Nancy Garrido - thread #2

New Posts

my2sisters said:
You should know better than to say something this offensive, Songline.
Click to expand...

She was talking about a jury. were 12 people are needed.
(that is not out of line - based on her saying that only a *advertiser censored* would ....)
We do have retards in this world and we are talking about a JUROR that would vote with out being mindful.
Not everything is ill mannered.
 
songline said:
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
Click to expand...

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.

For clarification purposes, that post was in reference to a scenario where Jaycee would refuse to testify in the trial.
 
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?
 
mysteriew said:
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Oops, I totally repeated a post...how in the world...? anyway, sorry for the repeat!
 
JusticeForVictims said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 wouldnt be unexpected.
 
flourish said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
JusticeForVictims said:
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?
Click to expand...

He didnt admit to kidnapping anyone in the interview. He vaguely said that it was a horrible thing at the start but wonderfull after, but without specifying what he was actually talking about.
 
Natal said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is true that our laws do have some flaws sometimes.
If you are suggesting that this SOB has one chance in hell to come out again forget it.
It is not happening. No way.
 
songline said:
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!
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

the parole violations should keep him in prison for good as it is
but knowing these bafoons a clerical error will probably let him out :(
 
songline said:
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:
Click to expand...

No one is "taking up for him". Just because people are not agreeing completely with you on a specific doesnt mean that they are on the other side.

You should consider the possibility that not everything you say or think is correct or objective.
 
flourish said:
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?
Click to expand...

I understand and can fully identify with the feeling. I am not an attorney or a law student. And my understanding of the hearsay law is weak, but we have had quite a few discussions on it here. A good place to start looking for discussions about the hearsay law is in the Peterson case.

The college campus officers can testify as to what they saw, PG was there, and the girls later identified as the daughters of Jaycee and PG were there. And they can testify as to what actions they took, namely calling the parole officer. The parole officer can testify that he called PG into his office based on that call, and what he told him about bringing in household members. And that PG showed up with these members. But I'm not sure that he can say what PG or the others told him. The parole officer can testify as to what actions he took.

Now if PG gets on the stand and denys that he ever admitted to kidnapping Jaycee, then the parole officer can be brought forward to rebut the denial. If PG signed any confessions, that can be brought into the trial, or if there is any recording of the confession. But PG can still recant, then it will be left up to the jury which story they believe.
 
flourish said:
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.


:)
Click to expand...
Point accepted. Going forward I stop .
I did not intend to offend I just agreed with someone because it seemed to fit the moment.
 
Hey, just noticed it wasn't songline who originally mentioned the "*advertiser censored*" thing....so kbl...
 
flourish said:
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.


:)
Click to expand...

good point. and i apologize for using that term first.
 
songline said:
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.
Click to expand...

Are you accusing me of something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 4,727 (members: 198, guests: 4,529)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
4,529
Total visitors
4,727
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,350
Messages
17,967,893
Members
228,753
Latest member
Cindy88
Back
Top