LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,016
Yup! I've said that over and over. That, and Angel's DNA matching Garrido's- kidnap and rape charges are a slam dunk!!!
Nancy Garrido - thread #2
- Thread starter arielilane
- Start date
No it wouldn't, because without testimony the prosecution wouldn't be able to link the presence of Jaycee on the property to the kidnapping. The descriptions of the woman and vehicle are generic and were observed at great distance, they would serve as corroboration if she testified, but are insufficient to prove anything if she doesn't.
As far as CP is concerned, unfortunately he has been yapping his mouth off to the media a great deal, and unless his version of events has been absolutely consistent over the last 18 years, he may serve to undermine his own testimony.
All Angel's DNA matching PG and Jaycee proves is that at some point they had sex. Since she must have been under 18 at the time based on the estimated age of Angel, in the absence of evidence of force he could only be convicted under 261.5(d), which has a maximum sentence of 4 years. If they want to convict him of the forcible rape and forcible lewd act charges, they will need testimony from either Jaycee or Nancy.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
:crazy:
Are you suggesting that at the age of 11 JC ran away from home to be with this Animal? :waitasec:
Only Nance wanted to be with this rapist animal :banghead:
I guess I am done here... You do not seem to deal with the facts here.
JC was abducted, she was under age, she was imprisoned...the rest is history... Have a nice day....I am beginning to think you may have invested interest in PG.
He is as guilty and as evil as sin.
I will not be replying to anything further on this.
Where are you going with this? :waitasec:
Are you suggesting that at the age of 11 JC ran away from home to be with this Animal? :waitasec:
Only Nance wanted to be with this rapist animal :banghead:
I guess I am done here... You do not seem to deal with the facts here.
JC was abducted, she was under age, she was imprisoned...the rest is history... Have a nice day....I am beginning to think you may have invested interest in PG.
He is as guilty and as evil as sin. I will not be replying to anything further on this.
I actually thought this thread was about Nancy and not about Phil raping or not raping Jaycee while under the age of 18. However, since it is being brought up here I will give my opinion (sort of used to being shot down by now). We are stuck on age however since we do not know the month of birth we cannot really know the time of conception. If Jaycee had been rescued before she was 29, aka in May and if girls were still 11 and 15 that would mean birth at the age of 13 and 17 and conceptions that could have happened at the age of 12 and 16. Sexual abuse of a minor under 12 has higher consequences then after and 13. Unwanted sexual acts are considered acts of force. I do not believe anyone would want to have sex with a stranger forced on them. So since he had lewd acts and sex with someone under twelve (and getting back to this string) nancy too would be guilty of lewd conduct and sex of someone under 12.
Also, to add to my previous comment. When PG went back to jail if the time line is correct that was the beginning of April 1993. Jaycee would still be 12 as her birthday is in May. (I am sure if this is wrong someone will say something). So she was totally in the hands of Nancy while under the age of 13. IMO throw the freakin' book at her.
Seems to me that Carl has been pretty darn consistent!! He described ng, the car, the fact that a man was driving. He also has stayed consistent on the fact that he had nothing to do with Jaycees kidnapping. Carl was not the only witness to the kidnapping. There were children who witnessed this also. The fact that Carl has been open to interviews does not reflect that he is undermining his testimony.
Tell me Natal, what vested interest do you have in this case? You seem intent on pointing fingers, taking bleme from obviously guilty parties and telling almost all other posters they are incorrect. I have asked you before, are you in LE? A defense attorney? A personal friend of pg , ng or the molinos? You seem to protest TOO much and refute the charges too vehemently.
I am very happy I do not live in your fantasy world where men can kidnap and rape a little girl 11 years old and can not be convicted without the victim or without his accomplices testimony. Yeah, right! Why do courts and attorneys put so much stock in DNA evidence? Victim testimony is important, but people can be fallible (look at your statement about Carl that I disagreed with above). DNA evidence doen NOT lie!
We have had the discussion many times that Jaycee is going to testify and has been co-operating with LE. Unless you have a way of knowing that will NOT happen, please consider not mucking up discussions by repeating what will not happen without her testimony. This is especially true if you are not personally involved in the case.
Of course, as always, these posts are my opinion only.
jaycee's birthday is may 3rd 1980 so you are correct.
songline
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 20,158
- Reaction score
- 59
I find it highly curious that he constantly stands up for the 2 perps,
and very early on he was in defense mode for PG. As you may recall I was furious then and he stopped for a while.
IMHO something is a miss.....It is my intention not to reply to that mind set again.
I cant even wrap my head around that mentality. :doh::doh:
I am however very curious to ask one question?
Natal would you happen to know where the 2 little girls are?
lmao at the last part.
They don't know the exact ages of the girls since their births have not been recorded. They just know what the girls have been told their ages are, which may or may not be correct. They can make an estimate based on their physical development, but that is just a rough guess and not adequate since both births occurred near statutory significant ages (18 and 14).
To accurately know the ages in court the prosecution would have to produce evidence of their birth in the form of some sort of official record (which don't exist), or provide testimony from a witness present at the time (which would be Jaycee, Nancy or PG). The point of this argument is not that the girls are some other age than stated, but that in the absence of testimony the prosecution will not be able to prove their ages, and hence not be able to support the relevant charges. This is why testimony from one of the parties would be required.
I don't have any vested interest in the case, I don't even live in the US.
The argument is not about if PG did or didn't do all this stuff (I would have thought it pretty clear if you had read all my posts that IMO PG is guilty without question), but what can be proven in court which is a completely different thing. You can't convict someone on evidence that isn't entered, and if the jury does consider such evidence in reaching their decision it is grounds for overturning the conviction.
Specifically, since this thread is about Nancy, and the argument is under what circumstances Nancy might or might not be offered a deal in return for testimony. The bottom line, whether you like it or not, is that if for some reason Jaycee doesn't testify they will have to get Nancy's cooperation or they will have no case on most of their charges. Even if Jaycee does or will testify, chances are they will STILL want Nancy to testify to reinforce their case and/or provide insurance against Jaycee flaking. This is pretty much the same scenario that played out in the Smart case. If they don't offer Nancy a deal, and Jaycee flakes, most of their case will pretty much dissappear, and there isn't a snowball's hope in hell that Nancy would take a deal after that happened - why the hell would she? Prosecutors in general don't like to play roulette with their cases as far as the principal defendant is concerned. Remember PG's first rape accusation? The one with the 14 year old girl? That case was dropped after the victim decided not to testify, and there would have been a lot more physical evidence and witnesses in that case than in this one, such is the importance of securing testimony.
Now, for DNA, in this case DNA will only prove parentage, nothing else. It will not prove rape, only that Jaycee and PG had sex at some point in time in the last 18 years. In order to prove rape (and in particular rape in the time frames specified in the charges) they will have to have testimony from a witness, preferably from Jaycee, but in the absence of that Nancy would do. Again, PG is the principal defendant here, and if charges have to be dropped because the prosecutor took the high road, there will be hell to pay.
But, we don't really need to argue about this. Your opinion is that Nancy won't be given a deal. My opinion is that she will be given one. I have stated my reasoning for why I think that will happen. As I mentioned in an earlier post.......
We shall see.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,016
Jaycee's lawyer has already stated on more than one occasion that she will testify. They don't need to cut any deals with Nancy. I'm not sure why you think they do...
Simple. The two little girls are named Angel and Starlet, and are living on a ranch with their mom Jaycee last we heard. There isn't any evidence of anyone else, other than a few other people making unsupported claims that IMO are mistaken at best. Unless something more definitive than that comes up, that will remain my opinion on that matter.
Just because someone says something doesnt mean what they are saying is real.
She hasn't testified yet, saying and doing are different things. The motivation of the prosecutor would be to lock up the case by providing two lines of evidence. It isn't like Nancy is going to walk away, she would get significant jail time.
Not to make any enemies of others here, but I have never really seen Natal's posts the way they have been characterized here. I think Natal is analytical and if you just read his/her posts with the logic of them in mind, I think you might see there isn't some underlying motivation or hidden agenda.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,935
- Reaction score
- 25,016
Carl's eyewitness testimony of the kidnapping will be the other line of evidence. He described Nancy down to a tee and I'm sure could easily identify her in court as being one of the kidnappers!
i dont know how nancy's attorney is gonna get past that little fact. i have heard 'well that sketch could be 300 diffrent women' or something to that effect.........but 300 diffrent women didnt walk into the parole office with jaycee. nancy did.
I am curious what you think about other things that people have talked about in this case that you have agreed with and stated are true in the past. Were they not also based upon "what they are saying"?
I think what is bothering me is your assumptions that Jaycee will not testify, that whether she does or not pg can not be convicted by her evidence without ng's testimony and that any juror would refuse to believe that a sexual "relationship" between an adult kidnapper and a child that is ages 11 to 14 and bore his child only proves parentage and not rape? Tell me what you would think if you witnessed the kidnapping of your 11 year old daughter by 2 adults in a car. What thoughts would go through your head? What fears would you have? Would you search for her? Would you talk to media and give interviews, begging for her safe return?
If she showed up years later, with two children, would you honestly believe she had consentual sex from the age of 11? How would you feel? What would you want to do to the animals that took your child? Who changed your life and that of your childs?
What would anyone on a jury think? If they have children and/or grandchildren, don't you think they would personalize this? Logic and emotion, compassion and anger does come into play for juries, even though it may not with defense lawyers. How many hung juries or incorrect verdicts have occured in this world? Jury emotion and logic, or lack thereof comes in to play because juries are human! They will be plied with information. They may be overwhelmed by witnesses. This deliberation will be governed by logic, emotion and pre-concieved notions. Again juries are human.
Ng and pg will get their day in court, with a jury of their peers, but don't discount that their peers will be Mothers, Fathers, Grandparents, siblings that will internalize and personalize this horrific crime!
I have never said that ng will not get a deal. I have often said she does not deserve it and I wish it wouldn't happen. I believe she should be punished equally to pg.