Further Hearing 11/4/2010

[Dr. Doogie]

There was another hearing today. Here are the highlights:

*The hearing to determine Phil's competency will not occur until "the first couple of weeks of March 2011"! This means the earliest that he can be arraigned is then.

*Three documents related to the grand jury hearings were cleared for release by the judge, but the vast majority of the transcripts are still under seal for now. Another hearing was scheduled for 12/2/2010 to hear further arguements concerning the media's request for release.

*Tapson, Nancy's attorney, is fighting to keep the documents sealed (as is the DA). He stated that they contain details of "evil" that would taint the jury pool if released.

 

[SunnieRN]

Thank you Dr. Doogie. I really appreciate all of your updates!

 

[Dr. Doogie]

I just read the three unsealed documents. They are merely routine paperwork related to the trial and contain no new revelations.

 

[BeenaBobba]

Thanks, Dr. Doogie! It'll be interesting to see what the judge decides regarding the grand jury testimony. Personally, I think it should stay sealed for Jaycee's privacy. Not only that, but I think the defense has a good point about its release making it harder to find an impartial jury. A change of venue could be costly to CA taxpayers. What do you think will happen?

 

[songline]

There was another hearing today. Here are the highlights:

*The hearing to determine Phil's competency will not occur until "the first couple of weeks of March 2011"! This means the earliest that he can be arraigned is then.

*Three documents related to the grand jury hearings were cleared for release by the judge, but the vast majority of the transcripts are still under seal for now. Another hearing was scheduled for 12/2/2010 to hear further arguements concerning the media's request for release.

*Tapson, Nancy's attorney, is fighting to keep the documents sealed (as is the DA). He stated that they contain details of "evil" that would taint the jury pool if released.

Dr. Doogie,
Unrelated - the Elizabeth Smart case is finally up after 8-9 years.
How long do you think before this case may begin.
I know you dont have a Christal ball but you have really been on top of this case.
Thank you so much for that.

 

[Dr. Doogie]

My gut tells me that it will be a long, long time. I suspect that, once Phil's competency is established, Nancy's attorney will raise the same question for her, delaying the trial longer. When your client is guilty a hell, you want to delay this as long as possible.

I usually would side with keeping the grand jury testimony sealed, but this case is a bit unique. Since Jaycee will be publishing a book about her ordeal, I think the claims of privacy have less weight than they would in a normal situation. I believe that Tapson's claim that the grand jury records would taint the jury pool is a weak arguement - his position is that the details of the Garrido's crimes will be so horrible that his client cannot get a fair trial. My opinion is that if the truth is so horrible that it will lead to the Garrido's getting the book thrown at them, then so be it. And can the truth be worse than the speculation that is going throiugh the public's minds now?

 

[songline]

My gut tells me that it will be a long, long time. I suspect that, once Phil's competency is established, Nancy's attorney will raise the same question for her, delaying the trial longer. When your client is guilty a hell, you want to delay this as long as possible.

I usually would side with keeping the grand jury testimony sealed, but this case is a bit unique. Since Jaycee will be publishing a book about her ordeal, I think the claims of privacy have less weight than they would in a normal situation. I believe that Tapson's claim that the grand jury records would taint the jury pool is a weak arguement - his position is that the details of the Garrido's crimes will be so horrible that his client cannot get a fair trial. My opinion is that if the truth is so horrible that it will lead to the Garrido's getting the book thrown at them, then so be it. And can the truth be worse than the speculation that is going throiugh the public's minds now?

Thank you,
I suspect it will be a long time too. It will give JC a little more strength to face her abusers.
time did wonders for Elizabeth. Not that there is any similarity between 9 months and 18 years of abuse. but time helps in cases like this.

I still am not sure how an attorney can defend these types :waitasec:
it sure would be impossible for me to do that.

YOU are a HERO :angel: going to court must be hard too.

 

[BeenaBobba]

I usually would side with keeping the grand jury testimony sealed, but this case is a bit unique. Since Jaycee will be publishing a book about her ordeal, I think the claims of privacy have less weight than they would in a normal situation.

The thing is, her book may be considerably less graphic than the grand jury testimony, so it may be upsetting to her if the grand jury testimony is released. The D.A. is against the release for privacy reasons, so if I had to guess, I'd say that's why.

I believe that Tapson's claim that the grand jury records would taint the jury pool is a weak arguement - his position is that the details of the Garrido's crimes will be so horrible that his client cannot get a fair trial. My opinion is that if the truth is so horrible that it will lead to the Garrido's getting the book thrown at them, then so be it. And can the truth be worse than the speculation that is going throiugh the public's minds now?

Pretty much everyone can agree that the Garridos are horrible human beings, and everyone knows they're guilty as sin, but I think hearing the details will make people a lot more emotional about it. I don't think it'd be impossible to find an impartial jury, but I do think it could make things more difficult.

 

[SunnieRN]

I have no real idea on content, but I would think Jaycee would have to be very careful about details of what she underwent. There is still a trial that needs to happen and a memoir is something that can be brought up during her testimony.

If she were to downplay the abuses she experiences, possibly court appointed lawyers could use that against her, during future testimony. If she was graphic in her details, I wonder if she could be held in contempt of court, for releasing details? I think she is really somewhere between a rock and a hard place here. I am actually surprised that she would be willing to tell her story right now.

May God bless her and her children. I can not imagine going through everything they experienced and knowing that you have the looming trial and need to testify ahead of you.