Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[MamaR]

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-trial-jessa-duggar-attends-judge-denies-defenses-motion-to-acquit/

 

Was anyone aware of this??

[absnow54]

I can’t wait for the prosecution to recall their witnesses and clarify what the defense presented. I get that The Sun’s live feed probably has a lot that’s lost in translation, but I can’t make sense of their argument. Why are they trying to argue that Josh couldn’t have installed Tor, when he USES the browser, there’s a picture with his reflection in the computer screen minutes before the browser was installed, and you don’t need to google the command lines, because they give you the command lines on the download page. Were these “hackers” so savvy that they only remotely booted the computer (please elaborate on doing this without additional hardware at the car lot to support this) when Josh happened to be there, and only streamed the content when he was there too? Their argument makes no sense. 

[CandyCaneTree]

21 minutes ago, Ijustwantsomechips said:

That’s a nice suit Smuggar had on today. He’s still a fat fuck though.   

Fun fact: The name “Smuggar” now auto populates on my phone 😁

Same here with my phone. 

[merylinkid]

5 minutes ago, MamaR said:

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-trial-jessa-duggar-attends-judge-denies-defenses-motion-to-acquit/

 

Was anyone aware of this??

Standard procedure.  At the close of the prosecution's case, the defense always moves to acquit claiming the prosecution didn't prove their case.  Sometimes they didn't and the motion is granted.  Here they did enough to send it to the jury.

[MamaR]

Just now, merylinkid said:

Standard procedure.  At the close of the prosecution's case, the defense always moves to acquit claiming the prosecution didn't prove their case.  Sometimes they didn't and the motion is granted.  Here they did enough to send it to the jury.

Thank you!

[Jeanne222]

Josh Dugger has brought his entire family to the lowest of low places. 

They recovered the first time. They will never recover from this!

[Churchhoney]

1 hour ago, absnow54 said:

 Were these “hackers” so savvy that they only remotely booted the computer (please elaborate on doing this without additional hardware at the car lot to support this) when Josh happened to be there, and only streamed the content when he was there too? Their argument makes no sense. 

Perhaps the hackers are psychic?  

Or maybe this proves that Satan really did do it? 

[Rootbeer]

2 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

The defense is really pushing remote access.

Isn't that their only hope at this point?  The prosecution has Josh sitting at the computer as the CSAM downloaded onto the machine.  All of the other possible 'suspects' named have been pretty well ruled out since it seems they all have very good alibis.  If Josh, the only person in the room when the images were downloaded didn't do it, there's only one other option, no?  They've gotta hit the remote access hard because the only other option is that Joshly did it.

To me, if anything, the repeated harping on remote access just proves that the prosecution has Josh dead to rights because they're having to go out on this very shaky limb.  Obviously, the prosecution case is very, very strong or they'd be trying to claim something else was amiss.  Something more believable.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Rootbeer

[lascuba]

It doesn't make a difference, I know, but is the defense arguing that someone downloaded CSAM on Josh's computer remotely for the purpose of viewing it themselves or to frame Josh for some nebulous reason? 

And are we supposed to believe that someone remotely booted Josh's computer and download programs and files multiple time while Josh was right there and he didn't notice?

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, lascuba said:

is the defense arguing that someone downloaded CSAM on Josh's computer remotely for the purpose of viewing it themselves or to frame Josh for some nebulous reason? 

I've not yet seen any summary of the proceedings that shows the defense being this specific. The tactic seems to just basically be "It's not Josh! We know he's sitting right there in the chair, but it's not him!" without acknowledging the other party's apparent motive.

[riverblue22]

Would the jury have heard the defense attorney's move to acquit?  Because the judge's response gives a good idea what he thinks of this case.

[Rootbeer]

12 minutes ago, riverblue22 said:

Would the jury have heard the defense attorney's move to acquit?  Because the judge's response gives a good idea what he thinks of this case.

Yes, I think they do, but it is really a routine thing and the judge dismisses it almost every time.  It usually is just a quick sentence or two.  It really doesn't say anything about the judge's opinion of the case except that the prosecution has presented what appears to be valid evidence to prove the charges and now, the defense has to refute that evidence.

[galaxygirl76]

32 minutes ago, lascuba said:

It doesn't make a difference, I know, but is the defense arguing that someone downloaded CSAM on Josh's computer remotely for the purpose of viewing it themselves or to frame Josh for some nebulous reason? 

And are we supposed to believe that someone remotely booted Josh's computer and download programs and files multiple time while Josh was right there and he didn't notice?

Yes, remember that according to the defense Josh is pretty dumb because he was home schooled.

[MsJamieDornan]

3 hours ago, Madtown said:

Personally, I truly believe Joy, Austin, Derick, Jessa and everyone else that is there, is there to support Josh. Maybe it's just all I have read and seen from this family. They probably believe that satan made him do this or the girls are at fault. I also think like others that maybe JB and MEchelle told them they need to go.

I think you are exactly right.  As soon as it was mentioned that Derrick was there sitting next to Anna, I got the feeling JBoob and the lawyers told them all to be there to support Anna and Josh and make everything look good. And, I think most if not all them think Josh is innocent. Yes, even the girls.  It's the way they were raised and Jboob is still in control.

[ginger90]

25 minutes ago, riverblue22 said:

Would the jury have heard the defense attorney's move to acquit?  Because the judge's response gives a good idea what he thinks of this case.

I believe everyone except the jury is there.

[emmawoodhouse]

10 minutes ago, MsJamieDornan said:

I think you are exactly right.  As soon as it was mentioned that Derrick was there sitting next to Anna, I got the feeling JBoob and the lawyers told them all to be there to support Anna and Josh and make everything look good. And, I think most if not all them think Josh is innocent. Yes, even the girls.  It's the way they were raised and Jboob is still in control.

Boob does not control Derick. They don't even speak. If he's there for Anna, it's of his own accord, not a dictate from on high.

On another note, DOJ expert Fortrell has been with them since 2002. Michelle? She works for Mommy, and her forensics certifications are not quite four years old.

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by emmawoodhouse

[MsJamieDornan]

7 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Boob does not control Derick. They don't even speak. If he's there for Anna, it's of his own accord, not a dictate from on high.

He didnt have to speak to him , JBoob could have put out word to the family to be there. And, by the end of the trial, most of them will have made an appearance. jmo

[emmawoodhouse]

He wouldn't contact the Dillards. They're persona non grata as far as he's concerned.

[Lady Jane]

42 minutes ago, Rootbeer said:

Yes, I think they do, but it is really a routine thing and the judge dismisses it almost every time.  It usually is just a quick sentence or two.  It really doesn't say anything about the judge's opinion of the case except that the prosecution has presented what appears to be valid evidence to prove the charges and now, the defense has to refute that evidence.

In my jurisdiction, the judge would have done this outside the presence of the jury, just like all other motions (not talking about things like objections during testimony). You wouldn't want the jury to hear the motion (though as you note it is a quick "I move . . ." and think that the judge's ruling meant something about the merits of the case. In my experience when the first side rests, the judge will take a break then, then after a brief break call the attorneys & defendant come in to handle any motions or anything that needs to be decided before the defense puts on their case. There are likely to be other motions at the start of the defense case in chief-- motions in limine (to exclude or rule on evidence preemptively) that arose during the prosecution case in chief, so they tend to do that all at once.

Dear god I don't miss trial work.

MAN did Austin look PISSED leaving court today. He strikes me as one who isn't fooled by this nonsense.

ETA: my belief is that Derrick is there for Jill, not Anna or anyone else. If Jill is on the potential witness list, she should be excluded from the courtroom until she has testified. (At least here, all named witnesses are excluded so as not to prejudice their testimony by hearing what everyone else said. I believe Derrick is there to listen for her, and give her an idea what to expect if she is called.

Plus, as a first year lawyer I would have attended any trial of or about anyone I knew -- nobody loves being a lawyer more than a first year lawyer. Second year the gloves come off. But he's still at that stage where he finds it fascinating, I bet. They're so cute when they're little.

ETA2: Derrick is most probably sitting in the family section because otherwise he'd be competing with the  local hoi-paloi for a seat in the courtroom. He can sit in the reserved family section rather than fight for one of the public spots. I don't know why it would even occur to him to sit elsewhere. It also feels like a big FU to Jim Bob -- even he is smarter than to make a show out of snarling at Derrick or trying to have him removed.

Edited December 7, 2021 by Lady Jane

[Tuxcat]

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

It doesn't make a difference, I know, but is the defense arguing that someone downloaded CSAM on Josh's computer remotely for the purpose of viewing it themselves or to frame Josh for some nebulous reason? 

And are we supposed to believe that someone remotely booted Josh's computer and download programs and files multiple time while Josh was right there and he didn't notice?

So I read and heard (via the TikTok lawyer) that this witness called it a "hit and run." Basically the hacker gets in there and does what it needs to do and then gets out. That's their theory to explain the three days only - and why images and files appear as if they weren't opened or viewed for very long or at all.

Of course what they are not saying is - if this is some weird random remote  hacker - then who installed the partition, the Linux OS the TOR browser and the utorrent. You can not do all of that remotely. Which means that perhaps it was someone he knew. But by their own logic, why did this person essentially go the hard route and install things via complicated command codes when they could have accessed and planted CSAM a much easier way. Lastly, Josh would have seen this person physically struggling to google command codes - lol. Josh was there!

Her final argument was how come there is no other evidence of CSAM at all - anywhere - the last five years. What a ridiculous argument. Josh just leaves CSAM out for everyone to see? He could get arrested. Oh wait. LOL 

I was disappointed that the TikTok lawyer found this defense witness credible. It now makes me think the TikTok lawyer is either sensationalizing or- not very credible herself.

This will all come down to the makeup of the jury - we could get a hold out that says "but what about that router..."

Btw I'm very excited to see if Anna bought two dresses this weekend. What will it be tomorrow. I think another power color.

[Tuxcat]

Summary of defense witness arguments by people magazine

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-trial-defense-forensics-expert-theorizes-hacker-was-responsible/

[YupItsMe]

5 hours ago, mittsigirl said:

From the Sun-

https://www.the-sun.com/entertainment/4214458/josh-duggar-guardian-hannah-reber-real-men-trial/?rec_article=true

Article says daughter-in-law, but isn’t she their daughter? It would have made the article a little more powerful if they’d gotten that right…

[emmawoodhouse]

Just now, YupItsMe said:

Article says daughter-in-law, but isn’t she their daughter? It would have made the article a little more powerful if they’d gotten that right…

No, the daughter in law is also named Hannah and made that post. 

[YupItsMe]

13 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

No, the daughter in law is also named Hannah and made that post. 

Ah, I thought the dark-haired girl pictured was their daughter. My mistake.

[emmawoodhouse]

16 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

Ah, I thought the dark-haired girl pictured was their daughter. My mistake.

She's gone private, but from the back of her profile picture, she is a dark brunette, just like Hannah Reber Keller.

[mynextmistake]

Based on what I’ve read so far, I think Josh was screwed the minute Bobye Holt testified. Maybe — maybe — without that testimony the case putting Josh at the car dealership while the CSM material was downloaded would have been circumstantial enough that the defense expert could have made the jurors believe that Josh, a loving and decent family man with no attraction to children, was the victim of some kind of complex hacking incident. Maybe. 

But the moment they heard he was a child molester? Bye bye, reasonable doubt. You have an admitted child molester at a car lot by himself at the time CSM material is downloaded and you expect a jury to believe that it was a terrible coincidence? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

I did have a question. The people article talks about Bobye Holt’s testimony and says she testified that Josh admitted to touching girls aged 12-15. Did she not testify about the younger victim, the 6-year-old? Because I think that would be an important thing for the prosecution to get into evidence. 

[emmawoodhouse]

4 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

Based on what I’ve read so far, I think Josh was screwed the minute Bobye Holt testified. Maybe — maybe — without that testimony the case putting Josh at the car dealership while the CSM material was downloaded would have been circumstantial enough that the defense expert could have made the jurors believe that Josh, a loving and decent family man with no attraction to children, was the victim of some kind of complex hacking incident. Maybe. 

But the moment they heard he was a child molester? Bye bye, reasonable doubt. You have an admitted child molester at a car lot by himself at the time CSM material is downloaded and you expect a jury to believe that it was a terrible coincidence? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on it.

I did have a question. The people article talks about Bobye Holt’s testimony and says she testified that Josh admitted to touching girls aged 12-15. Did she not testify about the younger victim, the 6-year-old? Because I think that would be an important thing for the prosecution to get into evidence. 

Josh was aged 12-15 when he preyed, his victims were anywhere from 5-11.

[Jeanne222]

I have to score for the defense in having Anna attached to Josh throughout the trial then having numerous family members sitting right behind Josh and close and next too Anna.

If I was a juror I'd be thinking this C P we have seen is the worst of the worst.  Why are they all still there FOR JOSH if he's guilty?

Do they know Josh and Anna have seven young children and a newborn baby.

I have concerns. Hopefully this jury will consider only the facts.

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

I have to score for the defense in having Anna attached to Josh throughout the trial then having numerous family members sitting right behind Josh and close and next too Anna.

If I was a juror I'd be thinking this C P we have seen is the worst of the worst.  Why are they all still there FOR JOSH if he's guilty?

Do they know Josh and Anna have seven young children and a newborn baby.

I have concerns. Hopefully this jury will consider only the facts.

Did we hear about the opening statements? I'm sure Gelfand or Story painted Smuggar as a godly family man. If they didn't try that tactic, they should be fired. 

[skatelady]

4 hours ago, MamaR said:

https://people.com/tv/josh-duggar-trial-jessa-duggar-attends-judge-denies-defenses-motion-to-acquit/

 

If you scroll down to the bottom of that article, it lists all the family members that have attended. It specifically mentions Justin, but...... not Hilaria. She must be crushed. I mean, isn't that why she went to the trial???? And why she married her daughter off to a Duggar??? To get mentioned in People???? Poor thing. Bet she's not grinning NOW.

[Zella]

5 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Did we hear about the opening statements? I'm sure Gelfand or Story painted Smuggar as a godly family man. If they didn't try that tactic, they should be fired. 

I distinctly recall one of them saying he was a good guy and they were proud to represent him. I believe it was paired with the "But he can't handle all this technology because he was homeschooled by Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar." I know what they were going for, but I can't imagine saying that in any tone and not sounding patronizing as hell. 

[emmawoodhouse]

Oh, I forgot the biggest takeaway from the opening statements! He's dumb as a box of hair! 😂

Edited December 7, 2021 by emmawoodhouse
Rogue comma!

[mynextmistake]

25 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

I have to score for the defense in having Anna attached to Josh throughout the trial then having numerous family members sitting right behind Josh and close and next too Anna.

If I was a juror I'd be thinking this C P we have seen is the worst of the worst.  Why are they all still there FOR JOSH if he's guilty?

Do they know Josh and Anna have seven young children and a newborn baby.

I have concerns. Hopefully this jury will consider only the facts.

The people in the gallery aren’t allowed to interact with the defendant while the jury is in the courtroom. This is presumably a well-attended trial; the gallery is probably crowded and the jury doesn’t have any way to know that the Duggars are Josh’s family members, or that they are there to support him. 

[jcbrown]

8 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

The people in the gallery aren’t allowed to interact with the defendant while the jury is in the courtroom. This is presumably a well-attended trial; the gallery is probably crowded and the jury doesn’t have any way to know that the Duggars are Josh’s family members, or that they are there to support him. 

They aren't? Then what are we to make of the Sun's reporting of Pest shaking Dreck's hand and putting his hand on Joy's shoulder and touching Anna? Is the gallery somewhere different from there the Duggar hive are sitting?

[mynextmistake]

12 minutes ago, jcbrown said:

They aren't? Then what are we to make of the Sun's reporting of Pest shaking Dreck's hand and putting his hand on Joy's shoulder and touching Anna? Is the gallery somewhere different from there the Duggar hive are sitting?

Well, I wasn’t there, but I assume that the jury was not in the room when the contact took place. The people from the gallery (which is just a fancy term for the spectator seating in a courthouse) are allowed to interact with the defendant on breaks and such, but the jury isn’t in the courtroom during breaks. They are waiting in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom, there should be no contact between the defendant and anyone other than his or her legal team, for exactly this reason — the court doesn’t want to take the risk that witnessing contact would prejudice the jury either for or against the defendant. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by mynextmistake

[Zella]

31 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

This is presumably a well-attended trial; the gallery is probably crowded and the jury doesn’t have any way to know that the Duggars are Josh’s family members, or that they are there to support him. 

Per people who have attended, it's not super crowded. Seems like most of the attendees are Duggar relatives and/or in-laws and media, with the occasional rubbernecking snarker. 

[Tabbygirl521]

1 hour ago, Jeanne222 said:

I have to score for the defense in having Anna attached to Josh throughout the trial then having numerous family members sitting right behind Josh and close and next too Anna.

If I was a juror I'd be thinking this C P we have seen is the worst of the worst.  Why are they all still there FOR JOSH if he's guilty?

Do they know Josh and Anna have seven young children and a newborn baby.

I have concerns. Hopefully this jury will consider only the facts.

Travis Alexander’s siblings were pretty much smooshed between Jodi Arias’ mom, aunt, and a jailhouse fan girl whose name I’m blanking on. I don’t know that there’s much to be inferred by who is sitting where in a small courtroom with limited seating. 

[GeeGolly]

Personally I think it would be obvious to the jurors who is there to support Josh. All the siblings have been sitting with the wife of the defendant. The wife who clearly supports her husband. I don't think one juror is going to surmise these 'spectators' are there to support the defendant's wife and not the defendant. 

And all have interacted with Anna in the jurors presence. Whether it be a smile, a nod or a whisper, the jurors see it. I wouldn't be surprised if they've seen smiles and nods to Josh too. IMO, this matters. Everything in the courtroom matters. Its far easier to believe a 30 something year old guy is a sexual deviant when he's unsupported in the courtroom. 

I think our discussions on the presence of the siblings is a good representation of what happens in deliberations. Different pieces of evidence are interpreted differently and different pieces of evidence carry more weight for some jurors than others. And different folks (knowingly and unknowingly) want to believe different things and so they (intentionally and unintentionally) make their observations fit their narrative.

Jurors are human, this is why lawyers try hard to get some on the jury and others dismissed. They bring themselves into the deliberations, even when they try hard not to.

[Snow Fairy]

Are the jurors allowed to know about Duggars via TLC show?

Or can they google those information about Josh now that the trial is taking place? Wouldn't some of them be courious?

[GeeGolly]

47 minutes ago, Snow Fairy said:

Are the jurors allowed to know about Duggars via TLC show?

Or can they google those information about Josh now that the trial is taking place? Wouldn't some of them be courious?

In all the court cases I have seen, real and fake, no one who closely followed the Duggars would have made it onto the jury. Maybe knowing of them, but not fans or anyone who watched the show regularly.

And again, from watching cases, both real and fake, jurors are instructed not to do any independent searches for evidence or information about the defendants during the course of the trial. They are also told to avoid any news about the trial, including gossip about any key players.

However I'm not a lawyer.

[Trillium]

6 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

I have to score for the defense in having Anna attached to Josh throughout the trial then having numerous family members sitting right behind Josh and close and next too Anna.

If I was a juror I'd be thinking this C P we have seen is the worst of the worst.  Why are they all still there FOR JOSH if he's guilty?

Do they know Josh and Anna have seven young children and a newborn baby.

I have concerns. Hopefully this jury will consider only the facts.

Just as a FYI, one is sitting behind Josh. This isn’t a typical courtroom layout, there’s  one sport for everyone to sit.  The the prosecution, defense, and Josh the are to the left of the gallery, the jury box is to the right. According to people who are there, they give you a number and that is where they have to sit in the gallery. 
 

After all the evidence, I doubt who was there will enter their mind, and if it does, it will be “fuck them too”, not “Well he was right there when the downloads happened but some of his random siblings were in court, so maybe not guilty” I’d bet a significant amount of money they don’t care about any of his family and who’s been there. 

[ginger90]

7 hours ago, YupItsMe said:

Ah, I thought the dark-haired girl pictured was their daughter. My mistake.

The Sun had it wrong earlier in the day. They corrected it. They originally  referred to her as the Reber’s daughter. Notice the post is from Hannah Bunch Reber. That’s their daughter-in-law’s Facebook page.

[GeeGolly]

5 minutes ago, Trillium said:

Just as a FYI, one is sitting behind Josh. This isn’t a typical courtroom layout, there’s  one sport for everyone to sit.  The the prosecution, defense, and Josh the are to the left of the gallery, the jury box is to the right. According to people who are there, they give you a number and that is where they have to sit in the gallery. 
 

After all the evidence, I doubt who was there will enter their mind, and if it does, it will be “fuck them too”, not “Well he was right there when the downloads happened but some of his random siblings were in court, so maybe not guilty” I’d bet a significant amount of money they don’t care about any of his family and who’s been there. 

From what I understand, the numbered seats are the reserved seats. The prosecution has 10 and the defense has 10. If a spectator doesn't want to sit up front, they can choose any of the non-reserved seats.

[absnow54]

13 minutes ago, Trillium said:

After all the evidence, I doubt who was there will enter their mind, and if it does, it will be “fuck them too”, not “Well he was right there when the downloads happened but some of his random siblings were in court, so maybe not guilty” I’d bet a significant amount of money they don’t care about any of his family and who’s been there. 

Are Jim Bob and Michelle not showing up so the jury thinks he’s an orphan?

[Trillium]

15 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

From what I understand, the numbered seats are the reserved seats. The prosecution has 10 and the defense has 10. If a spectator doesn't want to sit up front, they can choose any of the non-reserved seats.

I hadn’t heard that at all.  The Redditor who was there was given a number and said that’s where they had to sit. She’s just there as a random person, she was the row being them.  She also said the prosecutors dad was in the front row as well. Again, I think people are blowing who’s sitting where way way out of proportion. Josh isn’t going to be acquitted because Derick sat by Anna. 

1 minute ago, Trillium said:

Edited December 7, 2021 by Trillium

[lascuba]

My most vivid memory of the OJ Simpson trial was after his acquittal, when one of the jurors was interviewed and said that the domestic violence evidence was a waste of her time because it wasn't a domestic abuse trial. I have next to no experience with the legal system so I'm not trying to make any educated guesses here, but I can't assume the molestation evidence is something all the jurors are going to take into account.

We're also in a particular social climate right now where people are ultra committed to their "teams." I haven't read what the demographics of the jury are, but assuming they're all or mostly white conservative christians, determining the guilt of semi-famous white conservative christian man? I'm nervous, guys.

This is also why I think Derick is there to support Josh and the rest of the family (supporting Anna is the same as supporting Josh. Anna wants Josh acquitted, she's not going to be friendly with anyone who disagrees no matter how nice to her they are). At BEST, he doesn't care about the end results and is simply there out of academic interest.

[merylinkid]

Just like when Josh did anything during his pre-trial release and we were all "Put him back in jail" I think we are reading waaaaaaay too much into who is sitting where in the courtroom.   The jury may know Anna is his wife, but they may not know who the other people are who are talking to her.   For all they know its a reporter trying to get a scoop, or her own family that you would expect to be there.   They are NOT necessarily going "Oh his whole family has shown up, must mean he is innocent."

The OJ case isn't really comparable.   The prosecution did a terrible job in that one.   They thought they had a slam dunk and so didn't properly prepare.   They hung with Mark Fuhrman and tried to rehabilitate his testimony when it was faaaar too late.  They fell for the stupid trick of letting him try on the glove.   They let the defense run with all kinds of theories and did NOT do the closing that was shown in the bar scene in The People v. OJ Simpson (where Marcia Clark spells out how IMPOSSIBLE it was for the police to have planted the evidence in the known timeline of events.).   

 

  Here, we have pictures of Josh IN FRONT OF THE COMPUTER right at the time the Linux was downloaded.   We have text messages from him at the car lot saying "working late tonight, customers [hahahahahahahahahahahaha, added by me]"  AT THE EXACT MOMENT the images finished downloading.    We have two very clear files.   The prosecution didn't try to overcharge and muddy things up with partial downloads or fragments.   They went with what they had that put him at the computer at that moment.    So even if they consider the prior molestations irrelevant, that does not mean they will discount the actual HARD EVIDENCE of someone sitting right there when the stuff downloaded to the computer.   

Occam's Razor -- the theory with the least "ifs" is most likely the correct one.

Prosecution:   He was sitting in front of the computer when the stuff downloaded.

Defense:  IF the WiFI was open and IF someone had the password and IF someone knew that partition existed, then they remotely downloaded stuff onto the computer for ..... reasons.     

In other words, if you gotta do mental gymnastics to get there, you probably don't have it right.   

There ain't no such thing as a slam dunk in a trial -- but if you prepare properly and put on solid evidence that links everything up in a chain, you got a solid case and very little chance of the jury not getting it.  

[GeeGolly]

I don't think one thing will convict Josh or set him free. Whatever the decision will be, will be due to multiple considerations.

I don't know how many of you have seen any post trial juror interviews, but many that I have seen leave me scratching my head - even when I agree with the verdict.

[quarks]

8 hours ago, jcbrown said:

They aren't? Then what are we to make of the Sun's reporting of Pest shaking Dreck's hand and putting his hand on Joy's shoulder and touching Anna? Is the gallery somewhere different from there the Duggar hive are sitting?

That The Sun is really, really interested in page clicks.

I don't think the jury is really going to be paying too much attention to which random Duggar is sitting behind Josh Duggar and next to Anna or not, especially since the jurors aren't able to see the interactions that The Sun is obsessed about. If jurors do pay attention, though, it will be hard not to notice:

1. Only two of the Duggars/adjacents have bothered to show up for his entire trial: his wife (which is understandable/typical) and Derick. Joy and Austin have been there for most of the trial, but in the back of the room. 

2. Joy has, according to multiple sources, looked tense and upset; Austin is visibly angry in the pictures that have popped up in the media. 

3. The others who have shown up (Justin, Hillary, Jason, James) have only shown up for a couple of hours, notably during the testimony of Matthew Waller, who was identified as a brother-in-law, and Bobye Holt, identified as a long term family friend.  

And although the jury won't know this, the second group (Jason, James) showed up on a day when most of us were expecting Jill and Jed! to testify. It's quite possible that Jason and James had the same expectations.

4. The other adult members have not bothered to show up at all, at least not yet (Jim Bob, Michelle, Jana, JD, Jinger, Joe, Josiah, Jer, and respective spouses.) 

The one thing that people know about the Duggars, other than Josh Duggar sucks, is that they are a very large family. So....where are they? Jill and Jer have an excuse. Where are the others?

I genuinely don't see how most jurors will look at this and think, oh, his family is supporting him. To me, it suggests the direct opposite. I'm not saying that they all want to see him in jail. I don't think that's true either. I expect many of them have extremely complicated feelings right now.  And I suspect these feelings differ, with some thinking that Josh is innocent, some knowing that Josh is guilty, and others not really sure.

But regardless of what they are thinking/not thinking, I'm also just not seeing this huge THE DUGGARS ARE BEHIND AND SUPPORTING HIM! Apart from a few statements made right after his arrest, none of them have even mentioned him. Their social media - granted, not a complete/accurate picture, and certainly a curated one - shows them going around pretty much doing their own thing. At least one headed out to a wedding and other to an engagement party during this trial. 

And I also think it's entirely possible that at least some of them are there to support Anna - but not Josh. After all, these are people who have all interacted with Anna and Josh for years. They know the dynamics. They are capable of distinguishing the two. And the one public comment that we do have from a Duggar adjacent, Hillary, asked people to pray for Anna, apologized for not helping/supporting Anna enough, and defended Justin, not Josh.

Even leaving all this aside, though, I think the majority of people are fully capable of saying, yep, family is supporting him. Still guilty! After all, look at the number of people on this thread alone saying just that. I think the jury will be able to say the same thing.

TL/DR: We can't be sure why specific Duggars are showing up or what they are doing, and we have no way of knowing if the jury has even noticed, will care, or believe that Josh has to be innocent because some of his family members showed up to court.

[madpsych78]

4 minutes ago, quarks said:

That The Sun is really, really interested in page clicks.

I don't think the jury is really going to be paying too much attention to which random Duggar is sitting behind Josh Duggar and next to Anna or not, especially since the jurors aren't able to see the interactions that The Sun is obsessed about. If jurors do pay attention, though, it will be hard not to notice:

1. Only two of the Duggars/adjacents have bothered to show up for his entire trial: his wife (which is understandable/typical) and Derick. Joy and Austin have been there for most of the trial, but in the back of the room. 

2. Joy has, according to multiple sources, looked tense and upset; Austin is visibly angry in the pictures that have popped up in the media. 

3. The others who have shown up (Justin, Hillary, Jason, James) have only shown up for a couple of hours, notably during the testimony of Matthew Waller, who was identified as a brother-in-law, and Bobye Holt, identified as a long term family friend.  

And although the jury won't know this, the second group (Jason, James) showed up on a day when most of us were expecting Jill and Jed! to testify. It's quite possible that Jason and James had the same expectations.

4. The other adult members have not bothered to show up at all, at least not yet (Jim Bob, Michelle, Jana, JD, Jinger, Joe, Josiah, Jer, and respective spouses.) 

The one thing that people know about the Duggars, other than Josh Duggar sucks, is that they are a very large family. So....where are they? Jill and Jer have an excuse. Where are the others?

I genuinely don't see how most jurors will look at this and think, oh, his family is supporting him. To me, it suggests the direct opposite. I'm not saying that they all want to see him in jail. I don't think that's true either. I expect many of them have extremely complicated feelings right now.  And I suspect these feelings differ, with some thinking that Josh is innocent, some knowing that Josh is guilty, and others not really sure.

But regardless of what they are thinking/not thinking, I'm also just not seeing this huge THE DUGGARS ARE BEHIND AND SUPPORTING HIM! Apart from a few statements made right after his arrest, none of them have even mentioned him. Their social media - granted, not a complete/accurate picture, and certainly a curated one - shows them going around pretty much doing their own thing. At least one headed out to a wedding and other to an engagement party during this trial. 

And I also think it's entirely possible that at least some of them are there to support Anna - but not Josh. After all, these are people who have all interacted with Anna and Josh for years. They know the dynamics. They are capable of distinguishing the two. And the one public comment that we do have from a Duggar adjacent, Hillary, asked people to pray for Anna, apologized for not helping/supporting Anna enough, and defended Justin, not Josh.

Even leaving all this aside, though, I think the majority of people are fully capable of saying, yep, family is supporting him. Still guilty! After all, look at the number of people on this thread alone saying just that. I think the jury will be able to say the same thing.

TL/DR: We can't be sure why specific Duggars are showing up or what they are doing, and we have no way of knowing if the jury has even noticed, will care, or believe that Josh has to be innocent because some of his family members showed up to court.

THIS!

And also, I wouldn't be surprised that the reason why Derick has shown up regularly, in part, is because of his law school training.