Josh Duggar charged with Receipt/Possession Child Sexual Abuse Material, 29 April 2021 #2

Discussion in 'Trials' started by Peppery, Apr 29, 2021.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sds71

    sds71 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,315
    Likes Received:
    84,676
    Trophy Points:
    113


  2. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,487
    Likes Received:
    96,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    INMO, Josh Duggar's defense is going to be, "It wasn't me, it was..." and shift blame on anyone else. Reasonable Doubt.

    That being said, I don't think it will work. From the limited information we have, the evidence has time and date of when the CSAM was downloaded, watched, on the specific device, that was password protected with Josh Duggar's login, on a computer that had a specific design to hide CSAM material on the device.

    My opinion is that he should take whatever deal is offered. I doubt that he will. He is probably thinking that he can beat this. That will be amazing. Maybe his legal team can do it.

    I wonder if this will be a jury trial or a bench trial? Can he choose?
     
  3. Springrain

    Springrain Who was the 1980 Ventura County Jane Doe?

    Messages:
    2,873
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. He will (attempt to) shift the blame onto anyone and everyone he can, not take a plea deal, and hopefully (God willing) get sent to the slammer.
     
  4. Shamrock1

    Shamrock1 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,261
    Likes Received:
    11,127
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A big problem is that the CSAM involved toddlers & young children. I can appreciate (not condone, mind you) that a juror or two might regard SA of an older teen as just a hair away from legal materials. Can’t do that kind of mental gymnastics with the ages here. JMO.
     
    Kittybunny, abr, Bootsctr and 22 others like this.
  5. Springrain

    Springrain Who was the 1980 Ventura County Jane Doe?

    Messages:
    2,873
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. It's not like they were 16. The youngest victim on the CSA material, that we know of, was 18 months old. That's pure, sick evil and pedophilia to the extreme. Nobody can defend that.
     
  6. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,487
    Likes Received:
    96,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know this much, I wouldn't want him around any toddlers. JMO
     
    AgeofAquaruis, sds71, abr and 16 others like this.
  7. Springrain

    Springrain Who was the 1980 Ventura County Jane Doe?

    Messages:
    2,873
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or any children at all, or women...really, I wouldn't want him around other men either, ideally.
     
  8. Cool Cats

    Cool Cats Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,777
    Likes Received:
    45,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Josh Duggar Child Porn Case: Judge Denies Another Defense Motion to Suppress Evidence Before Trial

    Over the past several months, Josh Duggar's legal team has filed five motions regarding the evidence in his ongoing child sex abuse material case — all of which have now been denied by the presiding judge.

    In a Monday court filing obtained by PEOPLE, District Judge Timothy L. Brooks denied the fifth and final motion, a request to suppress evidence gathered by law enforcement officials during the execution of a search warrant in November 2019.

    The motion also included a request for a Franks hearing, which is a proceeding held to determine whether police lied in order to obtain a search warrant.

    Duggar, who has pleaded not guilty to the charges of receiving and possessing child sex abuse material, had criticized "the methods used by law enforcement to obtain the search warrant," and argued that there was no probable cause to issue it.

    Thus, he moved to suppress the evidence found during the execution of the warrant — video files downloaded from the computer at his then place of business, a car sales lot.

    However, the court found that a Franks hearing is "not warranted" and denied the motion to suppress, meaning the evidence is fair for the government to use at his upcoming Nov. 30 trial.

    "[Duggar] has not shown that federal agents acted with reckless disregard for proper procedure. And he certainly has not shown that the agents acted in bad faith," the Monday filing states.

    "Moreover, Mr. Duggar cannot show that he was prejudiced by any delay; the devices remained in law enforcement's safe keeping throughout this time period, and the probable cause warranting the initial seizure of the devices remained viable through the date of indictment."
     
  9. Cool Cats

    Cool Cats Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,777
    Likes Received:
    45,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Josh Duggar's defense team is trying to shift blame onto one of his employees who admitted to watching porn on the job

    Your Quote:

    "Josh Duggar's defense is going to be, "It wasn't me, it was..." and shift blame on anyone else. Reasonable Doubt."

    In their latest effort to get Josh Duggar's child pornography case tossed out, the former reality-TV star's defense team suggested that authorities should have looked into a different person of interest: one of Duggar's employees.

    Duggar's team sought to cast blame on a person identified in court documents as Witness #1. Federal agents interviewed Witness #1 in December 2019, roughly one month after authorities first executed a search warrant at the dealership.

    According to court documents, federal agents originally designated Witness #1 a "person of interest to the investigation."

    Witness #1 told the investigators that he worked at Duggar's dealership, and had even stayed there overnight "without Duggar's knowledge or permission," Duggar's lawyers said.

    Witness #1 also "admitted to viewing adult pornography through websites he accessed through the internet on his cellular phone," though he denied viewing child pornography, according to the court filing.

    Though federal agents said in their report that they examined Witness #1's cellphone for evidence of child pornography and found "negative results," Duggar's lawyers blasted the agents for not preserving any content or metadata from the phone.

    According to the court filing, federal agents also interviewed two other people, identified as Witness #2 and Witness #3, who allowed investigators to search through their phones.

    Defense Complaint

    Duggar's defense team noted that the agents did not preserve evidence from either phone.
     
  10. mickey2942

    mickey2942 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,487
    Likes Received:
    96,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Franks Hearing". To determine if LEO lied to obtain search warrant?

    The effort to throw everything on the wall, to see what sticks is complete.

    Yes, this situation can get more sordid by the day. So much for owning up and taking responsibility for your actions. Josh Duggar must have missed this ethics lesson somewhere along the line.
     
  11. MsJosie

    MsJosie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    18,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
    sds71, abr, Nanceedroo and 22 others like this.
  12. RickshawFan

    RickshawFan Verified Outdoor Recreation Specialist

    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    26,943
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When is this trial.
     
  13. MsJosie

    MsJosie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    18,725
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. watcher9

    watcher9 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,107
    Likes Received:
    7,695
    Trophy Points:
    113
  15. BeckyF

    BeckyF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    20,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
     
  16. MsJosie

    MsJosie Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,786
    Likes Received:
    18,725
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Thanks Watcher9
     
  17. Scrapper18

    Scrapper18 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    5,562
    Trophy Points:
    93
  18. watcher9

    watcher9 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    7,107
    Likes Received:
    7,695
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's interesting, especially if the judge has to rule on it.

    I wonder if LE seized the computer and downloaded files for the prosecution?

    I think an all-in-one computer has the hard drive encased in the monitor. It may be hard for the jury to understand if they have never seen one.

    I found this link talking about the seizure of the computer and files becoming stale and another link about forfeiture.

    Judge refuses to suppress video evidence in Josh Duggar case | KNWA FOX24

    Forfeiture
     
  19. BeckyF

    BeckyF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    20,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
  20. BeckyF

    BeckyF Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Likes Received:
    20,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice