🤝 Community Quiverfull Movement Lolcows - Starring the Duggars

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
The jurors have requested the recording of Josh's voluntary interview with law enforcement, where he shows off his knowledge about peer to peer file-sharing, says his whole setup is password protected and secured, and describes his work desktop as "split" (i.e. partitioned). This requested was granted.

One juror asked for a calendar. This request was denied.
Screenshot_20211208-142609_Chrome.jpg
 
multiverse said:
The jurors have requested the recording of Josh's voluntary interview with law enforcement, where he shows off his knowledge about peer to peer file-sharing, says his whole setup is password protected and secured, and describes his work desktop as "split" (i.e. partitioned). This requested was granted.

One juror asked for a calendar. This request was denied.
View attachment 2784639
Click to expand...
Iv never been to court or been a jury but why would a calendar be denied?
 
Per the Sun, deliberations will continue tomorrow. He’s gonna get off isn’t he. BDFF49E2-A85E-4C2C-A54F-F9FD96F1C3E4.jpeg

Vi0l3t said:
Iv never been to court or been a jury but why would a calendar be denied?
Click to expand...
Because you can only use what’s been introduced into evidence. Neither side made a calendar so they can’t have one.
 
Sparklepants said:
Per the Sun, deliberations will continue tomorrow. He’s gonna get off isn’t he. View attachment 2784757


Because you can only use what’s been introduced into evidence. Neither side made a calendar so they can’t have one.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the longer a jury deliberates, the chance they find a defendant not guilty rises. And you know Jim Bob has gotten to at least one of them who's going to kick and scream until the jury's hung.

Though to be fair, it's a 20 year sentence and they only had 4 hours or so to deliberate before the end of the court day.
 
FatalTater said:
The whole laughing while awful things are happening is a christian cult thing. They're taught that if they smile in the face of adversity then Satan can't win or somesuch.

Speaking of Satan, obviously HE was the one watching porn, from the fortress he built in Josh's heart. Duh.
Click to expand...
🎸Build a little fortress in my heart 🎹
 
multiverse said:
Yeah, the longer a jury deliberates, the chance they find a defendant not guilty rises. And you know Jim Bob has gotten to at least one of them who's going to kick and scream until the jury's hung.

Though to be fair, it's a 20 year sentence and they only had 4 hours or so to deliberate before the end of the court day.
Click to expand...
A good rule of thumb is for every week of the trial, you're going to see a day or so of jury deliberation unless the case is super air tight. This is pretty air tight, but that they requested the interview video speaks to me that they're looking for inconsistencies. And there's a LOT of them - not in the favor of the defense.
 
Finally caught up with this circus, the defense is fucked, Josh is another example of what happens when criminals don't plan ahead, and...
Vi0l3t said:
I've never been to court or been a jury but why would a calendar be denied?
Click to expand...
It proves that the jury wasn't paying attention because...


It's the Deep South, why would you expect them to comprehend that an Linux hard drive magically made several partitions and tried to download CP just to troll it's owner?




multiverse said:
Do you understand why the fuck she kept banging on about how all the mysteries of the universe are contained in the router at the car lot office, and why this would mean it isn't Josh's fault that CSAM was downloaded on his work desktop - on a Linux partition that can only be manually operated - while he was the only person in that physical location as back up by texts, photos, and geolocation?
Click to expand...
Honestly, the router should have been on the feds' list of things to confiscate. After all, it's essentially another source of proof that the idiot downloaded cheese pizza.
 
Last edited:
NerdShamer said:
Finally caught up with this circus, the defense is fucked, Josh is another example of what happens when criminals don't plan ahead, and...

It proves that the jury wasn't paying attention because...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=H22TOvJJsKQ
It's the Deep South, why would you expect them to comprehend that an Linux hard drive magically made several partitions and tried to download CP just to troll it's owner?





Honestly, the router should have been on the feds' list of things to confiscate. After all, it's essentially another source of proof that the idiot downloaded cheese pizza.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It's basically irrelevant to the case - all it would really tell you is "Hi, this computer is on the network!" unless you're capturing packets, which would be the slam dunk proof then. I doubt he was capturing packets. It would also prove what devices were connecting - access logs, unless he turned that off. In which case, congrats, it's completely fucking useless. Knowing there's connections doesn't necessarily mean you know what's actually transmitting during those connections - that's what packet captures are for.

Sparklepants said:
Can you screenshot her LinkedIn? It won’t let me see without logging in.
Click to expand...
1639017497970.png

1639017589642.png


I'd argue she's legit, I misspoke when I said she isn't accredited, but she's still not a comp-sci primary study. I'd need to dig more into the organizations but if she's placing this on the LinkedIn, she's done quite a bit. I wonder why in the hell she'd agree to this case. You're not winning it and you're not going to have a good time.

EDIT: Then again she might have not exactly learned too much. Digging into IACRB leads me to ask some questions. But very little in my mind would top an actual degree in the field from an institution, even an associates degree from a reputable university.
 
Don't worry about the verdict. Feds have like a 83% conviction rate in the 2% of cases that actually go to trial. The jury just wants to do their due diligence since there was a fuckload of evidence to take in. They'll convict prolly early tomorrow. These simple juryfolk just wanna sleep on it to be a hundred percent sure.
 
I really do appreciate the updates in this thread. It's been the only safe port in a shitstorm.

As others have said, the subreddit, shit to begin with, has gotten even fucking worse since the trial started. There's more power levelling than actual trial information, more people butting in with 'im trans so I'm an expert on all things', more people trying to get sympathy for their totally real PTSD cause their dad was mean to them one time, going 'they (Jill and Derick) have awful beliefs and are problematic blah blah blah' and a billion unfunny and bad photoshops.

Hopefully we don't get blueballed too hard and we get a verdict soon.
 
Techpriest said:
EDIT: Then again she might have not exactly learned too much. Digging into IACRB leads me to ask some questions. But very little in my mind would top an actual degree in the field from an institution, even an associates degree from a reputable university.
Click to expand...
I took a peek and yeah, it looks like a cert mill. I think she overestimated her capabilities and got drawn in by the amount of money ($40k is the number I’ve heard) and ended up in over her head. I wouldn’t be calling myself an expert witness with that little experience.
 
multiverse said:
Yeah, the longer a jury deliberates, the chance they find a defendant not guilty rises. And you know Jim Bob has gotten to at least one of them who's going to kick and scream until the jury's hung.

Though to be fair, it's a 20 year sentence and they only had 4 hours or so to deliberate before the end of the court day.
Click to expand...

I have heard the opposite. A classic example of jurors not taking very long to find a not guilty verdict is OJ or even Casey Anthony. Whereas Scott Peterson's jurors deliberated for about a week and Charles Manson's jurors took 9 days. Charles Freakin' MansonI.

Secondly, I don't know if any juror instruction was posted, but complex juror instruction leads to longer deliberation times. For example, the written house jurors had well over 20 pages of your instructions. Then again, it took how long for the jurors at the jurors to find Rittenhouse' not guilty?

I think longer deliberation times only mean that the jurors are considering the evidence provided on both sides.
 
HarmlessLittleEevee said:
I have heard the opposite. A classic example of jurors not taking very long to find a not guilty verdict is OJ or even Casey Anthony. Whereas Scott Peterson's jurors deliberated for about a week and Charles Manson's jurors took 9 days. Charles Freakin' MansonI.

Secondly, I don't know if any juror instruction was posted, but complex juror instruction leads to longer deliberation times. For example, the written house jurors had well over 20 pages of your instructions. Then again, it took how long for the jurors at the jurors to find Rittenhouse' not guilty?

I think longer deliberation times only mean that the jurors are considering the evidence provided on both sides.
Click to expand...
With the Rittenhouse case it was the prosecution that was completely obliterated by the defense because they had a shitton of evidence (including multiple video recordings of the shootings). I wasn't surprised the jury deliberation didn't last very long because of that.

The prosecution in this case has pretty much everything but video recordings of Josh sitting in front of the computer torrenting/looking at cheese pizza. It hasn't been long yet but if deliberations go one for more than a few days ngl I will get more worried.

What are the chances the kids Josh had access to have been interviewed by investigators to see if they've been abused? Would just him getting charged with CP allow CPS to come and poke around, or would there have to be a conviction? Or would Arkansas CPS just shit itself and do nothing even if theres a conviction because that's the main thing CPS seems like it does?
 
The fuck is Jim Bob doing at the courthouse during deliberations? Staring into the jury room and mean mugging at them so they don't convict his precious golden child?
Screenshot_20211209-073816_Chrome.jpg
 
I'm a little ashamed to be following this as closely as I am. Thank you for keeping things updated @multiverse

From our perspective it seems straightforward. But with the defense constantly reiterating the meaning and importance of reasonable doubt, I imagine the jurors are trying to determine if there is any. Plus you have the optics - will Josh looks skeevy his large supporting family does have a positive affect. The length of the sentence for a father of young children, whose wife doesn't work, is pretty serious.

Plus there is all of the confusion about the tech shit. The defense's expert was not convincing as far as her expertise - but what was communicated was further confusion and disorganization. By further accusing the feds of not collecting the right evidence (router), allowing for the contradictory testimony from her, and let's be real the FBI guy wasn't the best witness for making things less confusing. For anyone not tech savvy, and listening to this back and forth all damn day, it would be overwhelming and confusing. And remember that they specifically selected jurors based on their lack of tech knowledge.

The defense did dumb shit, and I wouldn't say their forensic expert was a good choice, but she (and the defense) did a good job of adding more details and making things harder to understand.

Edit: Idk why I wrote "two" children, fixed
 
Last edited:
Guapmala said:
The length of the sentence for a father of two young children, whose wife doesn't work, is pretty serious
Click to expand...
Seven children. They have seven.

I can see the fact that Anna would be left alone with no job and seven children going both ways with the jury: if they think there's a chance he's innocent, then they wouldn't want to separate a family for so long. But to anyone who thinks he did it: after that testimony about Josh forcibly raping his sisters has likely made at least a few jurors think that he could just as easily be doing the same to his daughters. In which case, it's best to lock him up.

Anyway, Josh and Anna showed up for deliberations, too? I thought a defendant didn't need to show up again until the verdict is ready?

Josh doesn’t look so happy today.
Screenshot_20211209-080449_Chrome.jpg Screenshot_20211209-080515_Chrome.jpg NINTCHDBPICT000699122107.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom