The Josh Duggar child pornography trial gets underway this week, and even though opening arguments have not yet been heard, we already have a very clear sense of the prosecution's strategy.

At a recent pre-trial hearing, Judge Timothy L. Brooks ruled that Josh's previous sex crimes can be used against him in court.

So even though he was never prosecuted, Josh's molestation of his sisters will still be presented as evidence in order to establish a pattern of behavior.

And who better to testify about the nature these crimes than the man who enabled Josh to avoid prosecution the first time his predatory behavior was exposed?

Jim Bob Duggar testified at an evidentiary hearing on Monday, and in a move that shocked only those who are unfamiliar with his combative personality, the father of 19 clashed with the judge and played dumb when asked about his son's criminal past.

Until this week, it was unclear if the patriarch would take the stand, as the prosecution fought to have Jim Bob subpoeanaed, while the defense argued that forcing him to testify would violate Josh's rights.

Legal experts say the events of this week seem to indicate the judge is leaning toward siding with prosecutors, which means this probably won't be the last time that Jim Bob takes the stand.

Asked about the 2015 In Touch report that revealed Josh's molestation of five young girls, Jim Bob argued that police had no right to release the information. 

"This was something for a young man to come forward," Jim Bob said, calling it a "juvenile record" and a "sealed case." 

Jim Bob also seemed to suggest that the informartion contained in the report was inaccurate, though he did not offer any specifics with regard to these alleged inaccuracies.

"I can't remember," Jim Bob replied to a question from prosecutors about the nature of the police report.

He later dismissed the report as "tabloid information" and refused a prompt from prosecutors to read from it in order to jog his memory.

"I'm not going to allow it, are you going to allow for that?" Jim Bob pleaded with the judge.

"If there is [an] objection to be made, someone will make it but it won't be you," Judge Brooks replied.

In the end, Jim Bob refused to read the report out loud, but he told prosecutors that reading it silently did nothing to restore his memory of the incidents.

Jim Bob later admitted that he recalled Josh confessing to "inappropriately touching" his sisters as early as 2002, but he could not recall his son's exact words.

"We were shocked this had happened but we were thankful he came on his own and told us," he said.

"He had told me that he had touched some of the girls when they were sleeping on their breasts … they didn't wake up." 

Several years later, in 2006, Jim Bob and wife Michelle Duggar brought Josh to police after an elder in the family's church became concerned about several confessions Josh had made, beginning in 2003.

"Josh confessed everything to Arkansas State Police," Jim Bob testified.

"We tried to handle things in house. It was a very difficult time in our family's life."

Jim Bob then attempted to divert attention from his son's crimes by attacking the methods used by prosecutors.

"For you guys to use a tabloid to bring it back up is very unprofessional," he said.

For many observers, Jim Bob's testimony offered an upetting glimpse at the mentality of the Duggar clan as Josh prepares to fight for his freedom in court.

"This sort of delusion is very telling, before I thought no way could Josh honestly think he'll get out of this," one Reddit user wrote, according to The Sun.

"Then I read the delusional father who can break his faith under oath and then tell the judge what will and won't be allowed. I'm gobsmacked."

"The audacity of this man! DISGUSTING!" a second commenter added.

"I am so deeply hurt for the [victims], and I am so disgusted by this piece of s--t excuse for a father," a third chimed in.

In addition to Jim Bob's testimony, the court heard from Bobye Holt, the church elder who became alarmed when Josh confessed to molesting his sister.

It remains unclear if either party will be asked to testify again once the actual trial begins, but legal experts say it's likely that both will receive subpoenas.

We'll have further updates on this developing story as more information becomes available.