How will Jaycee heal?

[jazerelle]

Hello everyone Well it is raining in SB County this weekend so plenty of time to muck around on line.

A thought or two about the birth certificates. So far everyone seems to be assuming that they got the birth dates from Jaycee. That she told them the dates after she was freed. Perhaps they got the dates a different way, aka, documentation by PG or NG. Baby pictures with the date on the back of the photos. Or maybe even information from JD's diary. "*date* I gave birth to a little girl today and Phil named her Starlit. It really hurt a lot and I am still really sore. . . * Or something of that nature. If so I think those documents would be allowed in court to prove when the girls were born.

 

[Tizzle]

Hello everyone Well it is raining in SB County this weekend so plenty of time to muck around on line.

A thought or two about the birth certificates. So far everyone seems to be assuming that they got the birth dates from Jaycee. That she told them the dates after she was freed. Perhaps they got the dates a different way, aka, documentation by PG or NG. Baby pictures with the date on the back of the photos. Or maybe even information from JD's diary. "*date* I gave birth to a little girl today and Phil named her Starlit. It really hurt a lot and I am still really sore. . . * Or something of that nature. If so I think those documents would be allowed in court to prove when the girls were born.

I thought it never rains in Southern California?? Sorry, you made me think of an old favorite song.

Good points about the BCs and DOBs, jazzy. It's also possible that P&N told LE what the girls' DOB's were. I hope they did, they can't really deny statements they, themselves, made.

 

[kbl8201]

garridos lawyers in the motions to get in contact with jaycee say he stopped having raping her in 97, when she had the second baby. jaycee didnt turn 18 till may 3 1998. so i dont know how they can get around the charges now.....obviously the older sister would have been born 3 years or so earier

 

[Natal]

Admittedly, I don't know very much about what types of evidence are allowed in court, but do you have any documentation or examples to support this? Even if they can't use the birth certificates, I don't think they'll have much trouble proving that the kids were fathered by Garrido when Jaycee was underage. For one, they'll have Jaycee's testimony, and secondly, DNA will likely be used to prove parentage. Not only that, but doctors who've examined the girls will be able to corroborate Jaycee's testimony regarding the girls' ages.

They can prove the girls parentage by DNA but not their exact date of birth. The BCs won't work because they were issued on the basis of the allegations being used in trial. In order for them to be admissable there would need to be some independent corroboration, normally this would be in the form of hospital records or an independent witness, and obviously there is none of that in this case. IMO the only way they can make the ages stick in court is to get testimony from one of the accused for the prosecution, but the prosecution has stated that they have no plans to do this. They can estimate their ages based on physiological development, but the problem is that the girls ages coincide with legally important dates when it comes to penalties, and that will be the issue.

 

[Natal]

Hello everyone Well it is raining in SB County this weekend so plenty of time to muck around on line.

A thought or two about the birth certificates. So far everyone seems to be assuming that they got the birth dates from Jaycee. That she told them the dates after she was freed. Perhaps they got the dates a different way, aka, documentation by PG or NG. Baby pictures with the date on the back of the photos. Or maybe even information from JD's diary. "*date* I gave birth to a little girl today and Phil named her Starlit. It really hurt a lot and I am still really sore. . . * Or something of that nature. If so I think those documents would be allowed in court to prove when the girls were born.

I imagine that the birth certificates themselves would have been issued based on a statement by the mother, nothing more.

 

[kbl8201]

amazing how you comptlely ingore the admissions of garrido himself

 

[jazerelle]

I imagine that the birth certificates themselves would have been issued based on a statement by the mother, nothing more.

You may imagine it all you want because you have no facts to support that thought.

I imagine that birthdays were celebrated and that the girls knew when they were born. I imagine that mom wanna be, N, knows the birth dates because she was there. They could have just asked her.

We know that P said he stopped having sex with her when she was 17, after the birth of her second child. (aside on this. P didn't know her real age because he told the parole agents she was 28 or 29 so he may have thought she was younger when second child was born, aka 16)

What I don't understand is why you are so against there being other documentation in that house, a place where it appears nothing was thrown away, to give the dates of birth of the two girls.

Kids are basically curious when they were born. N, the wanna be mom, would have that info to give them.

Jaycee apparently had access to a calendar because of her statement about being locked up for 18 months in that shed.

 

[BeenaBobba]

The BCs won't work because they were issued on the basis of the allegations being used in trial. In order for them to be admissable there would need to be some independent corroboration, normally this would be in the form of hospital records or an independent witness, and obviously there is none of that in this case.

Are you sure about that? I follow the logic of what you're saying, but do you have documentation from another case where similar evidence was disallowed for the same reason? According to this article, a Sacramento attorney "said the prosecution will use the birth records to establish a timeline against Phillip Garrido."

IMO the only way they can make the ages stick in court is to get testimony from one of the accused for the prosecution, but the prosecution has stated that they have no plans to do this. They can estimate their ages based on physiological development, but the problem is that the girls ages coincide with legally important dates when it comes to penalties, and that will be the issue.

Like KBL noted, Garrido himself admitted that he stopped raping Jaycee around 1997. IMO, this further corroborates the dates on the birth certificates.

 

[Natal]

You may imagine it all you want because you have no facts to support that thought.

I imagine that birthdays were celebrated and that the girls knew when they were born. I imagine that mom wanna be, N, knows the birth dates because she was there. They could have just asked her.

We know that P said he stopped having sex with her when she was 17, after the birth of her second child. (aside on this. P didn't know her real age because he told the parole agents she was 28 or 29 so he may have thought she was younger when second child was born, aka 16)

What I don't understand is why you are so against there being other documentation in that house, a place where it appears nothing was thrown away, to give the dates of birth of the two girls.

Kids are basically curious when they were born. N, the wanna be mom, would have that info to give them.

Jaycee apparently had access to a calendar because of her statement about being locked up for 18 months in that shed.

None of which proves their age. As for other documentation, what might that be? Something hand written by one of the parties involved? How would you verify that was a real date and not something written after the fact. The kids may have been told they were born on such and such a day, but since they have no recollection of being born (no one does) it proves nothing. PG stopped having sex "sometime after" the birth of the second child. When was "sometime after"? 12 years ago? 10 years ago? 5 years ago? So you can't use that either.

 

[Natal]

Are you sure about that? I follow the logic of what you're saying, but do you have documentation from another case where similar evidence was disallowed for the same reason? According to this article, a Sacramento attorney "said the prosecution will use the birth records to establish a timeline against Phillip Garrido."

Yes, and the defense will attack them on those grounds. That they are planning to use them like that implies they have no other evidence to corroborate.

Like KBL noted, Garrido himself admitted that he stopped raping Jaycee around 1997. IMO, this further corroborates the dates on the birth certificates.

Back to the chicken and egg argument again. Garrido said he stopped having sex with her around the time the second child was born, he didnt give a date. That 1997 date was established by the BCs, not by what Garrido claimed. Therefore it can't be used to corroborate the BCs.

 

[BeenaBobba]

Yes, and the defense will attack them on those grounds. That they are planning to use them like that implies they have no other evidence to corroborate.

Oh, I'm quite sure they'll try to attack the validity of the dates on the birth certificates, but I don't think they'll be very successful in doing so. Obviously, there were no other witnesses to the children's births, but I think that prosecutors will have supportive evidence to back up Jaycee's testimony nonetheless. For example, on 06/17/2008, PG's parole officer met Angel. She was a few months shy of her fourteenth birthday; however, the parole officer was told that she was twelve. The reason for this, I suspect, was that a stipulation of PG's parole said that he could have no contact with females between fourteen and eighteen years of age. If Angel was younger than twelve at the time, PG would have likely told this to the parole officer. All that said, even if PG argues that Angel was twelve in the summer of 2008, there'd still be no getting around the fact that she was conceived when Jaycee was underage. And apart from that incident, Polly White, one of the Garridos' neighbors, briefly spoke with Starlet -- who told her she was ten years old -- in the summer of 2008. Additionally, Officer Ally Jacobs and Officer Lisa Campbell asked the girls their ages and were told that they were fifteen and eleven. Most importantly, this was said in front of PG, who did not correct them. IMO, this is all highly supportive of the dates on the birth certificates.

 

[songline]

The birth certificates can't be used to prove the timelines since they were issued after the charges were made. You can't use the allegation as proof that the allegation is true (which is what using the BCs as evidence would amount to).

THERE ARE ALLWAYS EXCEPTIONS TO EVERY RULE.
I AM SURE JC KNOWS HER KIDS BD.
This will be such an exception.

 

[songline]

I imagine that the birth certificates themselves would have been issued based on a statement by the mother, nothing more.

There are ways to tell the girls age..DENTAL is just one way.
You are sticking up for the purps again, as usual. :sick:

It tells me to beware really beware.
It tells me to not trust, really not trust.

NO body should stand up for a perp.
Yes I was on to you from the start.
That has not changed IMO

 

[Tizzle]

Quit overreacting. Natal is not "standing up for the perps". He never has. It's ridiculous to assume that he is. If you don't like what he has to say, use the ignore option instead of repeatedly defaming him and making outlandish accusations. It's getting old. We're adults, let's behave as such.

 

[songline]

Quit overreacting. Natal is not "standing up for the perps". He never has. It's ridiculous to assume that he is. If you don't like what he has to say, use the ignore option instead of repeatedly defaming him and making outlandish accusations. It's getting old. We're adults, let's behave as such.

Kindly take your own advise, don't preach to me.
the PMs I get on regular basis tell me that others can see it too.
even replied to him with the facts not illusions. It is here somewhere.
YES I think it is on the - on the donations thread.

 

[dodie20]

The court will take the mother's word on the birthdays, because she has no reason to lie.

 

[Natal]

Oh, I'm quite sure they'll try to attack the validity of the dates on the birth certificates, but I don't think they'll be very successful in doing so. Obviously, there were no other witnesses to the children's births, but I think that prosecutors will have supportive evidence to back up Jaycee's testimony nonetheless. For example, on 06/17/2008, PG's parole officer met Angel. She was a few months shy of her fourteenth birthday; however, the parole officer was told that she was twelve. The reason for this, I suspect, was that a stipulation of PG's parole said that he could have no contact with females between fourteen and eighteen years of age. If Angel was younger than twelve at the time, PG would have likely told this to the parole officer. All that said, even if PG argues that Angel was twelve in the summer of 2008, there'd still be no getting around the fact that she was conceived when Jaycee was underage. And apart from that incident, Polly White, one of the Garridos' neighbors, briefly spoke with Starlet -- who told her she was ten years old -- in the summer of 2008. Additionally, Officer Ally Jacobs and Officer Lisa Campbell asked the girls their ages and were told that they were fifteen and eleven. Most importantly, this was said in front of PG, who did not correct them. IMO, this is all highly supportive of the dates on the birth certificates.

Not really, that just tells us what age the girls think they are, what they have been told, but it doesn't prove their age. The only people who would know for sure are Jaycee, PG, Nancy and possibly Patricia. The issue would be that all four of them potentially have a vested interest in lieing about it, and that would be the problem before the court that would have to be resolved. Ideally you would want to have some independent source to verify it, not just the people involved in the case.

 

[songline]

not really, that just tells us what age the girls think they are, what they have been told, but it doesn't prove their age. The only people who would know for sure are jaycee, pg, nancy and possibly patricia. The issue would be that all four of them potentially have a vested interest in lieing about it, and that would be the problem before the court that would have to be resolved. Ideally you would want to have some independent source to verify it, not just the people involved in the case.

there are tests..they do excist, if they have to go that rout...

 

[songline]

I don't know if anyone posted this- not sure it is part of this weeks article.
(I don't have the paper) link at the end of this weeks article....

SEX PSYCHO DOSED JAYCEE AND HER KIDS WITH ILLICIT NARCOTICS
Monster kidnapper Phillip Garrido kept Jaycee Dugard drugged to stop her from running away.

That's the shocking secret insiders believe Jaycee and her daughters have divulged to police behind closed doors, a source close to the investigation told The ENQUIRER.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>more at link...
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/67518

 

[BeenaBobba]

Not really, that just tells us what age the girls think they are, what they have been told, but it doesn't prove their age. The only people who would know for sure are Jaycee, PG, Nancy and possibly Patricia. The issue would be that all four of them potentially have a vested interest in lieing about it, and that would be the problem before the court that would have to be resolved. Ideally you would want to have some independent source to verify it, not just the people involved in the case.

While it may not "prove" the girls' ages, it will certainly give credence to Jaycee's testimony. The fact of the matter is that PG/NG implicitly (if not explicitly) accepted the ages as listed on the birth certificates. Prosecutors will likely call psychological experts to the stand to attest to the amount of control the Garridos had over Jaycee, control that would have made it impossible for her to totally override them when it came to raising the girls. If she was not allowed to tell them that she was their mother, then it follows that she was not allowed to lie to them about their ages. Like I mentioned in my previous post, PG did not correct the girls when they said that they were fifteen and eleven, strongly implying that they were told those ages by PG/NG as well. You wrote that PG/NG would have had a reason to lie about this, but why would they lie and say that the girls were fifteen and eleven when it would have been in their best interest to tell them they're younger than they actually are? IMO, the jury will have no reason to doubt the girls' ages as listed on the birth certificates since all parties (Jaycee, PG, and NG) seem to have been in agreement on this during Jaycee's captivity.

And like songline noted, there are other tests -- e.g., physiological and dental tests -- that can be done to corroborate Jaycee's testimony regarding the girls' ages. Not only that, but judging from the photographs I've seen of their property, PG was a major hoarder. It seems likely that there'd be photographs with dates on them, receipts, etc. Even the manufacture and/or purchase dates of baby/child clothing and toys could be used to construct a timeline. We all know Jaycee kept a journal, and IIRC, forensic scientists can even run tests to determine the age of the ink.

All that being said, I think it will come down to common sense. I understand that you often take the devil's advocate approach, but do you honestly believe that the dates on the birth certificates aren't correct and that Jaycee would have any reason to lie about this? I doubt that anyone here, including you, really believe they're younger than they are or that Jaycee would lie. IMO, the jury will likely feel the same way.