How will Jaycee heal?
- Thread starter LinasK
- Start date
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 27,008
- Reaction score
- 25,588
There are good lawyers in the world. My brother and a couple of good friends of mine are lawyers. My nephew is becoming one, and so is my niece's husband, and my little daughter shows great potential!
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
God bless them, it is very hard work, and a friend I used to work with, a lawyer is still a sweet heart...they are rare.
I trust very few.
An old boss of mine wanted to pay for me to become one...
Maybe I was dumb not to take him up on it, maybe I don't have the temperament for it.
IIRC it was the DA who praised the parole officer. The judge wouldn't have commented on the case like that prior to judgement.
God bless them, it is very hard work, and a friend I used to work with, a lawyer is still a sweet heart...they are rare.
I trust very few.
An old boss of mine wanted to pay for me to become one...
Maybe I was dumb not to take him up on it, maybe I don't have the temperament for it.
Lawyers are people just like everyone else, those who say they are evil etc just because they are lawyers are morons.
I think the problem is that most people don't know the rules, and when they have a dispute or are looking at a particular situation they go with their gut feeling or their understanding of what the rules should be (as opposed to what they actually are). That is especially true when that person is directly involved or has a biased position towards one side or the other. Lawyers, on the other hand, actually know what the rules are, and generally follow them. That is what get's people mad at them, because it usually turns out that the rules are not what they want them to be, and so they irrationally blame the lawyers for that (even though the lawyers didn't make those rules)
Ok another fact about me (ya all know now I am blonde and live in California) I also work with lawyers. Have for years and years and years and even more years. I do not do criminal work but at one time did work on a few criminal pro bono cases. At that firm I would say my attorney was a good attorney. His partner was a snake. Had nothing to do with knowing or not knowing rules. He liked to manipulate the jury. And had his clients dress accordingly to best get great results, even if their attire was a lie.
My current law firm has, as far as I know, good, honest attorneys. We don't do criminal though. Just civil.
My current law firm has, as far as I know, good, honest attorneys. We don't do criminal though. Just civil.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
Thank you for sharing...NOT
there are also ethical ones and not ethical ones. and also for every law you can find a counter law, and some lawyers would never represent the scum called Nancy and PG.
YES there are all kinds. Like it or not. that is true.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
That is correct there are all kinds and I was an office manger in a large Law firm many many years back AND i will vouch or that there are lawyers who keep their hands clean and there are snakes.
Just like the Mafia will use a certain lawyer, and not another and not because one is better then the other they may both be really good criminal lawyers. but because one will get his hands dirty and the other one wont.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
LOTS of snakes in this case, but I think KBL is right.
KBL can you find the link because I think you are right......
give me a minute i think i remember reading it on the early posts in this forum.......
Natal is correct. :martini:
It was the DA that praised Santos.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/14/garrido.court/index.html
And to be fair, it appears as though Santos IS the only PO that even came close to attempting to properly supervise Garrido. He was only his PO since December of 08, 8-9 months prior to JC and the girls' discovery, and you can see from I.G. Shaw's report that Garrido's supervision definitely improved in that time. JMO
It was the DA that praised Santos.
The couple had been held without bail, but Phillip Garrido's defense attorney requested that bail be set for him Monday. El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Douglas Phimister set his bond at $30 million. Watch the Garridos at the hearing »
However, El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson told reporters after the hearing that Garrido, a registered sex offender, is also on a "parole hold," which carries no bond. A parole hold is placed on people on parole or under supervision when they are taken back into custody.
Nancy Garrido's attorney told Phimister that she was not contesting her no-bond status, although she might ask that bond be set in the future.
Both defense attorneys told the judge they wanted to make clear that their clients are invoking the right to counsel and do not want to be questioned. Phimister noted that "other agencies" are interested in interviewing the couple.
Phillip Garrido will undergo a psychiatric evaluation, a common step for defendants. Nancy Garrido's attorney said he was attempting to schedule one for her as well.
The two defendants spoke only once, answering "Yes," when asked by the judge if they were willing to waive their right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days.
Both Garridos previously pleaded not guilty to the charges. They face a combined 29 felony counts; 26 counts name only one of them -- 13 for each -- and both are named in three.
Phillip Garrido was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman in 1976, and was released from prison after serving 10 years of a 50-year sentence. He was required to register as a sex offender and placed on lifetime parole.
Pierson acknowledged Monday that "very legitimate questions" have been raised about Garrido's release and supervision. "Those are issues which I'm confident will be addressed in a proper venue at a proper time," he said.
But Pierson praised Garrido's current parole officer for helping to bring about his capture, breaking through his "elaborate, well-planned cover story that was 18 years in the making." The parole officer summoned Garrido to his office after being tipped off by University of California-Berkeley police, who considered Garrido suspicious and questioned why he was on campus with two young girls. Those girls later were shown to be his daughters by Dugard.
However, El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson told reporters after the hearing that Garrido, a registered sex offender, is also on a "parole hold," which carries no bond. A parole hold is placed on people on parole or under supervision when they are taken back into custody.
Nancy Garrido's attorney told Phimister that she was not contesting her no-bond status, although she might ask that bond be set in the future.
Both defense attorneys told the judge they wanted to make clear that their clients are invoking the right to counsel and do not want to be questioned. Phimister noted that "other agencies" are interested in interviewing the couple.
Phillip Garrido will undergo a psychiatric evaluation, a common step for defendants. Nancy Garrido's attorney said he was attempting to schedule one for her as well.
The two defendants spoke only once, answering "Yes," when asked by the judge if they were willing to waive their right to a preliminary hearing within 60 days.
Both Garridos previously pleaded not guilty to the charges. They face a combined 29 felony counts; 26 counts name only one of them -- 13 for each -- and both are named in three.
Phillip Garrido was convicted of kidnapping and raping a woman in 1976, and was released from prison after serving 10 years of a 50-year sentence. He was required to register as a sex offender and placed on lifetime parole.
Pierson acknowledged Monday that "very legitimate questions" have been raised about Garrido's release and supervision. "Those are issues which I'm confident will be addressed in a proper venue at a proper time," he said.
But Pierson praised Garrido's current parole officer for helping to bring about his capture, breaking through his "elaborate, well-planned cover story that was 18 years in the making." The parole officer summoned Garrido to his office after being tipped off by University of California-Berkeley police, who considered Garrido suspicious and questioned why he was on campus with two young girls. Those girls later were shown to be his daughters by Dugard.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/14/garrido.court/index.html
And to be fair, it appears as though Santos IS the only PO that even came close to attempting to properly supervise Garrido. He was only his PO since December of 08, 8-9 months prior to JC and the girls' discovery, and you can see from I.G. Shaw's report that Garrido's supervision definitely improved in that time. JMO
Part of the problems are the fact that the reporters are getting the information wrong. So quoting one source it says one thing and yet another source says something slightly different. On the other thread, it does say the Judge praised the parole agent. This is a cases of just weeding through the inconsistencies and ok not going to say more because I would po a few people.
Yes, on the other thread it does say that. Because the poster, Californian, added "(the judge)", but the article linked in that post doesn't say the judge said it. The reporters didn't get the information wrong, the poster (Californian) did.
Another problem I find is in quoting. So if you quote a post not knowing it had been altered suddenly a "fact" is going around that really is not a fact. I noticed that about one of my quotes earlier today. It was added to other quotes and comments, and unless you were paying attention it looked like I was responsible for the other quotes and/or comments.
However, thick skinned here, and decided if someone wanted to be a sloppy reader, it was no skin off my nose (god I am dating myself)
However, thick skinned here, and decided if someone wanted to be a sloppy reader, it was no skin off my nose (god I am dating myself)
i said in the article it stated the DA can we let it drop now? californian, if you read the very old thread here dating back as early as 2005, was very consumed with this case, long before jaycee was ever found, and made a mistake, one which i didnt reallize till tonight.
and for the record, the fact its the prosecutor that said it doesnt make me feel any better
and for the record, the fact its the prosecutor that said it doesnt make me feel any better
For what it's worth; The National Inquirer is posting on it's website that Jaycee and her daughters are going to be going into something like the witness protection program. They will get new names and backgrounds. They tagged it "Jaycee Dugard Disappears".
i did read that article, and while i think its plausible that will happen, once again, what is with the headline? firt it was 'jaycee suicide shocker' implicating she tried to kill herself, now 'jaycee dugard dissapears' that made me think 'she missing again?"