Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Tuxcat]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

😂😂😂 I laughed so hard at this my dog gave me side-eye.

If I'm not mistaken, the person on Reddit who was observing the trial said that WOACB stole her summary and then claimed a friend called and gave it to her. LMAO  

Yes Tor was on the computer. It was how the CSAM was accessed. 

That's what I thought thanks. Just wanted to be sure.  

[Zella]

Just now, Tuxcat said:

That's what I thought thanks. Just wanted to be sure.  

Yeah the Tor stuff has been a wild ride today. Per the Redditor who is sitting in, the defense attorney apparently claimed that Josh was both too uneducated to use TOR and had been a regular user of it since 2017 to protect his privacy from the paparazzi. And then the HSI agent testified that Josh seemed unusually familiar with TOR. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Yeah, I LMAO at the defense's insinuation that Smuggar's homeschool education was so poor that he couldn't work his way around a computer. From almost the very first special, he was put forth as the electronics guru. 

[Tuxcat]

8 minutes ago, Zella said:

a regular user of it since 2017 to protect his privacy from the paparazzi.

but then also has an open router so anyone, including the defenses "creepy guy from McDonald's" can hack into it and of course the computer password is "Joshua"

Is he too stupid to know things, or does he care enough to use TOR - the dark web for "protection from paparazzi" or is he-- back to stupid for not password protecting his wifi... I do see the defenses problem - Josh is a walking contradiction. I really want to be in on some of the defense teams brainstorming sessions.

Prosecutors should honestly interview all those people Josh did rehab with for his porn addiction. I'm sure they shared all sorts of tips with each other.

I know nothing but if TOR is supposed to scramble IP addresses maybe there is some sort of reason you don't want to password protect your wifi?

Edited December 2, 2021 by Tuxcat

[Zella]

Just now, Tuxcat said:

but then also has an open router so anyone, including the defenses "creepy guy from McDonald's" can hack into it and of course the computer password is "Joshua"

Their defense so far brings to mind that famous quote, "If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell." It's like throwing spaghetti against the wall. They're just trying anything that will stick, even if it makes absolutely no sense in relation to each other. 

[IndianPaintbrush]

2 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

I find it almost offensive that they say this is a like a "murder mystery" and "we're going to investigate together because they didnt."

Nauseating.

I have to believe that reasonable doubt will go out the window if the prosecution can do a good job of establishing Josh's location and explaining his digital footprints. The hand photo is in evidence, right? And the stuff in his past could really sway a jury.

[Quilt Fairy]

I wonder if Jed! is being called as a witness because his car lot is where at least one of Josh's ex-felon employees went to work after they left Josh's place.  He might be able to confirm employment dates or character.  Depending on which one it is, I could see him being a defense or a prosecution witness, although I've been assuming the latter since I heard he was on the witness list.

I wanted to mention - because I don't think anyone else has - that apparently when the CSAM was shown to the jury, most of the courtroom monitors were turned off.  Which makes sense, because you don't want this stuff disseminated further.  

[Tuxcat]

1 minute ago, IndianPaintbrush said:

Nauseating.

I have to believe that reasonable doubt will go out the window if the prosecution can do a good job of establishing Josh's location and explaining his digital footprints. The hand photo is in evidence, right? And the stuff in his past could really sway a jury.

Agreed that the Holt testimony will be very impactful. Sorry to ask so many questions - is Josh's past history/admission of porn addiction admissible too? Because as he was loading the child images he was also loading adult images according to the testimony today.

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

Agreed that the Holt testimony will be very impactful. Sorry to ask so many questions - is Josh's past history/admission of porn addiction admissible too? Because as he was loading the child images he was also loading adult images according to the testimony today.

No, they are not allowing the adult porn "addiction" or any of the Ashley Madison scandal.

[Tuxcat]

Just now, emmawoodhouse said:

No, they are not allowing the adult porn "addiction" or any of the Ashley Madison scandal.

rats! because that ties it all together with a pretty bow.

[CandyCaneTree]

26 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Speaking of WOACB, apparently she went live today and basically read The Sun's recap verbatim and passed it off as her own. 

Well what else is new? 

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, Tuxcat said:

rats! because that ties it all together with a pretty bow.

IIRC, the judge said it didn't relate to CSAM. So, one if the few wins for Smuggar's side.

[SMama]

Why would Derick shake the pedophile’s hand? Bizarro, I’d never shake hands with my spouse’s abuser. That is, if true.

[BitterApple]

4 minutes ago, SMama said:

Why would Derick shake the pedophile’s hand? Bizarro, I’d never shake hands with my spouse’s abuser. That is, if true.

If true, then yeah, that's weird. I can understand not being a dick to Anna, but shaking hands with Smuggar? Hell no.

[Gemma Violet]

Quote

shaking hands with Smuggar?

Maybe as he let go of his hand, Derrick said to him something like, "I just wanted to tell you goodby since we won't see you for the next 10-15 years."

[CandyCaneTree]

When do you think that Smuggar will realize that he is fucked?

[SMama]

11 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

If true, then yeah, that's weird. I can understand not being a dick to Anna, but shaking hands with Smuggar? Hell no.

Someone at FJ posted that the Redditor who was there yesterday was sitting a row behind Derick. Allegedly J&A walked in from a break and Volderjosh shook Derick’s hand, and said nice to meet you. Then Anna exchanged a few words with Derick. This makes more sense because that is a complete arrogant, dick move, on brand for Volderjosh. Who knows what really happened?

[emmawoodhouse]

Smuggar emceed Jill and Derelict's wedding! He got up onstage and told the guests to turn off their electronics. In the most douchey way possible, of course.

But Smuganna were living in DC at the time, so I don't think Smuggar and Derelict were ever in the same place long enough to establish a relationship before Joshgate.

Edited December 2, 2021 by emmawoodhouse

[mythoughtis]

==Allegedly J&A walked in from a break and Volderjosh shook Derick’s hand, and said nice to meet you. ==
 

This would not be accurate because Josh and Derick already know each other. I distinctly remember an episode showing the two couples going out to eat together.   

 

 

 

[YupItsMe]

2 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

==Allegedly J&A walked in from a break and Volderjosh shook Derick’s hand, and said nice to meet you. ==
 

This would not be accurate because Josh and Derick already know each other. I distinctly remember an episode showing the two couples going out to eat together.   

 

 

 

I think Josh might’ve been making a “joke” since Derrick hasn’t been around the family in a while.

[Gemma Violet]

2 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

==Allegedly J&A walked in from a break and Volderjosh shook Derick’s hand, and said nice to meet you. ==
 

This would not be accurate because Josh and Derick already know each other. I distinctly remember an episode showing the two couples going out to eat together.   

 

 

 

According to a poster upthread, Josh laughed when he said it, presumably because they hadn't spoken in a long time?

[SMama]

3 minutes ago, mythoughtis said:

==Allegedly J&A walked in from a break and Volderjosh shook Derick’s hand, and said nice to meet you. ==
 

This would not be accurate because Josh and Derick already know each other. I distinctly remember an episode showing the two couples going out to eat together.   

 

 

 

If true, Josh was being his usual asshole self. I’m aware they have met. 

[quarks]

Link to the anonymous Redditor's version of what happened, including the Derrick/Josh meeting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DuggarsSnark/comments/r6y2ux/trial_day_2_summary_reposting_to_remove_jury_info/

 

[SMama]

6 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Smuggar emceed Jill and Derelict's wedding! He got up onstage and told the guests to turn off their electronics. In the most douchey way possible, of course.

But Smuganna were Living in DC at the time, so I don't think Smuggar and Derelict were ever in the same place long enough to establish a relationship before Joshgate.

Jill and Derick visited them in DC for an episode of 19 Kids. The storyline was about Josh imparting his parental wisdom to bumbling dad to be Derick. 🙄

[Zella]

Yeah I am pretty sure the remark was intended as sarcasm. I mean, this is Josh "has someone been downloading child pornography" Duggar. I'm surprised he didn't blurt out "Fancy seeing you at my child pornography trial!"

Edited December 2, 2021 by Zella

[emmawoodhouse]

6 minutes ago, SMama said:

Jill and Derick visited them in DC for an episode of 19 Kids. The storyline was about Josh imparting his parental wisdom to bumbling dad to be Derick. 🙄

I totally blacked that out. 😀

But I do stand by my statement that the BILs never established much of a relationship. So yeah, Smuggar HEY STRANGER!!!!111 gallows humor. I wonder how Derelict reacted.

[Cinnabon]

12 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I expect fear of losing and zeal to hold onto the good-life stuff they have, like free or nearly free houses, airplanes to fly, the hope they hold of sitting on a special golden throne in heaven and so on. would be their reasons for toeing Daddy's line.

JB's managed to put all his kids in a position where they are probably insecure about being able to make a living if Daddy stopped supplying much or all of that living and even possibly insecure about finding suitable love partners without Daddy's network. None of them seem to have any friends, either, except for their siblings and people from Daddy's network. A helluva lot of them live in houses that, one way or another, belong to Daddy. 

They've been "sheltered" from education, training, social or other community experience with anybody beyond their very small bubble, etc........They've had the evils and dangers of working for anybody else, marrying anybody who isn''t part of their parents' circle, recreating with non-IBLP people on a baseball team or in a class or a choir, etc., drummed into them to an extreme degree. And they've reaped benefits from staying in that bubble -- they're famous and they get fancy hunting and skiing trips and they hardly have to work....  

We're certainly looking at situations that may make some of them want to break ranks. But I'm sure they're all also haunted by what they might have to lose. 

I’ve got a question for them - what would Jesus do? I wonder how much they truly  know or care what he might say.

[Cinnabon]

12 hours ago, lascuba said:

I wouldn't be surprised if JB combativeness weren't a deliberate strategy on his part. There are certain factions who see open hostility and disrespect to any authority standing in their way as "manly" and a sign of good leadership. JB could be playing to that crowd.

 

But don’t they all support “law and order?” Hahahahahahaha . Someone needs to remind JB of his position regarding the death penalty for sex offenders. 

[lilwhitelion]

The link quarks provided written by the Redditor attending the trial makes for interesting reading.

One weird detail - Derrick and Anna walked in from a break, holding hands.  They were talking to the man the Redditor called 'Santa' (white beard) when Josh walked up and held out his hand to Derrick.

 

[Cinnabon]

11 hours ago, Rootbeer said:

If given a choice, JB would pick himself over any of his kids, including Josh, every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

I think he knew that by feigning poor memory, he wasn't going to be called to testify at trial in front of the jury and his behavior at the prelim wasn't going to matter.  And, that being the case, why not play up his manliness and lack of respect for the 'wrong kind' of authority represented by this court?

But which are the “right” kind of authorities? Don’t they need law enforcement and judges to arrest and punish all of those librul child traffickers out there? /s

[SMama]

5 minutes ago, lilwhitelion said:

The link quarks provided written by the Redditor attending the trial makes for interesting reading.

One weird detail - Derrick and Anna walked in from a break, holding hands.  They were talking to the man the Redditor called 'Santa' (white beard) when Josh walked up and held out his hand to Derrick.

 

Josh and Anna were holding hands. 

[Cinnabon]

9 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

You know, that may well be true. But, given the nature of these particular images, if she weren't changed to some degree by seeing them -- while knowing that they so excite her husband sexually that he risked prison to have them -- I don't believe she'd deserve to be called a human being any more........Either she was born as lacking in empathy and other human capacities as he apparently is, or she just froze those to death with super-Jesusness somewhere along the way. 

Especially because I believe she's just thinking now, "Oh, it's porn, like Playboy, only with younger girls." I don't believe she has any idea at all of what the images are. So if she has any humanity left in her, then the shock and surprise alone should wake her up at least a bit. 

So while I fear you may be right, I sure hope it isn't true that she wouldn't be moved at all. Because she has seven young kids to raise in what will be an increasingly difficult situation. To have those needy kids raised by a person with absolutely zero empathy and zero capacity to register true atrocities is horrifying. What kind of emotional or moral upbringing can she possibly give them if she's that dead and indifferent inside. 

Awful.  

I wouldn’t be surprised if she somehow blamed the little girls instead of Josh. These are people who claim to be so “pro life” but don’t care about hungry or homeless kids. They even shame kids for not being able to afford lunches at school (and absolutely don’t want any of their money used to help them). They are awful people and absolute hypocrites.

[Cinnabon]

8 hours ago, Spazamanaz said:

I just have a bad feeling that there's a lot more to this and that this is just the tip of the iceberg. That maybe other fundies in their churches are involved in CP as well. I mean, a potential in the making child molester doesn't just wake up one day and know where to access it online, do they? I just feel that there are others in their fundie circle that are doing the same thing.

I tend to agree. These people are experts at projection. 

[Cinnabon]

6 hours ago, BitterApple said:

You and me both. She's attention seeking and nothing will convince me otherwise.

 

That describes a LOT of people and their SM behavior. So many seem desperate for attention and “likes.”

[LilJen]

11 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

To be fair, he seems to have a hard time turning the "smarmy" off. It must be a built-in.  

 

It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.

Edited December 2, 2021 by LilJen

[GeeGolly]

Here's my concern, I consider myself computer savvy-ish. My kids are in their 30s and one of them has worked in the IT world since high school, so I picked up a lot from them. I've also depended on computers in my professional life and have adapted with every evolution. I know what an IP address is, I know what VPNs are but didn't realize they were ever used by the average Joe. I'm also familiar with remote use of computers, have heard of the dark web and am aware of parental controls.

That's where my computer knowledge in relationship to the case stops. Like is TOR and Torrent the same thing?  I wouldn't know how to split a computer or access the web of darkness. If one side said yes, such and such can be done this way and the other side said no it can't, I wouldn't know who is right.

So far I feel like the defense is gearing up to confuse the jury with all things computer related. I'm guessing the jury has a few folks around my age who share my same lack of knowledge around computers.

And lastly, my kid who is the computer wizard didn't learn most of what he knows about computers in school. He actually has a different degree, but took some computer courses later on to qualify for certain jobs. So Josh being schooled at the dining room table means nothing.

And if you've read this far - years ago one of my kids, probably late teens at the time, came home and wanted to show me something on the computer she saw at her friends house. We tried every which way to find it, but couldn't access it. So I called the wiz kid for advice. He laughed and laughed some more. He said he was waiting for this to happen. The little shit had set the parental control setting to 'teens' on our family computer.

[iwantcookies]

11 hours ago, Nysha said:

I've learned so much about what not to do when the cops show up from this case that if I ever do get in trouble...

Me but with deadly women and 20/20 🤣. 

[Churchhoney]

7 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

==Allegedly J&A walked in from a break and Volderjosh shook Derick’s hand, and said nice to meet you. ==
 

This would not be accurate because Josh and Derick already know each other. I distinctly remember an episode showing the two couples going out to eat together.   

 

 

 

Except that, Josh being Josh, woudln't he be dripping sarcasm, not talking seriously?  Sarcasm seems to be a pretty constant mode with him. And he also seems to think he's hilarious....

[Churchhoney]

6 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

But which are the “right” kind of authorities? Don’t they need law enforcement and judges to arrest and punish all of those librul child traffickers out there? /s

Logic. That's not a strong point with any of them either. Of course, God has commanded us to never ever ever ever trust logic.......so I guess they're being especially godly there....

[merylinkid]

Josh can bullshit himself all he wants that he did nothing wrong, or that he smarter than everyone else and can get out of this.   But once that first witness started testifying and was NOT saying what he (or JB) wanted him to say, it had to hit home that he has no control over this situation.    You can see it in his face, it is starting to hit home that he is not automatically the Golden Child in court who is allowed to do whatever he wants without consequence.   

I've seen this happen in my cases.    My witnesses are testifying and the narcissist starts interrupting and saying they are lying.   That goes over as well with a judge as you think it does.   Or they flat out walk out because they cannot face that they are not going to get their way.    Josh can't do any of that because he has lawyers practically sitting on him and its a criminal trial.   If he acts out in court, he can be shackled during the proceedings or even put in a separate room with a closed circuit tv (extreme measures rarely done).   If he walks out, he knows he will be arrested.   So he has to just sit there.  

[Rootbeer]

11 hours ago, Zella said:

Yeah I'm not trying to be a bitch, but Austin must know less about Google than just about any other 27-year-old on the planet. The info in the police report has been out there for years, and almost everything covered in court today has been well covered before today in previous hearings. If he's just finding this shit out now, it seems like at least partially a case of willful ignorance. 

Maybe it's not so much that he didn't know it, but that hearing it spoken out loud, in court, has made it so much more real for him.  Whatever he might've learned from the police report, we know that the Duggar party line was that it was no big deal, happens all the time in families, the girls were not aware.  Joy probably parroted those things to him, too.  Now, hearing it again without the Duggar spin; he's done playing along with the family and realizing just how horrific Joy's childhood was, no matter how they try to spin it.

As for Derick, I presume the courtroom is small, there aren't a lot of options for seating.  Might as well be superficially pleasant to Anna and even Josh.  Why give reporters more fodder for the tabloids?  He's an attorney, he knows how to pretend to be neutral when dealing with horrible people.  Maybe Jill asked him not to stir the pot in the courtroom.  For that matter, Jill is a potential witness; the prosecutors have certainly spoken to her about demeanor in the courtroom.  Derick may have been there and was advised by the prosecutors not to cause any drama, that they would take care of getting the truth out there,

Edited December 2, 2021 by Rootbeer

[Trillium]

Smugs saying “Nice to meet you, wink-wink, ha-ha” is very on brand for that arrogant asshat. 
 

I don’t have an issue with Derick being polite. Making a ruckus or getting into it wouldn’t be a good idea, especially if he wants to be there when/if Jill testifies. Causing a scene could get him removed and banned from attending. 

Edited December 2, 2021 by Trillium

[Minivanessa]

Oh, friends, I was wrong the other day. Not 100% wrong, but I wrote a few posts here while in ignorance of a Federal Rule of Evidence – FRE 414 - specific to sexual abuse cases that does change the game from what would be true in a different kind of case. I’ll try to explain. I have now read all 15 pages of the court’s order issued yesterday, concerning the evidence of Josh’s molestations of Jane Does #1 through #4, and have learned stuff.

First, I wasn’t 100% off base when I wrote that the prosecutors won’t be introducing evidence of Josh’s past child molestations to show “how the behavior escalates over time.” That’s true. The reason will be to show he has a propensity toward behavior of viewing CSAM.

The general rule is that “evidence of past crimes may not be used to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith” [from here on, if I use quotation marks I’m quoting from the court’s order]. The jury’s job is to determine if the evidence produced a trial proves the defendant committed the specific crime charged. That was front of mind for me when I posted the other day.

But there’s a specific rule of evidence in federal courts that opens the door in sex offense cases to what the courts call “propensity evidence.” As the court’s order says on page 3, FRE 414 establishes “a presumption—but not a ‘blank check’— favoring the admission of propensity evidence at both civil and criminal trials involving charges of sexual misconduct.”

Josh is charged with two CSAM counts, and is therefore “accused of child molestation” as defined in Rule 414. The prosecution believes it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Josh committed 2nd degree sexual assault in 2002 or 2003 when he was about 14-15 years old and his victims were all under age 12. The court order says that even “uncharged conduct” and conduct proved in juvenile cases would be admissible under Rule 414. The order cites 8th Circuit appellate decisions holding that past “hands-on” child molestation offenses are relevant to show a defendant’s propensity to commit CSAM crimes.

The court rejected the defense claim that the testimony should be barred as privileged, and then the order devotes four pages to applying the balancing test: is the probative value of the “propensity evidence” outweighed by the dangers of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, wasting time, or piling on unnecessary extra evidence. A few parts of that were amusing to me, including this comment when the court said “there is no serious dispute about the facts” surrounding the molestations:

"Defendant’s father and Mrs. Holt testified to essentially the same facts, and Defendant and four of his sisters filed civil lawsuits in 2017 discussing these same facts and treating the allegations of child molestation as true. Moreover, during the hearing, Defendant’s father testified that he and his wife appeared on a nationally televised talk show in 2015 and openly discussed the acts of child molestation that Defendant committed against the four child victims." [Italics mine.]

The court concluded “There is little doubt that the Government’s Rule 414 evidence, if introduced, will be prejudicial to Defendant. But Rule 403 only counsels against the admission of unfairly prejudicial evidence.”

There’s of course more in the order than I’ve talked about here, and this is already too long. I hope this will help make up for my uninformed post a few days ago. I was right on the basics, but ignorant of a critical rule of evidence that’s an exception and does apply in Josh’s case. BTW I've read a lot of court orders; IMO this one is solid and well-reasoned.

Edited December 2, 2021 by Jeeves
Removed random quotation mark

[quarks]

45 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

So far I feel like the defense is gearing up to confuse the jury with all things computer related. I'm guessing the jury has a few folks around my age who share my same lack of knowledge around computers.

 

This does seem to be one of their two strategies so far.

But I'd say there's a non-zero chance that the jury also has a few folks who do know something about computers, and a few others who are well aware that Mac users are fully capable of using Windows and Linux, and will be able to explain this during jury deliberation.

[lilwhitelion]

7 hours ago, SMama said:

Josh and Anna were holding hands. 

I wanted to quote from the Redditor's long recap to show that they said it was Derick and 
Anna holding hands when coming back from a break, but they have removed their post.  In any case, that's why it was so weird.  Josh and Anna holding hands is expected.

[merylinkid]

@Jeeves don't apologize.   Most of us probably didn't realize there was an exception.  I've always said the Rules of Evidence make a LOT more sense when you are inn trial than just reading them in a book.  

I'm DYING over the fact their own damn words in filing the lawsuit and going on tv to save their precious show will be used against them.    Hubris, fall, something something.

[iwantcookies]

For once TLC=the learning channel taught me something. 

Get a lawyer and do not talk to the police without one.

[hathorlive]

13 hours ago, iwantcookies said:

My opinion on Amy gets lower every day. 

With this cast of nasty, horrible humans, I can't even work up disdain for Amy.  At least she's outraged at this travesty, unlike 18 or so siblings.

[hathorlive]

11 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

I'd bet Derelict's the only spouse who has read it. Jeremy is a possibility, but I lean NO. 

OfBooks is too busy folding pocket squares to read.  But I'm sure there's a copy of the report next to all those fancy books he's never opened.

Edited December 2, 2021 by hathorlive

[Snow Fairy]

When does the trial start today? I have to look for the time difference, it's 4pm here where I live...

I think the Smuggars will be less smug today, I hope