Josh & Anna Smuggar: A Series of Unfortunate Events

[Jeanne222]

I believe everybody...well most everybody... knows who the Duggers are unless they have had no contact with radio, tv, newspaper over the last 19 years.

I live in a state that Michael Jackson is from.  I've never seen or met him but if I was in a courtroom and any Jackson's showed up I'd know them.  Entertainers have a certain polished look.

The prosecutors have laid out a good case for guilt but a lot of it regular people don't understand.  A jury of IT people would be needed to make sense of all the experts.

Jurors are human and they're looking and watching so I score points for the defense with Anna and the Duggers and spouses appearing.

Sorry to say I wasn't paying much attention when the jury was picked.  Any info on that would be appreciated.

[lascuba]

38 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

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.  

I agree about the prosecution in OJ's trial. They--and the initial investigators--did a terrible job, and while OJ most likely did it, the prosecution deserved to lose. But it's the thought processes of the jurors that I'm concerned with, because juries are of random people. And people suck. They're often ignorant and easily manipulated. What the prosecution and defense argue is almost immaterial in light of the biases and ignorance jurors bring to the table.

 

[Churchhoney]

Jurors have a lot of other things to focus on besides who's sitting where in the courtroom or who's chatting with whom, though.

I've been on a bunch of juries. And I don't remember a single conversation among jurors on any case about who was in the courtroom audience or how many there were or what they might be doing there, ever. ..,One case I served on actually did involve celebrities, too, with some famous people testifying. And on that case, we did talk about which well-known people testified and what they testified to. But they were witnesses, so our thoughts about their credibility were relevant to the actual government and defense arguments.

During deliberations, I've never heard anybody mention anything that went on in the courtroom audience, on that trial or any other, though. I've never heard anybody mention who was in the courtroom audience as a reason for trusting or not trusting a defendant or anything like that.....

So while who's in the audience may affect the jury sometimes, I have a hard time believing it happens very often. And in this case, the jury has so many things to consider.....And would they even recognize Derick, for example? .... Anna sitting there day after day they're probably gonna notice and register. But given how much stuff goes on in a courtroom, I don't know that they'd even notice flyby visitors like Justin and Jessa, for example.  

My experience of juries has actually improved my view of humans. My sense has been that when people are given the juror responsibility, they'll generally really try to do the right thing and be thoughtful!  ....... I don't think we can rate juries in general based on very very unusual cases like the OJ case. 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Churchhoney

[farmgal4]

If I were a juror, I would probably silently question why Josh’s parents aren’t there supporting him.  The defense team may’ve requested that Jim Bob not attend strictly because he’s already shown his ass once and they don’t want to risk it happening again, but I think that it looks kind of bad that Michelle hasn’t shown her face even once since Day One.

[Jeanne222]

4 minutes ago, farmgal4 said:

If I were a juror, I would probably silently question why Josh’s parents aren’t there supporting him.  The defense team may’ve requested that Jim Bob not attend strictly because he’s already shown his ass once and they don’t want to risk it happening again, but I think that it looks kind of bad that Michelle hasn’t shown her face even once since Day One.

Actually I'm wondering that to!  Where is Michelle?

[lascuba]

22 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Jurors have a lot of other things to focus on besides who's sitting where in the courtroom or who's chatting with whom, though.

 

While I'm interested in the family's presence at the trial for general "I've been following this ridiculous family for longer than I care to admit" reasons, I'm not at all concerned with it's effect on the jury. It might be a non-zero effect, but I think it's minimal compare to everything else going on. And everything else is a lot. There have been a lot of high profile trials in recent years that have given me a dim view of juries. They might by and large be well-intentioned and take their responsibilities seriously, but those good intentions don't form in a vacuum.

[ozziemom]

I think those of us here know more about the Duggars than the average citizen of NW Arkansas. The Duggars are lower tier TV personalities at best. IIRC @Zella has posted about this over the years on this forum. Maybe now that the local news has been covering the trial people may sort of recall that the Duggars are that family with all the kids. So I believe most of the jurors won’t know who is who in the gallery or care. 

[Jeanne222]

What's on tap for today.  I think I read the judge expected to wrap up Tuesday or Wednesday.

[heckkitty]

48 minutes ago, Churchhoney said:

Jurors have a lot of other things to focus on besides who's sitting where in the courtroom or who's chatting with whom, though.

I've been on a bunch of juries. And I don't remember a single conversation among jurors on any case about who was in the courtroom audience or how many there were or what they might be doing there, ever. ..,One case I served on actually did involve celebrities, too, with some famous people testifying. And on that case, we did talk about which well-known people testified and what they testified to. But they were witnesses, so our thoughts about their credibility were relevant to the actual government and defense arguments.

During deliberations, I've never heard anybody mention anything that went on in the courtroom audience, on that trial or any other, though. I've never heard anybody mention who was in the courtroom audience as a reason for trusting or not trusting a defendant or anything like that.....

So while who's in the audience may affect the jury sometimes, I have a hard time believing it happens very often. And in this case, the jury has so many things to consider.....And would they even recognize Derick, for example? .... Anna sitting there day after day they're probably gonna notice and register. But given how much stuff goes on in a courtroom, I don't know that they'd even notice flyby visitors like Justin and Jessa, for example.  

My experience of juries has actually improved my view of humans. My sense has been that when people are given the juror responsibility, they'll generally really try to do the right thing and be thoughtful!  ....... I don't think we can rate juries in general based on very very unusual cases like the OJ case. 

This. When I was on a jury (but only have been once), I was really, really focused on the witnesses and not  much else. I don't think I could even tell you whether there was a gallery.  Nobody in that case was famous (or barely famous like Duggars are), but I'm not sure if it matters. I think as you say, people on juries are really focused on doing their job, which is to pay attention to the trial. 

[absnow54]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne222 said:

What's on tap for today.  I think I read the judge expected to wrap up Tuesday or Wednesday.

Prosecution will cross examine Michelle Bush, and then we'll see who else the defense will call. 

[CountryGirl]

10 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

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

He's dumb all right.

Dumb enough to think he would never be caught. 

Just like he thought his abuse of his victims would never see the light of day.

Just like he thought his Ashley Madison shenanigans wouldn't get out.

Well, three strikes, motherfucker. You're OUT!

[Ohiopirate02]

4 minutes ago, heckkitty said:

This. When I was on a jury (but only have been once), I was really, really focused on the witnesses and not  much else. I don't think I could even tell you whether there was a gallery.  Nobody in that case was famous (or barely famous like Duggars are), but I'm not sure if it matters. I think as you say, people on juries are really focused on doing their job, which is to pay attention to the trial. 

Looking back at when I was a juror, I cannot recall anyone in the gallery during the trial.  I was not paying attention to that part of the courtroom.  There is a reason why the jury is the last or one of the last people brought into the courtroom.  Josh's jury does not have the time to peruse the courtroom scoping out all of the people who are there.  They also leave the courtroom first for any break, so again, they do not get the time to checkout who's talking to who.  

Also, the jury is instructed not to talk about the case in the jury room.  When you are back there, you make small talk with other jurors, talk about lunch, look out the window, sneak into the stairwell and smoke a cigarette, go to the bathroom, get a snack, etc.  Even if one juror notices Derick talking to Josh, they cannot talk about it.

[Zella]

16 minutes ago, ozziemom said:

I think those of us here know more about the Duggars than the average citizen of NW Arkansas. The Duggars are lower tier TV personalities at best. IIRC @Zella has posted about this over the years on this forum. Maybe now that the local news has been covering the trial people may sort of recall that the Duggars are that family with all the kids. So I believe most of the jurors won’t know who is who in the gallery or care. 

Yeah everyone I work with at the library vaguely knows who they are. But they do not watch them or care about this trial. As I've said on here before, your average snarker knows way more about the Duggars than the average Arkansan. 

I've even asked a few coworkers offhand if they're following the story, and they just vaguely know he was arrested and is on trial. They're not ill informed people. Or even uninterested in true crime. But the Duggars aren't the mega celebrities in the area that are assumed. The local media doesn't breathlessly cover their every move. In my experience, people are just like "oh the people with all those kids." Lol 

Edit: at the library, we are collectively way more interested in Sharon Weiss's Marie Callendar pie right now than Josh's trial. Lol

Edited December 7, 2021 by Zella

[BetyBee]

3 minutes ago, heckkitty said:

This. When I was on a jury (but only have been once), I was really, really focused on the witnesses and not  much else. I don't think I could even tell you whether there was a gallery.  Nobody in that case was famous (or barely famous like Duggars are), but I'm not sure if it matters. I think as you say, people on juries are really focused on doing their job, which is to pay attention to the trial. 

I agree! The one time I served on a jury was for a criminal trial. Both the prosecution and the defense did a good job making their cases. The defense attorney was especially good and has represented at least one famous person. I never speculated about the gallery, rather I focused on the defendant, the lawyers and the witnesses. Even though the defense attorney was excellent, in the end we found the defendant guilty. I still remember how he tore off his tie as the verdict was read. He was clearly upset. I hope that Josh is found guilty and that he serves some time. But you really never know which way a jury will go. I'll be relieved when this is over!

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Zella said:

Yeah everyone I work with at the library vaguely knows who they are. But they do not watch them or care about this trial. As I've said on here before, your average snarker knows way more about the Duggars than the average Arkansan. 

I've even asked a few coworkers offhand if they're following the story, and they just vaguely know he was arrested and is on trial. They're not ill informed people. Or even uninterested in true crime. But the Duggars aren't the mega celebrities in the area that are assumed. The local media doesn't breathlessly cover their every move. In my experience, people are just like "oh the people with all those kids." Lol 

Edit: at the library, we are collectively way more interested in Sharon Weiss's Marie Callendar pie right now than Josh's trial. Lol

Did you see the update from one of Sharon's relatives who is a retired librarian about the green beans?

[absnow54]

The Sun is slacking today. I want to see which Duggars showed up today, and if Anna got another dress!

[zoomama]

5 minutes ago, BetyBee said:

I'll be relieved when this is over!

me too! i am getting very little accomplished because i am constantly looking for updates here. 

[CountryGirl]

6 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

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.

I don't disagree there isn't any influence or weight given by the jury, but I don't see it as heady enough to inspire reasonable doubt all that often. After all, it's hardly uncommon for some of the worst criminals in the world to have family/friends/support sitting there for them, signaling, talking, even crying, etc. 

If the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did these horrific acts, they do not have to prove he's the kind of person who could have done it. 

As former prosecutor James Blackburn said in his closing arguments during the Jeffery MacDonald (Fatal Vision) case: "Don't ever forget that perhaps the greatest crime of all was committed 2,000 years ago. And the night before Christ was betrayed, Judas Iscariot would have had 12 of the best character witnesses this world has ever known to have said he couldn't have done it, but you know that he did." So all the perceived support and character references/testimony in the world isn't going to undo what Josh did. Because again, proving that he is the kind of person who could have done these things is not the prosecution's burden. 

[lascuba]

Video of Josh and Anna entering the building today. She's wearing a black coat over what I think is gray dress.

 

 

[Dimi1]

I could never be on a jury..because even if they told me not to...I would go home and google the person...I am smart enough to separate fact from fiction...so if I was on the the trial for Josh...I would google him and see the police reports and all the factual stuff and would vote guilty, guilty , guilty...I could not lay my head down at night knowing I let a child predator loose....

[Natalie68]

17 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah everyone I work with at the library vaguely knows who they are. But they do not watch them or care about this trial. As I've said on here before, your average snarker knows way more about the Duggars than the average Arkansan. 

I've even asked a few coworkers offhand if they're following the story, and they just vaguely know he was arrested and is on trial. They're not ill informed people. Or even uninterested in true crime. But the Duggars aren't the mega celebrities in the area that are assumed. The local media doesn't breathlessly cover their every move. In my experience, people are just like "oh the people with all those kids." Lol 

Edit: at the library, we are collectively way more interested in Sharon Weiss's Marie Callendar pie right now than Josh's trial. Lol

Picked up a new word from that I am dying to use:  YEET!

I don't know anyone in real life that is following this shit show.  My husband is not the slightest bit interested in hearing about it.

[absnow54]

Oh boy, Jim Bob, Jana, and Jed are there today.

[Tabbygirl521]

4 hours ago, absnow54 said:

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

If I were a juror giving any weight to who apparently showed up for Josh, and who didn’t, the absence of parents would be food for thought. Although I guess they’re not really supposed to know anything about the Duggars in general so maybe they don’t know his parents didn’t die of shame after the initial molestation confessions. 

[absnow54]

According to The Sun, Jim Bob showed up 20 minutes late, which sounds about right. 

 

[lascuba]

David Keller and his wife are there.

JB came in late and is sitting next to Austin near the back. Jana and Jed are sitting in the front row.

[Zella]

23 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

Did you see the update from one of Sharon's relatives who is a retired librarian about the green beans?

No! But I'll have to try to find it. We have been making jokes about that poor Pompeiied pie in a group chat. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 

It's honestly been a nice change of pace for me from how grim this trial is. 

[Jeanne222]

This has to be really rough on Anna just having a new baby.  We all know what that's like.

I don't think I left the house for days.  Marching along in high heels and all the 'woman stuff' going on.

He's just not worth any of it!

Is Josh still staying at the Duggers friends house?

[absnow54]

So looks like Jed was released from testifying? Or are we going to get a correction that this was Jeremiah in a few hours?

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

Jim Bob Duggar and his son-in-law, Austin Forsyth, sat together a few rows back in the courtroom at the trial on Tuesday.

Jim Bob Duggar walked in about 20 minutes after court started, according to the Sun reporter.

He sat next to Austin Forsyth and remained expressionless and just listened to the evidence, looking up when evidence was presented on screen.

Jed Duggar and Josh Duggar spoke to each other briefly at the trial on Tuesday.

When Jed walked in, Josh went up to him and the two talked and had a laugh, according to the Sun reporter's observations.

[Tabbygirl521]

I thought that typically the jury comes in after everyone else is in place. And that the gallery is instructed not to create any kind of distractions like talking, etc. Once the jury is seated, we’re off.

And just to beat this totally to death I’ll add that, having heard testimony that Josh molested his sisters, I would assume that anyone I thought to be a family member was most likely there to see justice done, not to support him. If I even noticed. 

[Ohiopirate02]

13 minutes ago, Zella said:

No! But I'll have to try to find it. We have been making jokes about that poor Pompeiied pie in a group chat. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 

It's honestly been a nice change of pace for me from how grim this trial is. 

I'm posting the screenshots over in the Prayer Closet.

[GeeGolly]

[Fosca]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

 

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

 

Except, lots of people are doing just those mental gymnastics concerning other things in the news.  And the jury was likely pulled from just that group of people doing the mental gymnastics.  And JB is blaming the same "bad guys" for Josh's predicament that the people who are doing the mental gymnastics are blaming.

I still think he'll be found guilty, but I don't think it's as much of a slam-dunk as it would have been five years ago--or even two years ago.

[GeeGolly]

Why are David Keller and his wife Hannah attending?

[lascuba]

3 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

He looks like he's planning on a speech outside the courthouse at the end of the day.

 

6 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Why are David Keller and his wife Hannah attending?

They noticed it looked bad to not have any of Anna's relatives there?

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, Jeanne222 said:

I believe everybody...well most everybody... knows who the Duggers are unless they have had no contact with radio, tv, newspaper over the last 19 years.

I know who they are, but I couldn't recognize one if I saw one in real life.   Heck every time I see a picture I go "THIS is who thinks they are so special and wonderful?"   I mean its not like the men are amazingly handsome and the women are stunningly beautiful.   The men are kind of schlubby and the women are pretty enough but nothing to make you do a double take.   So the chances of the jurors going "Oh hey THE DUGGARS were in the courtroom today" are pretty slim.    They are just  ... people.

Juries try to do their best.  The OJ jury wasn't an odd case, it was EXACTLY how the system is supposed to work.   Prosecution did not prove their case so the jury voted to acquit.   That's what is supposed to happen.   Same in the Casey Anthony case.   Prosecution could not PROVE intentional murder (they really should not have charged that given the state of the body when it was found, if you don't even have a cause of death you can't prove something intended to kill someone), so the jury acquitted.    People don't like the outcome because it doesn't fit with the media narrative.   But that doesn't mean the system itself was flawed.   

12 minutes ago, Fosca said:

And the jury was likely pulled from just that group of people doing the mental gymnastics. 

that's a big assumption.   We don't know the make up of the jury or their beliefs.   Not everyone in Arkansas thinks like the Duggars.   Not even everyone in their area of the state.   For all we know, there could be a bunch of jurors who are SICK of hearing about the Duggars and seeing them in all the parades like they are a big deal and would RELISH the chance to take the family down a notch.    Really if the area was THAT fundie, Holt would still be in the legislature and so would Jim Bob.   

[Lukeysboat]

According to KNWA reporter C.C. McCandless, Michele Bush has thus far been cross-examined by the government for 90 minutes. They have been chipping away at her credibility—for instance, she’s never taken a Linux-specific course. He also stated that Bush embellished her experience in yesterday's testimony, including time as a college undergrad in her years of forensic examination experience. (Bush graduated from the University of Arizona in 2015.)

 

Edited December 7, 2021 by Lukeysboat
Typo

[Kbo]

13 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

Why are David Keller and his wife Hannah attending?

Maybe he’s there to support his sister (Anna)?  

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

The trial picked up on Tuesday with William Clayman's cross-examination of Michelle Bush.

He noted that she has an undergrad in psychology. She graduated in 2015.

She said she has examined Mac computers more than Linux and Clayman noted that Linux training was not on her resume.

Bush claimed she does have training in it, but not as a standalone course.

Michelle Bush said she didn't listen to Josh Duggar's interview with special agents because she wanted to focus on the forensics.

Clayman questioned why she wouldn't listen to relevant info.

She also admitted she was never given police photos of the HP computer, only the router.

Clayman continued cross-examining Bush, and she said it was possible for the computer to default to the partition when booting up,

But when Clayman noted the Windows side had more logins, she said it's likely Windows was the default, not Linux.

Clayman asked if the installation had to happen with someone there and Bush said because of the thumb drive, it appeared physical access was needed.

Bush admitted that the evidence told her someone needed to be there to physically plug it in.

[iwantcookies]

21 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

JB paint on some eyebrows 🤣

[quarks]

So apparently the defense witness may not be as knowledgeable/skilled at Linux as the defense says she is:

For the record, I've never taken a single Linux course either, am far, far, far from a computer expert, and have still managed to use Linux on occasion.

But I'm also not trying to present myself as an expert on Linux or any other operating system. 

 

 

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

Then Clayman and Bush talked about the Dell_one login with the Intel1988 password.

Bush admitted the password wasn't in the report she took.

Bush said 30-40 cases that she's worked on have involved Tor and Clayman noted that hidden Tor bookmarks were created in this case.

He also brought up Hidden Wiki and asked Bush if it was a Tor directory site that included child exploitation, and Bush answered yes.

Clayman brought up the webcam collection zip file, and asked if someone viewed the files.

Bush said no one double clicked them, that they were extracted. Clayman asked if someone accessed the files and Bush repeated that they were extracted and the folder was opened.

[zoomama]

24 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

i think he looks scared and is happy the mask is hiding it for him. 

[iwantcookies]

52 minutes ago, lascuba said:

Video of Josh and Anna entering the building today. She's wearing a black coat over what I think is gray dress.

 

 

I’m surprised Anna is wearing heels daily and her dress looks short. 
 

Joshua looks like he lost weight!

 

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

Clayman then asked about the thumbnails, and Bush said she saw them.

He asked if they depicted child exploitation, and Bush responded yes.

[Kellyee]

Quote

For the record, I've never taken a single Linux course either, am far, far, far from a computer expert, and have still managed to use Linux on occasion.

I work at a technology company, and most of what I know was self taught or taught to me by coworkers while working on projects. It's very common.

Have any of Anna's parents or siblings attended the trial to sit next to her? It seems to be mostly Duggars going and sitting next to Anna, presumably to provide support. I'm curious what her parents and siblings think of all this.

 

 

 

[lascuba]

 

3 minutes ago, Kellyee said:

I work at a technology company, and most of what I know was self taught or taught to me by coworkers while working on projects. It's very common.

Have any of Anna's parents or siblings attended the trial to sit next to her? It seems to be mostly Duggars going and sitting next to Anna, presumably to provide support. I'm curious what her parents and siblings think of all this.

 

 

 

Today is the first day that they've reported on any of the Kellers being there.

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

Clayman said two movie files were viewed in the VLC player, and Bush said they were "streamed."

Clayman asked if streaming means viewed, and Bush replied yes. She agreed movie files were downloaded and thumbnails viewed.

She admitted that on May 15, five torrent files of movies were downloaded.

She said that one folder was extracted and Clayman noted that her report said one of the images was viewed for three minutes.

She said if it's from her report, it must be correct, but that you can't tell how long a video has been viewed.

Bush said she didn't view the photos of child sexual abuse in that particular folder Clayman brought up.

Clayman asked about those photos and questioned that Bush didn't know what the photos were, and Bush responded that she's just trying to find suspected child porn, also known as child sexual abuse material.

Clayman asked if she never asked for the photos and she said she did not.

Clayman admitted that in one of the videos in question in this case, the first 29 seconds do not have child sexual abuse depicted.

Bush previously said it was deleted after 29 seconds.

Bush said she never viewed the video.

[absnow54]

The prosecution is doing a great job cross examining so far. Michelle Bush's use of "streaming" videos was very misleading yesterday if she meant "viewed." Streaming implies that the person viewing is separate from the device that's hosting it. 

[Lindsay Loo Hoo]

The discussion then turned to Covenant Eyes.

Between April 15, 2019, and May 9, 2019, the account was flagged for trying to download uTorrent on the Macbook.

Clayman asked if someone on the Macbook repeatedly tried to download it and Bush said correct.