Nancy Garrido - thread #2

mysteriew said:

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.

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

Are you accusing me of something?

Click to expand...

songline said:

Great in a normal situation he would be able to rescind, and play games with the law.
BUT this SOB will not be able to do any such a thing because neither the public or 12 drugged up jurors would not let this guy walk again. END of story because there is not one Law on this earth that wants to see this guy walk out free.
HE WILL NOT BE WALKING.You know it, I know it we all know it.
and I do not mean to be snark.[/QUOo

only way he's coming out of prison is in a pine box

Click to expand...

songline said:

Absolutely not...Please forgive me if it seemed that way on any level NO.
there seem to be people out there posting to take up for PG.
which I find it scary.
I have not singled anyone at all out. No, no, no....

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

No One and that includes me, is taking up for the G's. And to be honest, I resent any implication that I am doing so. Implyijng or accusing of abuse based only on the fact that you disagree with my statements only makes it worse. What I am stating is gleaned from many court cases and discussions about court cases over the years. And whether I agree with it or like it or not, it is a reality that we live with.

The courts have rules. Some I can agree with and some I cannot. But still the rules are there. The prosecution has to prove their case. Hearsay is out, and so is "only logical". The defense doesn't have to prove anything. The defense can just offer other possibilites, without having to prove them. Their client is to be considered innocent, until after a guilty verdict is obtained.

Click to expand...

SunnieRN said:

LE is often called upon to testify at trial concerning events, statements, occurances etc. I would hope that the prosecuters in this situation have plans, evidence and contingencies in place even this early in the game. If Jaycee does testify, their testimony will be icing on the cake. I believe that if she wont/can't testify that a judge may be persuaded to allow the testimony anyway.

I really believe it would be a very sad day in America if a registered sex offender would not get convicted of rape when he has admitted to fathering children with a girl that was below the age of consent. This is especially true if you consider the circumstances of her disappearance/kidnapping. If she "wanted help to escape her family" and her choice was the g's, she would have willingly gotten into the car willingly, not been grabbed and shoved in.

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

I am not the enemy. I want to see PG and NG convicted also.QUOTE
Jaycee's testimony is essential for a conviction IMO..

Click to expand...

JusticeForVictims said:

[/COLOR]

I'm happy she has a top notch law firm representing her & the good news is Her Lawyer has already stated she will testify in court if it makes it to court
it will be a few years.(I have not quoted him word for word)
We can all take a big sigh of relief that this prosection team will win in court.

l believe everyone joining this discussion feels deeply for Jaycee & Family & all the pain they have endured. At no point did I feel you to be an enemy for presenting your points about hearsay. In fact it is good to have a discussion
on defense and prosecution details. I'm on the side of prosecution and would definitely ask a judge to permit arresting statements (hopefully signed, recorded,& rights read). Also I would ask the judge to allow all the arresting officer to present their paper work in court.
If I was asked to come up with a good defense for a kidnapping pedophile then I would use all your good points & look for more.

I got locked out from the web site for an hour. I keep getting told I'm not logged & have to re-do my replies, it frustrates me.
So I shall go back to being a reader now.
So take care everyone.
Your Canadian friend who has also had an broken heart for Jaycee.
Janice

I'll leave you with 2 links that may be of interest.
You may already have on your front page?

www.freeadvice.com ( get advice on any legal question online).

http://www.judgejp.com/jeanines_journal/judge_jeanine_pirro_on_the_tra.php

For people like me that like and admire Judge Jeanine Pirro, she wrote her opinions on this case.

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

I am not the enemy. I want to see PG and NG convicted also. But reality is that the court has very stringent rules as to what is acceptable as evidence, and that the defendant has to have his rights protected. Also while most jurors would be more than happy to convict PG and NG only on Carl's word, odds are there will be at least one juror who will insist on more evidence to convict. And it only takes one juror.

At least one juror will look at the case and see only what they don't have. No DNA, no fibers, no trace. No emergency room visits, doctor's visits or other verified evidence of injuries. No witness to the rapes, no witnesses to the incarceration. And no victim in court.

With a loose explanation of the known evidence and no victim in front of them, they wouldn't convict. Because they would argue that for all they knew this kid ran away and did everything voluntarily.

Jaycee's testimony is essential for a conviction IMO. IMO it is so essential that if she would refuse to testify, I would expect a prosecutor to supoena her to court in order to testify.

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

Just to be very clear, that statement that Jaycee went with the G's voluntarily is not what I believe happened, only that that is the type of thing the defense can bring up to cover the existing evidence, if Jaycee didn't testify about the abduction and abuse. I don't know that they will try that, only that they can try to imply that.

Click to expand...

jjenny said:

I am completely and utterly baffled by this. No DNA? Where would you expect to find DNA in case such as this? Certainly prosecution can DNA test JC to prove she is in fact JC and then her children to show that they are her children, and who the father is.
Other than that, what DNA are you talking about? Fibers? What fibers?
Why would anyone care for fibers when JC was found with Garrido and his wife.

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

Just to be very clear, that statement that Jaycee went with the G's voluntarily is not what I believe happened, only that that is the type of thing the defense can bring up to cover the existing evidence, if Jaycee didn't testify about the abduction and abuse. I don't know that they will try that, only that they can try to imply that.

Click to expand...

jjenny said:

She was 11 years old and her step father witnessed it. How exactly do you propose defense would convince someone she went with Garrido (a convicted sex offender) voluntarily?

Click to expand...

kbl8201 said:

plenty of dna. the girls dna nails his behind to the wall.
i would think that both of the garridos lawyers know this is a long shot.
thats why garrido's playing the loony card and his wife is playing the 'battered wife' syndrome. they know they cant escape with 'we wuz framed!'

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

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.

Click to expand...

Natal said:

The only DNA that is relevant in this case is that of the girls, Jaycee and PG to establish paternity and maternity as evidence of at least one count of stat rape at a minimum. Potentially two if they can prove Angel's latest possible date of birth - there is probably some physiological characteristic that could be used to establish that Starlet had to have been concieved before Jaycee was 18 (allthough they wouldn't be able to prove before 14 using that method). No one is disputing that the girls and Jaycee were living at the Garrido residence when they were found, so their DNA would be all over the place.

Click to expand...

Natal said:

They wouldnt need to do that, they could just claim that she arrived at the Garridos sometime in the 18 years after the kidnapping. They wouldnt need to prove when, they could just say (for example) that they found her on the highway 5 years after the kidnapping, and if there is no evidence to the contary the court would have to accept that. The prosecution are the ones who need to prove that it was directly after and as a result of the kidnapping, or they will not convict on that charge. That is why the testimony is crucial.

Click to expand...

mysteriew said:

Here is a good article about hearsay. It doesn't explain all of it, but gives some of the basics.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Hearsay

Click to expand...

JusticeForVictims said:

[/COLOR]

"It is the job of the judge or jury in a court proceeding to determine whether evidence offered as proof is credible. Three evidentiary rules help the judge or jury make this determination: (1) Before being allowed to testify, a witness generally must swear or affirm that his or her testimony will be truthful. (2) The witness must be personally present at the trial or proceeding in order to allow the judge or jury to observe the testimony firsthand. (3) The witness is subject to cross-examination at the option of any party who did not call the witness to testify."

This quote was taken from the above article and gives reasoning why LE testimony is allowed. Not saying that every LE official is honest, but they use prisioners with hearsay evidence and I think that most of the time a LE official would be at least as credible a witness. (This last sentence is said tongue in cheek as I believe that for the most part, but not all, that LE is honest.)

Click to expand...