Discussion in 'Jaycee Lee Dugard' started by gitana1, Aug 28, 2009.
Looking at the birth certificates, I think Angel kept her name and the older girl changed hers.
i think a tourist took the photos jazz.
nowhere has it been stated that jaycee went to san fran.
and someone had to look after his demented mom.
i wonder if there will be a last name change to probyn someday. just wondering.
That's true, someone did need to stay at home. I don't think Jaycee had been adopted so her last name was and still is Dugard. Since she was not married to that slime the girls naturally would get her last name. It is interesting that one of the girls (I think the eldest) has a middle name too.
If I had to guess, I bet Starlit's the one who changed her name. Perhaps they both have middle names? The one who didn't change her name could always go by her middle name in public to remain more anonymous, though it's possible that people will have forgotten a lot about this case by the time they enter college and the workforce.
maybe so they'd all have the same last name lol i dont know.
The thing is is that by the time they are college age, they can legally change their last name as well (if Dugard was too recognizable) to anything they want. I have two good friends who changed their names as adults. One went from Agnes (beautiful woman with an ugly name) to Angie, the other from plain old Susan to Suzanne (much more exotic).
How about a name that nobody would ever recognize at all.
One none of us heard connected to this case. One that has a ring of inspiration to it, and makes them happy.
bumping this up due to the birth certfcate info.
she was working fom the time jaycee's eldest was 6 months till the time jaycee's youngest was about 4 months.
The prosecution will use the records to establish a timeline of sex abuse, but some legal experts think Garrido's lawyers might try to challenge the validity of the birth certificate.
good luck with that.
for a defense like that to work....they need to challlenge JAYCEES's birth certificate.
Well, that would be the logical thing for them to do since the dates have some impact on the specific charges.
if they are going for an insanity plea they wont even bother.
they'll stipulate that he did it.
They will bother. It is the responsibility of the defence to attack the credibility of evidence presented by the state when it is open to question.
I'm sure they'll try every trick in the book. After all, it's their job to do that. That said, I'm not sure they'll get very far attacking the validity of their birth certificates.
i dont thnk you realize what it means to plead insanity.......it means you stipulate that you did what the charges state, but are not responsible for your actions. it would be pretty stupid to stipulate to something, then attack it.
I think the timeline they will dispute is when Jaycee conceived. She had the first girl when she was 14 yes, but she conceived when she was 13. The rules for children under 14 and over 14 are different. I think they will try to prove Jaycee a total lier and that he did not have sex with her until she was over 14 and that the first girl was perhaps born in February of 95. As far as insanity, both being insane for 18 years is pushing it a bit. They (the prosecution) is probably hoping that Jaycee will either not testify like she said she would or that she will try to defend the G's by saying he didn't touch her at first. This is just all supposition.
And just a thought, different subject but same. It is a good thing jaycee and her girls were found. The G's gave them no avenues to support themselves. When granny died, her social security would also go. So where would they get money. The printing business was substandard (don't get angry but it was). I think Mr. G would have resorted to pimping out both Jaycee and her girls for money. The religious thing was just a means to get money and it was failing. The black box was an attempt to get money and no sane person would ever believe or invest in that. Taxes were due on the home. Time was definitely running out.
im assuming you mean the defense is hoping she wont testify or will give a glowing account of the wackos.
btw the charges that apply only to 'rape' and not 'with a minor' it wont matter what age she was if she testifies it was forced.
I am not sure why the difference in age would be an issue unless they contend she was 14 and consented so it was only statutory rape hoping for a lesser sentence. But if you read the pleading, it sort of skips from her 14th birthday to the end of the year (or I overlooked it in my brief scanning of the document) and starts Jan 1 95 though Dec 95 with different wording for the charges after she turned 14.