Garrido's Attorneys

[Natal]

WALKED - didnt you read she felt in prison (several enteries) :waitasec:
She wanted her life to live and do what she liked but could NOT...Did you miss that part :waitasec:

That yard was a hovel, she could have written things, he would have no clue where to look.
She may not even know what rape is (till she got home) she was only 11 his words were different - he told her "we are going to do what God wants us to do"

I didn't read anything about her saying she felt like she was in prison. Mostly she was writing about not being able to make decisions herself (I assume he would make them for her, as he probably did for everyone else in the house - that would be his MO from everything we know about him anyway). She said that he didn't understand how the things he would say made her feel like a prisoner (again, that lack of sensitivity would be consistent with what we know about him). I think she is speaking figuratively rather than literally.

OT (since I've just been reading a different news report): Reading through the excerpts reported from the prosecutions arguments, I think I see their strategy here. Their argument seems to be that the defence wants to manipulate Jaycee, and everything they presented leading up to that are supporting parts to that thesis, which is to stop it. The defence for their part (Gelman anyway) appears annoyed and claims that contacting witnesses is a "routine part of her job and necessary for building a defence". So who is correct and who is fibbing? Is this really a routine thing to do or is Gelman just saying that? And if it is routine, why would the prosecutor want to stop it?

 

[Natal]

Yes, of course, she would have wanted the cat not because of money, but I am guessing they have told her the cat was 200 $ to impress her with their "generosity."
Notice how she wrote no one else would do it for her-I guess that's what they've told her.

Ya, that did strike me as a very odd thing to say.

 

[Natal]

No doubt the journal is filled with butterflies and rainbows.

And cats. And seriously, it probably mostly is. If it was filled with negative things she either would not be with us today or she would have bolted a long time ago. There must have been an ambivalence about her situation and she would have rationalized that with the positive things in her life. That would have been reflected in her journal. Otherwise I don't see how she could possibly have survived there for 18 years.

 

[kbl8201]

denial isnt just a river in egypt

 

[bellaalex]

The proper responsible course of action for Jaycee would be to be up front and open to the kids about all that happened, but still permit contact between the children and their father. She needs to make it clear to them that no matter what happens the conflict is between her and the father, and it does not involve them.

From a practical point of view the situation these kids are in is not unlike a particularly nasty divorce, and a responsible parent would take steps to shield them from the ugliness that goes with that process.

You've got to be kidding me! For all we know he may have raped his daughters too. I wouldn't put anything past that evil, despicable, cruel, demented pedophile. He was NOT a father to those girls! Any man can be a sperm donor. This slimeball RAPED their mother.

This is NOTHING LIKE A DIVORCE!:banghead: I hope no one like you is on the jury.

 

[LinasK]

You've got to be kidding me! For all we know he may have raped his daughters too. I wouldn't put anything past that evil, despicable, cruel, demented pedophile. He was NOT a father to those girls! Any man can be a sperm donor. This slimeball RAPED their mother.

This is NOTHING LIKE A DIVORCE!:banghead: I hope no one like you is on the jury.

Thank-you for this post! Finally, someone who gets it. :clap::clap::clap:I'm exasperated from trying to explain it over and over.

 

[bellaalex]

I doubt he read her journal, but she probably didn't hide it either. If there was a real risk of something bad happening if he did happen to find it, she would never have written stuff like that in it. It would have been too dangerous. The fact that she was keeping a journal at all implies a certain level of comfort in the situation. Its all very bizarre. It would be interesting to know what else is in the journal but we will probably never know. I wonder what happened in Sept 2003 and July 2004 to prompt those entries though? And if she was having those sorts of thoughts back then, why did they never coalesce into a more proactive action plan to address the situation? That suggests to me that the entries were more frustration at specific incidents rather than a general feeling, otherwise she would have walked a long time ago.

Are you somehow related to these two disgusting excuses for human beings?!?:waitasec: Do you have some deep secrets you aren't sharing that would somehow explain your pov?

I'd bet there are much, much, much worse things in that diary that she hid! I had a diary as a young girl and would have been apalled if my parents or anyone else read it. That's why it is a diary. Hell they normally come with little locks on them for a reason!
It was the ONLY place she could share her deepest and most truthful feelings. It was all that she had left that was truly hers because these two criminals took everything away from her. Hell she was even questioning her own feelings which shows the amount of control and manipulation they had upon her. She is such a fighter. She wanted her real and only family back and thank God she got that.

Plus the DA isn't going to disclose the majority of its contents until trial, (if at all) just enough to justify their response!

 

[kbl8201]

Are you somehow related to these two disgusting excuses for human beings?!?:waitasec: Do you have some deep secrets you aren't sharing that would somehow explain your pov?

I'd bet there are much, much, much worse things in that diary that she hid! I had a diary as a young girl and would have been apalled if my parents or anyone else read it. That's why it is a diary. Hell they normally come with little locks on them for a reason!
It was the ONLY place she could share her deepest and most truthful feelings. It was all that she had left that was truly hers because these two criminals took everything away from her. Hell she was even questioning her own feelings which shows the amount of control and manipulation they had upon her. She is such a fighter. She wanted her real and only family back and thank God she got that.

Plus the DA isn't going to disclose the majority of its contents until trial, (if at all) just enough to justify their response!

your so right about jaycee. i havent said it yet but im so proud she is seeing thru his manipulations......and my first assement of how strong and brave she was/is was right on the money

 

[Tizzle]

FWIW, I don't think it's fair to gang up on Natal. He is a realist and there is nothing wrong with that. I think he is simply being misunderstood and A LOT. It's unfair to take everything he says as an attack on JC or as an indication of him showing support for the G's. I know better. Honestly, I've never thought Natal was on any side but JC's. When he said "the other two souls" he was referring to the girls and not P&N. That was easy for me to figure out, why is it so hard for others to figure out?

Natal, sometimes I agree with what you say and sometimes I don't. Whether I agree or not, I usually understand where you're coming from and I wish others would, too. It gets tiresome watching people constantly talk about how horrible Natal is, when I know you're not. You're just misunderstood. I understand. I am, too.

 

[jjenny]

FWIW, I don't think it's fair to gang up on Natal. He is a realist and there is nothing wrong with that. I think he is simply being misunderstood and A LOT. It's unfair to take everything he says as an attack on JC or as an indication of him showing support for the G's. I know better. Honestly, I've never thought Natal was on any side but JC's. When he said "the other two souls" he was referring to the girls and not P&N. That was easy for me to figure out, why is it so hard for others to figure out?

Natal, sometimes I agree with what you say and sometimes I don't. Whether I agree or not, I usually understand where you're coming from and I wish others would, too. It gets tiresome watching people constantly talk about how horrible Natal is, when I know you're not. You're just misunderstood. I understand. I am, too.

How is he being misunderstood when he says JC should let her children know that "the conflict" is between herself and Garrido, and doesn't concern the children, as if Garrido was just your average regular dad with whom she had a falling out? How is he being misunderstood when he says she should permit the children and Garrido to be in contact? The meaning of the posts seem rather clear to me.

 

[songline]

I didn't read anything about her saying she felt like she was in prison. Mostly she was writing about not being able to make decisions herself (I assume he would make them for her, as he probably did for everyone else in the house - that would be his MO from everything we know about him anyway). She said that he didn't understand how the things he would say made her feel like a prisoner (again, that lack of sensitivity would be consistent with what we know about him). I think she is speaking figuratively rather than literally.

OT (since I've just been reading a different news report): Reading through the excerpts reported from the prosecutions arguments, I think I see their strategy here. Their argument seems to be that the defence wants to manipulate Jaycee, and everything they presented leading up to that are supporting parts to that thesis, which is to stop it. The defence for their part (Gelman anyway) appears annoyed and claims that contacting witnesses is a "routine part of her job and necessary for building a defence". So who is correct and who is fibbing? Is this really a routine thing to do or is Gelman just saying that? And if it is routine, why would the prosecutor want to stop it?

Go back to the article or go to post 132 in green I copied just some of her enteris in green.
His MO is to strip people of their human rights, his MO was to control, hold captive, rape, and rip
people off their dignity.

I cant stand reading your posts. they are so anti Human Rights and pro perps. uke:
Just curious Why that would be ???? my curiosity...But if I give some theories I'd be banned.

 

[songline]

red-songline
FWIW, I don't think it's fair to gang up on Natal. He is a realist and there is nothing wrong with that. I think he is simply being misunderstood and A LOT. It's unfair to take everything he says as an attack on JC or as an indication of him showing support for the G's. I know better. Honestly, I've never thought Natal was on any side but JC's. When he said "the other two souls" he was referring to the girls and not P&N. That was easy for me to figure out, why is it so hard for others to figure out? HE SAID IT WAS P&N I too thought :innocent: that it was the girls.

Natal, sometimes I agree with what you say and sometimes I don't. Whether I agree or not, I usually understand where you're coming from and I wish others would, too. It gets tiresome watching people constantly talk about how horrible Natal is, when I know you're not. You're just misunderstood. I understand. I am, too.

This post of understanding him is beyond my comprehension.
I missunderstood him, but dont understand him. the post by bellaalex #179 is right on the money IMO

 

[songline]

How is he being misunderstood when he says JC should let her children know that "the conflict" is between herself and Garrido, and doesn't concern the children, as if Garrido was just your average regular dad with whom she had a falling out? How is he being misunderstood when he says she should permit the children and Garrido to be in contact? The meaning of the posts seem rather clear to me.

:waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:
I don't think he is misunderstood at all. I agree with you.

I saw it at the very start of the case if you can remember -
he was all for P&G s rights and soul, and Pleeeezzzzzzz
I dont want to spend my day in the toilet uke:

 

[songline]

Are you somehow related to these two disgusting excuses for human beings?!?:waitasec: Do you have some deep secrets you aren't sharing that would somehow explain your pov?

I'd bet there are much, much, much worse things in that diary that she hid! I had a diary as a young girl and would have been apalled if my parents or anyone else read it. That's why it is a diary. Hell they normally come with little locks on them for a reason!
It was the ONLY place she could share her deepest and most truthful feelings. It was all that she had left that was truly hers because these two criminals took everything away from her. Hell she was even questioning her own feelings which shows the amount of control and manipulation they had upon her. She is such a fighter. She wanted her real and only family back and thank God she got that.

Plus the DA isn't going to disclose the majority of its contents until trial, (if at all) just enough to justify their response!

THIS IS POST OF THE DAY IMO :clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[raeann]

Just to put this conflict of opinion into perspective.....what would we all be saying about any other mother in the world if there was a question of her allowing contact between her young daughters and a known kidnapper, child abuser and rapist inside of a prison?

I sincerely doubt that any person in their right mind would advocate for that to happen in any form of either direct or written type of contact! Not only is it of absolute detriment to their immediate safety, it is of absolute detriment to their present and future efforts to recover from the horrific abuse that they have already experienced in their lives.

jmoo

 

[jazerelle]

There are the two other people out there. The two little girls and yes Phil is there father. However, there is no proof that he was a good father. In fact, there is a hint that he might have actually hit his daughters. That "birthmark" on Angels forehead was never fully explained. And a good father would not lie to his daughters about who their mother was. A good father would want to make sure his daughters had adequate medical care, good clothing, a clean warm place to live. A good father would allow his children to have friends. In one statement he is saying he never kissed his girls (good fathers do kiss their kids in a fatherly way) and yet he also said he slept with them every night. A good father would allow his daughters to have their own place to sleep. They were way too old to be sleeping with pervert dad.
So yes I agree with Natal. Jaycee should let her girls know exactly what sort of person their father truly his and how he treated their real mother. However, I do not think the girls should be subjected to a trip to jail to visit him. That would be hard on them.
A good father would plead guilty to spare his children of the hurt a trial would give.
No he is a basic socialpath (sp). He is, as always, only thinking of himself.

 

[LinasK]

There are the two other people out there. The two little girls and yes Phil is there father. However, there is no proof that he was a good father. In fact, there is a hint that he might have actually hit his daughters. That "birthmark" on Angels forehead was never fully explained. And a good father would not lie to his daughters about who their mother was. A good father would want to make sure his daughters had adequate medical care, good clothing, a clean warm place to live. A good father would allow his children to have friends. In one statement he is saying he never kissed his girls (good fathers do kiss their kids in a fatherly way) and yet he also said he slept with them every night. A good father would allow his daughters to have their own place to sleep. They were way too old to be sleeping with pervert dad.
So yes I agree with Natal. Jaycee should let her girls know exactly what sort of person their father truly his and how he treated their real mother. However, I do not think the girls should be subjected to a trip to jail to visit him. That would be hard on them.
A good father would plead guilty to spare his children of the hurt a trial would give.
No he is a basic socialpath (sp). He is, as always, only thinking of himself.

Thank-you! I said as much on the other thread:

If Garrido was such a good father, why did he deny his daughters medical care? Why did he deny them a chance at an education? Why did he deny them friends? Why did he force them to live in a hidden backyard??? Why did they only get TV dinners?
A trip to the library does not constitute a family, neither do pet names, or even taking trips together.

 

[nina1441]

Originally Posted by Natal
The defence for their part (Gelman anyway) appears annoyed and claims that contacting witnesses is a "routine part of her job and necessary for building a defence".

The statement by Gellman is misleading. Contacting witnessess may be routine but contacting victims is not.

Jaycee is a victim first and as such is covered under California's Marsy's Law: Victim's Bill of Rights. She has exercised her California constiutional rights.:

(5) To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the
defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant,
and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which
the victim consents.

Given that apparently in Nov. & Jan. Jaycee said emphatically NO to an interview---
I concur with the DA when he states "it is clear that Defense counsel is aggressively attempting to contact (Dugard) even though they have been told that (Dugard) does not want to talk to them."

I hope like hell that the court disciplines Gellman on Feb 26 for what I consider as her active participation in the harrassment of Jaycee Dugard.

So who is correct and who is fibbing? Is this really a routine thing to do or is Gelman just saying that?

Asked & answered.

And if it is routine, why would the prosecutor want to stop it?

Badgering a victim is not routine. Hence the prosecutor is bound by California law to protect the victims' rights.

 

[LinasK]

Originally Posted by Natal
The defence for their part (Gelman anyway) appears annoyed and claims that contacting witnesses is a "routine part of her job and necessary for building a defence".

The statement by Gellman is misleading. Contacting witnessess may be routine but contacting victims is not.

Jaycee is a victim first and as such is covered under California's Marsy's Law: Victim's Bill of Rights. She has exercised her California constiutional rights.:

(5) To refuse an interview, deposition, or discovery request by the defendant, the
defendant’s attorney, or any other person acting on behalf of the defendant,
and to set reasonable conditions on the conduct of any such interview to which
the victim consents.

Given that apparently in Nov. & Jan. Jaycee said emphatically NO to an interview---
I concur with the DA when he states "it is clear that Defense counsel is aggressively attempting to contact (Dugard) even though they have been told that (Dugard) does not want to talk to them."

I hope like hell that the court disciplines Gellman on Feb 26 for what I consider as her active participation in the harrassment of Jaycee Dugard.

So who is correct and who is fibbing? Is this really a routine thing to do or is Gelman just saying that?

Asked & answered.

And if it is routine, why would the prosecutor want to stop it?

Badgering a victim is not routine. Hence the prosecutor is bound by California law to protect the victims' rights.

Thank-you for explaining this so well, and welcome to Websleuths!:clap::clap::clap:

 

[nina1441]

......

Thank-you for your kind words.