and why didnt he grant the protection order for jaycee?
Great question.
Want to give odds that a protection order by this judge is never issued?
and why didnt he grant the protection order for jaycee?
Great question.
Want to give odds that a protection order by this judge is never issued?
The judge explained that the law is prisoners who have yet to be convicted are due the same constitutional rights as everyday citizens minus those which would harm jail security. The right asserted here is the right to communicate with a family member (Nancy and Phil, not Jaycee or the girls). The limited phone conversations seem to be what he felt was the minimum that they should receive to meet this requirement.
The Sheriff's Department (which runs the jails) tried to assert that they alone have the right to determine what harms jail security and that the judge had no jurisdiction in jail security matters. The judge said that he took "umberage" with that position noting that there has been precendent where portions of entire prison systems have fallen under court supervision such as California state's prison medical system having to answer to a judge on a regular basis.
In the court of public opinion, the Garridos are guilty. But under law, they do have certain rights until they are convicted. I personally hope both of them die a slow and painful death, but the courts must deal with them within the framework of protections that it affords to all citizens. Just be patient - they will lose many of these protections once convicted.
I read in today's paper it was because he wanted first to settle the issue of the girl's contact. Unless it's in a neutral location, seems kind of pointless to issue it for Jaycee, but give out the same address for the girls.. Just a thought...and why didnt he grant the protection order for jaycee?
Basically it means the court can't force the girls to visit him, but, if they want to, visiting him isn't excluded. The court would be giving them permission to see or contact him under those circumstances. The rights that would be protected would not be his, it would be theirs.
When you are talking about recovery, you are talking about Jaycee. The girls don't (as far as we know) have anything to recover from, what they have to do is adjust to their new reality, which is something completely different.
Relax everyone. Attorneys are often appointed for minors, not just in divorce cases, but in many criminal situations. The court will appoint independent, outside attorneys who represent the interests of the children - how is that EVER a bad thing? God forbid, but what if Jaycee was still completely brainwashed and WANTED to see PG? Wouldn't you want an independent voice for the girls so they could say no if THEY didn't want to see him?
Do you really think an independent, honest lawyer is going to try to pressure an abuse victim to go visit her abuser? Of course not. But in the interests of protecting EVERYONE, a 15 year old should have the right to her opinion. Plus, I think it will be incredibly empowering for the girls to each be able to say NO to PG - something they have never been able to do before. They go from being "the girls" to independent women who can tell their abusers to f-off.
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 just must be missing an angle here or something. Does anyone have ANY idea why these two young girls would be called as witnesses to the abduction and rape of Jaycee, their mother? They weren't there, they weren't even born yet, I don't get it. Now, if this trial was about custody and how "they" were treated that would be different, but it isn't. It's about kidnapping a raping an 11 year old girl. Someone with some legal mind, your thoughts on this please? Who would be calling on these girls to testify and why?
So you mean to testify as to his mental state to stand trial? Cuz there's no way they can testify to his mental state back when the crime was committed. I would be surprised if they would do that, when children are not experts in that matter, but I dunno?
Well, although they weren't there initially, they were there for her and their continued imprisonment, and her subsequent raping, also I'm not so sure they weren't also molested...http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/27/25...dge.html?storylink=lingospot_related_articles
The judge said he expects the children to be called as witnesses in the case.
I just must be missing an angle here or something. Does anyone have ANY idea why these two young girls would be called as witnesses to the abduction and rape of Jaycee, their mother? They weren't there, they weren't even born yet, I don't get it. Now, if this trial was about custody and how "they" were treated that would be different, but it isn't. It's about kidnapping a raping an 11 year old girl. Someone with some legal mind, your thoughts on this please? Who would be calling on these girls to testify and why?
it seems that, failing to get JAYCEE to tell his heart warming story, the backup plan is to get the GIRLS to tell it.