Court hearing, Friday, february 26th 2010

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I have the same questions a Beena, is it usual for a judge to grant two people incarcerated for the same crime to communicate privately with one another? OR is this a case of "family law" taking precedence over criminal law?

If, it is normal, I find that very disturbing. Obviously they can continue to construe facts together to reaffirm whatever "story" they're going to tell. Geeze, they separted them when they first questioned them, wouldn't that be prudent, to keep them separated?

I too, wonder, if a minor's opinion should be considered in a criminal case. THIS IS NOT A FAMILY-LAW CASE IT IS A CRIMINAL ONE.

Why would those children be called to be witness to the kidnapping, imprisonment, rape and torture of Jaycee? I don't get it!
 
it seems to me we have a judge playing by his own set of rules.

this disturbs me far more then the defense lawyers.

once you grant those weasals an inch, they ask for a mile
 
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.
 
Dr. Doogie said:
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.
Click to expand...

personally if the two nutjobs want to talk to each other that means nothing to me. if, in fact, the connversations are recorded, play them for the world to hear like they did casey anthonys

this still doesnt explain why he felt the need to not grant the protection order. regardless of what he ruled in regards to the girls, jaycee clearly doesnt want contact with the lawyers, or the garridos, and any contact with them is harrasment, conviction or no conviction.
 
Since the girls live with JC, the judge is trumping the law protecting a victim from having contact with the perp. If P&NG are allowed to contact the girls they can keep trying to manipulate the girls to pressure JC to not testify and go ahead with PG's plan for JC to tell his "heartwarming" story.:banghead:

How can this moronic judge not also consider the girls as victims? They were denied schooling, medical care, proper housing, nutrition, were taught to tell numerous lies if the police came, thought their mother was their sister and were subjected to all types of emotional abuse by having a father who "talks to angels" and was a religious nut. We also don't know yet if P&NG sexually or psychically abused the girls like he did with JC and many other girls...:furious:
 
kbl8201 said:
and why didnt he grant the protection order for jaycee?
Click to expand...
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...
 
Natal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this have to be AFTER their court trials, whan there is no longer a potential for discovery of crimes against his daughters, who are minors?

Natal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, as I stated above, at this point no one knows for sure the true extent of what the girls experienced.

lawlady84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree that the girls have rights, but having contact prior to their trial is like leading a lamb to slaughter if it is later shown that one or both of them were involved in more than is known at this time.

Billylee said:
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!
Click to expand...

Thank you!! Fantastic post with fantastic points! Again, what about Jaycees right for protection and keeping her address, phone number private?

If the trial were complete, I would have no issue with the girls seeing PG or NG, if it was by their choice. Despite the fact that it is hard to understand why they would want to, they were raised by these two. I would hope that Jaycee, until they are 18 would have the right to decide who would accompany them as well as having a right to keep certain subjects taboo from conversation.

As for prior to the trial, I would think direct contact would be impossible due to the fact that the girls may be called by either or both sides to testify. As for the defense lawyers talking to the girls, I think that would be a possibility for witness tampering.
 
linas, jaycee says 'i dont want contact with them, or there lawyers,. she's a victim. if the judge supercedes her wishes and allows these lawyers to have the girls adress, then he should be thrown off the bench. he's setting up manipulation, harrasment, intimidation and maybe worse.
 
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?
 
Billylee said:
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?
Click to expand...

I highly doubt they'll be called to testify by the state, but the defense may call them to testify on their relationship with PG and on PG's mental state. That's my guess, anyway.
 
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?
 
Billylee said:
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?
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea. Not too long ago, however, Gellman was trying to paint a picture of a "happy family," so perhaps she'll call the girls to the stand to try to show that PG wasn't always a monster. Also, in her recent motion, she quoted one of the girls as saying that PG heard voices that kept him up at night, so even though the girls weren't there when Jaycee was kidnapped, I wouldn't be surprised if the defense tries to use them to some degree to support their claims of mental illness. Anyway, it's hard to say, and I hope they won't have to go through that. It seems to me that the defense is grasping for straws, and why wouldn't they be? Their clients are guilty as sin. That said, I think they'll try to use every trick in the book.
 
The girls may have witnessed crimes against JC during he captivity. Also, they know what their ages are so the defense can't try to claim that they were conceived during a consensual relationship that happened after JC was 18. Besides that or insanity, P&NG have NO defense and I don't think the jury will believe either. LWOP for both, it's a shame they're not facing the death penalty!
 
the girls are not witnesses to the actual case.

i wonder if this judge is high, seriously?

first, as to garrido's 'rights'.

this guy is already a convicted rapist and sex offender.

he openly confessed to kidnapping and raping jaycee, and fathering her two girls..

his lawyer is setting up an insanity defense, are minor chldren experts on that now?

this judge is an idiot.
 
Billylee said:
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?
Click to expand...
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...
They knew that Phil wasn't supposed to be around children, they said to the parole officer that they were going to try to clear it up for Phil, and Jaycee told the PO that she was aware that Garrido had previously kidnapped and raped a woman, so presumably the girls knew this too...
 
the kids are not witnesses to the most obvious and serious charges regarding jaycee (obviously) kidnapping, false imprisonment, rape lewd acts with a minor, that we know of.

and there are no charges in this case, at least yet, that we know the girls were molested. we can speculate all we want, but unless he is actually charged with it, they are not witnesses that way, either.
 
it seems that, failing to get JAYCEE to tell his heart warming story, the backup plan is to get the GIRLS to tell it.
 
I'm just trying to make sense of the judge's statement; that he thought they may be called to testify "as witnesses" in this case, so he got them each their own lawyer. So far anyway, I am not seeing his logic. If he was truly trying to protect them, why not grant the protection order encompassing Jaycee AND her daughters. And if they need a lawyer and are going to be called to testify (with court approval) then what are they possibly going to be testifying for/against? It's all weird to me, but I guess we'll find out soon enuf.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 2,510 (members: 156, guests: 2,354)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
2,354
Total visitors
2,510
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,760
Messages
18,162,603
Members
231,844
Latest member
lauraj333
Back
Top