Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[quarks]

6 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

And yes, after hearing the Feds' responses to Smuggar's motions, he's up a creek without a paddle.

I'm not an attorney, but now that I've read them, I tend to agree. I think one of the defense motions might still have a shot, but the prosecutors, in my view, at least, did a thorough job of countering the others. Especially the Homeland Security one, which seemed expressly designed to to prevent future defense attorneys from trying to use a similar argument. 

Unfortunately, the one that might still have a shot is the BitTorrent one. That one is long, repetitive, and on a purely technical level, somewhat confusing to anyone without extensive computer knowledge - which might well include the judge.

I say unfortunately, because that one seems to be at the heart of the search warrant issue, and I'm not sure what happens if the defense wins on this motion.  

[emmawoodhouse]

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the inner workings of Bit Torrents, etc. You're the second person who said the response was very technical. Hopefully, the judge gets it.

[hathorlive]

4 minutes ago, quarks said:

I'm not an attorney, but now that I've read them, I tend to agree. I think one of the defense motions might still have a shot, but the prosecutors, in my view, at least, did a thorough job of countering the others. Especially the Homeland Security one, which seemed expressly designed to to prevent future defense attorneys from trying to use a similar argument. 

Unfortunately, the one that might still have a shot is the BitTorrent one. That one is long, repetitive, and on a purely technical level, somewhat confusing to anyone without extensive computer knowledge - which might well include the judge.

I say unfortunately, because that one seems to be at the heart of the search warrant issue, and I'm not sure what happens if the defense wins on this motion.  

But here's the deal about BitTorrent.  These cases have been in court for years.  Judges understand the basics.  This is tried and tested technology that people have been convicted with for over a decade (at least.  I think the first cases using file sharing were around 2007).  

So it's nothing new and we've all had classes and seminars on how the technology works.  Including lawyers, prosecutors, and judges.  I think Josh is in deep sheep.  I was shocked to hear they offered a plea deal.  But I'm glad that the Defense submitted these objections so we get all the details in print for perpetuity.  If Josh takes a last minute deal, we will still know what the perv did.  And no, I don't he'll take a deal.

[quarks]

33 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

But here's the deal about BitTorrent.  These cases have been in court for years.  Judges understand the basics.  This is tried and tested technology that people have been convicted with for over a decade (at least.  I think the first cases using file sharing were around 2007).  

So it's nothing new and we've all had classes and seminars on how the technology works.  Including lawyers, prosecutors, and judges.  I think Josh is in deep sheep.  I was shocked to hear they offered a plea deal.  But I'm glad that the Defense submitted these objections so we get all the details in print for perpetuity.  If Josh takes a last minute deal, we will still know what the perv did.  And no, I don't he'll take a deal.

Yes, but the confusion in that response wasn't just over the basics of BitTorrent or the technical stuff, but everything else - including the issue that the investigators ended up needing a second search warrant because the first warrant was for the wrong address. Seemingly minor and the sort of thing defense attorneys will make A Thing Of at trial.

With that said, I remain convinced that the best option for Josh would be to take a plea deal. 

[Zella]

I'm almost afraid to read any of the documents because I just can't handle anymore details on what he was looking at, but what is this about him accidentally taking pictures of himself while he was downloading? Like, he was using his phone that was connected to his computer to do this or he was doing this with the computer?

[quarks]

Just now, Zella said:

I'm almost afraid to read any of the documents because I just can't handle anymore details on what he was looking at, but what is this about him accidentally taking pictures of himself while he was downloading? Like, he was using his phone that was connected to his computer to do this or he was doing this with the computer?

This comes up in the response to the defense's motion to dismiss the pictures of Josh's hands and feet.

The main response here was just to note that Josh consented to the photos, and since he was not wearing gloves or mittens, and hands in general are visible to the public, no warrant was needed. 

As part of this response, though, the government noted:

"The photographs document a scar on the defendant's hand, which is plainly visible. Law enforcement observed the same scar in images recovered from the defendant's electronic devices seized pursuant to a search warrant in this case."

The government's response doesn't say what these images were, just that the cop pictures match the pictures on the device. 

[Zella]

58 minutes ago, quarks said:

This comes up in the response to the defense's motion to dismiss the pictures of Josh's hands and feet.

The main response here was just to note that Josh consented to the photos, and since he was not wearing gloves or mittens, and hands in general are visible to the public, no warrant was needed. 

As part of this response, though, the government noted:

"The photographs document a scar on the defendant's hand, which is plainly visible. Law enforcement observed the same scar in images recovered from the defendant's electronic devices seized pursuant to a search warrant in this case."

The government's response doesn't say what these images were, just that the cop pictures match the pictures on the device. 

That makes sense! Thank you! 

[Snow Fairy]

I don't know America's legal system, but is there any chance he walks free?

I am afraid of that

[GeeGolly]

18 minutes ago, Snow Fairy said:

I don't know America's legal system, but is there any chance he walks free?

I am afraid of that

Well we have OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. They both got away with murder. So I would say you really never know until the jury reads their verdict.

 

[Churchhoney]

8 hours ago, hathorlive said:

I think it  has to do with the pictures he accidentally took of hands at his desk while he was downloading CP.  We always joke that it's hard to put the suspect behind the computer, but this time, he's literally behind the computer.  Josh is so screwed.

Screwed and apparently already having turned down a plea deal......Arrogant idiot. 

He knows he did it. And given the number of similar cases that have churned through the same office in the past few years, with person after person going to prison, it seems to me it shoulda been obvious to somebody that the government was unlikely to make any rookie mistakes in this particular case. (not utterly incapable of it, of course, but still very unlikely) The whole process is very likely a well-oiled machine by now. All you have to do is read this court's press release file and that becomes quite obvious. . 

And I know, I know... Innocent until proven guilty, so always fight the law! Because you might be the lucky lottery winner who gets off on a statistically rare technicality even though your're Guilty Guilty Guilty, as Mark Slackmeyer would say.

But doesn't it ever occur to anybody that sometimes the odds are so clearly against you that by fighting you're not just being a lying unrepentant ass but also a fool because statistics really really are against you? 

Given that he's JB and M's best boy and the Smuggarest of Smuggars, I wonder whether he'd ever tell his attorney he's guilty, or not. And whether he's got the kind of lawyers who do want to know the actual facts or the kind of lawyers who don't. 

 

 

 

[Churchhoney]

9 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about the inner workings of Bit Torrents, etc. You're the second person who said the response was very technical. Hopefully, the judge gets it.

When you look at the history of cases very very very similar to this in this same court over the past several years, ....there are tons of them -- and guy after guy after guy going to prison on the exact same charges that Josh has.

They obviously used the same methods to investigate and prosecute all those cases, so the judges in that court have to have seen this technical stuff over and over and over again. I don't think there's any way that the judges are still naive about BitTorrent and the means of investigating it. 

Probably many of the people who've gone to prison already on these charges downloaded most of the exact same material from the exact same places that Josh did. (well, to the extent that the various sources remain in existence for more than a couple months, of course....) 

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? 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, GeeGolly said:

Well we have OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. They both got away with murder. So I would say you really never know until the jury reads their verdict.

 

We won't. However, murder cases are all very different from one another. And they mostly involve human activity wandering out around the world and they involve human witnesses attesting to this and and the other thing. 

Josh's case is different from those in that it's about humans interacting with a machine -- the same kind of machine over and over. And it's not a unique case in any way -- as murder cases virtually always are in some way -- because it's part of a long-term prosecutorial initiative by all these same players on the government's side that's resulted in prison sentence after prison sentence after prison sentence over the past several years -- on literally identical charges to the ones in Josh's case. 

In a murder case, even with very experienced investigators, there are almost always going to be ways in which even top professionals just don't quite know how to investigate this particular case successfully. There are so very many moving pieces. so very many unknowns, so many many people potentially involved in a situation that investigators don't even know exist.  And this is just not that kind of a case. 

In Josh's case there won't be any various relatives and eyewitnesses giving more or less credible testimony about stuff. There won't be any pieces of evidence that are just weird -- like a glove that you, a professional actor, can pretend in court doesn't fit your hand. There won't be questions of what people could or couldn't see when they claim to have witnessed something on a dark street corner. Etc. Etc. 

So while, yeah, you never know for sure, there are different kinds of criminal cases. And this is a specific kind of a case -- with a much more mechanical and predictable investigatory and prosecutorial process than any murder trial could ever possibly have. 

So I think we have to say that while you could get an OJ or Casey surprise verdict here, the odds of it are way way lower here, just because of the nature of the case. 

ETA: I'm not a lawyer. But because I live in DC, with a one-day-one-trial system and a very active federal court --  I've been on numerous juries, both in the DC court and federal court. And what's clear when you've participated in a bunch of different kinds of trials is that the sources of the reasonable doubt are quite different in kind and number in different kinds of cases, or so it seems to me, anyway. And in a murder trial or something like that, the sources of doubt are legion and they can vary a whole lot from case to case. 

But Josh's case is a total cookie cutter -- so much like a whole bunch of other cases that have gone through those same courts. And a case in which the sources of doubt are many fewer -- and not nearly as squishy. that's how it looks to me anyway. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Fallacy]

11 hours ago, quarks said:

Prosecutors responded to the defense motions today.

Quick warning that their response to the Bit Torrent/Frank Hearing motion contains very graphic and disturbing textual descriptions of child sexual abuse, so if you are planning on reading them - and I did - I would advise using more caution than I did.

Where can I read their response? I’ll watch Emily Baker break it down later, but I’d like to read some of it too since I read the defense’s motions. 
 

ETA: Nevermind. I found the responses for each defense motion. I think and hope Josh is going to jail. None of the other three Josh is trying to pin this on were on the car lot in May 2019. Josh was the only one there. He should take the plea deal. I especially enjoy the part when investigators ask Josh, “Have you ever seen x,” x being a very specific image of CP, and Josh, the absolute moron, says “I’d prefer not to answer.” I mean, what an idiot. If someone asked me if I had ever seen a very specific graphic image of CP, I would automatically say “God, no! Who would look at that!” In other words, Josh saying “I’d prefer not to answer” tells me he knew exactly what they were talking about and that yes, he absolutely had seen this image.

Edited September 11, 2021 by Fallacy

[merylinkid]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

But Josh's case is a total cookie cutter

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?   

[quarks]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

Well we have OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. They both got away with murder. So I would say you really never know until the jury reads their verdict.

 

I agree that you never really know until a jury reads the verdict, but as Churchhoney noted, I don't think either case is particularly comparable.

OJ's case took place against a background of decades of major police misconduct, hostility and racism in LA. It was not all that difficult for his attorneys to point out many places where the evidence against him had been mishandled, and that one of the lead cops investigating the case had a history of making racist statements. 

With Casey Anthony, the state was unable to state positively how the child died, and the defense was able to note that Anthony's father could have been responsible. Just enough for some reasonable doubt. 

With Josh, the government has very clear, straightforward evidence. The material in question is CSA (no one is disputing this), and the laptop in question was downloading/sharing it (there's some question about this, but not much). The other potential suspects - Witnesses 1, 2 and 3 - were not at the car lot or anywhere near it during the time period in question, and although Witness 2 did have access to the laptop, Witness 2 was also in jail during the time period in question and could not possibly have accessed the CSA.  Josh was at the car lot; it's his laptop. 

That's why these motions aren't really disputing any of the evidence. Instead, they are focusing on procedural concerns - did any of these investigations violate Josh's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights; were Josh's Miranda rights fully exercised; were the heads of HSA at the time the legally appointed heads of HSA (and is this even relevant); was the initial investigation a violation of Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights and/or the Fifth Amendment's taking clause?

This last, by the way, is the confusing part of the Bit Torrent response - not so much how Bit Torrent works, but whether or not the initial investigation was legal. Again, I'm not at all convinced that the prosecution made their case there, and I would not be surprised to see the judge hold a hearing on this one.  

I will also add that the government's responses strongly suggest that they could have charged Josh with other crimes, but chose not to - presumably because the evidence for those crimes wasn't nearly as clear cut. They appear to be focusing on what they are pretty sure can get them a conviction in court. 

55 minutes ago, Fallacy said:

Where can I read their response? I’ll watch Emily Baker break it down later, but I’d like to read some of it too since I read the defense’s motions. 

The documents are here:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u9sjr8pcr9dek29/AAD7kChMUUxfCx9SFgWW2Znua?dl=0

The one discussing the Bit Torrent downloads contains graphic details.

[Churchhoney]

51 minutes 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?   

Yes yes yes, to everything you said. 

I said "technicality" because that's the word that's stuck in all our brains, but I completely agree with you......My point regarding Josh and this case has always been that because it's one of a whole bunch of virtually identical cases that have been churning through these same offices for years now with one conviction-or-guilty-plea after another, it's much more unlikely in this case than in many other legal cases that the government would have screwed up or fallen down on the job. They just have way too much successful practice on cases of exactly the same kind. 

The word "technicality" just popped out of my keyboard because I was trying to respond to the frequent worry some people seem to be feeling about what I guess sometimes seems like a strong chance the guilty will walk free........But it's not a strong chance. Because of the particular nature of this case. When a case is all about humans and has a million variables, there are so many many places where the government can make errors or misjudge things or be plain wrong about things or even wittingly or unwittingly hostile to the accused........But this isn't a case that has nearly as many opportunities for the prosecution to go wrong as other cases, such as complicated murder investigations, do.  

The sentences I've seen for the same charges range from 5 to 10/11 years (I forget which). .... Given the different variables, like whether it's a plea or a conviction and whether the person has prior convictions or not (Josh doesn't -- no prior convictions of any kind), that would seem to suggest his sentence would most likely be somewhere in the middle of that range if he's convicted at trial, right? Or no? 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Churchhoney

[LilJen]

MyBad Oopsies Duggar

[GeeGolly]

I guess my point comparing murder cases to Josh's case was lost. My point was, you really never know, until you know.

Josh's case appears to be an open and shut case, by the input of our experts here. But you never know how 12 jurors will interpret testimony and the law.

[TammyInNH]

13 hours ago, hathorlive said:

They could always name her Miranda.  Is that too soon?

No, this whole Smuggar situation is not funny even one tiny bit ... but I have to say this post .... "Miranda."  OK, I have to admit I smiled just a tiny bit.

[sue450]

16 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Wait, she's got 6 kids under the age of 10, a 7th almost here, a husband who needs to be waited on hand and foot, and she's got time to post on SM?

she farmed out her kids to other relatives for a while now  so yes she is taking care of josh..  better anna than mrs babysitter  having to take care of him

 

[CandyCaneTree]

Help me I had a nightmare. I was put on Smuggars jury and no matter how I answered the 50 page questioner and what I said to the lawyers they kept me on the jury. 

[Rootbeer]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

I agree that you never really know until a jury reads the verdict, but as Churchhoney noted, I don't think either case is particularly comparable.

OJ's case took place against a background of decades of major police misconduct, hostility and racism in LA. It was not all that difficult for his attorneys to point out many places where the evidence against him had been mishandled, and that one of the lead cops investigating the case had a history of making racist statements. 

OJ Simpson was also a very famous star athlete, sports commentator and actor who was much loved and had a public reputation as a terrific guy, everybody's pal.  He had a warm and personable nature which made people who'd only seen him on TV or in the movies, feel like they knew him and who he was.  The fact that he was held up as an example of a black kid who came up from poverty to be a beloved hero in his community allowed him to go into the trial with a massive amount of goodwill from the jury, I doubt any of them didn't know who he was.  While some of the jurors might have seen Josh on TV or heard that he molested his sisters or cheated on his wife, I doubt anyone has the kind of affection for him that will help in his case as OJ did.

Also, OJ Simpson's case was decades ago.  DNA evidence was new and hard to explain to juries who didn't have the benefit of Dateline, Forensic Files and true crime podcasts.  Aside from the multiple questionable actions involving the collection and processing of the evidence in OJ's case, I expect a lot of his jurors just didn't have the understanding and trust of technical forensic evidence that Josh' jury will have.

In Casey Anthony's case, she certainly wasn't well liked and nobody thought she had been a good mother; but the fact it took months to find the child's body which had been exposed to Florida heat and torrential rains which destroyed so much of the usual forensic evidence made it a tough case to prosecute.  The little girl hadn't been seen for a month before she was even reported missing from a home where at least 3 others lived.  The passage of time between her disappearance and the search for her and discovery of her body meant the forensic evidence was going to be minimal and the case was mostly circumstantial.  And, Casey had no problem whatsoever tossing her father under the bus.  

There seems to be a lot of very well documented evidence against Josh and, try as he might, there's no one else standing in the bus' path.  Very unlikely that he is found innocent based on what we know so far.  The conviction rate for these federal cases is well over 90% for that reason.

[Fallacy]

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. 

Another sign of Josh’s total idiocy is that he uses the same passwords over and over that include either his name or his birth year. There’s just no way this wasn’t Josh downloading and viewing this material.

[Quilt Fairy]

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? 

[Rootbeer]

18 minutes 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. 

Another sign of Josh’s total idiocy is that he uses the same passwords over and over that include either his name or his birth year. There’s just no way this wasn’t Josh downloading and viewing this material.

Not an expert, but, maybe they only charged him for the files that they could build the best case around.  Seems like they charged him for downloads done on the same day when he was proven to be sitting in his office using his cellphone.  If, as speculated, Stupid Josh managed to accidentally take a recognizable photo of his hands on his phone with the computer where the files were being downloaded visible in the background, it seems like a  pretty airtight case.  

If the other files are also child sexual abuse videos, the prosecution may be reserving them to charge him with more crimes if the first charges don't result in a conviction.  Or, maybe they are threatening more charges using those files as leverage for a plea deal.

I just don't believe that that single day in May was the first, last and only time Josh downloaded CSA files.  That seems far less likely than that Josh will somehow win his case.

[Quilt Fairy]

I didn't get the impression that Josh was actually offered a plea deal.  The way I read it, the defense threw it out as a hypothetical: if he took a plea, how much time would he be looking at?  

Back when he was arrested, someone here posted a link to a lawyer who explained the sentencing guidelines with a spreadsheet and it was really informative.  This was specific to Josh's case.  Anyone else remember that and have the link? 

ETA:  I stand corrected.  I just read one of the exhibits and it specifically mentions that the prosecution made a plea offer. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Quilt Fairy

[emmawoodhouse]

5 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I didn't get the impression that Josh was actually offered a plea deal.  The way I read it, the defense threw it out as a hypothetical: if he took a plea, how much time would he be looking at?  

Back when he was arrested, someone here posted a link to a lawyer who explained the sentencing guidelines with a spreadsheet and it was really informative.  This was specific to Josh's case.  Anyone else remember that and have the link? 

I remember the video, but I can't remember the guy's name. I recommend listening to Emily D. Baker, but she only does shows on Tuesdays and Fridays. And she was on vacation yesterday, so she didn't have a show. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

 

Back when he was arrested, someone here posted a link to a lawyer who explained the sentencing guidelines with a spreadsheet and it was really informative.  This was specific to Josh's case.  Anyone else remember that and have the link? 

 

That was me, It was Scott Reisch at Crime Talk. He and, as @emmawoodhouse says, Emily D. Baker tend to be very clear and well informed. 

His explanation of the federal sentencing guidelines as they would apply to this case  is here 

 

[emmawoodhouse]

@Churchhoney, thanks for finding that. I couldn't remember his name for the life of me! 

[Churchhoney]

14 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

@Churchhoney, thanks for finding that. I couldn't remember his name for the life of me! 

It's a miracle that I could....I get about one memory miracle a day. .... Other than that  ..... nothing. 😁

[riverblue22]

4 hours ago, sue450 said:

she farmed out her kids to other relatives for a while now  so yes she is taking care of josh..  better anna than mrs babysitter  having to take care of him

 

I'm slow figuring this out, but I just realized that Anna isn't with Josh because he wanted her. She is there because the lady homeowner didn't want to be there alone with Josh. That's why JB is watching her kids--he needs to keep Josh somewhere and Anna needs to make the situation acceptable to JB's "friends" who offered a place for Josh to stay.

[Ljohnson1987]

I bet they'll name the baby Mercy. 

[Dianaofthehunt]

My most hopeful dream:

Ma and Pa Jesusfucker get to the courthouse on the day. They see the Lead Prosecuting attorney is a woman (as are her many assistants), the bailiff is a woman, and the JUDGE is a woman.  Over half the jury are well-educated women. When the verdict comes down, and after all fruitless appeals are filed, and after Josh spends many, many years in Federal prison getting it done to him, it somehow comes to light that the judge threw the book at him with the maximum sentence PRECISELY BECAUSE of his woman-hating, woman-oppressing pseudo-religion. I want that to sink into the concrete craniums of his breeders.
(But of course that rumor is strictly hearsay, and can’t be proven, bwahahahaha!)
Please, don’t refute my hopeful dream with yabbut this or yabbut that. Just JOIN me in my dream. 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Dianaofthehunt
More fun

[JustRosie]

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. 

[ginger90]

Just now, 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. 

I’d guess the maximum under guidelines, on charges he is found guilty of at trial.

[emmawoodhouse]

1 minute 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. 

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.

[JustRosie]

3 minutes 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.

Understood. Thank you. 

[ginger90]

5 minutes 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.

Ahhhh!

[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?