Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events


  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, quarks said:

It's possible that prosecutors are planning on having Jill as their last witness. In which case, she might testify today, or she might not testify until Monday.

Or she isn't testifying after all.

Could she have just been listed as a back up plan if the court hadn't allowed the Holt testimony (due to the "they were clergy" thing)?

  • Love 4
6 minutes ago, lascuba said:

According to the Sun, Austin was sitting next to Anna and Derick until Joy arrived and he moved to the back (the front rows were full by that point). No doubt they're all reading the reports of the trial, so I'm thinking he chose to sit with them to make it clear he was there to support the family.

Interesting. Maybe we're reading the room wrong and all the Duggars think Pest's innocent? I guess they could be supporting the family brand and not necessarily Josh himself, but I find the optics a bit strange. 

 

  • Love 11
41 minutes ago, irisheyes said:

In this isolated case, I’m ok with Amy tweeting this. Cause it was completely disgusting. I don’t care if they hadn’t heard the specifics. They know that Josh is on trial for downloading pictures of kids being abused. 

For sure!  I wasn't trying to imply that Amy was being inappropriate by becoming more forthright.  I applaud clarity and honesty!  Finally!!!

  • Love 17
4 minutes ago, BitterApple said:

Interesting. Maybe we're reading the room wrong and all the Duggars think Pest's innocent? I guess they could be supporting the family brand and not necessarily Josh himself, but I find the optics a bit strange. 

 

I still think their need to protect the brand is bigger than whatever they think of Josh. I'm sure some of them think he's guilty, they just don't think he should go to prison for it.

4 minutes ago, Picture It. Sicily said:

Nice to see she has her priorities in order, as usual.

The way the Sun worded it, it sounded like she first got angry when they stated that "intell1988" was also Josh's password for his bank account. One would think she would have changed that password by now but this is Anna we're talking about.

Edited by lascuba
  • LOL 5
  • Love 16

According to a Sun reporter at the trial, there was a point during the trial on Friday in which passwords Josh Duggar used for his bank accounts - Intel1988 -were revealed to be the same as the password for access to the partition to access the dark web.

At that time, Anna Duggar looked "mad" and was complaining to Derick Dillard.

The Sun reporter noted that Anna went to the bathroom and came back and started complaining to another woman, who may work for the lawyers, the reporter added.

It was noted that her email and phone number were shown and she may have been upset because it was her personal information was on display.

This was the first time the Sun reporter noted a strong reaction from Anna.

James Fottrell, the Director of the Department of Justice for Child Exploitation, was questioned again on Friday morning.

He said that he looked into tools that could have allowed remote access to devices, but that it didn't fit the pattern, according to the Sun reporter at the trial.

He said the images were viewed through a video player and someone would have to physically be there to turn on the computer and open the files.

 

Fottrell inspected the Macbook and iPhone, according to his testimony on Friday at the trial and the Sun reporter in the courtroom.

The reporter noted that the computer screensaver was a TV screen of Josh and Anna Duggar smiling from 19 Kids and Counting and that someone appeared to take a photo of a TV for it.

The Macbook had Adobe programs, Covenant Eyes, and a VLC player, according to testimony heard by the Sun reporter at the trial.

 

  • Useful 11
9 minutes ago, libgirl2 said:

No one else is there for her. Maybe he feels sorry for her. 

Or the kids. The 7Ms are going to need someone other than Anna/JB/Meech. As much as I wish Anna would lose custody, that is not how it works. She’ll still have them. If all she’s left with is JB and Michelle, that’s no good. I don’t think it’s wrong or supporting Josh in any way for him to sit by her. Those are his childrens’ cousins. It’s easy for us to say Fuck Anna. We don’t have any relationship to her or the kids. It’s different when you personally know someone. Anna isn’t suddenly going to come to her senses, obviously, and she may never. If he and Jill can be a bridge to get the M kids out of the control of the TTH, being nice to Anna is the only way. 

  • Love 21
3 minutes ago, lascuba said:

The way the Sun worded it, it sounded like she first got angry when they stated that "intell1988" was also Josh's password for his bank account. One would think she would have changed that password by now but this is Anna we're talking about.

Reading this, I am reminded of this scene from Spaceballs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iW-8xPw3k

  • LOL 11

Fottrell then explained that the computer had a Tor browser and qBittorrent remnants that had been there and installed at some point, but not there when the device was seized.

 

Fottrell also added that the Intel1988 password had been used for five years.

qBitTorrent was used for a children's movie download in 2017, he said, according to the Sun reporter at the trial.

  • Useful 3

Firstly, I'm not sure I trust the Sun to interpret why Anna was mad. Secondly,  I think her email and phone # should have been covered (or she should change them duh). Thirdly, I still think its entirely possible that Austin, Joy, Derrick and of course Anna, Justin, Claire - all think that Josh is being framed by nasty liberals. But not sure...

From CC McCandless this morning -- fottrell said he used josh's iPhone to place Duggar at the car lot at the exact time the illegal material was downloaded 

  • Love 14
39 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

Why does everyone assume he turned his computer off when he wasn't using it? I find this logic very strange.

I don’t think that’s what they are going for. I think the defense is going to insinuate that maybe someone remotely viewed/downloaded  them and then perhaps it wasn’t Josh.  
 

Saying someone had to physically be there to do that removes that argument. At least that is my take on it. 
 

EDIT:People have explained I am wrong several times. No need for more. I’m just skimming inbwtween meetings. 

Edited by Trillium
  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
1 minute ago, Trillium said:

Saying someone had to physically be there to do that removes that argument. At least that is my take on it. 

But they aren't saying why someone has to be physically present. They just keep saying someone has to be physically present to turn on the computer and boot it up. But what if its already on and on that partition side?

  • Love 2
1 minute ago, Trillium said:

Saying someone had to physically be there to do that removes that argument. At least that is my take on it. 

Someone would have to physically be there to boot into the partition, but if he left the machine unattended while booted into the partition, someone could remotely access it, if they knew the ip address, username, and password.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
6 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Wouldn't he have to turn it off/reboot to switch back to Windows? I'd imagine he'd always turn it off after using Linux.

This is lazy ass Josh.  Even the most diligent person forgets to turn things off. I just don't understand why they don't go for the remote settings, which means you don't have to do this kind of mental gymnastics.  Meh, I'm beating a deadhorse.  I don't like holes like this in testimony.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 13
12 minutes ago, Trillium said:

I don’t think that’s what they are going for. I think the defense is going to insinuate that maybe someone remotely viewed/downloaded  them and then perhaps it wasn’t Josh.  
 

Saying someone had to physically be there to do that removes that argument. At least that is my take on it. 

But if the computer is on, then yes, someone can access it and download things to the computer IF the remote capabilities are turned on.  You don't have to be there to download it. Again, stating what the settings of this function were, negates that entire possibility.  It's like death by a 1000 papercuts.  

  • Useful 1
  • Love 5
3 minutes ago, hathorlive said:

This is lazy ass Josh.  Even the most diligent person forgets to turn things off. I just don't understand why they don't go for the remote settings, which means you don't have to do this kind of mental gymnastics.  Meh, I'm beating a deadhorse.  I don't like holes like this in testimony.

Wouldn't there be some sort of record in the log if someone ssh'd into the machine? I feel like this is something that could very easily be established, and perhaps we'll straighten this up when the defense cross examines. 

  • Love 3
Just now, libgirl2 said:

I can't believe I am saying this but, he cleans up pretty nice. 

Okay, hell has officially frozen over.  But I agree.  He is showing respect for the court by dressing nicely.  

1 minute ago, absnow54 said:

Wouldn't there be some sort of record in the log if someone ssh'd into the machine? I feel like this is something that could very easily be established, and perhaps we'll straighten this up when the defense cross examines. 

That's kind of my take on it.  Why not simply and emphatically say "remote sessions are logged.  They are noticeable. I checked the settings and the logs.  This function wasn't turned on and we see no remote session initiated.  That takes away any nagging thought from that line of defense.

  • Love 21
11 minutes ago, riverblue22 said:

Even lazy ass Josh would remember that he couldn't dare leave his computer in the Linux partition for someone to accidentally come across it.

But despite the defense's attempts to show the car lot as the busiest place in the world, would the random person who came into the place even notice that the computer was using linux? If there was a GUI interface and it was on some random screen, who would notice that? And if Josh were careful about his computer habits, HSI wouldn't know about him because he'd have used a VPN.

Edited by hathorlive
  • Love 9

IMO, Anna does not think Josh either possessed the CSA at all, or purposely had them on his computer. In that respect, she is not putting her kids at risk. I'm guessing for the last few months she's been filled with excuses and lies. Excuses and lies she wants to be true. Excuses and lies may be the only thing she is capable of believing.

I'm not defending her, I'm only offering a different perspective. Similar to what I've seen multiple times working with clients.

  • Love 17
17 minutes ago, Gemma Violet said:

I've seen this term a couple of times here and I'm confused.  Does this mean a "zero" chance or "opposite of zero" chance, i.e., a great chance? 

Typically when someone says "non-zero" they mean that it isn't absolutely impossible (zero chance)  but it is very unlikely.  So if I buy a single powerball ticket, there is a non-zero chance that I will win the jackpot, but I shouldn't bet my future on it. 

  • Useful 9
  • Love 8

Regarding the theory of Derrick being there to support Anna, because she would be sitting alone otherwise, I wonder if there is some truth to that. I think back to when the Ashley Madison scandal and/or the news of the molestations first came out and in the television previews, I'm not sure if it was the Megyn Kelly interview, Jill said "my first thoughts were for Anna". Maybe they are emotionally supporting her because her shit in-laws and even her own parents are not. Still, I agree, I don't know how ANYONE could "support" her knowing she is standing by Josh. I too cannot read the details on Reddit or in the articles. Josh is profoundly depraved.

  • Love 12
Quote

On May 15, 2019, a text at 11.15am from Josh's phone said he was at the car lot and that he would be around until 1.00pm and added, "Will be back."

Between 11.00am and noon that day, torrent files with minors engaging in explicit content were downloaded.

They are hammering Josh on these text messages with simultaneous CP downloads.

  • Useful 4
  • Love 19
1 hour ago, quarks said:

And speaking of detachment from reality, I admit to wondering which Duggars/Duggarlings/Duggar adjacents will be showing up today.

Jeer's 6 seater plane flew to TN this morning. surely for Katie Bates' wedding tonight. will be interesting to see if JB and Meech flew off to a wedding during the trial.

  • Useful 5
  • Love 8
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...