Court hearing, Friday, february 26th 2010
- Thread starter kbl8201
- Start date
I think, but could be wrong, that the Judge gave them attorneys in order to protect them. I think Gellman, who has a few loose screws, will not hesitate to use the girls in any way that she feels will paint a favorable picture of her client. First the happy family then the angel hearing nut case. Yet she still fails to see anything wrong with that nut case sleeping with two minor girls.
Their address would be client/attorney privilege so the opposing attorney would not or should not be allowed to obtain it. Plus it would be addresses of minors and therefor should be protected.
So here is a question. Even is somehow PG manages to not go to jail, wouldn't he still have to return to jail for parole violations?
Also anyone notice how NG's attorney is already trying to throw PG under the bus with his saying the fact he is a nut job doesn't mean he is not manipulative?
Their address would be client/attorney privilege so the opposing attorney would not or should not be allowed to obtain it. Plus it would be addresses of minors and therefor should be protected.
So here is a question. Even is somehow PG manages to not go to jail, wouldn't he still have to return to jail for parole violations?
Also anyone notice how NG's attorney is already trying to throw PG under the bus with his saying the fact he is a nut job doesn't mean he is not manipulative?
When I read about the girls getting lawyers, I cringed. I see Gelman loving this and trying to get them to paint the loving family story. We don't know how much the girls know about what PG did to their mother. They may only know that he took her from her mother. They are very sheltered and may not understand what rape is even if they are told he raped their mother. the girls may want to visit him out of innocence. I see Gelman telling their lawyers that PG loves and misses them. If they hear this, who knows what this could do to them.
The judge should never have disregarded Jaycee's feelings about seeing him. She is their mother and should be able to make this decision for her daughters. For crying out loud, she didn't get to parent them for 15 years and now another person has taken that right from her. Sometimes I think this judge doesn't get it. PG raped her and Jaycee had no choice to bear these children. It's not like she wanted to have children with him and the judge is treating this like a divorce case. It just really makes me mad. Does he not understand that these things were done to a child. Does he not understand the emotional aspects of rape. :banghead:
The judge should never have disregarded Jaycee's feelings about seeing him. She is their mother and should be able to make this decision for her daughters. For crying out loud, she didn't get to parent them for 15 years and now another person has taken that right from her. Sometimes I think this judge doesn't get it. PG raped her and Jaycee had no choice to bear these children. It's not like she wanted to have children with him and the judge is treating this like a divorce case. It just really makes me mad. Does he not understand that these things were done to a child. Does he not understand the emotional aspects of rape. :banghead:
That is probably the judges point, while Jaycee clearly will testify for the prosecution, the position of the girls is unknown and it is possible that the defence might call them. The court needs clarification on that since it is relevant to the trial, otherwise the defence could argue on appeal that they were denied access to critical testimony that might have affected the outcome of the trial, especially if it turns out later that the girls had a positive opinion of their father. Their mother might be their guardian, but she doesn't have the authority to decide what their testimony will be or if they should testify, particularly since she is the one making the complaint and the defendant is the girls father. This is one of the functions of a judge - to ensure that trials proceed fairly and without procedural errors that could later be used as grounds for appeal.
I think the lawyers have been appointed to find out what the girls think about all of this, and if they are sympathetic to their father then his lawyer will probably be granted access to them, for the purposes of the trial and for familial reasons (he hasn't been convicted yet). On the other hand if they are not sympathetic to their father, their lawyers will convey that to the court and the judge will issue the protective order for all three. At this point we don't know what they feel about all of this, but I expect we will find out next month.
This is just a thought but Jaycee not only gave birth to the girls but I bet she did most of the working caring for them, including nursing. Babies tend to bond with the mother (talking real mother here). Simply telling a child to call someone mom does not necessarily mean that the baby has bonded with that person. Children tend to get used to the people around them and unless they are mistreated (and sometimes despite being mistreated) they care for the people around them. However, that is different from bonding with that person. Nancy was working during the first 4 + years of the oldest girls life so there was no one else but Jaycee, except for many nutty granny, to care for her. I believe too that Phil was working this period. The second girl may be a different story because Nancy quit work shortly after she was born and Phil was now operating that printing business.
They are not stupid girls, just poorly educated. I think they just might have an idea of what is going on. They may be torn, but I think, push come to shove, they will side with Jaycee.
Remember this is just an opinion based on very little information and subject to change.
They are not stupid girls, just poorly educated. I think they just might have an idea of what is going on. They may be torn, but I think, push come to shove, they will side with Jaycee.
Remember this is just an opinion based on very little information and subject to change.
Back again after a little info refresher. This is one of the sites I think that gives a good indication of the two daughters. http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-...-describe-Dugards-children-Starlite-and-Angel.
When PG grabbed the older daughter to praise what a great job he did of raising her, the officer said she looked fearful. Also, although not in this article, when the officer asked about the bump on the youngest girls forehead, in the other article she said she, the girl, smiled and said it was a birth mark. I am betting that was rehearsed and that she had been smacked hard enough to leave a bruise.
Anyway it will be interesting to review the next batch of parole papers and to see if girls want to see PG of NG.
And IMHO NG is still a guilty nobody.
When PG grabbed the older daughter to praise what a great job he did of raising her, the officer said she looked fearful. Also, although not in this article, when the officer asked about the bump on the youngest girls forehead, in the other article she said she, the girl, smiled and said it was a birth mark. I am betting that was rehearsed and that she had been smacked hard enough to leave a bruise.
Anyway it will be interesting to review the next batch of parole papers and to see if girls want to see PG of NG.
And IMHO NG is still a guilty nobody.
I would think that Jaycee was always treated differently then the girls. This would possibly be information the prosecution would use. Another possible piece of information would be if Jaycee breastfed her younger daughter. I am sure her older daughter would remember this.
Sleeping in the same bed with their father is also something the prosecution would want to make known, showing control, dominence and other possible things. They could be called by either or both sides to testify.
Sleeping in the same bed with their father is also something the prosecution would want to make known, showing control, dominence and other possible things. They could be called by either or both sides to testify.
That article highlights the issue with witness recollections - the officers describe the girls as "Officer Jacobs described the appearance of Starliet and Angel as being pale, almost gray. She stated that they looked as if they had not had much exposure to the sun". At the time she would have had no idea what the living conditions of the girls were and obviously assumed they had been kept locked up, hence her description of the girls. However, she didnt know that the girls were actually living in tents in the back yard. Now, I don't live in California, perhaps the sun never shines there (yeah, right), but I think that anyone living in a tent in a backgarden is probably not going to be "pale, almost gray".
So, if they were wrong about that, and their recollections are based on their preconceptions, what else were they mistaken about? I don't think you can place too much faith in what those women are saying beyond the basic facts, which are: (1) PG wanted a permit to stage some crazy event; (2) PG was acting strangely; (3) this crazy guy had two daughters in tow, which didn't sit well with the two women; (4) they looked him up and found out that he was a RSO on parole, and contacted his PO.
I doubt the older girl would remember, she would have been 3 years 3 months old at the time her sister was born, assuming the birth dates are correct. They only thing that would be useful for the prosecution would be if Jaycee was restrained sometime between then and 2009, then potentially one or both of the girls would be old enough to remember that. But I think that we will find that probably didn't happen though, otherwise I'm sure the DA would have brought it up in his opposition to the Garrido's motion.
The sleeping in the same bed thing Garrido mentioned in his interview, was probably metaphoric not literal. There were beds in the tents and none of them looked large enough for multiple people to be sleeping in.
Based on the arguments presented in the most recent hearing, one of the themes the prosecutor will be probably be using is the idea that Garrido was manipulative and implicitly threatening, to support the unlawful imprisonment charge which covers the whole 18 years. I'm guessing that they would use Jaycee's testimony to support that. That is potentially where the girls might be usefull to the defence, depending on what exactly they have to say about it of course, since for at least part of that period they would be able to give witness about what they percieved to be happening.
The prosecution could side step all of that by limiting that charge to the period before the girls were born. If that were to happen then the only testimony the girls could give would be regarding PG's state of mind and behaviour while they were alive.
Well the sun does shine nicely in California but "SHADE TREES" do an excellent job or cutting back the rays. That back yard was loaded with sheds, tents and shade trees. And when it is hot it is sort of nice to be indoors. So that could explain pale. Now gray could be explained by pills. Over medicated people tend to look a bit pale and gray, aka darkness under the eyes. Obviously these people saw something other than whacko dad or they never would have investigated further. Even the defense attorney is using these two ladies, saying they witness his strangeness. The prosecuting attorney stated he did not plan to use the girls so my guess is the defense attorneys plan to use the girls as witnesses in some way.
The charges against the Garrido's actually are for the period before the girls were born I thought.
The charges against the Garrido's actually are for the period before the girls were born I thought.
LinasK
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,791
- Reaction score
- 23,693
Garrido could have been bringing the girls into the house to sleep with him...
Another thought about being pale. I have a friend who is part Mexican who has a brother who has a definite Espanec look. Has really nice olive colored skin and also goes out in the sun. However, the other night he got sick when we all were at a show. It was daylight. He totally looked pale and a bit gray. Was not until he got some air that his color returned. So my point is. . . .looking pale has nothing to do with whether or not a person had some sun. Tan people can also look pale.
And I don't think the sleeping in the bed thing was metaphoric. He was bragging IMHO. It may have been an exaggeration as to when he started taking them to his bed (I totally doubt he did until they started looking more like little girls and less like babies). So was it also metaphoric when he said he never even kissed them? Most normal fathers hug and kiss their children in a fatherly manner. No both comments were to show to the "world" just how cured he was. Again he was bragging. In his mind he has no room for anyone else. The world is all about him.
However, if they in fact were not sleeping with him but perhaps with Jaycee, then that is great. The perv does not need to be cuddling little girls.
However, if they in fact were not sleeping with him but perhaps with Jaycee, then that is great. The perv does not need to be cuddling little girls.
hey there again just had a thought. Well had it before but kept forgetting to write it down. I don't think either side plan to use the girls as witnesses. I think perhaps the defense attorney stated that the girls were witnesses so, in a round about way, they could get their addresses. However, even if they were "witnesses" the attorneys could talk to them somewhere else other than their residence and if they want to communicate with daddy, they could get a post office box. They now have attorney representation so all notices, etc can be served on them through the attorney.Most of them are, except for the unlawful confinement one, that one is for sometime during the last 18 years.
He wasn't bragging, that was the point in the interview when he was most emotional. I think it was metaphor to demonstrate his love for them, as he saw it. Not an appropriate response of course, but until I see someone else involved say that was going on I'm going with metaphor.
If he is schizophrenic he will be hearing voices that don't exist. If he is a religous nut (aren't they all), chances are those voices will be god, the devil or some other heavenly (or hellish) creature.