Hearing 10/1/2010

Discussion in 'Jaycee Lee Dugard' started by Dr. Doogie, Oct 1, 2010.

  1. Dr. Doogie

    Dr. Doogie New Member

    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is the synopsis of what happened:

    *New indictments from the grand jury were entered for both Nancy and Phil. The older case was not dismissed so that there are now two parallel cases in the courts. The older case will be dismissed at some point, but not today.

    *Nancy entered a "not guilty" plea to the new indictments.

    *Phil declined to enter a plea since his competency is now in issue. The DA argued that the judge should enter a plea of "not guilty" on behalf of Phil, but the judge declined. The arraignment of Phil was continued to 11/4/2010 until the judge can be convinced that he v=can enter a plea on Phil's behalf.

    *Tapson confirmed that Jaycee DID testify personally before the Grand Jury. He said that this information came not from the transcripts (which are sealed), but from another source.

    *DA Peirson stated afterward that he went the grand jury route to try to expedite the case and to spare Jaycee from testifying in open court at this time.

    *Katie Calloway-Hall and her husband attended this hearing. She stated afterward that Phillip was obviously competent since he hid three victims for eighteen years sucessfully from LE and parole officers. She also stated that this is the sort of tricks that he used when facing trial for the attack against her.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. songline

    songline New Member

    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks again Dr. Doogie you are so devoted to see this through.

    I would like to see the Judge be changed.
    It seems to everyone that PG is good at his games.
    Why is it we have such horrible judges?
     
  4. nina1441

    nina1441 New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank-you for that report.

    According to Fox40 Sacramento today:
    Among the allegations are that the couple produced child pornography with the victim.

    Posters long ago speculated about this and apparently they were right. Man, I was hoping they were wrong.

    Just seeing this in print makes my blood boil. Here's hoping the jury feels the same way.
     
  5. Dr. Doogie

    Dr. Doogie New Member

    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They didn't release the indictment in court, but posted it online about a half hour after the hearing. As a result, I had not heard that detail - and it makes me sick to think about.
     
  6. nina1441

    nina1441 New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just read the indictments.

    Apparently these degenerates videotaped their actions for the years, 1991, 1992, 1993 & 1/2 of 1994.

    No wonder both are trying different defenses - the state has them dead to rights. They have to be desperate.
     
  7. songline

    songline New Member

    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM
    Desperate? then why is the moron judge not clear?
    I am not sure what is going on in the justice system,
    But they should be desperate and know they are doomed to be behind bars forever.
    I was hoping that is not true, But the stories about parties in the back yard had me wondering,
    I hope JC does not have to talk in front of people about that.
     
  8. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    By John Simerman
    Contra Costa Times

    Posted: 10/01/2010 05:23:54 PM PDT
    Updated: 10/01/2010 10:46:47 PM PDT
    Phillip and Nancy Garrido raped Jaycee Dugard twice the day they abducted her from her South Lake Tahoe neighborhood, then repeatedly throughout her childhood years, and Phillip Garrido recorded the sex acts on video through the early part of Dugard's first pregnancy at age 14, according to details in an 18-count indictment released Friday.
    The grand jury indictment, filed Sept. 21, will spare the victim from testifying at a preliminary hearing in the case against the couple. It replaces 29 charges that prosecutors filed within days of the Garridos' Aug. 26, 2009, arrest.
    The revelation of the video evidence is new.
    Dugard, two El Dorado County investigators and Contra Costa County sheriff's Detective Garrett Schiro testified before the grand jury.
    The indictment includes counts of kidnapping, forcible rape, and several counts of forcible lewd acts upon a child, enumerated by date range. It also includes a child pornography count and eight special allegations against the couple, as well as five more against Phillip Garrido related to his past sexual crimes. more at link: http://www.contracostatimes.com/bay-area-news/ci_16229809?nclick_check=1
     
  9. NYGIRL

    NYGIRL New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When I read about the videos I wanted to puke. The court document also mentioned sodomy, oral sex, and mutual masturbation. At least I hope this ends the idea that Nancy was a victim. It does now sound like she did participate. I wonder why it took so long for the knowledge of the videos to come to light. There isn't anything more that they could have done to this child. I don't know how Jaycee survived this. It is so unbelievable that Nancy actually thinks that Jaycee and the girls should visit her. Maybe she is the insane one. Actually I believe that they are both very sane but evil. If he turned his life around like he claims why wouldn't he destroy the videos. I have a sick feeling that he probably watched these videos for years after he actually stopped raping her. This case is the worse of the worse.
     
  10. songline

    songline New Member

    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have to be very honest, but I could not bring myself to read that link....I heard it had that kind of info in it.
    I am thrilled for JC that it was not out all along.

    Spare this child some dignity. :beats:
     
  11. NYGIRL

    NYGIRL New Member

    Messages:
    17
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't know how Terry has been able to deal with the knowledge of all the terrible things that were done to her daughter when she was a child. I don't know how she has been able to control her anger. I'd want to go after those two now and get my own justice. I feel like it sometimes and Jaycee isn't even my own daughter. Terry is an amazing person espically after hearing about the videos. She must be hugging Jaycee and those girls a lot.
     
  12. nina1441

    nina1441 New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For 11-4-2010, the El Dorado Court has scheduled for ng- a Readiness & Settlement /Further Proceedings

    Never heard of this.

    Does anyone think a plea deal is in the works with this female sex offender?

    Could this be why this female degenerate was smiling & laughing in court last Friday?
     
  13. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    She might want a plea, but I see no reason for them to offer her one... they have plenty of evidence against Phil without her, and apparently she was a willing participant in his deviancy, even if he was the leader.
    Not sure what she can offer for a plea, Jaycee and girls are alive, unless she knows where the remains of other potential victims are.
     
  14. nina1441

    nina1441 New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I absolutely agree with you on the amount of evidence they have against the female sex offender.

    But I have a suspicious mind.

    So when I read in the Las Vegas Sun on 10-3-2010:
    Stephen Tapson, Nancy Garrido's court-appointed lawyer, said outside court that he heard from a juror that Dugard spent a full day before the panel and that her testimony brought many in attendance to tears.

    I thought who would leak that info to the defense attorney? Maybe a DA who wanted to underscore the losing battle of a trial?

    The first count of the indictment is kidnapping 6/10/1991 thru 8/26/2009 by " forcibly and by instilling fear, steal, take, hold, detain & arrest."

    Wouldn't the defense attorneys call the 2 girls to be witnesses to try & rebut or mitigate this 1st count?

    Jaycee & her family have shielded the 2 girls this past year. With a trial they would be thrusted full force into the public eye.
    Wouldn't a mother want a plea for the degenerate rather than risk the emotional well- being of her daughters?

    As for other victims of Garrido....sorry but forget about it. I don't believe the state of money-strapped California would want to find more Garrido victims & risk another lawsuit with a potential catastrophic verdict.

    Plus is anyone impressed with the quality of law enforcement in Contra Costa County? I just don't think they could find a black barn in a snowy field.

    And that is so sad because I believe that there are other Garrido victims.

    Gads. Sorry for the long post.
     
  15. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This one thing I particularly disagree about. I live very close to Ilene Misheloff's parents. I see them from time to time walking their dog around my neighborhood. Do you really think they wouldn't be grateful to get some kind of closure about her in a heartbeat???
     
  16. nina1441

    nina1441 New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Whoa. With all due respect, I have no idea how my post ended up with the Misheloffs.

    My post was directed NOT towards any individual private citizen but towards the state of California being able & willing to allocate resources to investigate possible Garrido victims.

    My post was also directed towards local county law enforcement- again not towards individual citizens
     
  17. Dr. Doogie

    Dr. Doogie New Member

    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was there for all of Tapson's statement and I did not hear him make this comment.

    This is one of the reasons that I have been so dilligent about attending all of the hearings and press conferences - I do not trust the media to get it right. For example, a local TV station's website had a headline saying that Jaycee would not have to testify at the trial. What really was stated is that the DA used the grand jury process to avoid Jaycee having to testify in open court at the preliminary hearing - she will still testify if this goes to trial.

    I am sure that both defendants would like some sort of plea bargain. If they go to a jury trial, they are toast. I suspect that the DA would go for a bargain with a long sentence if it would avoid a trial.
     
  18. nina1441

    nina1441 New Member

    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    That information originally came from a news story by Lisa Leff of the Associated Press.

    She has reported on the Garrido legal proceedings many times before. So she knows who the DA & defense attorneys are. She's not a newbie.

    Tapson seems to love talking to the media and I would find it difficult to believe that he doesn't know the AP reporter, Lisa Leff. Perhaps they had a conversation not witnessed by the public?
    I find what she wrote about Tapson very plausible.

    She also wrote from the same article:
    El Dorado County District Attorney Vern Pierson said outside court the indictment was sought to protect Dugard's privacy and to prevent much of the evidence from becoming public.

    This too I find plausible.

    I realize that the press can get facts wrong. For instance, the number of counts in the indictments was originally reported as 19 in some outlets & 18 in others. But in this instance I really don't believe that is the case.
     
  19. jazerelle

    jazerelle New Member

    Messages:
    264
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The girls cannot testify to anything unless they were there and know firsts hand. As they were not there they cannot make comment. Their knowledge would be second hand and therefore hearsay. The only thing the girls can testify to is what occurred after their birth and that they remember. The happy family route to lessen in the minds of the public what horrendous things were done to Jaycee. However, I do not believe it was the "happy family" the defense would like the world to believe.

    I believe that the girls were breastfed and that makes a huge bond between mother and child. It would also explain the three years age difference in the two girls since breastfeeding can act like a form of birth control. Anyway, I think Nancy saw this and this is the reason after the birth of the second girl she quit her job. Not to care for granny but to try to get the baby to bond with her. I think that is another reason they would take the girls out and leave Jaycee at home. An attempt to sever the motherly bond which fortunately appears to have failed. But I could be wrong.
     
  20. Dr. Doogie

    Dr. Doogie New Member

    Messages:
    2,437
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I just relistened to Tapson's comments during the press conference (I digitally record all pressers). He did not speak about crying jurors in that statement, but he may have made additional comments to Lisa elsewhere that included the "in tears" quote.

    I have met Lisa Leff and she seems like a sharp reporter and a straight shooter. I highly doubt that she would have made up an inaccurate quote. If this quote is incorrect, it would be much more likely that some editor somewhere "spiced up" the story rather than Lisa getting it wrong.

    The reason that I find this quote suspicious is that it would serve no purpose for Tapson to make this statement and, in fact, would seem to inflame public opinion against his client. He has always tried to portray Nancy as devoted to Phil and a loving mother to Jaycee and the girls. He described those who are keeping Nancy from seeing Phil or the girls as the "forces of evil". (Yes, nauseating, I know.) And he has never once acknowledged that Jaycee is a victim - he has only made Nancy out the victim. Why would he torpedo his own attempts of creating public opinion by presenting such an inflammatory image as Jaycee driving everyone in the grand jury room to tears?

    One reason he may have done this is clear to those who have spent much time around him: He is in love with the sound of his own voice. He comes across as arrogant and smug, and is absolutely loving the limelight. He may be incapable of knowing when to shut up and let this quote slip.
     
  21. LinasK

    LinasK Verified insider- Mark Dribin case

    Messages:
    24,159
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you're right. After Garrido had had his way with Jaycee (makes me sick to type that:sick::sick::sick:) and managed to impregnate her, the resulting children were kind of his "present" to Nancy as a reward, IMO:twocents:.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice