where do you get 12 retards?
the nobel peace prize committee?
where do you get 12 retards?
You should know better than to say something this offensive, Songline.
Did you really read some of the fantasy posts?
PG admitted it - JC admitted it
and they come up with fantasy how he can say whatever
to get around wherever and it it gong where?
HE ADMITTED IT.
SHE CAME HOME WITH 2 BABIES
the rest is history.
I don't understand I am practical - not in the ozone.
Maybe I need a new astrological chart with more air in it
:clap::clap::clap::clap::laugh::laugh::laugh:the nobel peace prize committee?
Yeah Songline, that was my post. Like it or not, all the defense has to do is come up with an alternate theory that will fit the evidence or most of the known evidence. And if it is believable enough, the juror's can and often do fall for it.
They don't have to prove how it happened, that is the prosecutors job. All they have to do is show that other possibilities exist.
I SECOND THAT..
I hope he does have terminal melanoma & does not live long enough for a farse of a trial. Then his daughters & Jaycee can deal with their mourning (understandable) & move on with their precious lives.
Furthermore:
Both P&N are on record at the parole office admitting to the kidnapping, & being the bio dad of Jaycee's children.
Can't these parole officers be called as a witness to their statements that day.
Why else was he arrested but for the statements of guilt.
Jaycee admitting her true identity and that the G's kidnapped her from the school bustop at 11 years old led to their arrest also?
Can't the cold case & parole officers be called as a witness to Jaycee's statements?
He will not get out this time his parole violations alone are enough to keep him in prison.
They really don't need a trial.
He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping?
Again enough to put him away.
The only good Nancy can offer is information leading to other cases...
Her lawyer said she knows why she is in jail and thinks of them all as Family.
They are not her Family. They became a unit from her actions of force and brutality.
She is the one who told authorities that PG & her went shopping for a child to kidnapp.. Is that authority considered a witness to all her damaging statements admitting guilt?
:clap::clap::clap::clap::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Very good come back -LMAO
Right on and they insist that they are just playing devils advocate.How are the parole officers' statements hearsay???????
The provided definition of the "hearsay rule" from thefreedictionary.comcom's legal section, is "the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible." These officers would be quoting PG, who would be in court. So...it does not make sense that their testimonies wouldn't be admissible. However, I am a teacher, not a lawyer, (and not a teacher in law school LOL), so please educate me
I understand that playing the devil's advocate can help stimulate conversation and generate ideas. However, this case is, obviously, particularly sensitive for people, and is also a case which is very unique and still in its early stages. Any speculation we have right now is exactly that: speculation. Uninformed speculation, at that. None of us know how Jaycee feels about testifying. She may not even really know how she feels right now. And we certainly don't know what her ultimate decision will be.
At this point, my reaction to negative speculation is to feel infuriated. I'm not feeling better informed. I'm feeling like I'm not getting the benefit of a devil's advocate, just experiencing the same kind of frustration I feel after conversing with a person who is being deliberately contrary. I'm sure everyone's intentions are to educate and have a productive dialogue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows of any cases remotely similar, and can share more about what happened in those cases. Songline, you mentioned the Hooker case. Can you tell us more about that?
He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping?
It is true that our laws do have some flaws sometimes.It depends on whether he was read his rights and provided access to a lawyer when requested. It also depends on if he was capable of understanding those rights. If LE didnt follow the proper procedures at that time anything they said would be inadmissable. The actual arrest was made after Jaycee revealed who she was.
The statements made by Nancy were made some time after she was arrested, presumably with her lawyer present. If they had come to some sort of arrangement regarding cooperation, that wouldn't be unexpected.
Right :crazy:
and with his record as a sex offender the jury would have to be composed of retards 12 retards. I dont think so!
It is true that our laws do have some flaws sometimes.
If you are suggesting that there is one chance in hell that he is ever coming out again forget it. It is not happening. No way.
and some people keep taking up for him. :banghead:
Why people take up for him is beyond me...I would only be guessing :crazy::crazy:
How are the parole officers' statements hearsay???????
The provided definition of the "hearsay rule" from thefreedictionary.com's legal section, is "the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible." These officers would be quoting PG, who would be in court. So...it does not make sense that their testimonies wouldn't be admissible. However, I am a teacher, not a lawyer, (and not a teacher in law school LOL), so please educate me if you can
I understand that playing the devil's advocate can help stimulate conversation and generate ideas. However, this case is, obviously, particularly sensitive for people, and is also a case which is very unique and still in its early stages. Any speculation we have right now is exactly that: speculation. Uninformed speculation, at that. None of us know how Jaycee feels about testifying. She may not even really know how she feels right now. And we certainly don't know what her ultimate decision will be.
At this point, my reaction to negative speculation is to feel infuriated. I'm not feeling better informed. I'm feeling like I'm not getting the benefit of a devil's advocate, just experiencing the same kind of frustration I feel after conversing with a person who is being deliberately contrary. I'm sure everyone's intentions are to educate and have a productive dialogue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows of any cases remotely similar, and can share more about what happened in those cases. Songline, you mentioned the Hooker case. Can you tell us more about that?
Point accepted. Going forward I stop .Songline, not to be a snark, but I find the use of the term "*advertiser censored*" in this manner, to be offensive. Not only do I not appreciate "*advertiser censored*" being equated with bad or stupid, but also several of the many, many, people I've known and loved who actually had mental retardation could still figure this one out no prob.
Songline, not to be a snark, but I find the use of the term "*advertiser censored*" in this manner, to be offensive. Not only do I not appreciate "*advertiser censored*" being equated with bad or stupid, but also several of the many, many, people I've known and loved who actually had mental retardation could still figure this one out no prob.
Right on and they insist that they are just playing devils advocate.
I am starting to wonder if there are people out there abusing someone and testing us as if we are jurors.:crazy:sounds nuts
IF SO.....Stop....Do something right, and stop playing devils advocate with an obvious case. HE IS TOAST.