Court hearing, Friday, february 26th 2010

[BeenaBobba]

well here's hoping therapy terry and jaycee have helped them make the right choice.

Ain't that the truth! I won't judge them if they choose to have contact with the Garridos, but I truly hope they choose not to.

 

[Natal]

They may have known him as their father before August 26th, but they now know that their mother was wrongfully kidnapped, raped, and impregnated -- and heartbreakingly, they now know that their very existence is a result of those terrible crimes.

In garden variety divorce situations, there's usually no criminal activity involved. In divorce/custody cases where one parent is a crack addict, for example, the court would bar visitation if it was not in the child's best interest. This case is even worse. I just don't see how contact with a rapist would benefit these kids in any way. On the contrary, I think it would be quite detrimental.



I disagree. What right does PG have to see the girls? He may be their biological father, but they were conceived through criminal activity that should never have taken place to begin with.

Family is still family, even when they do something bad. And like it or not, PG is their father and they know him as their father. If you found out that your mother had murdered someone 20 years ago, would you just toss the memories and forget about her? just like that? Wouldn't you be just a little miffed if your father forcibly prevented you from having any contact at all with her? Do you think it would be inappropriate for a court to allow you to have contact with her under those circumstances? (remember, you would have done nothing wrong, why would you have to be punished?)

Btw, Visitation when ordered by the court is something which gives you the right to see your kids irrespective of what the other parent feels about it. What we are talking about here is not visitation, since PG will not be granted any rights, the judge will be considering what the girls want and giving them rights. There are three parties involved here, Jaycee, PG, and the girls. PG will be denied all rights, but the girls will not be. The girls are not part of Jaycee, they are separate unique people.

 

[kbl8201]

Family is still family, even when they do something bad. And like it or not, PG is their father and they know him as their father. If you found out that your mother had murdered someone 20 years ago, would you just toss the memories and forget about her? just like that? Wouldn't you be just a little miffed if your father forcibly prevented you from having any contact at all with her? Do you think it would be inappropriate for a court to allow you to have contact with her under those circumstances? (remember, you would have done nothing wrong, why would you have to be punished?)

Btw, Visitation when ordered by the court is something which gives you the right to see your kids irrespective of what the other parent feels about it. What we are talking about here is not visitation, since PG will not be granted any rights, the judge will be considering what the girls want and giving them rights. There are three parties involved here, Jaycee, PG, and the girls. PG will be denied all rights, but the girls will not be. The girls are not part of Jaycee, they are separate unique people.

family is family? well my father deserted me, i dont want any part of him. my grandmother was an absuive monster.....and if she wasnt dead, i wouldnt want any part of her either.


you seem to put everything into blood. blood doesnt make you family, and being a monster doesnt make you family either.

 

[Natal]

Plus, the court ultimately has to do what is in the child's best interest. If (God forbid) one of the girls actually did say she wanted to see PG, I would bet anything the lawyer would report back to the court that the girls are obviously still emotionally unstable and don't yet appreciate the severity of what happened. By any interpretation of what happened, these girls were abused since the day they were born - kidnapping is by definition abuse. Even in a divorce case, if one parent is abusive - or, for example, kept the child confined in the backyard for 15 years - it doesn't matter if the child shouts from the heavens that she prefers to live with the abusive parent, the court will NOT allow it; abuse is abuse and is against the law for a reason.

They are not talking about them living with him or even visiting him though, they are talking about contact by other means or through intermediates. There is nothing wrong with that if they want it. And in any case, if the girls are still sympathetic to PG the chances are good that the defence will want to use them in the trial in some way and consequently they will need contact with his lawyers. Irrespective of what anyone may feel about parental rights, one parent can't deny the child the opportunity to testify on behalf on the other parent simply on the basis of custody.

In this case the judge is not going to be making rulings to determine how the girls lives will be run in the future, he is going to be making a ruling as it pertains to the conduct of the trial he is overseeing.

 

[LinasK]

Family is still family, even when they do something bad. And like it or not, PG is their father and they know him as their father. If you found out that your mother had murdered someone 20 years ago, would you just toss the memories and forget about her? just like that? Wouldn't you be just a little miffed if your father forcibly prevented you from having any contact at all with her? Do you think it would be inappropriate for a court to allow you to have contact with her under those circumstances? (remember, you would have done nothing wrong, why would you have to be punished?)

Btw, Visitation when ordered by the court is something which gives you the right to see your kids irrespective of what the other parent feels about it. What we are talking about here is not visitation, since PG will not be granted any rights, the judge will be considering what the girls want and giving them rights. There are three parties involved here, Jaycee, PG, and the girls. PG will be denied all rights, but the girls will not be. The girls are not part of Jaycee, they are separate unique people.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do disagree with the judge who allowed O.J. Simpson custody of his children when he had murdered their mother!!!

 

[BeenaBobba]

Family is still family, even when they do something bad. And like it or not, PG is their father and they know him as their father. If you found out that your mother had murdered someone 20 years ago, would you just toss the memories and forget about her? just like that? Wouldn't you be just a little miffed if your father forcibly prevented you from having any contact at all with her? Do you think it would be inappropriate for a court to allow you to have contact with her under those circumstances? (remember, you would have done nothing wrong, why would you have to be punished?)

I'm not saying that children under the age of eighteen are completely unable to make decisions regarding their life and/or their future, but the fact of the matter is that children don't always have the appropriate levels of maturity to make the right choices (sometimes adults don't either, but that's besides the point). With kids, the right choice is sometimes more important than the ability to choose. If the girls' therapists think they would benefit from visits with the Garridos, then perhaps it would be okay, but I highly doubt that'll be the case.

To answer your question, if I found out that my mom was a murderess as a child, I may have wanted to visit her, but it's impossible to know how I would have felt without ever having been in that situation. The situation with PG, however, is a bit different. Apart from his kidnapping and raping of Jaycee, he's a convicted sex offender, someone who has admitted to masturbating outside of grammar schools. Is this someone who should be spending time with teenage girls? IMO, the answer is a resounding no.

There are three parties involved here, Jaycee, PG, and the girls. PG will be denied all rights, but the girls will not be. The girls are not part of Jaycee, they are separate unique people.

I agree that they're their own people, and I also agree that they have rights, but what I'm trying to say is that being a child means that your parents get to choose for you if they feel something is in your best interest.

 

[Billylee]

I don't take offense to the fact that the judge appointed these two girls lawyers. I DO take offense that he referenced one of the first jobs of these lawyers was to see if these girls "wanted to give their addresses and phone numbers to Garrido's attorneys", WITHOUT THEIR GUARDIAN'S ,i.e.,THEIR MOTHER, JAYCEE'S, APPROVAL!!!! Her rights, as their mother, are being overlooked here! Forget she was abducted and raped REPEATEDLY, chained and barred up in a shed, I ask you if you COULD overlook that, WHERE ARE HER RIGHTS AS A MOTHER IN THIS CASE? It appears to me, they were just thrown out the shed door!!

I've said this before, this case is going to set precedences for a long time because of its uniqueness, and EVERY motion that's granted or denied should be weighed even more than usual. Normal "family" law cannot be applied here! I think it comes down to a rhetorical question; which comes first the chicken or the egg? In this case that references criminal law and family law. And I think Garrido's attorney's are purposely trying to confuse the two together. IMO the rape law should be first......HE AND HIS WIFE (A STEP MOTHER TO HIS RAPE-FORCED CHILDREN) should have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, CAPUT rights to ANY access to those children conceived from those rapes! UNLESS THEIR BIOLOGICAL MOTHER WHO WAS THE VICTIM OF THOSE RAPES CHOOSES THAT SUCH CONTACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED! When they become consenting adults and their mother is NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE for their behavior, which by the way Natal, is 18 YOA in California, then it would up to them whether or not they wanted to visit the *advertiser censored* or give him any information such as where the live, until then, that RIGHT BELONGS TO THEIR MOTHER!

 

[LinasK]

I don't take offense to the fact that the judge appointed these two girls lawyers. I DO take offense that he referenced one of the first jobs of these lawyers was to see if these girls "wanted to give their addresses and phone numbers to Garrido's attorneys", WITHOUT THEIR GUARDIAN'S ,i.e.,THEIR MOTHER, JAYCEE'S, APPROVAL!!!! Her rights, as their mother, are being overlooked here! Forget she was abducted and raped REPEATEDLY, chained and barred up in a shed, I ask you if you COULD overlook that, WHERE ARE HER RIGHTS AS A MOTHER IN THIS CASE? It appears to me, they were just thrown out the shed door!!

I've said this before, this case is going to set precedences for a long time because of its uniqueness, and EVERY motion that's granted or denied should be weighed even more than usual. Normal "family" law cannot be applied here! I think it comes down to a rhetorical question; which comes first the chicken or the egg? In this case that references criminal law and family law. And I think Garrido's attorney's are purposely trying to confuse the two together. IMO the rape law should be first......HE AND HIS WIFE (A STEP MOTHER TO HIS RAPE-FORCED CHILDREN) should have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA, CAPUT rights to ANY access to those children conceived from those rapes! UNLESS THEIR BIOLOGICAL MOTHER WHO WAS THE VICTIM OF THOSE RAPES CHOOSES THAT SUCH CONTACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED! When they become consenting adults and their mother is NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE for their behavior, which by the way Natal, is 18 YOA in California, then it would up to them whether or not they wanted to visit the *advertiser censored* or give him any information such as where the live, until then, that RIGHT BELONGS TO THEIR MOTHER!

I so totally agree with the above post!!! You've hit the nail exactly on the head BillyLee!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[nina1441]

Plus, the court ultimately has to do what is in the child's best interest.

What court? Criminal court? How was that demonstrated with today's ruling?

How is allowing some contact between a child rapist and his offspring in a child's best interest? That situation screams absurdity.

And it begs this question:

Why is a women's choice to not to allow contact of a child rapist with her children not considered in the child's best interest?

And who is the arbiter of that question? The criminal court judge? Or an appointed lawyer? Or the mother of that child?

 

[Billylee]

Yep, how simple the judge could have made this. "I will appoint each minor a lawyer in the event the children feel they need one, but since, they are minors in this case, and it is ultimately a criminal case, in which they too are not only possible victims of the accused, but conceived out of the alleged rape of their mother, the decisions of their welfare will remain with their biological mother." Or somekinda like that!

 

[kbl8201]

this whole thing is a slap to jaycee and everything she's been thru.

its a slap to terry and shayna and everything they've been thru.

its a slap to carl too.

mostly its a slap to everyone who believes in justice.

 

[kbl8201]

i deleted the judge info cause i didnt realize you needed permission .

 

[kbl8201]

Yep, how simple the judge could have made this. "I will appoint each minor a lawyer in the event the children feel they need one, but since, they are minors in this case, and it is ultimately a criminal case, in which they too are not only possible victims of the accused, but conceived out of the alleged rape of their mother, the decisions of their welfare will remain with their biological mother." Or somekinda like that!

billylee for judge

 

[kbl8201]

lol only to talk to the lawyrs about the case.

right. and those cheap suit losers arent gonna try to manipulate the kids.

right

 

[kbl8201]

btw why does jaycee need a lawyer to get a protection order? this should be self evident she needs one regardless of his ruling on the kids.

im just utterly flabbergated at this guy......

 

[Dr. Doogie]

Okay, sorry I am late to the party, but I had to go straight from the hearing to work. Here is the info with my comments in italics:

Phil and Nancy get two five-minute phone calls over the next 1.5 months which must be initiated by Nancy - no face-to-face contact. The calls will be monitored by the jailers, but cannot be shared with the prosecution unless their is evidence of a crime.

The prosecution is probably viewing this as a loss, but I think that Phimister gave the defense the least amount of contact that he felt could still be construed as constitutional. Phimister did scold the sheriff's department which runs the jails because the rules for the Garridos are much stricter than others who have been arrested but not yet convicted. I fully expected for the judge to allow more contact than this. Not saying that it is right, just that the law has forced Phimister to allow some contact.

The judge said that he cannot assume that Jaycee and her two daughhters are all in agreement about any contact with the Garrido's attornies, so he assigned each daughter an attorney to determine and report back to him the children's wishes on the subject. As of now, the only lawyers talking to the girls will be their attornies, not the Garrido's attornies. After the judge hears what the girls opinions are, he MAY grant visitation between Garrido's lawyers and the girls (with their attornies present) at a neutral site - NOT at the hiding place.

I think that Ladylaw84's opinion is correct - the girls' attornies will never let this happen and I believe that Phimister knows it. Remember, the judge is constrained by the law to provide certain rights to the Garridos even if he finds it repulsive. My suspicion is that he is doing a dance now to meet his legal duties while still creating a scenario where Jaycee and the girls will never have to face the Garrido's outside of the actual trial. I may be reading this wrong, but that is how I see what is happening.

The issue concerning a protective order was put on hold until the previous issue is settled concerning the girls wishes.

Now here is the big news that you probably did not hear since most of the media had left when Nancy's attorney completed his post-hearing remarks. He stated, "Ms. Gellman has convinced me that her client is as crazy as a looney bird. The question is 'Is he as crazy as a fox?"" Someone asked him if Phil had manipulated Nancy and if he feared that Phil would continue the manipulation? To paraphrase his answer, he answered yes and that was the problem.

This is the first actual evidence of what his strategy will be though we have suspected as much from day one. He seemed to be throwing Phil under the bus (along with Gellman) by claiming that it was all Phil's fault and that Nancy was manipulated into participating. Of course, this will be a hard sell since Nancy also participated in the sexual abuse and had several opportunities to escape Phil, but still desires contact with him. I still await the day when they turn Nancy against Phil - thenm the real fireworks will start.

I also had a brief chance to speak with Katie Calloway alone. I thanked her for taking the time and effort to remind the court of Phil's past crimes. She and her husband travel from Las Vegas to these hearings and it must be a burden both financially and emotionally and I wantedd her to know that the public (or at least one of the public) appreciated their sacrifices.

So in summary: The defense won a few today, but none of it seems as bad as it first did before reflection. The real questions will be answered at the next hearing on April 15th.

 

[kbl8201]

Okay, sorry I am late to the party, but I had to go straight from the hearing to work. Here is the info with my comments in italics:

Phil and Nancy get two five-minute phone calls over the next 1.5 months which must be initiated by Nancy - no face-to-face contact. The calls will be monitored by the jailers, but cannot be shared with the prosecution unless their is evidence of a crime.

The prosecution is probably viewing this as a loss, but I think that Phimister gave the defense the least amount of contact that he felt could still be construed as constitutional. Phimister did scold the sheriff's department which runs the jails because the rules for the Garridos are much stricter than others who have been arrested but not yet convicted. I fully expected for the judge to allow more contact than this. Not saying that it is right, just that the law has forced Phimister to allow some contact.

The judge said that he cannot assume that Jaycee and her two daughhters are all in agreement about any contact with the Garrido's attornies, so he assigned each daughter an attorney to determine and report back to him the children's wishes on the subject. As of now, the only lawyers talking to the girls will be their attornies, not the Garrido's attornies. After the judge hears what the girls opinions are, he MAY grant visitation between Garrido's lawyers and the girls (with their attornies present) at a neutral site - NOT at the hiding place.

I think that Ladylaw84's opinion is correct - the girls' attornies will never let this happen and I believe that Phimister knows it. Remember, the judge is constrained by the law to provide certain rights to the Garridos even if he finds it repulsive. My suspicion is that he is doing a dance now to meet his legal duties while still creating a scenario where Jaycee and the girls will never have to face the Garrido's outside of the actual trial. I may be reading this wrong, but that is how I see what is happening.

The issue concerning a protective order was put on hold until the previous issue is settled concerning the girls wishes.

Now here is the big news that you probably did not hear since most of the media had left when Nancy's attorney completed his post-hearing remarks. He stated, "Ms. Gellman has convinced me that her client is as crazy as a looney bird. The question is 'Is he as crazy as a fox?"" Someone asked him if Phil had manipulated Nancy and if he feared that Phil would continue the manipulation? To paraphrase his answer, he answered yes and that was the problem.

This is the first actual evidence of what his strategy will be though we have suspected as much from day one. He seemed to be throwing Phil under the bus (along with Gellman) by claiming that it was all Phil's fault and that Nancy was manipulated into participating. Of course, this will be a hard sell since Nancy also participated in the sexual abuse and had several opportunities to escape Phil, but still desires contact with him. I still await the day when they turn Nancy against Phil - thenm the real fireworks will start.

I also had a brief chance to speak with Katie Calloway alone. I thanked her for taking the time and effort to remind the court of Phil's past crimes. She and her husband travel from Las Vegas to these hearings and it must be a burden both financially and emotionally and I wantedd her to know that the public (or at least one of the public) appreciated their sacrifices.

So in summary: The defense won a few today, but none of it seems as bad as it first did before reflection. The real questions will be answered at the next hearing on April 15th.

when her idiot lawyer says things like 'she's ecstatic, she loves him' about the phone calls being granted, its a pretty hard sell to think the witch was manipulated at all.

im glad about the neutral site, and the girls lawyers being present (less the chance of any manipulations) but i still think this situatiion is manure......and i still think the judge spit on jaycee, her mom and the family today.

 

[kbl8201]

and why didnt he grant the protection order for jaycee?

is he seriously trying to tell us, 'well if her girls want to talk to the lawyers, then she doesnt get the po'?
get real!!!!!!!! what part of 'jaycee doesnt want anything to do with them or theyre lawyers' does this guy not comprhend?

i know your there dr doogie, and your perspective is diffrent. but from 3500 miles away, this looks like your typical 'give the criminals everything they want, stomp on the victim and her family' that' ive seen seemingly every day since oj simpsons white ford bronco was running thru la and crowds were cheering him on.

 

[BeenaBobba]

Okay, sorry I am late to the party, but I had to go straight from the hearing to work.

It's all good. Better late than never, right?

The prosecution is probably viewing this as a loss, but I think that Phimister gave the defense the least amount of contact that he felt could still be construed as constitutional. Phimister did scold the sheriff's department which runs the jails because the rules for the Garridos are much stricter than others who have been arrested but not yet convicted. I fully expected for the judge to allow more contact than this. Not saying that it is right, just that the law has forced Phimister to allow some contact.

I'm not a resident of CA, so my understanding of CA law is somewhat limited, but what does the law say regarding inmate communication? I'm kind of curious about the rationale behind the judge's decision.

I think that Ladylaw84's opinion is correct - the girls' attornies will never let this happen and I believe that Phimister knows it. Remember, the judge is constrained by the law to provide certain rights to the Garridos even if he finds it repulsive. My suspicion is that he is doing a dance now to meet his legal duties while still creating a scenario where Jaycee and the girls will never have to face the Garrido's outside of the actual trial. I may be reading this wrong, but that is how I see what is happening.

Is it usual for the opinions of minors to be taken into consideration in situations like this? There probably aren't many cases to compare this to, but I found it kind of odd (and upsetting, to be honest) that the judge would supersede Jaycee's parental rights. Like I said, my understanding of CA law is limited, but that's how it seems to me.

Now here is the big news that you probably did not hear since most of the media had left when Nancy's attorney completed his post-hearing remarks. He stated, "Ms. Gellman has convinced me that her client is as crazy as a looney bird. The question is 'Is he as crazy as a fox?"" Someone asked him if Phil had manipulated Nancy and if he feared that Phil would continue the manipulation? To paraphrase his answer, he answered yes and that was the problem.

My opinion is that PG is neither legally insane nor legally incompetent, but it does seem like he's a bit loony. I think it's important to note, however, that people who are missing some marbles up there can still be manipulative. IMO, PG showed numerous instances of planning and scheming, and that's going to come back to bite him in the you-know-where.

I also had a brief chance to speak with Katie Calloway alone. I thanked her for taking the time and effort to remind the court of Phil's past crimes. She and her husband travel from Las Vegas to these hearings and it must be a burden both financially and emotionally and I wantedd her to know that the public (or at least one of the public) appreciated their sacrifices.

That's cool. She seems like a nice lady. I take it that Slayton wasn't there?

 

[kbl8201]

hey ken? whatever happened to your threats to garrido?