Garrido's Attorneys

[my2sisters]

this is misinformation. ok fine.

i based what i said on the unreadable contents of his letter and the what was written in the article, if you rememmber, my2sisters. you seemed to agree with me on this 2 months ago.

I went back and read those posts, maybe you should too. What I agreed on was that PG wanted Jaycee to be aware that her rights were violated as stated in the letter. In no way did I agree with you that PG sent Jaycee a letter!!!

 

[LinasK]

I went back and read those posts, maybe you should too. What I agreed on was that PG wanted Jaycee to be aware that her rights were violated as stated in the letter. In no way did I agree with you that PG sent Jaycee a letter!!!

Okay, I'm gonna stick my neck out and defend KBL here, because I see an awful lot of unnecessary picking on him when he's on our side! I think what KBL meant to say, but wasn't as precisely accurate as some here would prefer,- is that Garrido was attempting to reach out and influence Jaycee by means of the letter he sent to the reporter, not that he sent it to her directly.

 

[kbl8201]

I went back and read those posts, maybe you should too. What I agreed on was that PG wanted Jaycee to be aware that her rights were violated as stated in the letter. In no way did I agree with you that PG sent Jaycee a letter!!!

to me it means he was trying to get it to more then one source, and jaycee was one of the sources he wanted to reach.
why do you argue every statement i make here.

 

[kbl8201]

Okay, I'm gonna stick my neck out and defend KBL here, because I see an awful lot of unnecessary picking on him when he's on our side! I think what KBL meant to say, but wasn't as precisely accurate as some here would prefer,- is that Garrido was attempting to reach out and influence Jaycee by means of the letter he sent to the reporter, not that he sent it to her directly.

thanks that's pretty much what i was saying linas

 

[time]

thanks that's pretty much what i was saying linas

kbl, I know darn well you are capable of making it clearer in the first place and rechecking facts before posting. We are just trying to keep things straight and many people do put a lot of work in composing their posts, supporting what they are saying, and trying not to throw out assumptions as it they are facts.

 

[kbl8201]

kbl, I know darn well you are capable of making it clearer in the first place and rechecking facts before posting. We are just trying to keep things straight and many people do put a lot of work in composing their posts, supporting what they are saying, and trying not to throw out assumptions as it they are facts.

i see.

i have done tons of research on this case and im actually attempting contact thru the fbi to see if anything is actually being done about the two little girls.
i see other posters post things and articles (national enquirer???????????) that dont have even a shred of credibility and no one piles on them like you guys do on me.

 

[Tizzle]

i see.

i have done tons of research on this case and im actually attempting contact thru the fbi to see if anything is actually being done about the two little girls.
i see other posters post things and articles (national enquirer???????????) that dont have even a shred of credibility and no one piles on them like you guys do on me.

A link, regardless of it's origin, is far better for backing up information in a post than NO link, at all. At least the poster is showing that they have something that is leading them to their conclusion. It shows that the poster is willing to go beyond the "gossip" side of the story, move past the chatter and get down to the meat of the facts. We should all, as responsible members of WS, think about and reread our posts before clicking "submit reply" to make sure it is worded properly so as not to offend or mislead anyone. We should all make sure that the information we are posting is to the best of our knowledge and provide links to verify, even if they are links from NE. Again, A link is more useful than NO link.

Back to the topic, SG seemed to be more of a willing particpant in the 11/11 letter than she was in the previous letter. She wasn't as chatty about the first one and seemed more than a little perturbed. This time, it appears as though she put her defense attorney hat on and dropped the "questionable mental stability" bomb. Sure wish we knew the contents of the 3rd "mystery" letter sent to KCRA. I wonder why it was never mentioned before?

 

[time]

i see.

i have done tons of research on this case and im actually attempting contact thru the fbi to see if anything is actually being done about the two little girls.
i see other posters post things and articles (national enquirer???????????) that dont have even a shred of credibility and no one piles on them like you guys do on me.

kbl... with all due respect, I was not just being negative to you. I said I knew you were capable. I'm not implying you have not done research, but I know, for me, I often have to go back again when another issue comes up on the same topic. I'm sure you are probably a very caring soul. I think we probably all are or we wouldn't be spending our time and efforts on this case. All I'm saying is that sometimes you could use a little more care and thought before you post, basically on the way you word stuff. And, citing or quoting more exactly what was said in an article and where (link) is good. It just seems to me like you post things quickly and sometimes don't bother writing "I'm" instead of "im" or "don't" instead of 'dont" - what gives with all that - it makes it difficult to read and leaves others with the impression you aren't putting that much effort into your posts. It's not that you are not capable or haven't at some point did research (or a lot of research!) or don't care about Jaycee or the little girls (thank you for contacting the FBI), but all of that kind of stuff just confuses the issues when you bring it up when because it is not what anyone has raised as an issue.

 

[kbl8201]

kbl... with all due respect, I was not just being negative to you. I said I knew you were capable. I'm not implying you have not done research, but I know, for me, I often have to go back again when another issue comes up on the same topic. I'm sure you are probably a very caring soul. I think we probably all are or we wouldn't be spending our time and efforts on this case. All I'm saying is that sometimes you could use a little more care and thought before you post, basically on the way you word stuff. And, citing or quoting more exactly what was said in an article and where (link) is good. It just seems to me like you post things quickly and sometimes don't bother writing "I'm" instead of "im" or "don't" instead of 'dont" - what gives with all that - it makes it difficult to read and leaves others with the impression you aren't putting that much effort into your posts. It's not that you are not capable or haven't at some point did research (or a lot of research!) or don't care about Jaycee or the little girls (thank you for contacting the FBI), but all of that kind of stuff just confuses the issues when you bring it up when because it is not what anyone has raised as an


is there some reason you feel a continued need to attack my typing skills?

 

[kbl8201]

:truce:

Okay gang, just my :twocents: worth.......

Firstly: I was going to comment earlier that some of us are just plain better typists and better at the english language. And that's OK! But re-reading and thinking your post, or deciding whether you even want to make a comment at all, is a good idea here.

Secondly: I would like to encourage the use of links and back up support links whenever it can be done. I know providing links every time you turn around is a royal pain in the donkey! But, it helps keep things straight. That being said, one of the reasons it is sooooo difficult here (at least for me) to provide the links and research back to them, is that the postings are "littered" with the kind of conversation that is going on now. I think mentioned not to make comments about one another, and I turned to this thread today to see what was up and it's almost entirely that now!

Thirdly: JMO but, it might be better to do a private email to someone if you feel you need to talk to them about something that is off topic, ya think? We all have little comments to make once in a while, sure, but they shouldn't take up post after post and thread after thread. It really makes it difficult to go back and review something within a thread. (at least for me)

Fourthly: How about if you do have these kinds of off topic conversations in public, because we just can't help ourselves, how about we all go back and delete the ones that aren't important to the case, it'd be easy to do by going to your own stats to find them. That will make it soooo much cleaner and easier to find the links we want or find the answers we want within the threads.

And last, but not least, let's all try to keep the topic of discussion in the thread it should be in.....God knows there's plenty of them out there....that will also help us ALL in the long run!

JM :twocents:

And, by the way, I will erase this tomorrow, I promise! Because it really is OFF TOPIC.

i will gladly take this to pms if i am assured they will be answered

 

[my2sisters]

i will gladly take this to pms if i am assured they will be answered

I'm done, I have nothing more to say.

 

[Wendy101]

Just to let you know kbl8201 .. I personally have no problems reading your posts...

 

[kbl8201]

Just to let you know kbl8201 .. I personally have no problems reading your posts...

thanks. that makes one lol

 

[Billylee]

i will gladly take this to pms if i am assured they will be answered

Okay, I'm old and not a "Texty" what does pms mean other than what at my age I think it means????

 

[kbl8201]

Okay, I'm old and not a "Texty" what does pms mean other than what at my age I think it means????

pms is private messages without the apostrophe

 

[Dr. Doogie]

Nancy Garrido's attorney seems to back on case temporarily:

http://www.kcbs.com/Attorney-Wins-Temporary-Stay-in-Garrido-Case/5780454

Evidently, the "conflict of interest" was that the attorney made some derogatory comments concerning Nancy while at a country club that was overheard and reported.

 

[Tizzle]

Lawyers for Couple Accused of Abducting Jaycee Dugard Want to Talk With Her
Thursday, February 04, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — A couple being held on charges of abducting a girl more than 18 years ago and keeping her in their backyard wants permission to visit each other in the jail, a defense lawyer said Thursday.

Phillip and Nancy Garrido have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping Jaycee Dugard when she was 11, raping her and confining her and the daughters she bore by Phillip Garrido to a hidden compound in the backyard of their Antioch home.

Stephen Tapson, the court-appointed attorney representing Nancy Garrido, told The Associated Press that he and Phillip Garrido's public defender made the visitation request in twin motions filed Wednesday in El Dorado Superior Court.

The couple is being held separately in jail. He said jail officials so far had refused to let the two inmates meet.

"If one of them were out on bail, they could visit each other, so let them visit each other in jail, just to say hello to each other," Tapson said.

Tapson said he and Deputy Public Defender Susan Gellman also filed papers seeking to compel prosecutors to tell them where Dugard is living and if she has a lawyer of her own so they can speak with her while preparing defenses for the Garridos.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584905,00.html

 

[songline]

Lawyers for Couple Accused of Abducting Jaycee Dugard Want to Talk With Her
Thursday, February 04, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — A couple being held on charges of abducting a girl more than 18 years ago and keeping her in their backyard wants permission to visit each other in the jail, a defense lawyer said Thursday.

Phillip and Nancy Garrido have pleaded not guilty to kidnapping Jaycee Dugard when she was 11, raping her and confining her and the daughters she bore by Phillip Garrido to a hidden compound in the backyard of their Antioch home.

Stephen Tapson, the court-appointed attorney representing Nancy Garrido, told The Associated Press that he and Phillip Garrido's public defender made the visitation request in twin motions filed Wednesday in El Dorado Superior Court.

The couple is being held separately in jail. He said jail officials so far had refused to let the two inmates meet.

"If one of them were out on bail, they could visit each other, so let them visit each other in jail, just to say hello to each other," Tapson said.

Tapson said he and Deputy Public Defender Susan Gellman also filed papers seeking to compel prosecutors to tell them where Dugard is living and if she has a lawyer of her own so they can speak with her while preparing defenses for the Garridos.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584905,00.html

Thank you Tizzle this link made me shudder ...
from the link.

"We would like to talk to her, obviously, and they are not telling us where she is and she doesn't have a lawyer that we know of," Tapson said.

Nancy Seltzer, a spokeswoman for Dugard, said Dugard is represented by the state. She had no comment on the defense motion seeking access to Dugard or her lawyer because she had not seen it.
snip<<<<<<

The fact that the state is standing behind her is not enough but it is comforting for now.
I am sure JC's MOM has a lot to say, and like her step Dad used to say
JC is an easy going girl and a good girl, which is why she is still alive.
I am sure she is taking guidance from her MOM.
Terry would not want her near those animals for a second..

 

[kbl8201]

there is no way in hell these to scumbags lawyers should under any circumstances be given jaycees location or be allowed to meet with them.
this just smacks of either intimidation or persuasion.
im sick and tired of this garbage.

 

[Natal]

"We would like to talk to her, obviously, and they are not telling us where she is and she doesn't have a lawyer that we know of," Tapson said.

Nancy Seltzer, a spokeswoman for Dugard, said Dugard is represented by the state. She had no comment on the defense motion seeking access to Dugard or her lawyer because she had not seen it.
snip<<<<<<

The fact that the state is standing behind her is not enough but it is comforting for now. I am sue JC's MOM has a lot to say and like her step Dad used to say JC is an easy going girl and a good girl.
I am sure she is taking guidance from her MOM.
Terry would not want her near those animals for a second..

The state isn't representing her, they are representing the people of California in presenting her complaint to the court.

Curiously, Seltzers comment about the motion is similar to what she said about Jaycee's bio-dad's efforts to see her. Are they really that uninformed about what is going on around them?

It is interesting that they want to talk to her about the defence though, do they want to use her testimony for their arguments in court? Do they think that there is a chance that could happen? That would make the trial pretty weird.