Josh pleaded guilty to the two child pornography counts. 

Josh requested the court postpone his July trial date “in or after February 2022.” 

Josh’s legal team called the case “complex,” as it involved a “several-year federal investigation” with allegations of the “dark web” and “peer-to-peer BitTorrent file-sharing networks,” both of which are common in the receiving of child pornography. 

The Government’s allegations against Jim Bob and Michelle’s son center around “computer forensic evidence and anticipated expert opinion testimony.”

The court papers claimed the defense has "retained an independent computer forensic expert who must conduct a computer forensic examination of each of the devices at issue—a time-consuming process that requires review at a government facility for the one device the Government alleges contained child pornography.”

The United States responded by agreeing to a three-month delay, but they explained anything additional is “unnecessary.” 

An Arkansas judge found the postponement “appropriate” and reset the jury trial for November 30, 2021.

According to court papers, the trial has the potential to last until December 3. 

The former 19 Kids and Counting star is currently on home confinement until his trial and is living with third party custodians LaCount and Maria Reber, who are longtime friends of Jim Bob and Michelle. 

Not sure why this article said he pleaded guilty to two counts?

[LilyD]

5 hours ago, Hpmec said:

t boggles my mind that in this day and age with multiple sources of easily available information, people fall in line like a bunch of sheep and follow charlatan snake oil salesmen.  ..........

People who get taken in must be extremely gullible and, dare I say it, stupid. 

It's easier than you might think...

Yes they target gullible and stupid people. But some get dragged in because they fall in love with someone from that group. I'm sure there are more potential targets.

Brainwashing itself is a slow but very effective process. Just make sure you tell them what you want them to hear over and over again, leave no room for discussion and cut them off from any other source that might influence them 'negatively'.And give them books and tv programs that support the beliefs.  In the end it will stick, that's how it works.

As for multiple sources of easily available information: These cults/communities typically have rules on a very limited use of modern devices. So, a tv itself may be  banned but they can watch shows or documentaries that support their beliefs. The same goes for the internet. In one of the Duggar books, Michelle talks about the internet. There is internet access but only to pages that are pre-approved. The rest is blocked. They either are home-schooled or have their own schools with a very restricted curriculum too. So their history lessons are probably following all the bible events including the creation of earth in 6 days (never mind the dinosaurs or Neanderthals)

 

 

[Zella]

2 hours ago, OpieTaylor said:

This article has typos and it says Josh pleaded guilty to 2 counts of possessing cp. I thought, He did?!? Then I see another linked headline that says he pled not guilty. 

Last I heard, he pleaded not guilty. I don't know why he would be demanding to see the evidence on charges he already pled guilty for. [Edited to add: and it is SOP for the defense/accused to get to see the evidence against them before the trial, anyway, if he has pleaded not guilty.] I think The Sun is just guilty of some really bad reporting. That or they have one hell of a scoop that will have the Crystal Ball lady sobbing into her soup for a while. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Zella

[Jeeves]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Last I heard, he pleaded not guilty. I don't know why he would be demanding to see the evidence on charges he already pled guilty for. I think The Sun is just guilty of some really bad reporting. That or they have one hell of a scoop that will have the Crystal Ball lady sobbing into her soup for a while. 

I'm sure it's just bad reporting. I think some doofus got hold of a motion filed by Josh's attorneys and had no clear idea what it was about. The stuff quoted above is just legal saber-rattling and complaining about the prosecution. It's what defense lawyers do.  If the prosecutors have slipped up by not providing discovery I'm sure the judge will get on them about it. It also seems the defense is throwing shade at law enforcement; maybe trying to lay a foundation to get the evidence suppressed. But in this case I think that's quite a long shot although of course anything could happen and I'm no expert. I just don't think the feds would have bothered to file a weak case against Josh; they have plenty of crimes to prosecute already.

[Zella]

10 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I'm sure it's just bad reporting. I think some doofus got hold of a motion filed by Josh's attorneys and had no clear idea what it was about. The stuff quoted above is just legal saber-rattling and complaining about the prosecution. It's what defense lawyers do.  If the prosecutors have slipped up by not providing discovery I'm sure the judge will get on them about it. It also seems the defense is throwing shade at law enforcement; maybe trying to lay a foundation to get the evidence suppressed. But in this case I think that's quite a long shot although of course anything could happen and I'm no expert. I just don't think the feds would have bothered to file a weak case against Josh; they have plenty of crimes to prosecute already.

Thanks! I'm definitely no expert but just based on the true crime stuff I've followed over the years, nothing about it seemed too out of the ordinary to me.

I think you are probably right on the defense they are attempting to piece together. I am pretty sure his legal team has tried to insinuate there was something sketchy with which agencies were involved in some other filing or comment. Sort of seems like a desperate hail Mary play since the feds are pretty notorious for not playing around when they file charges. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Zella

[Jeeves]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Thanks! I'm definitely no expert but just based on the true crime stuff I've followed over the years, nothing about it seemed too out of the ordinary to me.

I think you are probably right on the defense they are attempting to piece together. I am pretty sure his legal team has tried to insinuate there was something sketchy with which agencies were involved in some other filing or comment. Sort of seems like a desperate hail Mary play since the feds are pretty notorious for not playing around when they file charges. 

And, if it's any comfort, remember that every defense motion filed represents hours of lawyer and paralegal time that has been duly billed and paid for. Most likely by JB.

So yeah I'm small-minded, but I like to imagine that good solid "ka-ching" cash register sound ringing out every time a defense filing hits the court in this case. More money being sucked out of the Duggar Enterprises Empire. And as we know, the lead lawyer on the case does not work cheap. Heh.

[BitterApple]

29 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

I'm sure it's just bad reporting. 

Bad reporting? From the Sun? Surely, you jest. 

[merylinkid]

That article is crap.   BUT, one thing to keep in mind -- Josh does not have to prove he is innocent.   The Government must prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.   All their evidence must be lawfully obtained.   They must follow the Rules of Evidence.   They must disclose all potentially exculpatory evidence to the Defense (and not play Jack McCoy with deciding its not really exculputatory so it doesn't have to be disclosed).   Josh can literally not present a damn thing at trial.   HE doesn't have the burden of proof.   So if his lawyers are making the government prove their case - that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

[Jeeves]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

That article is crap.   BUT, one thing to keep in mind -- Josh does not have to prove he is innocent.   The Government must prove he did it beyond a reasonable doubt.   All their evidence must be lawfully obtained.   They must follow the Rules of Evidence.   They must disclose all potentially exculpatory evidence to the Defense (and not play Jack McCoy with deciding its not really exculputatory so it doesn't have to be disclosed).   Josh can literally not present a damn thing at trial.   HE doesn't have the burden of proof.   So if his lawyers are making the government prove their case - that is exactly how the system is supposed to work.

Well said!

I started my career long long ago (when dirt was young and mastodons roamed the earth and there weren't computers in courtrooms) by working for a few years as a public defender in state court. The burden of proof being on the prosecution is just embedded deep into my thinking. I'm sure that it's not so deeply ingrained into the thinking of people who haven't worked in the criminal courts, and it's good for me to be reminded of that. 

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, Jeeves said:

Well said!

I started my career long long ago (when dirt was young and mastodons roamed the earth and there weren't computers in courtrooms) by working for a few years as a public defender in state court. The burden of proof being on the prosecution is just embedded deep into my thinking. I'm sure that it's not so deeply ingrained into the thinking of people who haven't worked in the criminal courts, and it's good for me to be reminded of that. 

I'm not that worried. As I understand it, the Feds don't bring a case that they don't think they can win. Their conviction rate is ~95%. Their case against Smuggar is probably airtight.

[Jeeves]

Just now, emmawoodhouse said:

I'm not that worried. As I understand it, the Feds don't bring a case that they don't think they can win. Their conviction rate is ~95%. Their case against Smuggar is probably airtight.

Oh, I'm not worried either. 

[merylinkid]

One of the reasons they get 95% conviction rate is that they DO play games with the evidence.   Some judges just overlook it.   Some judges sanction the attorneys involved (including sending them to remedial law courses) but let the evidence stand anyway.   A lot of cases overturned on appeal are from game playing by the prosecution.   

We don't like Josh.   The court of public opinion is one thing.   But no court case is a slam dunk (ask the OJ prosecutors)

[graefin]

14 hours ago, zenme said:

And for what it’s worth, some friends of mine who are atheist have so much integrity and morals, one would be surprised!  

That's pretty offensive. Morality and integrity isn't exclusive to religion. In fact, the most religious people I personally know are by far the least moral and honorable people I've encountered in life.

My feeling is that all they (these particular folks) care about is getting into heaven, not being good people per se. This used to puzzle me a lot, but I've since learned about the "salvation by faith vs. works" distinction and it makes a lot more sense to me now.

[zenme]

32 minutes ago, graefin said:

That's pretty offensive. Morality and integrity isn't exclusive to religion. In fact, the most religious people I personally know are by far the least moral and honorable people I've encountered in life.

My feeling is that all they (these particular folks) care about is getting into heaven, not being good people per se. This used to puzzle me a lot, but I've since learned about the "salvation by faith vs. works" distinction and it makes a lot more sense to me now.

I didn’t mean to offend you. I totally agree with you and feel the way you do. I phrased it wrong. I have a weekly argument with  my dad because I no longer go to church—and why. I came from a parish in which a priest molestedboys, so I know just because one goes to church   Or proclaims to be a Christ follower doesn”t make you a good person. I’m sorry if you weee offended.  I think that’s what bothers me about  Duggar types. When they tell you they’re Christian,I wanna run the other way, and that’s sad.

Edited July 28, 2021 by zenme

[Tikichick]

15 hours ago, BigBingerBro said:

JOSH FIGHTS BACK Josh Duggar demands to see government’s evidence in child pornography case and slams police’s ‘credibility’

Ridiculous headline.  Every criminal defendant has the right to see and hear all the evidence against them in the discovery process -- usually while criticizing the turnover as incomplete, the evidence as weak or incorrect, and the prosecution as wrong or biased and/or on a witch hunt.   The headline is literally every criminal defense argument.  

[Churchhoney]

As the super-virtuous on the Earth, as the Duggars pretend to be, I'd think that another legal option for Josh -- and likely the right one, given the beliefs they supposedly have -- is to honestly and humbly plead guilty and take the penalty that Caesar deems appropriate. 

Because he did do exactly what they say he did. And he knows it, as does Jim Bob. And it seems to me Christ said it's the truth that sets you free. 

By doing otherwise and going with the "under the law, I'm innocent until they PROVE ME GUILTY" strategy, it seems to me they're basically saying (considering that Christ is allegedly the guide of everything they do)-- Hey, in this case, God firmly rejects Caesar's legal view of what's wrong and what's right here. When it comes to true morality, God doesn't mind guys sharing images of fatal child sex abuse to get their winkies up and salutin'! So we as Christians should fight tooth and nail to escape penalties on this particular item! It's been wrongly called a crime by the evil gubmint, but God knows it ain't no sin!!!! 

Okay, rant done. I get how the law works. And what defense lawyers do and why. (And if Josh didn't do these things, my rant doesn't apply. But if he did...)

In the case of super-godly super-judgmental super-Christians of this ilk, at least one of whom has publicly called for execution of sex criminals, the hypocrisy here is rank, in my opinion. 

If in the process of your law breaking, you also break an actual moral law of your own God and you know it-- especially in a way that involves actual harm to another person -- any God worth his salt would tell you to admit it, apologize to your fellow humans whom you harmed, and accept a penalty that's intended to get you to understand the lesson. 

But I guess the Duggar God says, Hell, I want my people to lie lie lie about their own moral failing so they can stay outta jail if possible to fight for my priorities -- bans against abortion, birth control, tolerance of homosexuals, the teaching of evolution and the sale of alcoholic drinks in Arkansas! 

A god who advises that is not worth his salt, in my opinion. 

My question is this: If you're a truly, seriously moral person, and the law of a relatively humane and just nation rightly accuses you of committing a crime that's also a serious breach of your own moral precepts, what's the right thing to do?  

Okay. Now I'll stop ranting (for the moment). 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Churchhoney

[jcbrown]

4 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

As the super-virtuous on the Earth, as the Duggars pretend to be, I'd think that another legal option for Josh -- and likely the right one, given the beliefs they supposedly have -- is to honestly and humbly plead guilty and take the penalty that Caesar deems appropriate. 

Because he did do exactly what they say he did. And he knows it, as does Jim Bob. And it seems to me Christ said it's the truth that sets you free. 

By doing otherwise and going with the "under the law, I'm innocent until they PROVE ME GUILTY" strategy, it seems to me they're basically saying (considering that Christ is allegedly the guide of everything they do)-- Hey, in this case, God firmly rejects Caesar's legal view of what's wrong and what's right here. When it comes to true morality, God doesn't mind guys sharing images of fatal child sex abuse to get their winkies up and salutin'! So we as Christians should fight tooth and nail to escape penalties on this particular item! It's been wrongly called a crime by the evil gubmint, but God knows it ain't no sin!!!! 

Okay, rant done. I get how the law works. And what defense lawyers do. 

But in the case of super-godly super-judgmental super-Christians of this ilk, at least one of whom has publicly called for execution of sex criminals, the hypocrisy here is rank, in my opinion. 

If in the process of your law breaking, you also break an actual moral law of your own God and you know it-- especially in a way that involves actual harm to another person -- any God worth his salt would tell you to admit it, apologize to your fellow humans whom you harmed, and accept a penalty that's intended to get you to understand the lesson. 

But I guess the Duggar God says, Hell, I want my people to lie lie lie about their own moral failing so they can stay outta jail if possible to fight for my priorities -- bans against abortion, birth control, tolerance of homosexuals, the teaching of evolution and the sale of alcoholic drinks in Arkansas! 

A god who advises that is not worth his salt, in my opinion. 

My question is this: If you're a truly, seriously moral person, and the law of a relatively humane and just nation rightly accuses you of committing a crime that's also a serious breach of your own moral precepts, what's the right thing to do?  

Okay. Now I'll stop ranting (for the moment). 

Applause to your entire post.

[Gigi43]

10 hours ago, merylinkid said:

One of the reasons they get 95% conviction rate is that they DO play games with the evidence.   Some judges just overlook it.   Some judges sanction the attorneys involved (including sending them to remedial law courses) but let the evidence stand anyway.   A lot of cases overturned on appeal are from game playing by the prosecution.   

We don't like Josh.   The court of public opinion is one thing.   But no court case is a slam dunk (ask the OJ prosecutors)

 

Yeah, I get a sense of over confidence when it comes to this case. Nothing is for sure and, especially in this case, they have to prove Josh was at that computer beyond doubt, Josh doesn't have to prove he wasn't. His defense has the right to review everything, the fact this became a story is a non-issue. Everyone online saying he's guilty matters 0 to the courts.

[3 is enough]

If Josh is convicted what will the family reaction be? Will they file an immediate appeal? Will they bitch about “ biased media coverage”?  Or will they accept the verdict and move on?

[Ohiopirate02]

20 minutes ago, 3 is enough said:

If Josh is convicted what will the family reaction be? Will they file an immediate appeal? Will they bitch about “ biased media coverage”?  Or will they accept the verdict and move on?

It will all depend on how much money JB has left after the trial.  

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

It will all depend on how much money JB has left after the trial.  

Yeah and also I think how bad the revelations are during the trial of what Josh was looking at. 

[Quilt Fairy]

I think the issue raised in The Sun article is that there were multiple authorities investigating Josh for different things.  That's where the Little Rock reference comes in.    So the state was investigating him for something to do with the car dealership and the feds on the CSA.  Perhaps the state investigators found something that they referred to the FBI that started the CSA investigation.  Anyhow, it appears to me that this motion is to get the evidence the state had, even though the feds are not using it in this case.  

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and this is just my interpretation of the testimony that was presented in the bond hearing. 

[Zella]

On 7/28/2021 at 4:39 PM, Gigi43 said:

 

Yeah, I get a sense of over confidence when it comes to this case. Nothing is for sure and, especially in this case, they have to prove Josh was at that computer beyond doubt, Josh doesn't have to prove he wasn't. His defense has the right to review everything, the fact this became a story is a non-issue. Everyone online saying he's guilty matters 0 to the courts.

FWIW the high conviction rate for federal cases that people are citing here isn't a number pulled out of thin air. It is very high. That of course doesn't rule out Josh's case being the exception, but I don't think it is overconfident to assume that an institution that has a 95%+ conviction rate is probably going to successfully throw Josh's ass in prison for a long time, especially since, as came out in the bond hearing, they have some pretty strong digital evidence that ties Josh to that location and computer. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Zella

[LilJen]

On 7/27/2021 at 5:49 PM, Heathen said:

Why would one be surprised that atheists have integrity and morals? 

I have found this to be a common assumption in the wilds of the rural Midwest. I think the logic is, if you don’t believe in God, you believe that everything is random (or something) and have zero framework on which to build any sort of moral code. Because God isn’t telling you what to do/not do. Nobody could POSSIBLY figure out on their own that it is wrong to, say, murder people, nor would anyone decide on their own that, hey, it would be nice to be kind to others and share and stuff, because, I dunno, we’re all inherently evil and selfish and only God can rein us in?

[JoanArc]

Quote

That of course doesn't rule out Josh's case being the exception, but I don't think it is overconfident to assume that an institution that has a 95%+ conviction rate is probably going to successfully throw Josh's ass in prison for a long time, especially since, as came out in the bond hearing, they have some pretty strong digital evidence that ties Josh to that location and computer. 

They wouldn't go after a 'high profile' case without an airtight case.

Edited July 29, 2021 by JoanArc

[Heathen]

25 minutes ago, LilJen said:

I have found this to be a common assumption in the wilds of the rural Midwest. I think the logic is, if you don’t believe in God, you believe that everything is random (or something) and have zero framework on which to build any sort of moral code. Because God isn’t telling you what to do/not do. Nobody could POSSIBLY figure out on their own that it is wrong to, say, murder people, nor would anyone decide on their own that, hey, it would be nice to be kind to others and share and stuff, because, I dunno, we’re all inherently evil and selfish and only God can rein us in?

It's not just the rural or even small town Midwest. Or even the Midwest and the Bible Belt.  

Topic: I wonder what name M7 will get. My current guess is something very biblical. Maybe Moriah. 

[ozziemom]

Ozziedad was a prosecutor at the state level and always joked that the Feds were only interested in cases they knew they could win. 

[BitterApple]

2 hours ago, JoanArc said:

 

Given the radio silence from the Duggars lately, I wonder if this is true? The siblings who are normally most active on social media are suspiciously absent. Maybe they know something is coming down the pipeline? 

 

[Absolom]

I hope that's true.

[Nysha]

4 hours ago, Heathen said:

It's not just the rural or even small town Midwest. Or even the Midwest and the Bible Belt.  

Topic: I wonder what name M7 will get. My current guess is something very biblical. Maybe Moriah. 

I'm still voting for Mercy.

If the Feds believe they have an open & shut case will they let him plea to something lesser or will have have to plead guilty to the original charges and get an easier sentence.

 

[LilyD]

Surely JB and Michelle must have serious worries about their son’s soul by now? Just wondering….
Frankly I keep wondering why they keep on defending him at all costs. Yes, he’s their son, but some things just cannot be ignored, even if it’s your own child.