Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[GeeGolly]

53 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

How is he not charged with the DD video? Didn't he download/possess it? I'm confused.

What is the DD video?

[emmawoodhouse]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

What is the DD video?

It's the one with the abuse of an 18 month old. 

[libgirl2]

14 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

It's the one with the abuse of an 18 month old. 

You don't even know what I would do to people who do evil like that or even get off on it. 

[merylinkid]

On 10/19/2021 at 8:48 PM, SMama said:

IIRC Jessa & Bin had a Mac laptop and a canoe on their registry (perhaps the canoe was another Duggar). Let’s not forget how many sets of freaking towels Jill had in her registry. 

Not gonna lie.   I had super soakers and Cards Against Humanity on my wedding registry (niece got me CAH, friend from law school got me the super soakers).   It was a second marriage for both of us and we had already been living together a year.   We didn't need towels, crockpots or things like that.   So I put fun stuff on the registry.   

 

2 hours ago, Picture It. Sicily said:

Is Anna going to have to relocate to another state with seven kids to be close for visitation days?

I doubt she will move.   But yeah if he is far away its gonna make it hard for regular visits.   Plus its not like they will be PRIVATE visits.   If he's lucky it will be in a communal room.   But more likely it will be him behind a security partition and her talking through a phone.   No conjugal either so baby #8 gonna have to wait.  

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Cards Against Humanity

I wish I'd had this as an option for any wedding registry when my friends get married! I always just end up buying people cookie sheets or cake pans. Maybe a waffle iron if I really like the person in question. 

[sheshark]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

It's the one with the abuse of an 18 month old. 

Why isn’t he charged with that one?

[JoanArc]

Quote

Will Anna announce Myrtle Miracle arrival? Or Martyr Michelle?

Myrtle Fertyle Duggar

[iwantcookies]

6 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

Myrtle Fertyle Duggar

Last baby for Anna or LBFA. Bet Anna is pissed that Josh messed up her plan: have kids until menopause.

[JoanArc]

44 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

Last baby for Anna or LBFA. Bet Anna is pissed that Josh messed up her plan: have kids until menopause.

Cellblock M Duggar

[mythoughtis]

57 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

Last baby for Anna or LBFA. Bet Anna is pissed that Josh messed up her plan: have kids until menopause.

You know, you’ve brought up the one reason that I could see  Anna use as as a justification for a divorce.  This clan is really against anything that prevents a pregnancy.  Josh being unavailable prevents Anna from receiving ‘blessings’. She’d need a new spouse to have more ‘blessings’. 
Maybe a Duggar brother.  Who is the oldest single one?  

[iwantcookies]

3 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

You know, you’ve brought up the one reason that I could see  Anna use as as a justification for a divorce.  This clan is really against anything that prevents a pregnancy.  Josh being unavailable prevents Anna from receiving ‘blessings’. She’d need a new spouse to have more ‘blessings’. 
Maybe a Duggar brother.  Who is the oldest single one?  

Jeremiah is 22

Jason is 21

James is 20

 

 

[Albanyguy]

4 hours ago, Picture It. Sicily said:

Is Anna going to have to relocate to another state with seven kids to be close for visitation days?

While I'm sure that Jim Bob will be willing to support Anna and the kids living on the family compound (it really wouldn't cost him that much and it would keep her firmly under his control), I doubt if he'd shell out for a separate residence for her in Colorado. Anyway, he can always have JD fly her and the kids back and forth for visits.

[GeeGolly]

Its unfortunate (jk) that Anna can't use SM to garner attention as she walks through this trying season of life. 

Maybe she can buy a box and put Josh's guilty verdict in it to remember the last time he was free.

[hathorlive]

4 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

How is he not charged with the DD video? Didn't he download/possess it? I'm confused.

Edited to say I'm re-reading the court documents to see if I've confused anything.  Trust me, it happens.  I'm not a lawyer.

From what I understand from the court docs that have been published, he was charged with the video of the two young girls and adult male and the zip file that contained 65 images of CP.  Those are the two counts he is charged with. 

Rarely are suspects charged with every file of CP recovered off digital evidence.  Many times, the prosecutors pick the ones that support receipt or that show distribution (aka an email that says "here are the files you asked me to send" with the filename as an attachment.  I am 99.99% sure that the prosecutors picked two files whose timestamps coincide with activity on Josh's cell phone, which Geotags him to the car lot.  That's a slam dunk.  

When the expert talked about DD, that was a way to get information out to the court and the public about what the perv was up to.  I am always asked "what did you find?"  I reply "X number of videos and images that contain suspected items of CP.  Of these X number of files, X number are identified image sets from NCMEC".   Then I'm usually asked to describe the content of the files, which allows the prosecutor to tell the jury how sick the suspect is.  But the suspect is still only charged with the files listed in the indictment.  

Can the jury consider DD in their deliberations?  I'm sure we'll see tons of objections from the defense.  The point WOACB misses is that the jury determines guilt or innocence.  The judge gives the sentence.  And the judge knows what to consider, what he can consider and what is extra info.  

Edited October 21, 2021 by hathorlive

[GeeGolly]

Maybe I just watch too much fiction on TV, but I thought unless the defense somehow opens the door, they wouldn't let any other evidence in because it would prejudicial.

[Westiepeach]

No way is Anna flying the kids to visit Josh-u-a. 

[hathorlive]

13 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Maybe I just watch too much fiction on TV, but I thought unless the defense somehow opens the door, they wouldn't let any other evidence in because it would prejudicial.

It will be interesting to see.  I know that I'm asked all the time about "what I found" whether it was a charged item or not.  Maybe I'm being too detailed.  When I've testified in these cases, the prosecutor picks images, I create a report with the timestamps and metadata, and it's put in a book or on a disk to show the jury.  We don't show everything I talk about.  This judge can always squash that kind of talk if he wants.  

I'm rereading all the court docs so I don't mix up my current cases with these.  I'm getting old, folks.

Edited October 21, 2021 by hathorlive

[JoanArc]

Quote

Maybe a Duggar brother.  Who is the oldest single one?

Oh, I could see her seducing one. All the woman’s fault and all, AND she gets another baby out of it. It could be passed off as Josh’s child, as well. Not exactly a wide and varied gene pool around there.

[Zella]

I'm really confused by the discussion of the charges. From what I have read, the one count of possession covers all images he possessed, whether it is 3 or 1,000, because the feds aren't going to charge him individually for each file. And the same for his downloading charge. It covers everything he downloaded regardless of how much. Per the bond hearing testimony, the agents found dozens of files he had downloaded during the time span covered in the warrant. If they are all being downloaded in the same batch and covered by the search warrant, how are they all not equally admissible? That seems like further confirmation the charges are for everything, not each thing. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can explain this?

Edited October 22, 2021 by Zella

[hathorlive]

12 minutes ago, Zella said:

I'm really confused by the discussion of the charges. From what I have read, the one count of possession covers all images he possessed, whether it is 3 or 1,000, because the feds aren't going to charge him individually for each file. And the same for his downloading charge. It covers everything he downloaded regardless of how much. Per the bond hearing testimony, the agents found dozens of files he had downloaded during the time span covered in the warrant. If they are all being downloaded in the same batch and covered by the search warrant, how are they all not equally admissible? That seems like further confirmation the charges are for everything, not each thing. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can explain this?

I concur!  I've read a lot of the court documents and it's just making me more confused.  I've read things that point to two counts including all, and two counts including one video and one zip file.  

[Heathen]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Not gonna lie.   I had super soakers and Cards Against Humanity on my wedding registry (niece got me CAH, friend from law school got me the super soakers).   It was a second marriage for both of us and we had already been living together a year.   We didn't need towels, crockpots or things like that.   So I put fun stuff on the registry.   

 

I doubt she will move.   But yeah if he is far away its gonna make it hard for regular visits.   Plus its not like they will be PRIVATE visits.   If he's lucky it will be in a communal room.   But more likely it will be him behind a security partition and her talking through a phone.   No conjugal either so baby #8 gonna have to wait.  

Ted Bundy managed to get his wife pregnant in a communal visiting room where there were no official conjugal visits. That was in a Florida state prison...but just saying. 

[emmawoodhouse]

5 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Ted Bundy managed to get his wife pregnant in a communal visiting room where there were no official conjugal visits. That was in a Florida state prison...but just saying. 

I think Anna is too much of a prude to do something like that. 😂

[GeeGolly]

6 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Ted Bundy managed to get his wife pregnant in a communal visiting room where there were no official conjugal visits. That was in a Florida state prison...but just saying. 

Was it in the room, or did he somehow pass her some sperm?

[ginger90]

17 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Was it in the room, or did he somehow pass her some sperm?

According to his wife, regarding the “guards”, “They just, they didn't care.  They walked in on us a couple of times."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bodyandsoul.com.au/mind-body/wellbeing/the-ted-bundy-tapes-explains-how-he-conceived-his-daughter-while-on-death-row/news-story/402ccf80b2c8b5b997780ef3f6f62846

Edited October 22, 2021 by ginger90

[Heathen]

2 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

According to his wife, regarding the “guards”, “They just, they didn't care.  They walked in on us a couple of times."

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bodyandsoul.com.au/mind-body/wellbeing/the-ted-bundy-tapes-explains-how-he-conceived-his-daughter-while-on-death-row/news-story/402ccf80b2c8b5b997780ef3f6f62846

Ann Rule's book The Stranger Beside Me implies or says outright that the guards were bribed. The inmates and visitors had a pool, and whoever won the draw got to have sexy time without the guards stopping them. 

If Ofsmuggar still feels required to do whatever Smuggar says, and Smuggar says, "Wear some crotchless bloomers when you visit me," well...M8 could very well happen. She's already wearing skirts; it wouldn't be that hard (that's what she said). 

[GeeGolly]

Just now, Heathen said:

Ann Rule's book The Stranger Beside Me implies or says outright that the guards were bribed. The inmates and visitors had a pool, and whoever won the draw got to have sexy time without the guards stopping them. 

If Ofsmuggar still feels required to do whatever Smuggar says, and Smuggar says, "Wear some crotchless bloomers when you visit me," well...M8 could very well happen. She's already wearing skirts; it wouldn't be that hard (that's what she said). 

I wish I could click two reaction emojis. A thanks for the info and a LMAO.

[Ijustwantsomechips]

33 minutes ago, Heathen said:

Ted Bundy managed to get his wife pregnant in a communal visiting room where there were no official conjugal visits. That was in a Florida state prison...but just saying. 

As a former employee of a correctional facility, I can assure you things like this happen all the time. In broom closets…bribing guards…in the hobby craft shop. It’s ridiculous.

[quarks]

1 hour ago, Zella said:

I'm really confused by the discussion of the charges. From what I have read, the one count of possession covers all images he possessed, whether it is 3 or 1,000, because the feds aren't going to charge him individually for each file. And the same for his downloading charge. It covers everything he downloaded regardless of how much. Per the bond hearing testimony, the agents found dozens of files he had downloaded during the time span covered in the warrant. If they are all being downloaded in the same batch and covered by the search warrant, how are they all not equally admissible? That seems like further confirmation the charges are for everything, not each thing. Maybe one of our resident lawyers can explain this?

Josh wasn't always at the car lot, and according to the government (in their response to the defense's motion about the BitTorrent stuff), at least one other person, Witness 2, used Josh's computer.

So my guess is that the prosecution is focusing very narrowly on the specific files that they can prove were downloaded during a time when they can prove that Josh was both at the car lot and using the computer, and they can prove that Witness 2 was in jail. 

[Zella]

6 minutes ago, quarks said:

Josh wasn't always at the car lot, and according to the government (in their response to the defense's motion about the BitTorrent stuff), at least one other person, Witness 2, used Josh's computer.

So my guess is that the prosecution is focusing very narrowly on the specific files that they can prove were downloaded during a time when they can prove that Josh was both at the car lot and using the computer, and they can prove that Witness 2 was in jail. 

I understand that. My question is if the number of charges is linked to the number of files. Would he have 2 counts of possession if he had over a certain amount or not? Or is the act of possession always going to yield one federal count of possession, regardless of whether he's being officially charged with possessing 3 or 65 or 500 files?  

Edited October 22, 2021 by Zella

[emmawoodhouse]

6 minutes ago, Zella said:

I understand that. My question is if the number of charges is linked to the number of files. Would he have 2 charges of possession if he had over a certain amount or not? Or is the act of possession always going to yield to one federal charge of possession, regardless of whether he's being officially charged with possessing 3 or 65 or 500 files?  

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand it to be all-encompassing. 

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand it to be all-encompassing. 

That's what I am thinking, too, so I'm confused why people keep talking about the counts as if they are dependent on the number of files he had. My understanding is that is irrelevant, and he was going to get one count of possession regardless of how many he actually had. 

Just as an addendum, I found something that talked about sentencing enhancements, with having 600 or more files considered an enhancement. That seems like further confirmation that you get one count regardless of the number you possess, and the actual number possessed is more of a factor in the penalty phase. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by Zella

[hathorlive]

36 minutes ago, Zella said:

That's what I am thinking, too, so I'm confused why people keep talking about the counts as if they are dependent on the number of files he had. My understanding is that is irrelevant, and he was going to get one count of possession regardless of how many he actually had. 

Just as an addendum, I found something that talked about sentencing enhancements, with having 600 or more files considered an enhancement. That seems like further confirmation that you get one count regardless of the number you possess, and the actual number possessed is more of a factor in the penalty phase. 

The total number is supposed to count in the penalty phase.  I just know that in my cases, they have picked a set of images to show the jury and discuss.  From what I had read, they were focusing on the video and the zip file.  I guess we won't know for sure unless they go to trial.  I mean, DD is great for the prosecution, because if you show even a few seconds, the jury will crucify Josh.  On the other hand, if its not one of the files that they can collaborate Josh's location at the lot and phone activity, they might not want to traumatize the jury and/or muddy the waters.  That was always a term my AUSA used.  It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

Edited October 22, 2021 by hathorlive

[quarks]

 

41 minutes ago, Zella said:

I understand that. My question is if the number of charges is linked to the number of files. Would he have 2 counts of possession if he had over a certain amount or not? Or is the act of possession always going to yield one federal count of possession, regardless of whether he's being officially charged with possessing 3 or 65 or 500 files?  

Ah, ok. 

I'm not sure. According to the indictment, Josh is charged under:

18 U.S.C. 2252A (a) (2) 

18 U.S.C. 2252A (b) (1);

18 U.S.C. 2252A (a) (5) (B)

18 U.S.C. 2252A (b) (2)

Which are detailed here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap110-sec2252A.pdf

Everything in this section ("book," "magazine," "videotape,") is in the singular. Which would suggest that the charge is per item, but doesn't explain what would happen if you are talking about a file (single item) that contains many images (separate items).

So now I'm more confused!

[hathorlive]

Just now, quarks said:

 

Ah, ok. 

I'm not sure. According to the indictment, Josh is charged under:

18 U.S.C. 2252A (a) (2) 

18 U.S.C. 2252A (b) (1);

18 U.S.C. 2252A (a) (5) (B)

18 U.S.C. 2252A (b) (2)

Which are detailed here:

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title18/pdf/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap110-sec2252A.pdf

Everything in this section ("book," "magazine," "videotape,") is in the singular. Which would suggest that the charge is per item, but doesn't explain what would happen if you are talking about a file (single item) that contains many images (separate items).

So now I'm more confused!

We always counted 1 video as 650 images.  A zip file would probably be counted as 65 images since that's what allegedly was inside the zip file.  That's why many of us were not seeing the numbers of images on his devices as huge.  If you have a hard drive with 200 videos, that's more of enhancement territory.  In my last case, we started giving out numbers in terms of gigabytes of storage.  1 TB, 200 GB. Because most cases have way more than 650.  Those numbers predate big hard drives and cloud storage.  If those laws were circa 1999, the average size hard drive that year was 10 GB.  Now, the average size hard drive is 2 to 4 TB.

[quarks]

8 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

We always counted 1 video as 650 images.  A zip file would probably be counted as 65 images since that's what allegedly was inside the zip file.  That's why many of us were not seeing the numbers of images on his devices as huge.  If you have a hard drive with 200 videos, that's more of enhancement territory.  In my last case, we started giving out numbers in terms of gigabytes of storage.  1 TB, 200 GB. Because most cases have way more than 650.  Those numbers predate big hard drives and cloud storage.  If those laws were circa 1999, the average size hard drive that year was 10 GB.  Now, the average size hard drive is 2 to 4 TB.

(nods) 

One case where I suspect the specific wording of a law is having problems keeping up with the technology. 

[hathorlive]

5 minutes ago, quarks said:

(nods) 

One case where I suspect the specific wording of a law is having problems keeping up with the technology. 

It's getting worse with digitalized images. I heard Emily lawyer girl say that a fake image of a child was counted as child exploitation.  We never included those because no child was used in the production.  Same with Lolicon.  So I'm not sure if that's something VERY new or something very old.  I just know our area never used those.  I think Josh is going to trial and I think we'll get answers very soon.

Edited October 22, 2021 by hathorlive

[GeeGolly]

I haven't read anything since the initial story broke, to avoid reading any CSA details. I've kind of been depending on what's posted here, so I'm very confused. If or when they go to trial, I hope the judge and lawyers make the charges and the evidence very clear, because I can imagine jurors getting confused as well.

As far as the details and images, I think those can work in Josh's favor as much as they can work against him. If someone is leaning toward not guilty, they may double down and look for innocence because they wouldn't want an innocent, or possibly innocent, person to have such horrific images tied to him.

[Nysha]

On 10/21/2021 at 9:04 AM, SnapHappy said:

Those people who waste huge amounts of time on useless yammering, pointless outrage and senseless obsessing with like-minded dolts are idiots. 

Accomplish something useful with that time.  

Just my view.  YMMV. 

??? I'm pretty sure I'm not an idiot but I do spend a bit of time here posting about a Z-list reality family instead of solving global warming or washing my dishes.

[Dianaofthehunt]

It would be refreshing to be able to click on any news site regarding the Thing without having too see his hideous mug shot pictured large, or his accompanying brood mare.

[GeeGolly]

So I guess we can assume Josh did not take the original plea deal. 33 days until the start of the trial, if he doesn't change his plea in the coming weeks.

I wonder if Josh is squirming or smugging.

I also wonder if he's found guilty, if the judge will delay his prison date until after Christmas.

[CandyCaneTree]

51 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

So I guess we can assume Josh did not take the original plea deal. 33 days until the start of the trial, if he doesn't change his plea in the coming weeks.

I wonder if Josh is squirming or smugging.

I also wonder if he's found guilty, if the judge will delay his prison date until after Christmas.

Of course he is smugging. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, CandyCaneTree said:

Of course he is smugging. 

Smugging, as his family prepares to bleed more money...on a fool's errand. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Churchhoney

[BitterApple]

1 hour ago, Churchhoney said:

Smugging, as his family prepares to bleed more money...on a fool's errand. 

I wonder how the siblings feel watching a big chunk of their inheritance being flushed down the toilet. 

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, BitterApple said:

I wonder how the siblings feel watching a big chunk of their inheritance being flushed down the toilet. 

Exactly. And it's doubly stupid (like what he asked the HS people who came to search the place -- "Are you looking for CP?" WTF? He's not just a creep, he's an ignoramus (who thinks he's a genius)).......

When he gets out, he's gonna need help from the family till, too. Of all these virtually-unemployable people, he's the very very most unemployable already.(just on the basis of his insufferable personality, I would think -- and at his age he doesn't seem to have many skills except sneaking around and sounding smarmy....and he doesn't look very able-bodied, either...)  After a prison stint....for this offense....Yeesh....And he's the one with seven kids.

This is not a time to be throwing more money than they absolutely have to on the roulette table where everything screams -- The house is gonna win this round. 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Churchhoney

[beckie]

Any news on the Smuggarling? Has she arrived yet? Does anyone think that one of the other family members would announce her birth or do they even care at this point?

[BigBingerBro]

11 minutes ago, beckie said:

Any news on the Smuggarling?

Nothing yet but considering how big Anna was in the courthouse photo, she has either already had the baby or due any day now.

[CandyCaneTree]

I am visiting my best friend because we always take our kids trick or treating together and we were going out to lunch and passed the Federal prison and I opened my window and yelled out please accept Smuggar as your newest inmate. My kids are not missing school because they go to a year round school 9 weeks of school and 3 weeks vacation. 

[Guest]

Please remember to keep on topic of Josh and Anna, and not general Duggar finances/careers.

[3 is enough]

Just a little over a month until his trial starts- I do wonder if underneath that smug exterior he is really starting to panic.

[Dianaofthehunt]

Once Josh is locked up [fingers crossed] I’m guessing that’ll be the end of the Reber connection. The Mrs. Reber will not only have the Thing out of her way, but Anna and accompanying ankle biters, too. Mr. Reber must rarely be home; surely he’s gotten wind of how hated Thing must be in that household.