Court hearing, Friday, february 26th 2010

[Natal]

hey there again just had a thought. Well had it before but kept forgetting to write it down. I don't think either side plan to use the girls as witnesses. I think perhaps the defense attorney stated that the girls were witnesses so, in a round about way, they could get their addresses. However, even if they were "witnesses" the attorneys could talk to them somewhere else other than their residence and if they want to communicate with daddy, they could get a post office box. They now have attorney representation so all notices, etc can be served on them through the attorney.

If they are allowed to communicate and are willing to do so, I'm sure the judge will place limitations on that though (such as having their attorneys present at all times, etc). They are still minors.

 

[jazerelle]

I would hope the attorneys would be present at all times. They are minors and they do not need him telling them what to say. Again, however, Nancy is still a nobody. Since she is NOT a parent it would seem that Jaycee should have some say in the girls not talking to her.

 

[Natal]

I would hope the attorneys would be present at all times. They are minors and they do not need him telling them what to say. Again, however, Nancy is still a nobody. Since she is NOT a parent it would seem that Jaycee should have some say in the girls not talking to her.

I don't think they will actually see the girls, only the attorneys would.

 

[jazerelle]

Would someone give me the link to the radio/television call PG made. The only one I found was just a partial of the call and I seem to remember that the entire conversation was on some site out there but can not seem to locate it. Would be appreciated. Thanks

 

[LinasK]

If he is schizophrenic he will be hearing voices that don't exist. If he is a religous nut (aren't they all), chances are those voices will be god, the devil or some other heavenly (or hellish) creature.

I worked with a schizophrenic once, although he was a paranoid delusional, he knew he was talking to me and would answer my questions, so although Garrido may be both a religious fanatic and schizophrenic, it doesn't mean he is insane and didn't know right from wrong! His attorneys are going to have an uphill battle trying to prove it. Especially when P&N went "child shopping"!

 

[LinasK]

Would someone give me the link to the radio/television call PG made. The only one I found was just a partial of the call and I seem to remember that the entire conversation was on some site out there but can not seem to locate it. Would be appreciated. Thanks

It was to a reported named Walt, I think Grey, from a Sacramento news station...:waitasec:

 

[jazerelle]

Thanks. I read it and need to hear it at home. Someone said he broke down when discussing his children. I find that hard to believe and wanted to hear it for myself. unfortunately my earphones here totally suck. but I did read the transcript (thanks KBL) and still think it proves that PG is totally full of himself and he definitely thought Jaycee would back him. And what was with those nut jobs signing affidavits saying that PG could talk through that box. Hard to believe a town full of wackos.

 

[kbl8201]

if he broke downn talking about his kids it's an oscar winning performance

 

[jazerelle]

Someone on here said he broke down and I did find where it was written he had started to cry but I would really like to here it for myself.

Personally he was probably crying because he was in jail and no longer able to sleep with his little girls. ok that is just my opinion.

 

[kbl8201]

imagine how much he'll cry if the girls tell him to take a hike like jaycee has.

 

[jazerelle]

I found an interesting video at . . . http://www.bing.com/videos/?FORM=MF...dLink_1x1&q=jaycee+dugard&docid=1546387129108. The one about her journal. In this video the psychologist/attorney person says that he never believed that Jaycee had Stockholm's but this other thing, wherein she feels she cannot escape and so learns to accept her situation. It is probably why it was so easy for her to tell good o Phil to take a hike.

 

[Billylee]

Okay, I answered my own question. I had been thinking that all the charges ended around 1996. I went back and looked at the complaint and actually the complaint lists no charges going beyond 1997, EXCEPT, this one:

COUNT XXIX
FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY VIOLENCE between June 1991 and August 2009.

So, I suppose the girls could be called as witnesses by either party to testify relating to this charge, but only, this charge, as the others are all charges taking place prior to 1998.

 

[kbl8201]

the problem with that billy,, is the girls didnt know she was being false imprisoned.

 

[Natal]

Okay, I answered my own question. I had been thinking that all the charges ended around 1996. I went back and looked at the complaint and actually the complaint lists no charges going beyond 1997, EXCEPT, this one:

COUNT XXIX
FALSE IMPRISONMENT BY VIOLENCE between June 1991 and August 2009.

So, I suppose the girls could be called as witnesses by either party to testify relating to this charge, but only, this charge, as the others are all charges taking place prior to 1998.

The time specified by the charge is "on or between", which means that the crime occurred sometime between those two dates. It is basically a catch all charge to encompass everything, but not everything will be provable in court. If the actual crime is narrowed down to more specific dates later and those dates were before the girls were born (or would be old enough to remember), then they wouldn't be called as witnesses. But, if the charge is left as it stands, and there was no actual confinement or restraint, then the girls will allmost certainly be called to testify.

It wouldn't surprise me if that charge is narrowed down, there is no reason to put the girls through that when there are many more serious charges on the charge sheet. It is obvious that there would have been physical restraint at the beginning but it appears unlikely that there was any at the end.

I think the main reason for the charge covering the entire period is to pre-empt any defense argument that the arrangement was consensual in some manner, but proving the charge in the final years may be difficult since the defence will likely be able to produce a lot of evidence in the form of witnesses that there was no visible confinement.

 

[jazerelle]

The only visible confinement comes in the shape of two daughters which she would never leave behind.

However she was left with no way to leave. Where would she and her girls go, as if he would let them go. What money did she have, what transportation, what education, what means of getting employment. She was basically stranded in that house. She couldn't leave.

 

[FlaJohn]

I don't see any circumstance where JC or her family would allow their girls to be subjected to testifying. They were so sheltered and are still so "fragile" that going against their father in front of a court would do more harm than help IMO. I also hope that JC isn't forced to testify since she doesn't want to right now. I'm sure she will if it comes to that but I pray it doesn't.

IMHO this law really needs to be changed. There's no reason any victim should have to be re-traumatized in court when they can tell their story (taped so the jury can see it) and be cross examined in private less stressful setting.

 

[Billylee]

I don't think any of them should have to testify, especially the minors. I just couldn't figure out why they would be called in the first place (as the judge supposed they might be) and it could be that he foresaw it happening in regard as to the later years (say 2005 - 2009) as to whether or not either of them saw that Jaycee was restricted and held against her will by any violence (I'd assume that would also mean "threats", or emotional violence.?) I think the defense would be foolish to call them as witnesses in this regard.

 

[Natal]

I don't see any circumstance where JC or her family would allow their girls to be subjected to testifying. They were so sheltered and are still so "fragile" that going against their father in front of a court would do more harm than help IMO. I also hope that JC isn't forced to testify since she doesn't want to right now. I'm sure she will if it comes to that but I pray it doesn't.

IMHO this law really needs to be changed. There's no reason any victim should have to be re-traumatized in court when they can tell their story (taped so the jury can see it) and be cross examined in private less stressful setting.

Jaycee will have to testify if they don't get Nancy to turn state witness, otherwise most of the charges would be dropped for lack of evidence. Unless the Garrido's plead guilty the prosecution will have no choice, so it is going to happen for sure.

As far as the girls are concerned, if they are material witnesses to part of the charges, they will probably be called. It isn't a decision the family will get to make, since both the plaintif and defendant are the parents - interfering with that will allmost certainly be grounds for appeal. However, giving testimony won't in itself be traumatic to them, because in all probability anything they say will be pretty innocuous given what we know about the situation while they were alive and old enough to remember things. What will be damaging to them will be the feeling that they have been forced to make a choice, that will create a subconcious guilt that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives, irrespective of which way they eventually lean.

I would hope that they are not called for that reason but given the circumstances that will really depend on both the prosecution and defence being willing to reach a compromise. Right now that doesn't seem likely.

 

[SunnieRN]

I doubt the older girl would remember, she would have been 3 years 3 months old at the time her sister was born, assuming the birth dates are correct. They only thing that would be useful for the prosecution would be if Jaycee was restrained sometime between then and 2009, then potentially one or both of the girls would be old enough to remember that. But I think that we will find that probably didn't happen though, otherwise I'm sure the DA would have brought it up in his opposition to the Garrido's motion.

The sleeping in the same bed thing Garrido mentioned in his interview, was probably metaphoric not literal. There were beds in the tents and none of them looked large enough for multiple people to be sleeping in.

Based on the arguments presented in the most recent hearing, one of the themes the prosecutor will be probably be using is the idea that Garrido was manipulative and implicitly threatening, to support the unlawful imprisonment charge which covers the whole 18 years. I'm guessing that they would use Jaycee's testimony to support that. That is potentially where the girls might be usefull to the defence, depending on what exactly they have to say about it of course, since for at least part of that period they would be able to give witness about what they percieved to be happening.

The prosecution could side step all of that by limiting that charge to the period before the girls were born. If that were to happen then the only testimony the girls could give would be regarding PG's state of mind and behaviour while they were alive.

I think there is a very real and strong possibility that she would remember her Mother feeding her baby sister. Girls who are three love to play with dollies and usually want to be a mommy also. I would think the Garridos would have been "thrifty" and have Jaycee breatfeed for 6 months to a year. This would have occured until her older daughter was close to 4 or over 4.

I know MANY people who remember MUCH of their life befor age 3. In a life, that is very cloistered, without much interaction with new people, a baby would have been a significant event and made a very strong impression at the time.

Whether she remembers or not is a moot point, since I doubt it will be brought up in court, but I have a strong feeling that she knew a lot about what went on in the household and that there are many things that she questioned within herself. She is 15. Think about feelings you had at 15. Most 15 year old question everything about themselves, their families and their family dynamics.

 

[kbl8201]

in other news, california is releasing 17000 registered sex offenders.

get ready for many more jaycee's and chelsea kings to come