Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[iwantcookies]

JB will support himself and Ms Bikini first. He isn’t going to spent all his money on his kids. I think he has a $ set aside for his kids… when that $ runs out his kids will be on their own. 
 

I wonder if JB has like $20 million. 

[iwantcookies]

11 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

Sadly, the more likely scenario is her waiting at the prison gate looking suitably adoring and holding his hand as they walk off together into the sunset.

And still trying to have more kids! 

[MsJamieDornan]

17 minutes ago, iwantcookies said:

I wonder if JB has like $20 million

I dont think so.

[quarks]

59 minutes ago, Trillium said:

I can’t wrap my head around why JB is shelling out a lot of money to defend him. I get it’s out of protecting his own image but still. If Josh was LGBTQ+, he’d have cut him out in a heartbeat. 
 

Or does he truly think their “Christian values” are being attacked  and this was all a set up? I could see that too. I don’t think JB is that naïve but he certainly has a persecution complex. 

I suspect that he and Michelle and several other Duggars/Duggarlings do genuinely believe that their Christian values are under attack.  Not just because the only reason anyone other than Josh knows about this is because a secular, non-Christian government was monitoring people's internet usage. Or because it's a common belief in their social circles, repeated over and over and over - and if you hear something often enough, especially something that confirms your preset beliefs, you tend to believe it.

But also because, as Churchhoney has been informing us, the percentage of U.S. citizens who are regular churchgoers is on a continued, steady decline. 

And they certainly are aware that having a son convicted of downloading CSA material is not exactly great for their image as a Christian family - or for that matter, their argument that their lifestyle guarantees a happy family life largely free from major sins. Clearly it failed here. 

Whether they genuinely think Josh was deliberately set up is another question entirely. Because to me, at least, it's noticeable that the only people trying to make that argument are the defense attorneys - and even they aren't really trying to argue that Josh was deliberately set up. They're just trying to argue that Josh wasn't the only person with access to the car lot computer and therefore someone else could have downloaded the CSA material, not that anyone deliberately tried to make Josh look guilty.

Otherwise - well, I have no idea what they are saying in private, but it's remarkable that since the arrest, not one Duggar/Duggarling/Duggar adjacent has made a public statement suggesting that Josh was set up and that they believe in his innocence. Not one.  Or come forward to say, we just can't believe this of Josh - he's always been such a good Christian and father. Or told us stories about how great he's been with his younger siblings and the little Ms. 

That might change this week, of course. 

[Gemma Violet]

Everyone here seems to assume Josh will be found guilty.  I so hope you're right.  I still have a nagging feeling.  I keep thinking about reasonable doubt and the make-up of the jury and potential prosecutorial errors.  Something could go wrong and he could walk away.    

[Dianaofthehunt]

^ Gemma Violet, I feel the same way. My butt won’t be unclenched until “Guilty on both counts” is heard in the courtroom. Until then, there’s too much room for skullduggery.

[lulu69]

And its made the local Arkansas news

https://www.4029tv.com/article/joshua-duggar-child-porn-trial-witnesses/38375871

 

[Scarlett45]

34 minutes ago, Gemma Violet said:

Everyone here seems to assume Josh will be found guilty.  I so hope you're right.  I still have a nagging feeling.  I keep thinking about reasonable doubt and the make-up of the jury and potential prosecutorial errors.  Something could go wrong and he could walk away.    

Yeah I don’t know what will happen either. 

[Trillium]

My brain cannot comprehend an acquittal. It will only further my belief that god does not exist, and will only prove to them that they are his chosen ones. 
 

I know a well paid defense can create enough reasonable doubt in any case. We’ve seen it before. 

[merylinkid]

Once a case goes to a jury -- it's a crapshoot.   Sure there is the law and they are supposed to follow it.   But it's not rote.   They are instructed to use their own common sense.   So yeah he COULD be acquitted.

But, remember, the Duggars are legends in their own minds in NW Arkansas.   MOST folks don't give a crap about how "famous" they are or that they worship the "right Jesus."   they are going to listen carefully, follow the instructions and then decide.   So while there is concern, there is hope too.   

[CandyCaneTree]

I wonder if his lawyer will pull there were no real children involved just photos so no children were harmed? 

[Zella]

37 minutes ago, CandyCaneTree said:

I wonder if his lawyer will pull there were no real children involved just photos so no children were harmed? 

The videos he downloaded are infamous for the fact that children are literally being harmed in them, so that doesn't really make sense as an argument for them to use. 

[libgirl2]

14 minutes ago, Zella said:

The videos he downloaded are infamous for the fact that children are literally being harmed in them, so that doesn't really make sense as an argument for them to use. 

As much as I agree with you, I think the argument is because he wasn't present, he didn't necessarily harm them. 

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

As much as I agree with you, I think the argument is because he wasn't present, he didn't necessarily harm them. 

I guess they could make that argument, but I don't think the jury is going to buy it after they're forced to sit through those videos. 

[libgirl2]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

I guess they could make that argument, but I don't think the jury is going to buy it after they're forced to sit through those videos. 

I hope that will be the case. 

[Quilt Fairy]

2 hours ago, lulu69 said:

And its made the local Arkansas news

https://www.4029tv.com/article/joshua-duggar-child-porn-trial-witnesses/38375871

 

That reporter has several facts wrong about Josh in that small article.  I hope he's not the only one who'll be reporting on the trial. 

[Zella]

3 minutes ago, Quilt Fairy said:

That reporter has several facts wrong about Josh in that small article.  I hope he's not the only one who'll be reporting on the trial. 

Try KNWA. I thought they had some of the more in-depth coverage for the bond hearing. 

FWIW that 40/29 article is the first push notification I've gotten about Josh's trial in awhile from the 2 local news channels I follow. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Zella

[Teriacky]

Wow. This would not be a good time to be summoned for jury duty… 

 

[Churchhoney]

35 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

As much as I agree with you, I think the argument is because he wasn't present, he didn't necessarily harm them. 

He watched them being mightily harmed to really get him off when he masturbated, though. The jury's going to see exactly what got him off. ... And they know he didn't immediately trash those absolutely horrifying videos and throw the computer out and loudly repent of ever watching them. There are very few people who could be shown that entire scenario and have any thoughts of him not being deeply culpable in some way. 

From what I've read about deliberations over sentencing guidelines, I'm pretty sure this is another reason why the minimum sentences aren't set extremely high for this crime. If they were, then in a jury room the "but he didn't actually harm anybody, so should we really send him to prison for 15 or 20 years?" would be much more likely to come into the conversation, and understandably so, perhaps......

With the lower minimum sentence, the prosecution has a far better chance of getting jurors to say to themselves, "Well, he didn't harm a child personally, but he enjoyed them being harmed so much that it gave him orgasms he was willing to pay for and risk prison for. And he didn't delete or destroy those horrifying pictures of used and suffering children. So he should face some personal suffering just for being that horrible a person. I can see giving him five or six years for it."

My own jury experience also tells me that most humans seem to want to do the right thing when it comes to something as serious as a jury deliberation. .... I know there are some people who'll be frivolous about it, but in multiple jury deliberations I've seen, I haven't seen anyone who really takes the defense or the prosecution arguments lightly. Being on juries has really increased my faith in the human race, because people do generally understand why it's critical -- for both victims and accused -- to arrive at the best conclusion they can. 

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Cinnabon]

33 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

As much as I agree with you, I think the argument is because he wasn't present, he didn't necessarily harm them. 

The videos were only made (and children 18 months old) were harmed because there were men out there willing to pay for them. No viewers, no abuse. And research shows that a large percentage who “only” watch escalate to abusing live children. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Cinnabon

[libgirl2]

6 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

The videos were only made (and children 18 months old) were harmed because there were men out there willing to pay for them. No viewers, no abuse.

I'm not denying that at all..... he is just as guilty in my mind as if he took an active role but what does the law say? 

Edited November 29, 2021 by libgirl2

[Cinnabon]

5 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

I'm not denying that at all..... he is just as guilty in my mind as if he took an active role but what does the law say? 

The law says his behavior Is illegal. I’m sure the prosecutors will educate the jurors on how this behavior often escalates.

[Trillium]

The defense will not argue at all that since he didn’t personally hurt those children he’s not guilty. He’s not being charge with anything related to that. 
 

Now , I could see various family members living in firm denial if he did view the video, he “just looked” at it and therefore it’s not that bad. They can lie to themselves that he didn’t have any impure thoughts. He just was a bit curious and looked, NBD. Like how a lot of women are super into true crime but aren’t actually going to murder anyone.  That will be how the family handwaves this, but his defense team will go the Shaggy defense route, it wasn’t him. 

[libgirl2]

Just now, Cinnabon said:

The law says his behavior Is illegal. I’m sure the prosecutors will educate the jurors on how this behavior often escalates.

Yes, it is illegal and it more than likely would escalate which it did before he even viewed that kind of material. 

[SusanM]

5 minutes ago, Trillium said:

That will be how the family handwaves this, but his defense team will go the Shaggy defense route, it wasn’t him. 

It's really in my non-lawyer opinion the only defense they can try to make.  Minimizing the crime itself would be admitting he did it.

[Minivanessa]

12 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

The law says his behavior Is illegal. I’m sure the prosecutors will educate the jurors on how this behavior often escalates.

I'm sure the prosecutors will not get into the area of "how this behavior often escalates." That's not an element of the crimes that Josh is charged with. The prosecutors don't need to read tea leaves about his being dangerous to kids - and it would IMO be improper for them to go there anyway. (ETA: it would be improper because they'd be painting Josh as a slimy bad guy who needs to be convicted of these crimes. That's prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution's job is to prove the defendant committed all the elements of the crime(s) charged, and the jury's job is to decide if the evidence in fact proves those elements. The prosecutors' intimating or arguing that "this behavior escalates over time" is absolutely beyond the scope of the issues in the trial and could lead to a reversal of a conviction since it opens up the possibility that the jury was swayed by appeals to emotions/prejudices instead of looking at the evidence in the case.)

The prosecution will focus on introducing the evidence on which the jury can decide that Josh committed the crimes he's charged with. Those crimes will be broken down into their elements in instructions to the jury by the judge, and the jury can look at each of the elements and decide if it has been proven by the evidence.

10 minutes ago, Trillium said:

The defense will not argue at all that since he didn’t personally hurt those children he’s not guilty. He’s not being charge with anything related to that. 

That's right. The "he didn't personally interact with those children" isn't a defense to the crime because his personal interaction with them is not an element of the crimes he's charged with. 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Jeeves
Explains why the prosecution won't read tea leaves about possible escalation of bad behavior

[emmawoodhouse]

Source from the courtroom reports that Boob testified that Smuggar admitted to the molestations. Defense is trying to exclude Bobye Holt's testimony as clergy privilege since Jim Holt was apparently head of their church at that time. 

But she's not clergy. I don't see that working.

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Source from the courtroom reports that Boob testified that Smuggar admitted to the molestations. Defense is trying to exclude Bobye Holt's testimony as clergy privilege since Jim Holt was apparently head of their church at that time. 

But she's not clergy. I don't see that working.

I guess this means Jim Bob finally stopped playing where's Waldo with the subpoena?

[Minivanessa]

2 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Source from the courtroom reports that Boob testified that Smuggar admitted to the molestations. Defense is trying to exclude Bobye Holt's testimony as clergy privilege since Jim Holt was apparently head of their church at that time. 

But she's not clergy. I don't see that working.

Interesting. I don't either.

Just a note here. The prosecution isn't going for this testimony at trial to show that Josh is a bad guy who needs to be convicted of something in general, which as I mentioned above would be improper. They will have to convince the judge that the evidence would be relevant to rebut one or more issues raised by the defense, and I'm sure that if it is admitted at the jury trial, the judge will issue an instruction to the jury about its limited purpose. (Yes, I know the evidence paints Josh in a bad light - and the judge will have to decide whether its prejudicial impact is outweighed by its relevance to issues in the trial. Judges do that kind of balancing analysis all the time in all kinds of cases.)

[hathorlive]

5 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

As much as I agree with you, I think the argument is because he wasn't present, he didn't necessarily harm them. 

 

40 minutes ago, Trillium said:

The defense will not argue at all that since he didn’t personally hurt those children he’s not guilty. He’s not being charge with anything related to that. 
 

Now , I could see various family members living in firm denial if he did view the video, he “just looked” at it and therefore it’s not that bad. They can lie to themselves that he didn’t have any impure thoughts. He just was a bit curious and looked, NBD. Like how a lot of women are super into true crime but aren’t actually going to murder anyone.  That will be how the family handwaves this, but his defense team will go the Shaggy defense route, it wasn’t him. 

In my experience, it's universally accepted that the children depicted were harmed and by downloading the content, you are revictimizing them.  The defense can argue that the children were actors and it's all fake but that doesn't mean the jury will accept it. Just because you  scream "fake news" doesn't mean it's not real.  The defense puts out all sorts of crazy excuses hoping something sticks.  I've never seen a jury buy that argument but to be fair, I've not seen that argument much in federal court.

[sue450]

17 minutes ago, Zella said:

I guess this means Jim Bob finally stopped playing where's Waldo with the subpoena?

jim bob must have got served the subpoena  they were on a float in the springdale christmas parade . It would be funny if he get served at the parade!  the day before the trial  they have no shame  

[GeeGolly]

The I didn't inhale minimization won't hold water.

To use a less triggering and somewhat more relatable example ... Say you willingly made a sex video with your then partner. You break up and the sex video ends up on the internet. Unless you're a Kardashian, you're going to feel victimized each time the video is viewed.

[YupItsMe]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Source from the courtroom reports that Boob testified that Smuggar admitted to the molestations. Defense is trying to exclude Bobye Holt's testimony as clergy privilege since Jim Holt was apparently head of their church at that time. 

But she's not clergy. I don't see that working.

Me either, especially since women are not allowed to be clergy in their church.

[quarks]

2 hours ago, CandyCaneTree said:

I wonder if his lawyer will pull there were no real children involved just photos so no children were harmed? 

No one is trying to argue this. The defense attorneys have already stipulated in two different motions/responses that the creation of CSA material is harmful to children and that the federal government has a right to prosecute the creation, possession and receiving of CSA material. Which is to say, they agree that CSA is bad, and that the two laws Josh is charged with breaking are perfectly legal. 

What they have argued is that the specific search method that led to Josh Duggar getting arrested for CSA possession was unconstitutional, and that the prosecution can't say "this CSA material is the worst ever." Very different arguments than "no kids were harmed in making this material." And they've argued that the evidence of Josh's previous molestations, where children were harmed, are irrelevant to this particular trial since Josh isn't currently charged with molesting or harming children; he's accused of very specific computer crimes.

So, yeah, I don't see them trying to make this argument in court. In the unlikely event that they do, I expect the judge - who has already eliminated a lot of other questionably relevant things - to point out that whether or not these images harmed children is legally irrelevant to the question of whether or not Josh used a computer to obtain those images. 

 

[hathorlive]

5 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

Me either, especially since women are not allowed to be clergy in their church.

It's interesting that they want both JB and BobYE to testify to the molestation.  I mean, the guy's father has admitted it on TV, in print and now, in court.  Do we need a second witness, clergy or not?  And yes, let's all laugh at the idea of IBF letting a woman be part of the clergy.  And it's easy enough to prove other wise, based on their printed beliefs of female clergy, the lack of documents that show she was on staff or in a leadership role, or any other such documentation.

The defense is doing a good job throwing anything that will stick to the wall, but they run the risk of alienating the jury, who can be worn out with theories, motions, other guy did it stuff.  After a few days, they just want to get on with it.

Edited November 29, 2021 by hathorlive

[quarks]

1 hour ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Source from the courtroom reports that Boob testified that Smuggar admitted to the molestations. Defense is trying to exclude Bobye Holt's testimony as clergy privilege since Jim Holt was apparently head of their church at that time. 

But she's not clergy. I don't see that working.

Sources are also reporting that the judge hasn't ruled on this yet - which means that Bobye Holt and JB have no idea if they have to come back later this week or early next week to testify again.

Minor point here, given the seriousness of the charges, but I really do have to ask just how many people have to be inconvenienced/aggravated by or suffer because of Josh Duggar? I admittedly don't know anything about Bobye Holt, but I can't imagine that she wanted to spend the first week of December wondering if she's going to have to testify at this trial.

[emmawoodhouse]

I know that the Holts and Duggars had a falling out, so I imagine Bobye isn't the happiest of campers.

[quarks]

People Magazine has some more details on today's evidentiary hearing. Apparently Jim Bob was not feeling overly cooperative, and had to be told by a judge that as a witness, he could not make objections:

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-child-porn-case-jim-bob-subpoenaed-to-testify/

 

[awaken]

5 hours ago, Gemma Violet said:

Everyone here seems to assume Josh will be found guilty.  I so hope you're right.  I still have a nagging feeling.  I keep thinking about reasonable doubt and the make-up of the jury and potential prosecutorial errors.  Something could go wrong and he could walk away.    

Me too.  I have a bad feeling about this.  We're all so sure he'll get jail time.  I'm afraid something will go awry and he won't be fully punished for his crimes and be put back out in public.

[galaxygirl76]

If I'm understanding Reddit correctly, Boob once again failed his daughters while trying to protect the first born penis.

[Minivanessa]

56 minutes ago, quarks said:

Minor point here, given the seriousness of the charges, but I really do have to ask just how many people have to be inconvenienced/aggravated by or suffer because of Josh Duggar? I admittedly don't know anything about Bobye Holt, but I can't imagine that she wanted to spend the first week of December wondering if she's going to have to testify at this trial.

Trials almost always inconvenience people, and most of those people don't "deserve" the inconvenience and I'm sure most of them are unhappy about it. But if they are witnesses who've been duly served with a subpoena, they have to stand by until released by the court (either after they have testified, or if the parties agree they can be released without being called to testify). 

[Zella]

2 minutes ago, quarks said:

People Magazine has some more details on today's evidentiary hearing. Apparently Jim Bob was not feeling overly cooperative, and had to be told by a judge that as a witness, he could not make objections:

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-child-porn-case-jim-bob-subpoenaed-to-testify/

 

Oh my God. He's basically like Charlie from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, thinking he's a lawyer. LMAO 

 

[SusanM]

6 minutes ago, quarks said:

People Magazine has some more details on today's evidentiary hearing. Apparently Jim Bob was not feeling overly cooperative, and had to be told by a judge that as a witness, he could not make objections:

I love the way the judge worded that: "If there is [an] objection to be made, someone will make it but it won't be you," the judge told him.  Bet Jim Bob isn't used to essentially being told to sit down and shut up.

[Cinnabon]

3 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

I love the way the judge worded that: "If there is [an] objection to be made, someone will make it but it won't be you," the judge told him.  Bet Jim Bob isn't used to essentially being told to sit down and shut up.

He also took issue with the police report, which was obtained and published by InTouch. 

"This was something for a young man to come forward," he said, calling it a "juvenile record" and a "sealed case." 

Later, he said "I can't remember" when asked about the report and called it "tabloid information." "I'm not going to allow it, are you going to allow for that?" he asked judge Timothy L. Brooks.

After prosecutors asked him to read a copy of the report, Jim Bob said "I'm not going to do that," but ultimately said his memory was not jogged by reading the report in his head. 

"If there is [an] objection to be made, someone will make it but it won't be you," the judge told him.

🤣🤣🤣

 

[skatelady]

1 hour ago, quarks said:

I admittedly don't know anything about Bobye Holt

Is anyone else reading this name as "Buh-bye!"

Definitely something going on in my subconscious...

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, skatelady said:

Is anyone else reading this name as "Buh-bye!"

Definitely something going on in my subconscious...

I keep trying to rhyme it with Kanye. Bob-yay.

Edited November 29, 2021 by Zella

[Churchhoney]

"During his testimony, Jim Bob repeatedly said he couldn't remember the details of Josh's admissions that he had touched the victims, identified during the proceeding as Jane Does 1 through 4."

 https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-child-porn-case-jim-bob-subpoenaed-to-testify/

So....JB is lying here., which to my mind makes him an even worse jerk than I knew he was....or he was utterly traumatized by Josh's molestation of the girls, which is possible, but more than I ever would have given him credit for and quite different, to my mind, from the stuff he claimed in his tv interview.....or he truly didn't give a flying fuck about his young daughters being molested because that's just how frigging selfish he is. ... ..... In any of the three cases -- disturbing. 

Is that just me?  

ETA: I don't think this story'll really be great for JB's career (of course, we know now he apparently has a huge nest egg, so maybe that doesn't matter, but still....).....Do you really wanna buy a used car or a flipped house from this guy? Do you think you can trust a word he says about a crack in the chassis....or about the septic tank? 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Ljohnson1987]

I can't wait until Josh takes the stand, and gets ripped by the prosecution. You know he will. 

[Mindthinkr]

7 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Is that just me?  

Not from where I stand. It’s all about the Golden Penis Boy. Who cares about the girls. All he has to do is marry them off. 

 

3 minutes ago, Ljohnson1987 said:

I can't wait until Josh takes the stand, and gets ripped by the prosecution. You know he will. 

One can hope so. It’s time for him to stop getting away with things. Especially when they are harmful to others.  

[galaxygirl76]

Just now, Mindthinkr said:

Not from where I stand. It’s all about the Golden Penis Boy. Who cares about the girls. All he has to do is marry them off.

They are walking uteruses, only good for the grandbaby count.