Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[MsJamieDornan]

4 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

That was me, It was Scott Reisch at Crime Talk.

I think I posted it somewhere also. He's a defense attorney and a pretty good one. I tend to believe him.

[Marshmallow Mollie]

3 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Actually, I have to correct myself. I read the offer, such as it was, in lieu of the grand jury's verdict. They said that his crimes carried about a 10 year sentence. They didn't say what they offered in the plea deal. 

This happened about a month before the arrest.

Wait, what? He was offered a plea deal a month before the arrest?! Remember Anna’s snippy response on Instagram about how Josh is a diligent provider or whatever… does that mean she didn’t know about the plea deal and what was coming?

[hathorlive]

14 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

When you look at the history of cases very very very similar to this in this same court

What sticks out to me about this case is that it's part of a long-term prosecutorial effort by these agencies to pick up people for the exact same crimes. And it's clearly been a successful effort. I doubt that it has anything at all unusual about Josh's case. So that has to greatly diminish the chance that the prosecution is slipping up in some fundamental way or that the case will confuse the judge, right? 

The federal government funds Internet Crimes Against Children taskforces.  Every state has one.  The main agency in charge of the grant doles out training, equipment, and resources for doing these cases.  It means there are more eyes on who is file sharing.  Josh's case looks like every case I ever worked (Search warrant, interviewing the suspect, forensic review of evidence, charges brought, defense shenanigans, guilty verdict).  I only remember one federal case we lost (not my forensic work or testimony but a coworkers) and it was a badly handled trail by the prosecution.  That's rare in federal court.  Josh is going to follow the handbook (downloading by filesharing, SODDI (some other dude did it), it was a virus, the evidence was tainted, the search was tainted) and then the lawyers are going to soak JB for all he's worth.  Then they will roll up out of town and find the next sucker with deep pockets.  Bleed 'em and plead 'em.  

Yes Casey Anthony got away with murder. I had a class with the lady who testified on the forensics.  I think they bungled the forensics.  Craig Wilson certainly thinks so.  Google his name and Casey Anthony.  It's always a bad sign when the people who programmed the tool testify more than your "experts".  That said, these FBI people are experts.  They have strong resumes.  They know what they are doing.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I have never seen ANY case where the suspect is placed more firmly behind the screen, downloading CP, than Josh Duggar.  Mr. Duggar is in trouble.

Edited September 12, 2021 by hathorlive

[hathorlive]

12 hours ago, merylinkid said:

This.   I keep saying this.   It looks like "OMG the prosecution screwed up" because everyone is going over and over every little thing for lack of anything new coming out.   Which is normal in cases.   Something doesn't happen every day in a case.   But because its someone "famous" people are eager for "news" so they pore over every little piece.   If this court has a bunch of these cases, they are not going to conveniently screw up just because it's Josh Duggar.   

But I want to push back on "getting off on a technicality."   These "technicalities" are fundamental to our system of justice.   They protect the rights of the accused -- who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (court of public opinion has a different standard which is fine, that court can't deprive you of life or liberty).    We want ALL accused to have these rights.    It is on the government to prove someone is guilty and not the accused to prove innocence.   These "technicalities" ensure the government does their job right and doesn't just railroad someone.    Ignoring these "technicalities" like proper search warrants is how you get innocent people convicted of crimes they didn't commit.   If you overlook them when its a crime like child porn, when else are you willing to overlook them.    If Josh gets to go home to his warehouse, its because the government didn't do their job right, not because of "technicalities."   

 

That said -- if this court has lots of cases like his, what are the typical sentences people get?   

A freaking men.  Amen.  By allowing people to get off on technicalities, it means the police must strive to do the best job, with the best accuracy.  Otherwise,  you have a situation like Chicago, where they were letting more people off death row than putting people ON death row.  Why? A police precinct had a nasty habit of finding any random minority, handcuffing them to a radiator and turning on the heat.  Literally and figurative.  After a few days of torture, they got many confessions that weren't valid.  And of course, DNA isn't always mandatory in a murder trial.  So when the police do bad things, people can get off on bad procedures.  We need the police to be accountable.  And as a reminder, I work for LE.  Bad cops and sloppy work is not justice.

In my experience, most CP cases in federal court get around 9 to 12 years.  Big sentences usually are reserved for people who abuse, produce and distribute CP.  In my 16 or so years, the biggest sentence in a case I testified in was 25 years.  State court usually gets 5 years for what Josh did.  Federal court is normally around 10 years, give or take.  I noticed one of the prosecution documents said they were going to hit all "enhancers", which gets a bigger sentence.  Enhancements are images of CP that have certain themes.  I will NOT mention those because none of you need those thoughts in your head.  Trust me.  But in reality, when we've tried to get enhancers added, the Federal judges are rather....dismissive?  Lax?  I don't know.  I had one judge say that enhancers were up for debate, so no reason to consider them.  I don't know the judges in Arkansas so I don't know what their tendencies are.  I'm just trying to prepare everyone for a mundane sentences, not the huge one many people are predicting.  I'm ALWAYS disappointed when I walk out of court, even when we get a guilty verdict.  It's NEVER enough jail time.

[hathorlive]

9 hours ago, Fallacy said:

I’ve been reading the prosecution’s response on and off today, and I just noticed something striking. They arrested Josh for downloading one video file and one zip file that contained 65 images. However, they also flagged 93 other “files of interest” that they got from his IP address. I wonder what happened with those files. 

 

I've had cases where I've found over 200,000 images of interest and the suspect was charged with 7 counts.  The AUSA usually picks the downloads that best support receipt and distribution.  In Josh's case, I'll be the farm that the images he's charged on are the ones where they have text messages from Josh and images of Josh that place him at the car lot when those images were being downloaded.  They want it to be easy for the jury to understand that he was geolocated to this location by his iPhone, there is activity from the iPhone from Josh during this time and the images were downloaded at the same time.  That's a pretty straight forward argument. 

[quarks]

10 hours ago, Fallacy said:

I’ve been reading the prosecution’s response on and off today, and I just noticed something striking. They arrested Josh for downloading one video file and one zip file that contained 65 images. However, they also flagged 93 other “files of interest” that they got from his IP address. I wonder what happened with those files. 

 

Apart from what Hathorlive mentioned, I took this and some other statements in the responses as none-too-subtle reminders/threats that the prosecution could throw a few more charges/counts at Josh.

That is, yeah, we're all fine with conducting a vigorous defense, but don't waste our time with frivolous stuff, or we'll get mean.

[hathorlive]

10 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

So I skimmed over the responses last night and I have a couple of questions for @hathorlive, our computer forensics expert.  The prosecution is throwing a lot of shade at both the defense's expert witness and the firm she works for.  Do you have any opinion of these people?  Second, they say that even though the firm does not have a good reputation, there are previous  cases where they managed to muddy the waters with false or incongruous information that nevertheless confused the jury.  Do you have an opinion on that? 

Sigh.  So a few weeks ago, I said the only thing left for the defense to do was to hire Tami Loehrs to provided bad forensics analysis and testimony for Josh.  The expert listed in the document, Ms. Bush, works for Tami Loehrs Forensics.  Ms. Loehrs is legend in the forensic world.  She literally has databases about her kept in various federal prosecutor databases.  Her most famous case is getting a 16 year old off charges of CP by claiming a virus downloaded the CP onto his computer.  We aren't sure if the same virus put a CD into the tray and burned the CP to the CD and then took it out and labeled it Child Pxrn or not, but you can see where I'm going with this.  First, viruses and malware have payloads.  The payload contains what the virus does.  There has NEVER been a virus identified as putting CP on a person's computer.  When the defense says that, you cross them and ask them to deconstruct the malware's payload, illustrating the programming that calls the images and where they call the images from and how it puts it on the hard drive.  They usually shut up because they have NO credentials in deconstructing malware.   Tami hates law enforcement.  She was humiliated in court for testifying that she appreciates law enforcement and respects their work.  Then they produced posts from her on her facebook page trashing the FBI and calling all LE idiots.  Her husband chimed in with "piss on the FBI".  She was basically laughed out of court and was very upset about them reading her non-locked down, very public social media pages.  This is why I should probably shut up and hope that no one outs me, or I'll be trashed in court as hating pedophiles. 

I'm paraphrasing here because it's been a long time since I read all the stuff about her. So give me a bit of leeway here.  The facts are basically correct.  Hack forensics, views law enforcement as entrapping innocent men, and makes a ton of money off desperate suspects.  I did read Ms. Bush's resume and training list a few months ago on a site.  She's not very experienced and apparently, not very good at forensics, per the statements in these documents.  

Sleazy as she is, Tami has testified in many cases and muddied the water in some.  A lot of the attacks you saw in the defense's motions are ones she uses.  That the government's torrent program should be analyzed, that it's an illegal wiretap, that the government said they found CP files but she didn't find CP files.  It's the same play book.  Any jury can be swayed.  A good prosecutor keeps it simple.  He was seen sharing/downloading files with these hash files, which are known CP.  Those files were found on his computer.  As my favorite AUSA always says "the water only gets muddied when you let it". Meaning that if I didn't nip that in the bud and stop that line of thought, it's my fault.  And her fault if she didn't redirect and get me to say why that muddy was bad and wrong.

It's late. I've had no sleep.  Did any of that make sense?

6 hours ago, Namaste said:

So, if the prosecutors offered Josh 10 years in the plea deal, what sentence will they ask the judge for if he is convicted at trial? Thank you. 

Here's where I get salty.  I don't seem to notice much of a difference between the plea offer and what they end up getting after making me go to court and sit in a suit for two days.  State court is literally, plead and get 5. They go to trial, are found guilty, and get five.  I've not noticed a substantial increase in time for going to court and being found guilty.

[Quilt Fairy]

28 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

It's late. I've had no sleep.  Did any of that make sense?

It makes perfect sense, and thanks for answering my questions.  When I first read the prosecution's discussion of the defense's expert witness's testimony, I couldn't figure out why such a high-priced big city law firm would hire someone who didn't appear very "expert" at all.  Then I read further about previous trials where that firm testified and I realized that the defense has decided that the best way to deal with the evidence is to confuse the hell out of the jury about it.  And that, unfortunately, could work. 

[Nysha]

After reading all of the linked court documents I have come to the realization that I am temperamentally unsuited to be a lawyer or work in any compacity at any legal type employment. The documents repeated the same thing, in the same language, over and over again. 

Plus, Sex Pest is a moron and a disgusting excuse for a human. It offends me that he using oxygen that is needed for mice, rats, and maggots, all who are worthier beings than Pest.

[MunichNark]

On 9/8/2021 at 8:33 PM, RedDelicious said:

My guess based on sauerkraut juice running through my veins is

beck-FIFen-gehsickt.

General rule is when E and I go walking, the second one does the talking, so it's a long I sound on the fei. Emphasis on the second syllable.

Oh dear meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I'm in stitches.

It's pronounced "Buck-pfyphon-gay-seecht -> the ch sound is like Lough, with a hacking tch sound

[RedDelicious]

5 hours ago, MunichNark said:

Oh dear meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, I'm in stitches.

It's pronounced "Buck-pfyphon-gay-seecht -> the ch sound is like Lough, with a hacking tch sound

I said it was a guess. It wasn’t necessary to mock me or anyone else trying to figure it out.

[MunichNark]

14 minutes ago, RedDelicious said:

I said it was a guess. It wasn’t necessary to mock me or anyone else trying to figure it out.

Er.......what?

[jcbrown]

8 hours ago, MunichNark said:

Er.......what?

I'm with you. I thought someone had asked how to pronounce it. Thanks for the answer.

Edited September 12, 2021 by jcbrown

[JoanArc]

Quote

There has NEVER been a virus identified as putting CP on a person's computer. 

Thanks for this. Even in this thread a 'Canadian Grandmother' doctor claimed a virus downloaded CP to her laptop, which she dutifully drove to the police station. I knew computer viruses do not behave in such a manner, but it's such a common argument I'm glad to see your professional takedown of this urban legend.

Maybe a computer virus made the Ashley Madison account, too.

Edited September 12, 2021 by JoanArc

[Churchhoney]

16 hours ago, Nysha said:

After reading all of the linked court documents I have come to the realization that I am temperamentally unsuited to be a lawyer or work in any compacity at any legal type employment. The documents repeated the same thing, in the same language, over and over again. 

Plus, Sex Pest is a moron and a disgusting excuse for a human. It offends me that he using oxygen that is needed for mice, rats, and maggots, all who are worthier beings than Pest.

I'd like to hear what lawyers have to say about the upshot of the particular issues the defense raised. To me, some of them --- one, especially -- seems to be so baseless, so in bad faith, so much something that any lawyer would know was pure meaningless garbage, that I wonder what the rationale would ever be for asserting something like that....--- i.e., the one about the Homeland Security official appointed in a way that doesn't meet regulations. ....

Is there really any precedent or any good-faith way to argue that that would be grounds for dismissing the case? I mean, this case is a multi-agency, multi-department thing, it's part of big, long set of investigations on all the same matters, there's no evidence that the DC bad-appointment guy had any knowledge of or role in the case or anything. The case involved DOJ and grand jury and that guy's role at Homeland Security was all about immigration and such.....

What goes through a defense lawyer's mind to say -- I'm going to essentially argue that every single thing related to this federal department should be deemed out of order and thrown out because of that guy's appointment?       And I'm going to do that on behalf of making sure that justice is done for my client!!! Really? really? How in the world does that even relate at all to justice in his client's case -- a case that had absolutely no specific connection to that guy and what he did on his job at all?   Seems to me the most likely thing that would result from that argument is that you'd risk pissing off the judge because it's so grandiose and beside the point and ridiculous....Nothing but a stupid ploy to fling spaghetti both on the wall and in the gears.....

But obviously I must be missing something.....

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Churchhoney

[merylinkid]

There actually was a court ruling that the Director of Homeland Security was not properly appointed so all his regs/rules/directives were not valid.    The lawyers just extended that to this case.    Which lawyers try all the time.   It was a Hail Mary, but not bad faith.   They were just trying to extend an already made ruling.

[Churchhoney]

36 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

There actually was a court ruling that the Director of Homeland Security was not properly appointed so all his regs/rules/directives were not valid.    The lawyers just extended that to this case.    Which lawyers try all the time.   It was a Hail Mary, but not bad faith.   They were just trying to extend an already made ruling.

Yeah, I know about that court ruling. I followed it as a reporter. But this case and the group of cases it's part of had nothing  to do with any regs or rules or anything else that that guy was involved in.  

So how is it a good-faith argument when it was quite clear that that guy had essentially zero knowledge or involvement with anything even vaguely related to this case? And there's no way the ruling intended to declare invalid every single thing that Homeland Security was involved in while he was there. No way. But that would be the upshot and the necessary consequence if anybody accepted this defense lawyer's argument.

The court ruling about the appointee was to shut down anything he was involved in. Not everything in the damn department. And he had absolutely zero to do with this group of cases -- and everybody knew that and every body knows it. 

The idea that that's a good faith argument just completely blows my mind. And I don't think it is. It's an argument all right. But it's not in good faith. '

We may have corrupted our thinking to the point where we tell ourselves that that's good faith. I guess from what you say that we have. But it's crap, nonetheless, in my opinion!

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Churchhoney

[ginger90]

Whataboutism 

Deflection

Bullshit

[hathorlive]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

Yeah, I know about that court ruling. I followed it as a reporter. But this case and the group of cases it's part of had nothing  to do with any regs or rules or anything else that that guy was involved in.  

So how is it a good-faith argument when it was quite clear that that guy had essentially zero knowledge or involvement with anything even vaguely related to this case? And there's no way the ruling intended to declare invalid every single thing that Homeland Security was involved in while he was there. No way. But that would be the upshot and the necessary consequence if anybody accepted this defense lawyer's argument.

The court ruling about the appointee was to shut down anything he was involved in. Not everything in the damn department. And he had absolutely zero to do with this group of cases -- and everybody knew that and every body knows it. 

The idea that that's a good faith argument just completely blows my mind. And I don't think it is. It's an argument all right. But it's not in good faith. '

We may have corrupted our thinking to the point where we tell ourselves that that's good faith. I guess from what you say that we have. But it's crap, nonetheless, in my opinion!

 

I don't think the words "defense attorney" and "good faith" go hand in hand together.  The defense's only goal is to get one person on the jury to think "wow, that last president guy was so corrupt, he appointed a corrupt head of the agency and therefore, the policies and procedures that have been on the books for thirty years aren't valid, so this case isn't valid".  The defense isn't there to be ethical or righteous or anything other than getting their client acquitted. 

And we all think it's a silly argument, but if you had told us four years ago that a global pandemic that killed millions would result in people dissing the FDA approved vaccine for horse dewormer, you would have said that no one would do that. Juries are weird things.  There's always room for a person to be influenced.  CP cases tend to disgust everyone, but if there's a person on the jury who had a cousin accused of sexual assault for dating a girl who was 1 month shy of her 18th birthday and he was 20...you may have an opening.

[quarks]

3 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

And there's no way the ruling intended to declare invalid every single thing that Homeland Security was involved in while he was there. No way. But that would be the upshot and the necessary consequence if anybody accepted this defense lawyer's argument.

I think that's exactly why the prosecution spent so much time/effort refuting that motion - more so than on any of the motions except for the "toss the Bit Torrent evidence out!" one. Not so much because they were worried about the impact of this particular motion on Josh's case, but to discourage other defense attorneys from trying to play this same gambit.

[lascuba]

17 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I'd like to hear what lawyers have to say about the upshot of the particular issues the defense raised. To me, some of them --- one, especially -- seems to be so baseless, so in bad faith, so much something that any lawyer would know was pure meaningless garbage, that I wonder what the rationale would ever be for asserting something like that....--- i.e., the one about the Homeland Security official appointed in a way that doesn't meet regulations. ....

Is there really any precedent or any good-faith way to argue that that would be grounds for dismissing the case? I mean, this case is a multi-agency, multi-department thing, it's part of big, long set of investigations on all the same matters, there's no evidence that the DC bad-appointment guy had any knowledge of or role in the case or anything. The case involved DOJ and grand jury and that guy's role at Homeland Security was all about immigration and such.....

What goes through a defense lawyer's mind to say -- I'm going to essentially argue that every single thing related to this federal department should be deemed out of order and thrown out because of that guy's appointment?       And I'm going to do that on behalf of making sure that justice is done for my client!!! Really? really? How in the world does that even relate at all to justice in his client's case -- a case that had absolutely no specific connection to that guy and what he did on his job at all?   Seems to me the most likely thing that would result from that argument is that you'd risk pissing off the judge because it's so grandiose and beside the point and ridiculous....Nothing but a stupid ploy to fling spaghetti both on the wall and in the gears.....

But obviously I must be missing something.....

 

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one. It's a waste of everyone's time, but do it enough and it can mess with the prosecutors' head.

The reason we don't see that that often is because most people can't afford that type of defense. But if you have the money? Sure, add on more billable hours.

[Cinnabon]

22 minutes ago, lascuba said:

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one. It's a waste of everyone's time, but do it enough and it can mess with the prosecutors' head.

The reason we don't see that that often is because most people can't afford that type of defense. But if you have the money? Sure, add on more billable hours.

Right. How many pricey lawyers did OK have again? 5 or 6? Our justice system is so skewed. 

[hathorlive]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one. It's a waste of everyone's time, but do it enough and it can mess with the prosecutors' head.

The reason we don't see that that often is because most people can't afford that type of defense. But if you have the money? Sure, add on more billable hours.

The OJ case was essentially over when they moved the trial to less educated part of town.  Today, he would have had a fork stuck in him and been pronounced done.  Too much knowledge of DNA and forensics.  Back then, it was a harder sell.  Heck, I had a trial 8 years ago where the jury wanted to know why the suspect's fingerprints weren't on the antifreeze lid.  You can tell them that some substances do NOT hold fingerprints, but the jury doesn't always process that.

10 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Right. How many pricey lawyers did OK have again? 5 or 6? Our justice system is so skewed. 

I've always said our justice system doesn't see black or white but it sees GREEN really well.

[JoanArc]

19 hours ago, hathorlive said:

The OJ case was essentially over when they moved the trial to less educated part of town.  Today, he would have had a fork stuck in him and been pronounced done.  Too much knowledge of DNA and forensics.  Back then, it was a harder sell.  Heck, I had a trial 8 years ago where the jury wanted to know why the suspect's fingerprints weren't on the antifreeze lid.  You can tell them that some substances do NOT hold fingerprints, but the jury doesn't always process that.

CSI effect. Might work against Josh's favor. The jury would be more inclined to trust (rightly, but still...) the computer evidence.

[Fallacy]

Emily Baker, attorney and YouTuber that many of us have watched explain Josh’s situation before, explains the government’s response to each of his defense motions. She’s very clear and direct. The part about Josh starts at the 49 minute mark: 

She quickly dispels the idea that the prosecution may charge Josh with additional counts related to his current charges based on the pictures of his hands, a possibility some had raised in the forums. Most importantly, she believes the court will deny all of the defense’s motions, and as she detailed all of the evidence the prosecution has against Josh, she seemed very confident that he would be convicted if this case went before a jury. She also speculated that Josh may finally take a plea once the judge ruled against him on all the motions. 

[Quilt Fairy]

I want to endorse the Emily D Baker video 100%.  She explains everything in a very clear way and she digs through all 5 of the motions and shows you the important parts. 

[CalicoKitty]

Has Nancy Grace weighed in?  She sort of cracks me up.  In her opinion, there is no correct opinion except hers.

[emmawoodhouse]

4 hours ago, Fallacy said:

Emily Baker, attorney and YouTuber that many of us have watched explain Josh’s situation before, explains the government’s response to each of his defense motions. She’s very clear and direct. The part about Josh starts at the 49 minute mark: 

She quickly dispels the idea that the prosecution may charge Josh with additional counts related to his current charges based on the pictures of his hands, a possibility some had raised in the forums. Most importantly, she believes the court will deny all of the defense’s motions, and as she detailed all of the evidence the prosecution has against Josh, she seemed very confident that he would be convicted if this case went before a jury. She also speculated that Josh may finally take a plea once the judge ruled against him on all the motions. 

He has until 10/18 to plea out. The documents have to be on the judge's desk by the 20th. But in between, early October I believe, the judge has called in both sides for a hearing on these motions. 

Edited September 16, 2021 by emmawoodhouse
Got a little comma happy. Just like Jill!

[quarks]

4 hours ago, Fallacy said:

She quickly dispels the idea that the prosecution may charge Josh with additional counts related to his current charges based on the pictures of his hands, a possibility some had raised in the forums. 

I feel that's a bit of a misreading about what I said?

I wasn't so much speculating about the possibility of prosecution of bringing more charges, as noting that in at least three of those responses, the prosecution was noting that they could. That is, that the prosecution was none-too-subtly trying to threaten the defense - and scare Josh - with the "you do realize we now have your business records, right?" and "you do realize we found a lot of other images, right?" 

And I'm fairly sure that the extremely lengthy response about the acting HSA secretary had very little to do with this particular case and everything to do with trying to deter other defense attorneys from trying that same tactic.

[GeeGolly]

What kind of statements, if any, do you all think family members will put out when/if Josh is sentenced? I feel they could try and spin it either way. If he pleads they could spin it like an Alford plea to the public. If he's found guilty, they of course can say he's wrongly convicted.

I do feel bad for his siblings, as it can't feel good to have such scum for a brother. I feel bad for Anna too. She did nothing to deserve a situation like this. And I even feel bad for JB & M too. Blame them or not, they never intended to raise a monster of a human.

I bet even Josh is getting a little squirmy by now. His fate will likely be determined sometime in the next 30 - 75 days. He will be seen as the lowest of low in prison. No opportunities for him to be King God Botherer in prison. He'll likely be spending 23 hours a day with just his Bible, his disgusting brain and lonely penis.

[Snow Fairy]

Well, Anna could leave, didn't her brother offered her help?

She stayed with him, she pops out babies. And now still, I feel he is more important to her than her children. That is sad

[Gweilo]

On 9/14/2021 at 2:27 AM, lascuba said:

I've been listening to a podcast discussing the OJ Simpson trial, and one of the things the hosts say about the defense strategy is that they contested absolutely everything, even things that were totally standard (like the amount of hair the prosecution was allowed for testing). The goal for a lot of that nitpicking wasn't to have the case dismissed or to convince the jury, but to bog down the prosecution and throw them off their stride. So one issue that would normally be concluded in an hour ends up taking the entire day because the defense won't let it go, and a hearing that was supposed to cover multiple issues barely even dealt with one.

You're totally listening to You're Wrong About!

[Fallacy]

3 hours ago, quarks said:

I feel that's a bit of a misreading about what I said?

I wasn't so much speculating about the possibility of prosecution of bringing more charges, as noting that in at least three of those responses, the prosecution was noting that they could. That is, that the prosecution was none-too-subtly trying to threaten the defense - and scare Josh - with the "you do realize we now have your business records, right?" and "you do realize we found a lot of other images, right?" 

I also did some speculating that those pictures might be some kind of tool the prosecution could be used to threaten Josh with more charges. Emily says no. Those pictures can only be used to establish that it was Josh who did the crime he’s being charged with. She said it would be unconstitutional for them to go back and file different charges based on the information they had at the time at the time of his arrest.

[GeeGolly]

35 minutes ago, Snow Fairy said:

Well, Anna could leave, didn't her brother offered her help?

She stayed with him, she pops out babies. And now still, I feel he is more important to her than her children. That is sad

The offer of help was five years ago. I don't know if anyone offered support this time around.

I totally understand why Anna stayed with Josh after the Ashley Madison scandal. A lot of spouses in the real world stay and try and work things out. Her staying with him this time around is a lot harder for me to understand. Even after accounting for the human tendency to believe excuses as plausible, its hard to make sense of Anna staying with Josh with the trail of indiscretions he has left in his wake.

I think at her core, Anna is a good mom (yet, still a Fundy mom). But again, this time around its hard to understand what's going on in her head. I think only a mom who believes her husband to be innocent would let her children around someone like Josh. Which brings is back to Anna ignoring and/or rationalizing current and past events.

[lascuba]

2 hours ago, Gweilo said:

You're totally listening to You're Wrong About!

YES! I love that podcast!

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

The offer of help was five years ago. I don't know if anyone offered support this time around.

I totally understand why Anna stayed with Josh after the Ashley Madison scandal. A lot of spouses in the real world stay and try and work things out. Her staying with him this time around is a lot harder for me to understand. Even after accounting for the human tendency to believe excuses as plausible, its hard to make sense of Anna staying with Josh with the trail of indiscretions he has left in his wake.

I think at her core, Anna is a good mom (yet, still a Fundy mom). But again, this time around its hard to understand what's going on in her head. I think only a mom who believes her husband to be innocent would let her children around someone like Josh. Which brings is back to Anna ignoring and/or rationalizing current and past events.

Sunk cost fallacy. She's invested too much time, effort, and emotional bandwidth to leave now. She married him knowing that he molested his sisters (and say what you will about how  much she, in her naivete,  understood, I do believe that the Duggars were honest with the Kellers about that); she defended him when InTouch broke that story; she stayed with him after Ashley Madison because Jesus was going to fix him; she posted countless times on social media about how wonderful he's been since and held herself up as a model of the forgiving wife. She can't admit to herself--let alone the world--that she's been wrong the whole time and in being wrong, has enabled him to escalate his behavior. She's done everything "right" according to her worldview--no way will she back down now and prove the heathens right.

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

I think at her core, Anna is a good mom (yet, still a Fundy mom).

She has apparently farmed out her kids to relatives so she can be with Josh all the time.   I do not think itis to help out Ms. Rieber.   I think its because she believes her place is by her husband's side.   The kids don't need care, he does in her worldview.   The whole "make oneself joyfully available" at all times thing.   Since he's not in the same house she has to be where he is.

If she were really a good mom, but just unwilling to divorce Josh, him living with the Riebers would be the perfect excuse to avoid him.   " Oh I have to care for all these kids, I just can't be running over there all the time to make sure a GROWN ASS MAN has everything he needs."    You know the separate lives but married thing.   But she CHOSE to dump her kids off and go wait on the ass hand and foot.   Her choice to literally stand by him instead of care for her kids shows that she has bought the fundy thinking hook line and sinker, she is never leaving him.   

[GeeGolly]

9 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

She has apparently farmed out her kids to relatives so she can be with Josh all the time.   I do not think itis to help out Ms. Rieber.   I think its because she believes her place is by her husband's side.   The kids don't need care, he does in her worldview.   The whole "make oneself joyfully available" at all times thing.   Since he's not in the same house she has to be where he is.

If she were really a good mom, but just unwilling to divorce Josh, him living with the Riebers would be the perfect excuse to avoid him.   " Oh I have to care for all these kids, I just can't be running over there all the time to make sure a GROWN ASS MAN has everything he needs."    You know the separate lives but married thing.   But she CHOSE to dump her kids off and go wait on the ass hand and foot.   Her choice to literally stand by him instead of care for her kids shows that she has bought the fundy thinking hook line and sinker, she is never leaving him.   

I might agree if I knew that she's been farming out her kids. I know the boys visited their TX cousins for a short time and the kids attended a baseball game with other family, that Anna may or may not have been at.

Is there other info or posts that I'm missing?

24 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Sunk cost fallacy. She's invested too much time, effort, and emotional bandwidth to leave now. She married him knowing that he molested his sisters (and say what you will about how  much she, in her naivete,  understood, I do believe that the Duggars were honest with the Kellers about that); she defended him when InTouch broke that story; she stayed with him after Ashley Madison because Jesus was going to fix him; she posted countless times on social media about how wonderful he's been since and held herself up as a model of the forgiving wife. She can't admit to herself--let alone the world--that she's been wrong the whole time and in being wrong, has enabled him to escalate his behavior. She's done everything "right" according to her worldview--no way will she back down now and prove the heathens right.

How has Anna enabled Josh to escalate his behavior? 

[Snow Fairy]

Can Anna even grasp the seriousness of the charges? Does she even know in full what CP is, how it's made, the kids that are hurt? How much of the real life does she even know, was she sheltered or?

[lascuba]

3 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

How has Anna enabled Josh to escalate his behavior? 

The same way JB and Michelle have, by thinking their methods work despite all evidence to the contrary, ignoring red flags (because there's no way there weren't a lot of them), and forgiving him over and over again. I'm not saying they're completely responsible for his behavior, but I do think their constant, unconditional support gave him some cover. Forgiveness=Permission in a lot of cases.

I know the popular theme around here are that people who grew up fundie are "brainwashed" and don't know any better, but this generation is pretty plugged in to the rest of the world. And they've proven time and again that they don't think the rules apply to them. Josh knew damn well that if his work-arounds failed and Anna found out, the worst that would happen would be another stint in Jesus jail.

[GeeGolly]

19 minutes ago, lascuba said:

The same way JB and Michelle have, by thinking their methods work despite all evidence to the contrary, ignoring red flags (because there's no way there weren't a lot of them), and forgiving him over and over again. I'm not saying they're completely responsible for his behavior, but I do think their constant, unconditional support gave him some cover. Forgiveness=Permission in a lot of cases.

I know the popular theme around here are that people who grew up fundie are "brainwashed" and don't know any better, but this generation is pretty plugged in to the rest of the world. And they've proven time and again that they don't think the rules apply to them. Josh knew damn well that if his work-arounds failed and Anna found out, the worst that would happen would be another stint in Jesus jail.

I certainly don't think there's anything Anna could have done or could not have done to 'keep Josh out of trouble'. Nor is she obligated to.

Its possible if she divorced Josh, he would have been in trouble much sooner. Josh attending Jesus Camp and having Anna's support post Ashley Madison likely delayed the inevitable.

[CandyCaneTree]

2 hours ago, Snow Fairy said:

Can Anna even grasp the seriousness of the charges? Does she even know in full what CP is, how it's made, the kids that are hurt? How much of the real life does she even know, was she sheltered or?

No in their mind no kids were hurt because it is only pictures of kids not real kids.

[lascuba]

1 hour ago, CandyCaneTree said:

No in their mind no kids were hurt because it is only pictures of kids not real kids.

Considering how obsessed they are with the very existence of any type of porn, it's highly unlikely that Anna doesn't know exactly what cp entails. She might be burying her head in the sand with regards to the specifics of Josh's case, but she knows children are harmed in the creation of such materials. She's either refusing to believe that Josh downloaded those materials, or sees them as no worse than any other type of porn and doesn't care about the children that were hurt.

[Rootbeer]

9 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

 

I do feel bad for his siblings, as it can't feel good to have such scum for a brother. I feel bad for Anna too. She did nothing to deserve a situation like this. And I even feel bad for JB & M too. Blame them or not, they never intended to raise a monster of a human.

 

Anna initially probably didn't know what she was getting into with Josh but there is now a whole lot of water under that bridge.  She has chosen to stay, chosen to have more and more children with this man who she must realize by now is a deeply flawed human being who is not good for her or her children.  I don't feel bad for her at all.  She has had ample opportunity to change course and she hasn't. 

[Zella]

I have some sympathy for the Anna who married Josh (depending on how much she was told about what he did--I'm not sure she was actually told the full extent of what he did as a teen), and I even have some sympathy for the Anna who got blindsided by the Ashley Madison scandal and still decided to stay. I understand why, even if I disagree with the reasoning myself and think it was a bad decision.

But I don't have any sympathy for the Anna who has continued to double down and post about what a wonderful husband he is--her social media posts fawning over him before the arrest were just pathetic--and who is willing to stand with him through this. My guess is she trying to convince herself as much as anyone that Josh was a good husband when she would post about him, but it made her look like an asshole. I suspect Anna has the same skewed priorities as her in-laws and was as mad about being ousted from the show as anything else. 

[BigBingerBro]

I'm refraining from making any judgements about Anna, only because we really have not heard from her regarding this last scandal.  Who really knows how she feels?   There are reports of her supposedly spending all of her time at the Rebers so that she can be available for Sex Pest and her kids have been spotted in various locations away from the home.  But this is mostly speculation and from what I have seen, not very credible sources.  For all we know she may be working to "get away" but just keeping things all under wraps.  By no means should she address this if she doesn't want to but eventually she probably will.   I will reserve my judgements until that happens.

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, BigBingerBro said:

I'm refraining from making any judgements about Anna, only because we really have not heard from her regarding this last scandal.  Who really knows how she feels?   There are reports of her supposedly spending all of her time at the Rebers so that she can be available for Sex Pest and her kids have been spotted in various locations away from the home.  But this is mostly speculation and from what I have seen, not very credible sources.  For all we know she may be working to "get away" but just keeping things all under wraps.  By no means should she address this if she doesn't want to but eventually she probably will.   I will reserve my judgements until that happens.

I think that's a fair take. We really don't know what she is doing, and if she ends up actually divorcing him, I will be impressed. But I think with her history of standing by her man, she's way more likely to continue that rather than change the approach she's used for years.  

[GeeGolly]

31 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Anna initially probably didn't know what she was getting into with Josh but there is now a whole lot of water under that bridge.  She has chosen to stay, chosen to have more and more children with this man who she must realize by now is a deeply flawed human being who is not good for her or her children.  I don't feel bad for her at all.  She has had ample opportunity to change course and she hasn't. 

I think most on here agree with you.

I think its a big leap for a wife to think I better leave my husband over cheating because he'll likely end up looking at CPA in a few years. So Anna certainly isn't the first, or the last, woman to have children after the husband cheats. As far as this latest scandal, she was already pregnant. 

[Hpmec]

I think we have to look realistically at Anna's situation. She has 6 or 7 kids if the latest M has arrived. She has no education and her job prospects are super limited. There's no way she could ever earn enough to support her children, and in her world no one would expect her to.  Her own parents are piss poor. No one in her family seems prepared to take in her brood. That leaves the in-laws. They will continue to put a roof over her head and feed her kids no matter what happens to her disgusting vile husband. What other option does she have? Sure, she's a doormat, but she was raised to be a doormat. She doesn't know anything else. She'll stay in the family because it's all she's got. 

[GeeGolly]

I just saw a headline with a paywall, so I couldn't read the article. It stated a guy who made millions providing CPA online was sentenced to 27 years.  I was hoping Josh would at least get ten, now I'm hoping at least five.