Nancy Garrido - thread #2

[arielilane]

Please continue discussion here...

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:cwOFn4GVwSi3MM:http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/08/31/image5277727x.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2009/08/31/image5277727x.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/03/crimesider/entry5284576.shtml&usg=__0b_4nMVeBYImxyrbAoxxwvWFl7k=&h=278&w=370&sz=26&hl=en&start=13&um=1&tbnid=cwOFn4GVwSi3MM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnancy%2Bgarrido%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom .microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGIT_en%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1)

Thread #1 : Nancy Garrido

[Californian]

I posted this in the first thread; re-posting it here so it's not overlooked.

I saw a promo for the next Inside Edition, which presumably airs this weekend. The episode includes an interview with Nancy's brothers. Two of them appeared in the promo ad.

It's not on the IE website yet, but here's a link fyi: http://www.insideedition.com/search.aspx?search=garrido.

[checkercab]

I don't know how to quote a post on thread #1 to reply on thread #2.
Answering Flourish: In the middle of thread #1 somewhere, there was a post
giving the history of NG at Diamond Ridge Nursing Home in Leavenworth.
It cited her heroin; hope its more reliable than NE. These threads are so long
it's to hard to keep track of it all.

:thumb: Xin is very "ON". We can only make inferences for now.

:heart: Flourish --- I'm certainly happy that your experience with your son
was different than in the Garrido household. I think yet that NG and PG made
the attempt to be caring parents, but how they could carry it out was
hobbled by their personal issues, including secrecy on where the children
came from. PG was taking them out into social circles.

Ultimately, i believe the value of the Garrido's as parents ought to be left
to their children as they start to assume their role in the next generation
of our community. It'll take awhile. Meanwhile, i think it's important to keep
the visitor's window open at the jailhouse.

[Natal]

That should be interesting. I think Nancy is one of the big unanswered questions in this case IMO, we know so little about her, what makes her tick.

[flourish]

I don't know how to quote a post on thread #1 to reply on thread #2.
Answering Flourish: In the middle of thread #1 somewhere, there was a post
giving the history of NG at Diamond Ridge Nursing Home in Leavenworth.
It cited her heroin; hope its more reliable than NE. These threads are so long
it's to hard to keep track of it all.

:thumb: Xin is very "ON". We can only make inferences for now.

:heart: Flourish --- I'm certainly happy that your experience with your son
was different than in the Garrido household. I think yet that NG and PG made
the attempt to be caring parents, but how they could carry it out was
hobbled by their personal issues, including secrecy on where the children
came from. PG was taking them out into social circles.

Ultimately, i believe the value of the Garrido's as parents ought to be left
to their children as they start to assume their role in the next generation
of our community. It'll take awhile. Meanwhile, i think it's important to keep
the visitor's window open at the jailhouse.

bbm
Thank you for answering my question.

Even referring to NG and PG as "parents" is just revolting, IMHO. :sick:
If PG is the bio father of Jaycee's girls, being a bio dad doesn't make you a "caring parent." Go check out Jaycee's bio dad's thread for more info on ideas about that. And NG is a parent to anyone how? By enabling her husband-rapist?

[txsvicki]

I don't think any social worker or therapist would recommend that the girls go visit the two rapist abductors in jail. Jaycee's mother surely would never set foot to take them there either. Something like that would cause the whole family even more problems and confusion. The girls were taken away from the Garridos in a much much worse way than when CPS takes kids away due to neglect, so they have no chance of seeing them again, so no reason to be visiting in jail.

[JulieNMM]

I don't think any social worker or therapist would recommend that the girls go visit the two rapist abductors in jail. Jaycee's mother surely would never set foot to take them there either. Something like that would cause the whole family even more problems and confusion. The girls were taken away from the Garridos in a much much worse way than when CPS takes kids away due to neglect, so they have no chance of seeing them again, so no reason to be visiting in jail.

Playing devil's advocate here: Since PG is their bio father (a DNA test will prove this but others have said he has a resemblance to them and JC confirms it) and since we don't KNOW under what circumstances they lived (did they live outdoors, sleep with him, etc) isn't there a chance that the courts could theoretically allow him visitation, or even demand that their mother (JC) make them visit with him?

I was reading the blog of someone here's daughter (I forget her name) and she was a survivor of spousal rape and abuse and the courts said that she had to allow her children to have visitation with the father, even though he had been convicted of assaulting the mom and had served time for it. So what if these "brilliant" LE types decide that PG should be allowed visitation with his children and then the courts have to enforce it??

As far as the 2 girls know, maybe this is how they think a normal family lives. Maybe they don't see it as wrong as we do? Maybe they even want to see their parents again (and by parents, I mean the people that they assumed were their parents -- PG and NG). Of course, JC knew the situation was wrong and so did PG and NG, but this is all the girls knew....

Just food for thought! Of course I think PG and NG are evil scum, but I'm just trying to look at this from the point of view of the law and the rights of bio fathers.

JULIE

[Natal]

The girls may want to see him and/or Nancy. They are not so young that their wishes shouldn't be considered at all. And in any case, the oldest girl will be able to make her own choices in a few years anyway, actively stopping her from doing what she wants now will likely create resentment and a backlash.

[jjenny]

Playing devil's advocate here: Since PG is their bio father (a DNA test will prove this but others have said he has a resemblance to them and JC confirms it) and since we don't KNOW under what circumstances they lived (did they live outdoors, sleep with him, etc) isn't there a chance that the courts could theoretically allow him visitation, or even demand that their mother (JC) make them visit with him?

I was reading the blog of someone here's daughter (I forget her name) and she was a survivor of spousal rape and abuse and the courts said that she had to allow her children to have visitation with the father, even though he had been convicted of assaulting the mom and had served time for it. So what if these "brilliant" LE types decide that PG should be allowed visitation with his children and then the courts have to enforce it??

As far as the 2 girls know, maybe this is how they think a normal family lives. Maybe they don't see it as wrong as we do? Maybe they even want to see their parents again (and by parents, I mean the people that they assumed were their parents -- PG and NG). Of course, JC knew the situation was wrong and so did PG and NG, but this is all the girls knew....

Just food for thought! Of course I think PG and NG are evil scum, but I'm just trying to look at this from the point of view of the law and the rights of bio fathers.

JULIE
Are you seriously suggesting you think a court would force visitation in a situation such as this? Whatever example case you provided is not even close, as the man in your example was married to the mother and not accused of kidnapping her.

[txsvicki]

I know this case is not like any others, but when there's a trial pending, aren't there rules against the victims visiting or seeing the criminals? The thought of the oldest girl visiting those two after age 18 is scary. She'd be exposed to their manipulations plus all the other convicts in the visiting area of prison.

[jjenny]

I know this case is not like any others, but when there's a trial pending, aren't there rules against the victims visiting or seeing the criminals? The thought of the oldest girl visiting those two after age 18 is scary. She'd be exposed to their manipulations plus all the other convicts in the visiting area of prison.

From what's been reported, they don't even want Jaycee and her children watching the media coverage of the case. So I sincerely doubt there will be any visits of either Garrido or his wife by Jaycee or her children.
They still might have to testify at trial.

[Natal]

From what's been reported, they don't even want Jaycee and her children watching the media coverage of the case. So I sincerely doubt there will be any visits of either Garrido or his wife by Jaycee or her children.
They still might have to testify at trial.

I think that is aimed at the kids. They wouldn't be able to stop Jaycee herself, she is an adult and can do what she wants. They might suggest she not watch, but I doubt they are telling her she can't.

[checkercab]

That should be interesting. I think Nancy is one of the big unanswered questions in this case IMO, we know so little about her, what makes her tick.

:sick: This may be only a partial answer, and the question: what makes her
NOT tick. I've encountered a job applicant for our business occasionally, who
was on dope, but always passed him up because his productivity would be
slow as molasses. But at least he's too dopey to do much damage.

[LinasK]

:sick: This may be only a partial answer, and the question: what makes her
NOT tick. I've encountered a job applicant for our business occasionally, who
was on dope, but always passed him up because his productivity would be
slow as molasses. But at least he's too dopey to do much damage.
Thing is... Nancy was employed as a CNA. When it comes to that type of patient care, productivity is not an issue. It's not like you have to see a certain number of patients.

[stilettos]

Playing devil's advocate here: Since PG is their bio father (a DNA test will prove this but others have said he has a resemblance to them and JC confirms it) and since we don't KNOW under what circumstances they lived (did they live outdoors, sleep with him, etc) isn't there a chance that the courts could theoretically allow him visitation, or even demand that their mother (JC) make them visit with him?

I was reading the blog of someone here's daughter (I forget her name) and she was a survivor of spousal rape and abuse and the courts said that she had to allow her children to have visitation with the father, even though he had been convicted of assaulting the mom and had served time for it. So what if these "brilliant" LE types decide that PG should be allowed visitation with his children and then the courts have to enforce it??

As far as the 2 girls know, maybe this is how they think a normal family lives. Maybe they don't see it as wrong as we do? Maybe they even want to see their parents again (and by parents, I mean the people that they assumed were their parents -- PG and NG). Of course, JC knew the situation was wrong and so did PG and NG, but this is all the girls knew....

Just food for thought! Of course I think PG and NG are evil scum, but I'm just trying to look at this from the point of view of the law and the rights of bio fathers.

JULIE

Oh Julie....no, just no. His rights should be terminated and a no contact order placed. I believe that is what will be done.

[Tizzle]

That should be interesting. I think Nancy is one of the big unanswered questions in this case IMO, we know so little about her, what makes her tick.

"Hybristophilia is a paraphilia involving being sexually aroused or attracted to people who have committed an outrage or a gruesome crime. In popular culture, this phenomenon is also known as "Bonnie and Clyde Syndrome".

Many high-profile criminals, particularly those who have committed atrocious crimes, receive "fan mail" in prison which is sometimes amorous or sexual, presumably as a result of this phenomenon. In some cases, admirers of these criminals have gone on to marry the object of their affections in prison.

Hybristophilia is accepted as potentially lethal, other such paraphilias including, but not being limited to asphyxiophilia, autassassinophilia, biastophilia, kleptophilia and chremastistophilia."

Maybe a little insight as to what makes Nancy tick? Just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.

[kbl8201]

"Hybristophilia is a paraphilia involving being sexually aroused or attracted to people who have committed an outrage or a gruesome crime. In popular culture, this phenomenon is also known as "Bonnie and Clyde Syndrome".

Many high-profile criminals, particularly those who have committed atrocious crimes, receive "fan mail" in prison which is sometimes amorous or sexual, presumably as a result of this phenomenon. In some cases, admirers of these criminals have gone on to marry the object of their affections in prison.

Hybristophilia is accepted as potentially lethal, other such paraphilias including, but not being limited to asphyxiophilia, autassassinophilia, biastophilia, kleptophilia and chremastistophilia."

Maybe a little insight as to what makes Nancy tick? Just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.

if nancy was a cna it kinda makes kathy bates in misery look like florence nightengale........:banghead:

[Natal]

It's hard to say whats up with Nancy because there is so little info about her, unlike PG. She seems to have been pretty reclusive, and most of the folks who might know something haven't really said anything yet.

[kbl8201]

It's hard to say whats up with Nancy because there is so little info about her, unlike PG. She seems to have been pretty reclusive, and most of the folks who might know something haven't really said anything yet.

im afraid she's gonna have a ton of "character witnesses" that will put the blame on garrido's 'brainwashing".
to me this is absurd. she wasnt an 11 year old snatched off the streets and brutalied repeatedly for years..........she willingly and knowingly married this jerk while he was in prison (and she knew what he was in for) and then SHE was the one who snathed jaycee from the bus stop. and then SHE Was the one who didnt let jaycee go or call the cops when he was locked up (even if it was only for a month).

[mysteriew]

Playing devil's advocate here: Since PG is their bio father (a DNA test will prove this but others have said he has a resemblance to them and JC confirms it) and since we don't KNOW under what circumstances they lived (did they live outdoors, sleep with him, etc) isn't there a chance that the courts could theoretically allow him visitation, or even demand that their mother (JC) make them visit with him?

I was reading the blog of someone here's daughter (I forget her name) and she was a survivor of spousal rape and abuse and the courts said that she had to allow her children to have visitation with the father, even though he had been convicted of assaulting the mom and had served time for it. So what if these "brilliant" LE types decide that PG should be allowed visitation with his children and then the courts have to enforce it??

As far as the 2 girls know, maybe this is how they think a normal family lives. Maybe they don't see it as wrong as we do? Maybe they even want to see their parents again (and by parents, I mean the people that they assumed were their parents -- PG and NG). Of course, JC knew the situation was wrong and so did PG and NG, but this is all the girls knew....

Just food for thought! Of course I think PG and NG are evil scum, but I'm just trying to look at this from the point of view of the law and the rights of bio fathers.

JULIE

LOL, even though others may not want to hear it IMO you are going down the right path. If PG is established as the children's father, he will be their legal father unless Jaycee takes action to terminate his rights through the courts. But traditionally though the court won't terminate a father's rights because he is in prison, they usually won't require the kids to attend visitation at the prison. Jaycee would probably be able to find grounds for teminating his rights if she wished to do so.

Yes, at some point the girls may want to visit PG and even NG. Hopefully they will get a lot of counseling before that time. But you have to remember that no matter what PG and NG may have done to Jaycee, the girls never experienced that. What they experienced from them was the nearest thing to parenting that they know. And even very abused kids will often want the love and support of their parents. So yes, they may want to see them, at some point may even visit them. But this time when they see them they will see them through different, more experienced eyes. They will have counseling, some idea of the history, experience of living in a home and relationships with other relatives. So going to see the G's with the comparison of their new experiences might not be such a bad thing.

As far as Jaycee, she is an adult. And yes, she might or might not wish to visit them. She lived with them for 18 years. She has admitted establishing a bond with them. She is in charge of her life now, and is in charge of her choices. If she needs to see them in order to resolve that part of her life then I hope she goes for it.

As far as PG ever parenting them again, I don't anticipate that PG will be out of prison until long after they are of age. Same goes with NG.

[JulieNMM]

if nancy was a cna it kinda makes kathy bates in misery look like florence nightengale........:banghead:

My father passed away a year ago and was in the hospital for a few days. He had a CNA who stayed with him and she would basically just hold his hand and make sure that he didn't pull his tubes out and stuff. Nothing major. That inspired my sister to want to become a nurse and she is going to school. She said the first step to becoming a "real" nurse is to become a CNA and you can become one after just one semester of schooling. My husband's ex-wife is a registered nurse and she had to go to school for 4 years and get a degree.

So their is a big difference between a CNA and a registered nurse. RNs are almost like doctors and CNAs are almost like volunteers. So what I'm trying to say is, just because NG was a CNA doesn't mean she had medical training (or very much)....

JULIE

[kbl8201]

My father passed away a year ago and was in the hospital for a few days. He had a CNA who stayed with him and she would basically just hold his hand and make sure that he didn't pull his tubes out and stuff. Nothing major. That inspired my sister to want to become a nurse and she is going to school. She said the first step to becoming a "real" nurse is to become a CNA and you can become one after just one semester of schooling. My husband's ex-wife is a registered nurse and she had to go to school for 4 years and get a degree.

So their is a big difference between a CNA and a registered nurse. RNs are almost like doctors and CNAs are almost like volunteers. So what I'm trying to say is, just because NG was a CNA doesn't mean she had medical training (or very much)....

JULIE
julie i think cna or registered nurse is a great occupation. but i cant imagine what a hypocrite ng would have to be to be one.......imagine her sitting
next to someone trying to ease there pain......all the while knowing what she and her sicko husband are doing to a little girl at home :furious:

[Natal]

I doubt Jaycee would ever visit them, unless it is to taunt them. The kids might go though.

And PG will never get out of prison, he is far too dangerous. Nancy however will probably get out eventually on parole. They might do a deal for her as well.

[kbl8201]

I doubt Jaycee would ever visit them, unless it is to taunt them. The kids might go though.

And PG will never get out of prison, he is far too dangerous. Nancy however will probably get out eventually on parole. They might do a deal for her as well.

parole for kidnapping and accesory to rape of a child? extradite her to texas so she can get the gas chamber. her hubby too

[Tizzle]

parole for kidnapping and accesory to rape of a child? extradite her to texas so she can get the gas chamber. her hubby too

Phil only did 11 years for his first kidnapping and rape. Nancy may, very well, do about the same amount of time, give or take a couple years. Unfortunately, the justice system constantly fails us when it comes to crimes against women and especially children. Although, this particular case is under a huge spotlight, HOPEFULLY she will be treated more harshly than Phil was in the 70's since we're all watching.

[kbl8201]

Phil only did 11 years for his first kidnapping and rape. Nancy may, very well, do about the same amount of time, give or take a couple years. Unfortunately, the justice system constantly fails us when it comes to crimes against women and especially children. Although, this particular case is under a huge spotlight, HOPEFULLY she will be treated more harshly than Phil was in the 70's since we're all watching.

your 100 percent right tizzle. i think the state has enough to nail both of them without cutting a deal with either though. i hope

[checkercab]

Thing is... Nancy was employed as a CNA. When it comes to that type of patient care, productivity is not an issue. It's not like you have to see a certain number of patients.

:twocents: i was commenting on how nothing got done at home, so it
became a junkpile. NG was fired from Diamond Ridge Healthcare. But you're
certainly right in that productivity is often not measured on the job, and
no doubt contributes to the rise in healthcosts , and other ways.:truce:

[MBK]

Article on Inside Edition website about interview with Nancy Garrido's brothers, David and Rey Bocanegra:

http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=3433


David told McInerney about his last phone conversation with his sister three years ago.

"When I was talking to her and she was answering back to me, it was Phillip telling her what to say."

[Natal]

Phil only did 11 years for his first kidnapping and rape. Nancy may, very well, do about the same amount of time, give or take a couple years. Unfortunately, the justice system constantly fails us when it comes to crimes against women and especially children. Although, this particular case is under a huge spotlight, HOPEFULLY she will be treated more harshly than Phil was in the 70's since we're all watching.

That depends on whether they want to avoid a trial or not. They could offer her a deal, something like a conviction on the kidnapping and imprisonment charges, and a dismisal of the rape charges in return for a guilty plea. Then a reduced sentence for co-operating. That way they could avoid having a trial in which Jaycee and/or the girls would have to testify. She won't plead guilty unless they give her something in return.

They don't need to have a trial for PG because he can be sent away forever on the parole violation alone. Also, PG can be convicted on two statutory rape charges without Jaycee testifying at all, since the DNA of the children will provide irrefutable proof of the states case.

[MBK]

I believe that the accused in this country have a right to a trial.

[LinasK]

:twocents: i was commenting on how nothing got done at home, so it
became a junkpile. NG was fired from Diamond Ridge Healthcare. But you're
certainly right in that productivity is often not measured on the job, and
no doubt contributes to the rise in healthcosts , and other ways.:truce:
I've worked extensively in nursing homes- not as a CNA, mind you- and they do have a set number of patients under their care, but they have a shift- 8 hours in which to get them all seen and they are basically there to tend to whatever basic care needs the patient needs.
I think the Garrido's home was a result of mental illness/OCD, not necessarily not enough time for housecleaning.

[checkercab]

bbm
Thank you for answering my question.

Even referring to NG and PG as "parents" is just revolting, IMHO. :sick:
If PG is the bio father of Jaycee's girls, being a bio dad doesn't make you a "caring parent." Go check out Jaycee's bio dad's thread for more info on ideas about that. And NG is a parent to anyone how? By enabling her husband-rapist?

:book: NG said she was mother. What makes a mystery tale hard to put down
is we don't know the climax yet --- what do "Alissa" and her 2 think of
this bizarre arrangement for growing up?
The two points that struck me about PG's attitude as a caring father were:
1) his predatory violence stopped
2) he's been addressing the issue of what will Starlet and Angel do when
they grow up? I think he's losing his marbles though: the girls look evasive in
public as bystanders steer around a "God's Desire" soapbox preacher. And he
can't keep the Garrido's secrecy act together anymore, blowing its cover.

[flourish]

:book: NG said she was mother. What makes a mystery tale hard to put down
is we don't know the climax yet --- what do "Alissa" and her 2 think of
this bizarre arrangement for growing up?
The two points that struck me about PG's attitude as a caring father were:
1) his predatory violence stopped
2) he's been addressing the issue of what will Starlet and Angel do when
they grow up? I think he's losing his marbles though: the girls look evasive in
public as bystanders steer around a "God's Desire" soapbox preacher. And he
can't keep the Garrido's secrecy act together anymore, blowing its cover.

NG may have said she was the mother, but I was referring to your reference to the G's as "caring parents"
1) Do we really know for sure that his predatory violence stopped?
2) I'm not sure what you're referring to about his "addressing the issue of" what the girls will do when they grow up. Not saying it's not true, just saying I'm not sure where that info came from. Losing one's marbles is not evidence of one's "attitude as a caring father" ...

[Natal]

I believe that the accused in this country have a right to a trial.

Only if charges are pressed. They dont need a trial for the parole violation, and the stat rape charges would be easy to prove. that would be enough to send him away forever. They could drop all the rest of the charges.

[txsvicki]

Where and to whom has PG addressed the issue of what the two younger girls will do when they grow up? I haven't heard this, but have realized that he could never let them leave home.

[Natal]

NG may have said she was the mother, but I was referring to your reference to the G's as "caring parents"
1) Do we really know for sure that his predatory violence stopped?
2) I'm not sure what you're referring to about his "addressing the issue of" what the girls will do when they grow up. Not saying it's not true, just saying I'm not sure where that info came from. Losing one's marbles is not evidence of one's "attitude as a caring father" ...

Well, he does seem to have been making some efforts in recent years to bring them out into the world, allbeit it in a highly dysfunctional way. I have no idea how he thought he might be able to get away with that though, but he was crazy so who knows. I do think that it is a leap to say that he was a monster as far as the kids were concerned, we just don't know enough to say one way or the other at this point. Certainly THEY dont seem to think so, so there must gave been some level of affection.

[flourish]

Well, he does seem to have been making some efforts in recent years to bring them out into the world, allbeit it in a highly dysfunctional way. I have no idea how he thought he might be able to get away with that though, but he was crazy so who knows. I do think that it is a leap to say that he was a monster as far as the kids were concerned, we just don't know enough to say one way or the other at this point. Certainly THEY dont seem to think so, so there must gave been some level of affection.

I can appreciate the thought that perhaps PG "softened" a bit after the girls were born. Sometimes the sight of one's own offspring can bring out a part of a person which wasn't as visible or evident before. The way you stated it as "some level of affection" is much more palatable and realistic than the idea that he truly could have been a "caring parent."

My definition of "caring parent" apparently differs greatly from others'. To me, a "caring parent" is a term which will never ever be synonymous with someone whose parenthood occurred because they raped a little girl. You may not feel comfortable taking the leap to say "that he was a monster as far as the kids were concerned," but I am comfortable taking that leap. Regardless of whether or not he abused them in an outward way, they were abused, neglected, and/or mistreated by him from the moment of their violent, illegal, and non-consensual conceptions. Taking them on a few outings years later doesn't really balance that out for me.

[kbl8201]

I can appreciate the thought that perhaps PG "softened" a bit after the girls were born. Sometimes the sight of one's own offspring can bring out a part of a person which wasn't as visible or evident before. The way you stated it as "some level of affection" is much more palatable and realistic than the idea that he truly could have been a "caring parent."

My definition of "caring parent" apparently differs greatly from others'. To me, a "caring parent" is a term which will never ever be synonymous with someone whose parenthood occurred because they raped a little girl. You may not feel comfortable taking the leap to say "that he was a monster as far as the kids were concerned," but I am comfortable taking that leap. Regardless of whether or not he abused them in an outward way, they were abused, neglected, and/or mistreated by him from the moment of their violent, illegal, and non-consensual conceptions. Taking them on a few outings years later doesn't really balance that out for me.

the guy let his kids live in filth in a backyad (or more filth in the house) and that's just beyond what he did to there mom. i mean that right there is abuse and neglect itself
guy is a monster and there's no going around that

[txsvicki]

BTK was a monster and had kids who liked him, so that's nothing new. PG thought he owned the girls and was paranoid or he'd never have said that he slept with them since they were born. He knew he could never allow them real freedom or to ever have their own lives. They've never been seen anywhere normal (including that alleged birthday party thrown by his buddy) or without him that I've heard of. They were forced to participate in his religious psychosis and rantings, hauled around to junk yards, barber shops, and humiliated even though they might not have realized it. He was in no way caring and they didn't have much of a life at all. From the sound of some reports, they didn't even have a good diet or much variety either.

[flourish]

BTK was a monster and had kids who liked him, so that's nothing new. PG thought he owned the girls and was paranoid or he'd never have said that he slept with them since they were born. He knew he could never allow them real freedom or to ever have their own lives. They've never been seen anywhere normal (including that alleged birthday party thrown by his buddy) or without him that I've heard of. They were forced to participate in his religious psychosis and rantings, hauled around to junk yards, barber shops, and humiliated even though they might not have realized it. He was in no way caring and they didn't have much of a life at all. From the sound of some reports, they didn't even have a good diet or much variety either.

the guy let his kids live in filth in a backyad (or more filth in the house) and that's just beyond what he did to there mom. i mean that right there is abuse and neglect itself
guy is a monster and there's no going around that

Exactly, thank you!!!

[kbl8201]

BTK was a monster and had kids who liked him, so that's nothing new. PG thought he owned the girls and was paranoid or he'd never have said that he slept with them since they were born. He knew he could never allow them real freedom or to ever have their own lives. They've never been seen anywhere normal (including that alleged birthday party thrown by his buddy) or without him that I've heard of. They were forced to participate in his religious psychosis and rantings, hauled around to junk yards, barber shops, and humiliated even though they might not have realized it. He was in no way caring and they didn't have much of a life at all. From the sound of some reports, they didn't even have a good diet or much variety either.

btk there was a great guy. guy euthanized a womans cat just cause he didnt like the woman............that should have set off alarm bells dont you think?
there's a special (hot) place reserved for garrido and his wife when they go.......

[Natal]

I can appreciate the thought that perhaps PG "softened" a bit after the girls were born. Sometimes the sight of one's own offspring can bring out a part of a person which wasn't as visible or evident before. The way you stated it as "some level of affection" is much more palatable and realistic than the idea that he truly could have been a "caring parent."

My definition of "caring parent" apparently differs greatly from others'. To me, a "caring parent" is a term which will never ever be synonymous with someone whose parenthood occurred because they raped a little girl. You may not feel comfortable taking the leap to say "that he was a monster as far as the kids were concerned," but I am comfortable taking that leap. Regardless of whether or not he abused them in an outward way, they were abused, neglected, and/or mistreated by him from the moment of their violent, illegal, and non-consensual conceptions. Taking them on a few outings years later doesn't really balance that out for me.

Well, you were neither him nor them. As far as their relationship was concerned the important thing was his attitude towards them, and their attitude towards him. You are placing yourself in their position and looking at the situation as you would have seen it based on your upbringing, which is the wrong thing to do. If you want to understand the situation properly, you have to try to look at it in the way they would have looked at it, which is likely very different.

[kbl8201]

Well, you were neither him nor them. As far as their relationship was concerned the important thing was his attitude towards them, and their attitude towards him. You are placing yourself in their position and looking at the situation as you would have seen it based on your upbringing, which is the wrong thing to do. If you want to understand the situation properly, you have to try to look at it in the way they would have looked at it, which is likely very different.

they look at it diffrently cause they dont know any better. not like they knew what was going on was diffrent then what happened in the outside world.

[mysteriew]

Article on Inside Edition website about interview with Nancy Garrido's brothers, David and Rey Bocanegra:

http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyId=3433

The brothers describe her almost like St. Theresa don't they? Still even the neighbors and others have described her as quiet and reclusive. No history of drub abuse when younger, but her more recent employment history does show a problem.

I didn't see anything really different or unknown in the article, but the bros. do say that Nancy's defense attorney has told them she has started cooperating with LE now. Of course that is from a defense attorney and with no idea of the level of cooperation. Still I do hope she is talking.

[Natal]

^^Doesn't matter, it was their relationship, not yours, the level of caring and affection would be defined by them, not you.

[Natal]

I didn't see anything really different or unknown in the article, but the bros. do say that Nancy's defense attorney has told them she has started cooperating with LE now. Of course that is from a defense attorney and with no idea of the level of cooperation. Still I do hope she is talking.

That suggests that they have worked out a deal.

[flourish]

Well, you were neither him nor them.

Very well aware of that fact. In fact, I wasn't speaking for the girls. I was referring to an earlier poster who stated that the G's tried to be "caring parents."

As far as their relationship was concerned the important thing was his attitude towards them, and their attitude towards him.

I disagree that "his attitude towards them, and their attitude towards him" was the important thing. Sure, that's important. So is providing shelter and education and proper nutrition and not raping one's mother, and that kinda supersedes attitude for me.

You are placing yourself in their position and looking at the situation as you would have seen it based on your upbringing, which is the wrong thing to do. If you want to understand the situation properly, you have to try to look at it in the way they would have looked at it, which is likely very different.

Again, how the girls view it is a whole different topic altogether, and not the topic I was discussing. Sure do appreciate a condescending lesson on perspective, though, so thanks for that.

[Natal]

Be that as it may, you are still talking from your perspective and not theirs, which is what I was talking about.

[kbl8201]

^^Doesn't matter, it was their relationship, not yours, the level of caring and affection would be defined by them, not you.

caring and affection? ok where my puke icon
:sick:

[MBK]

If ALL you've known is a sick, perverted father who feels the strange and disturbing need to SLEEP with you in his arms every night

If ALL you've ever known is not to know the horrible truth of your parentage, and to be essentially LIED to every day about that truth

If ALL you've ever known is to be largely deprived of an education

If ALL you've ever known is to live in an uninhabitable house and backyard tents

etc etc

I suppose you'd think it was normal. I suppose you'd THINK that this perversion was LOVE. But we KNOW that this is not right. What was being done to those girls every day, all day, on a day to day basis, is essentially a crime, and children have been taken away by CPS for far, far less.

[kbl8201]

[QUOTE=MBK;4220852]If ALL you've known is a sick, perverted father who feels the strange and disturbing need to SLEEP with you in his arms every night

If ALL you've ever known is not to know the horrible truth of your parentage, and to be essentially LIED to every day about that truth

If ALL you've ever known is to be largely deprived of an education

If ALL you've ever known is to live in an uninhabitable house and backyard tents

etc etc

I suppose you'd think it was normal. I suppose you'd THINK that this perversion was LOVE. But we KNOW that this is not right. What was being done to those girls every day, all day, on a day to day basis, is essentially a crime, and children have been taken away by CPS for far, farr less.

:woohoo:

[cindysue]

^^Doesn't matter, it was their relationship, not yours, the level of caring and affection would be defined by them, not you.

Caring and affection can be rationalized in any situation, you could say that Jeffery Dahmer was showing care and affection by keeping body parts of his victims under his bed. But it doesnt make it true does it. I know this is a different situation, but still there is a very lopsided balance of power where PG and the girls are concerned, they dont know if they are abused or not they have been brought up this way. Just as abused women think getting flowers after abuse is thier husbands way of showing care and affection. You cant look at in a warped point of view that just doesnt work. Even if it seems like caring and affection to them it isnt and thats the point.

[kbl8201]

Caring and affection can be rationalized in any situation, you could say that Jeffery Dahmer was showing care and affection by keeping body parts of his victims under his bed. But it doesnt make it true does it. I know this is a different situation, but still there is a very lopsided balance of power where PG and the girls are concerned, they dont know if they are abused or not they have been brought up this way. Just as abused women think getting flowers after abuse is thier husbands way of showing care and affection. You cant look at in a warped point of view that just doesnt work. Even if it seems like caring and affection to them it isnt and thats the point.

:woohoo: again. thanks for putting my words down for me guys. if i said what i was really feeling i'd be in trouble......

[flourish]

:woohoo: again. thanks for putting my words down for me guys. if i said what i was really feeling i'd be in trouble......

I second that....I've been trying for three pages to get that same point across. :banghead:

[Natal]

So, let me get this right, if they believe that they loved their father and they were happy, you would feel obliged to tell them no, they were wrong, they weren't happy and they didnt love him? If you were to do that you are essentially implying that they did something bad, that they have something to be ashamed of and should hide. You will create feelings of guilt and conflict in them that didnt exist before, and eventually that is going to eat away at their psyche. And they are not going to be able to talk about it, because if they don't agree with you they will feel that they are evil?

This is what I was talking about in an earlier post, people coming along down the line and being judgemental. It is tremendously damaging to victims and children in this sort of situation.

[cindysue]

They could love him but that doesnt mean its healthy or even good for them. An abusive husband claims to love his wife that he batters, but its not really love its distorted. Has PG shown real love for them? Do they know what love means or is it just what they have learned love is by the very limited examples they have to emulate. Real love isnt sick and perverted and twisted like what has been exampled in this situation. IMO

[kbl8201]

They could love him but that doesnt mean its healthy or even good for them. An abusive husband claims to love his wife that he batters, but its not really love its distorted. Has PG shown real love for them? Do they know what love means or is it just what they have learned love is by the very limited examples they have to emulate. Real love isnt sick and perverted and twisted like what has been exampled in this situation. IMO

hopefully they are being showed what real love is now :waitasec:

[checkercab]

NG may have said she was the mother, but I was referring to your reference to the G's as "caring parents"
1) Do we really know for sure that his predatory violence stopped?
...

:detective: 1) no, and i'm afraid PG could resume. May i try to answer this
question on the Psychological Aspects thread? :cat:

[flourish]

:detective: 1) no, and i'm afraid PG could resume. May i try to answer this
question on the Psychological Aspects thread? :cat:

Of course:)

[Natal]

If there is a possibility that Jaycee might flake when it comes to testifying, I wonder if they will offer Nancy a deal to ensure that PG gets convicted on all charges?

[SunnieRN]

If there is a possibility that Jaycee might flake when it comes to testifying, I wonder if they will offer Nancy a deal to ensure that PG gets convicted on all charges?

Nancy was an adult when she met and married a convicted rapist. She went in eyes fully opened and as you said, didn't release Jaycee so she wouldn't go to jail. NO deal!! If Jaycee is unable to testify, kidnapping and rape of a minor, along with heaven only knows how many parole violations should put him away forever!

[Natal]

Nancy was an adult when she met and married a convicted rapist. She went in eyes fully opened and as you said, didn't release Jaycee so she wouldn't go to jail. NO deal!! If Jaycee is unable to testify, kidnapping and rape of a minor, along with heaven only knows how many parole violations should put him away forever!

If Jaycee doesn't testify, the only thing they could prove I think are two counts of stat rape in the case of PG and nothing in the case of Nancy, because the only evidence they would have is the kids DNA. However, in that interview with her brothers they claimed that Nancy was co-operating with the authorities. IMO the only way she would be doing that is if she had some sort of plea deal in place (unless she was seriously wracked with guilt). If they were going to throw the book at her on all charges her best bet would be to take her chances and hope Jaycee refused to testify, in which case she would likely have all or most of her charges dismissed for lack of evidence (PG would still be convicted on some charges though). I think they would see PG as the big fish and would be willing to cut Nancy some slack if it meant getting him on everything, especially since they wouldn't need Jaycee's testimony then.

[kbl8201]

If Jaycee doesn't testify, the only thing they could prove I think are two counts of stat rape in the case of PG and nothing in the case of Nancy, because the only evidence they would have is the kids DNA. However, in that interview with her brothers they claimed that Nancy was co-operating with the authorities. IMO the only way she would be doing that is if she had some sort of plea deal in place (unless she was seriously wracked with guilt). If they were going to throw the book at her on all charges her best bet would be to take her chances and hope Jaycee refused to testify, in which case she would likely have all or most of her charges dismissed for lack of evidence (PG would still be convicted on some charges though). I think they would see PG as the big fish and would be willing to cut Nancy some slack if it meant getting him on everything, especially since they wouldn't need Jaycee's testimony then.

first off it's not stat rape when its an 11 year old kidnap victim.
second, they have nancy for snatching jaycee in the first place, remember?

[SunnieRN]

first off it's not stat rape when its an 11 year old kidnap victim.
second, they have nancy for snatching jaycee in the first place, remember?

Thank you! As for Nancy, I hope she is feeling very guilty. She should!

[LinasK]

first off it's not stat rape when its an 11 year old kidnap victim.
second, they have nancy for snatching jaycee in the first place, remember?
And... let's not forget, Carl was an eyewitness to the kidnapping. Garrido was sentenced to 50 years for raping KatieC. so he's toast!:dance::behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

[Natal]

And... let's not forget, Carl was an eyewitness to the kidnapping. Garrido was sentenced to 50 years for raping KatieC. so he's toast!:dance::behindbar:behindbar:behindbar

That won't prove anything though. It was 18 years ago, seen for a few seconds at what was probably a fair distance. Any decent defence lawyer would rip that apart if there was nothing else. At best it would act as a support to corroborate testimony by either Jaycee or Nancy (if she turns state witness).

[Natal]

first off it's not stat rape when its an 11 year old kidnap victim.
second, they have nancy for snatching jaycee in the first place, remember?

The DNA evidence would date to the birth of the first daughter, which would have put the victim at around 13/14 at the time, not 11. Actually proving how old she is in the absence of testimony will probably be extremely difficult as well, children don't come with a date of manufacture stamped on the forehead. There are no birth records so someone who was a witness is going to have to say when it happened. Without the allegation of forcible assault it would have to be regarded as consensual, therefore it would be statutory. So, someone testifying will be critical here in order to qualify for aggravated circumstances.

Also, without testimony from Jaycee, they would likely have no evidence to directly tie PG to the kidnapping. An accused does not need to testify or prove their innocence, it is up to the prosecution to prove their guilt, and evidence is required for that. To prove their case they would need testimony from Jaycee or Nancy unless there was some kind of physical evidence linking him to the crime scene (and I don't think there is).

The bottom line is that they need Jaycee to testify if they want to convict on all charges, and if she can't/won't, then they will need Nancy to do it.

[kbl8201]

That won't prove anything though. It was 18 years ago, seen for a few seconds at what was probably a fair distance. Any decent defence lawyer would rip that apart if there was nothing else. At best it would act as a support to corroborate testimony by either Jaycee or Nancy (if she turns state witness).

uhhhhhhh no defnse attorney is gonna get past the description carl gave which matches nancy even 18 years later

[jjenny]

That won't prove anything though. It was 18 years ago, seen for a few seconds at what was probably a fair distance. Any decent defence lawyer would rip that apart if there was nothing else. At best it would act as a support to corroborate testimony by either Jaycee or Nancy (if she turns state witness).

I am amazed that you are forgetting that 18 years later JC was found with Garrido, with two kids in tow.
Are you going to suggest she just magically appeared there out of thin air?
How is the "decent defense lawyer" going to rip that apart?

[jjenny]

If Jaycee doesn't testify, the only thing they could prove I think are two counts of stat rape in the case of PG and nothing in the case of Nancy, because the only evidence they would have is the kids DNA. However, in that interview with her brothers they claimed that Nancy was co-operating with the authorities. IMO the only way she would be doing that is if she had some sort of plea deal in place (unless she was seriously wracked with guilt). If they were going to throw the book at her on all charges her best bet would be to take her chances and hope Jaycee refused to testify, in which case she would likely have all or most of her charges dismissed for lack of evidence (PG would still be convicted on some charges though). I think they would see PG as the big fish and would be willing to cut Nancy some slack if it meant getting him on everything, especially since they wouldn't need Jaycee's testimony then.
The step-dad was a witness. He witnessed a man and a woman in the car, and the woman snatched the child. With step-father's help they got a composite that I think looks pretty darn close to Nancy. I don't think any DA who shows that composite and then photo of Nancy at the time to the jury is going to have a problem.

[Natal]

I am amazed that you are forgetting that 18 years later JC was found with Garrido, with two kids in tow.
Are you going to suggest she just magically appeared there out of thin air?
How is the "decent defense lawyer" going to rip that apart?

All that will prove is that a 29 year old adult was living with him. It won't prove anything else.

[jjenny]

All that will prove is that a 29 year old adult was living with him. It won't prove anything else.

Oh really? How did she get there? How did her kids get there? I presume they will have DNA tests done on the kids to show who their father is.
I presume the age of the kids can be estimated pretty accurately, even if they are not told of the exact date of birth.

[kbl8201]

The step-dad was a witness. He witnessed a man and a woman in the car, and the woman snatched the child. With step-father's help they got a composite that I think looks pretty darn close to Nancy. I don't think any DA who shows that composite and then photo of Nancy at the time to the jury is going to have a problem.

exactly. they dont even have to time progress it to match it. she doesnt look much diffrent now other then wrinkle lines

[Natal]

The step-dad was a witness. He witnessed a man and a woman in the car, and the woman snatched the child. With step-father's help they got a composite that I think looks pretty darn close to Nancy. I don't think any DA who shows that composite and then photo of Nancy at the time to the jury is going to have a problem.

The defense will show 150 photos of other women that look just like the composite. A composite is corroborating evidence, not direct evidence, meaning it would support any primary evidence (which in this case would be direct testimony from Jaycee and/or Nancy). For example, the composite in the Michaela's case looks like PG, but they would need more than that to convict or even charge him. It is just an artists impression based on someone else's description after all, it isn't a photograph.

[kbl8201]

The defense will show 150 photos of other women that look just like the composite. A composite is corroborating evidence, not direct evidence, meaning it would support any primary evidence (which in this case would be direct testimony from Jaycee and/or Nancy). For example, the composite in the Michaela's case looks like PG, but they would need more than that to convict or even charge him. It is just an artists impression based on someone else's description after all, it isn't a photograph.

a 150 other women didnt walk into the parole office with her on aug 26 2009 nor did a 150 other women's husbands rape her

[Natal]

Oh really? How did she get there? How did her kids get there? I presume they will have DNA tests done on the kids to show who their father is.
I presume the age of the kids can be estimated pretty accurately, even if they are not told of the exact date of birth.

They could make an estimate of their ages, but that wouldn't be exact. They wouldn't be able to say if the youngest was concieved before Jaycee was 18 for example, or that the oldest before she was 14. Without any testimony to the contary regarding the actual dates, the only thing they could be reasonably sure of would be one count of stat rape.

The defense doesnt have to testify or prove how she got there, the prosecution has to prove it. That is how the system in the US works (unlike many other countries which conduct inquisitorial styles of trial procedure).

[Natal]

a 150 other women didnt walk into the parole office with her on aug 26 2009 nor did a 150 other women's husbands rape her

None of which is evidence that she was involved in the kidnapping. That is why testimony will be needed, to make that connection.

[jjenny]

They could make an estimate of their ages, but that wouldn't be exact. They wouldn't be able to say if the youngest was concieved before Jaycee was 18 for example, or that the oldest before she was 14. Without any testimony to the contary regarding the actual dates, the only thing they could be reasonably sure of would be one count of stat rape.

The defense doesnt have to testify or prove how she got there, the prosecution has to prove it. That is how the system in the US works (unlike many other countries which conduct inquisitorial styles of trial procedure).
There is an witness to the abduction, which you conveniently forget. Who saw a man and a woman in the car, and gave a description of the woman who abducted the child. 18 years later that child found in the company of Garrido, and the jury should be able compare the composite to the photo of Garrido's wife Nancy.
I presume the jury should be able to add two and two together.

[jjenny]

The defense will show 150 photos of other women that look just like the composite. A composite is corroborating evidence, not direct evidence, meaning it would support any primary evidence (which in this case would be direct testimony from Jaycee and/or Nancy). For example, the composite in the Michaela's case looks like PG, but they would need more than that to convict or even charge him. It is just an artists impression based on someone else's description after all, it isn't a photograph.
The step father should be able to testify to what he saw. He is an eyewitness.
A prosecutor can ask him if he sees the woman who abducted the child in court, no?
The defense can show 150 photos of other women, or 1500 photos of other women, or a million and a half photos of other women, but only Nancy is married to Garrido, and JC is found with Garrido. You don't think the fact that the kidnapped child is found with Garridos means anything? Give me a break.

[kbl8201]

The step father should be able to testify to what he saw. He is an eyewitness.
A prosecutor can ask him if he sees the woman who abducted the child in court, no?
The defense can show 150 photos of other women, or 1500 photos of other women, or a million and a half photos of other women, but only Nancy is married to Garrido, and JC is found with Garrido. You don't think the fact that the kidnapped child is found with Garridos means anything? Give me a break.

i cant see how any strategy a defnse lawyer uses is gonna work, whether jaycee testifies or not.

[Natal]

There is an witness to the abduction, which you conveniently forget. Who saw a man and a woman in the car, and gave a description of the woman who abducted the child. 18 years later that child found in the company of Garrido, and the jury should be able compare the composite to the photo of Garrido's wife Nancy.
I presume the jury should be able to add two and two together.

I know there was a witness. But that was 18 years ago, and memories fade. It was also witnessed at distance and for a very brief moment. The witness has also been exposed to recent photographs of Nancy, which means that any testimony to the identity is tainted would be unreliable in isolation. The victim may have been found in their company 18 years later, but you would still need to make the connection between then and now. The defence could argue that the similarity is coincidental, and what would be your argument against that be? You would have none. The strongest way to make that connection is if Jaycee, Nancy or PG testifies to that fact. The other way would be if there was some physical evidence, tire tracks, parts of the car, parts of clothing, something like that which could be tied forensically to the Garridos, but as far as we know there is nothing like that. If I was a juror sitting on this case I would insist that that connection be made, since the means for making it is available. I would want to hear Jaycee, or Nancy, or PG say in court what happened that day. One of them. Anyone of them. If they did not I would feel obliged to aquit on that charge for lack of evidence, and I would not feel any remorse about doing that even though I think they are guilty, because all it would take to make that connection is for someone simply to talk.

That leaves the option of testimony. PG isnt going to testify against himself, particularly since there is nothing directly implicating him in the kidnaping other than what either Jaycee or Nancy might say. We would hope that Jaycee would testify, and her lawyer seems to think she will, but the NE article suggests that it may not be so certain after all. From the prosecutors point of view what do they do then to avoid the risk that she may not play? They could use hearsay from people she may have talked to in the interim (if that would be admissable when the victim is available to testify directly). The backup option is to turn one of the accused, with Nancy being the obvious candidate. She would certainly have motivation since she is the one most vulnerable. We have heard from various sources that she is cooperating with LE. Usually that means some sort of arrangement has been reached between the prosecutor and the defence, either in the form of reduced charges or a lighter sentence. Now, it may be possible that Nancy is unilaterally doing this in a hope for mercy from the judge in sentencing but I think that is less likely.

You need to stop being so emotional about this and look at it objectively. Consider how a case might be constructed in the most solid fashion possible. What could go wrong, what counter agruments could be offered up and how would those be addressed. Keep in mind that the onus is on the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt the facts of the case. Just saying it is so won't cut it.

[jjenny]

Similarity is coincidental? And the fact that the kidnapped child is found with Garridos is what? Also coincidental? And the two children that JC has are what? Also coincidental? I would like to see defense lawyer try that argument in front of the jury. How do you not consider JC herself as "physical evidence?" Why would "part of clothing" be more convincing than the kidnapped child herself is beyond my understanding.

[LinasK]

That won't prove anything though. It was 18 years ago, seen for a few seconds at what was probably a fair distance. Any decent defence lawyer would rip that apart if there was nothing else. At best it would act as a support to corroborate testimony by either Jaycee or Nancy (if she turns state witness).
Fair distance? :waitasec:IIRC I think Carl said it happened about 150-200 yards away from him. He didn't have his car keys handy, so he attempted to chase them on his mountain bike. Carl gave an extremely accurate composite description of Nancy. The resemblance is spooky!
I'm sure there are police reports taken at the time of Jaycee's abduction which back up Carl's statement and description.

[mysteriew]

I'm afraid I have to agree with Natal. Jaycee's testimony is essential for the case. Carl can testify to what he saw, and describe who he saw. But he didn't know a name, and memories fade and details change over time. And a lot of time has gone by. So under defense questioning, his testimony would be shaky. And a case cannot be won by only one witness, if there is no forensic evidence to back up their testimony.

Besides if this went to court without the victim, no jury is going to convict. They want to see a victim. Either a living victim or a dead one, but they want to see that there was a victim. If they hear there is a living victim and don't see her testifying, they are going to wonder why. It could put doubts in their mind that maybe the victim doesn't want the legal charges, or even that perhaps all is not kosher with the case.

I think that Jaycee will testify. But it won't be easy for her. First she did develop a bond with the G.'s. But second and most important, is her daughters. PG is the kid's father and they allegedly loved him. So if she testifies she will have to be able to look her daughters in the eye and tell them she testified and helped put their father in prison. Not an easy thing to do without destroying the children and her relationship with them.
But if she doesn't testify, then PG may not go to prison. Then there is a custody battle, because if he isn't convicted he is an innocent man, and he is the father, then he has a right to the kids. So I don't see that she has any choice but to testify.

Jaycee can put a name to the people who stole her, she can put the name with the current face. She can testify what people held her during the time she was missing. She is the only one who can testify that it was forcible nonconsenual rape, not statutory (consenual) rape. She can testify as to how she was kept and what kept her from leaving. All those things are going to be necessay for the case.


Without her testimony the defense is free to say that Jaycee ran away from home by persuading the G's to help her, ended up in the G's home, did not wish to leave, seduced PG and had his children. Without her testimony, who is to dispute it? Yes, he might still be charged with kidnapping but it will be the slap on the wrist kind. And believe me they will come up with a reason that Jaycee wanted to leave her home, most likely that she was being abused in her home.

[jjenny]

How is defense going to persuade anyone JC run away from home? Her step-father witnessed the abduction.
Memory might fade, but there is a 911 call of him reporting the abduction, him saying a woman and a man kidnapped JC, and him giving the description of the woman that led to the composite sketch.
Who is going to believe she run away from home under these circumstances? As for the jury wanting to see a victim-the DA can put experts on the stand explaining about brainwashing, Stockholm syndrome and the such.
In a case of the "girl in the box" DA did exactly that-put experts on the stand to explain why she didn't report it, even after she left.

[mysteriew]

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They can just present this as a possibility to provide reasonable doubt. And yes, if Jaycee persuaded the G's that she was being abused and they agreed to help her, he could have seen just what he saw.

[jjenny]

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They can just present this as a possibility to provide reasonable doubt. And yes, if Jaycee persuaded the G's that she was being abused and they agreed to help her, he could have seen just what he saw.

Defense can just present a possibility but that possibility would have to be reasonable. She was 11 years old. Under which circumstances would she be meeting with a convicted sex offender and explaining anything to him?
Give me a break.

[mysteriew]

Defense can just present a possibility but that possibility would have to be reasonable. She was 11 years old. Under which circumstances would she be meeting with a convicted sex offender and explaining anything to him?
Give me a break.

That's the funny thing about the defense. They don't have to prove that an alternate theory is true, or even logical. They just have to show that it could be possible. Anything to show that the story being presented by the prosecution could be wrong. And if it is or could be wrong, then the G's could be innocent. And if there is any possiblity that the G's are innocent then they can't be convicted.

[flourish]

Yeah, I just don't think there are going to problems like that in the trial(s). Call me optimistic (which would be a first), but I'm just not seeing it. I'll admit I am a little worried NG will end up with a Karla Homolka deal, but even that evil excuse for a human got some prison time! Anyway, it's going to be a while before the trial(s), and a lot can happen. So, I'm choosing to cross this bridge if and when I come to it.

[jjenny]

That's the funny thing about the defense. They don't have to prove that an alternate theory is true, or even logical. They just have to show that it could be possible. Anything to show that the story being presented by the prosecution could be wrong. And if it is or could be wrong, then the G's could be innocent. And if there is any possiblity that the G's are innocent then they can't be convicted.

It has to be a reasonable possibility. Not "any" possibility. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. Not beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[mysteriew]

Yeah, I just don't think there are going to problems like that in the trial(s). Call me optimistic (which would be a first), but I'm just not seeing it. I'll admit I am a little worried NG will end up with a Karla Homolka deal, but even that evil excuse for a human got some prison time! Anyway, it's going to be a while before the trial(s), and a lot can happen. So, I'm choosing to cross this bridge if and when I come to it.

I don't think it will happen either. Because I think Jaycee will testify. I think it will be hard for her to do, but I think she will do it. You don't survive what she has unless you are very strong physically and psychologically.

[Natal]

One thought that occurred to me, the reason why they got this particular lawyer to represent Jaycee may be to ensure that she stays onside if she was showing signs of wavering. Having someone with extensive prosecutorial experience but is not directly associated with the prosecutors office could be pretty useful in that respect.

I think that their strategy in building the case up is going to be two pronged, on one hand ensuring that Jaycee testifies when the time comes, and on the other hand recruiting Nancy to their side to corroborate. If they did that I think they would pretty much have a lock on convictions.

I don't think the girls would be of much use since they post-date most of the charges. Patricia maybe, but since she suffers from dementia she would be useless as a witness.

Other witnesses for corroboration? Carl of course will be used. Some of the neighbors and business associates? perhaps.

[jjenny]

They will need brainwashing experts whether JC testifies or not.
I don't see why they would need to make any deals with Nancy unless she can provide information on some other crimes they think Garrido could have possibly committed.

[mysteriew]

I don't think they will give NG a walk. They might say they will advise the judge and request a reduced sentence, but since she was actively involved in the abduction I don't think she will get a free pass.

But if Jaycee testifys I don't think they will really need NG. I think Carl's testimony along with Jaycee's, a description of the vehicle and evidence showing that PG owned that type of vehicle will be enough to support the witness testimony. I don't think it will be a complicated case. Unless they go for insanity or incompetent defendent. Then things will get more complicated.

[mysteriew]

They will need brainwashing experts whether JC testifies or not.
I don't see why they would need to make any deals with Nancy unless she can provide information on some other crimes they think Garrido could have possibly committed.

Most likely other crimes that PG may have committed won't be allowed in the trial. It is considered prejuduical toward the defendant, unless there is a clear pattern to Jaycee's abduction. And at this point they don't have that. The 14 yo victim didn't go to trial, so there was no conviction. The rape that was convicted, was an adult, there was no accomplice and so the pattern didn't match Jaycee.

[Natal]

I don't think they will give NG a walk. They might say they will advise the judge and request a reduced sentence, but since she was actively involved in the abduction I don't think she will get a free pass.

But if Jaycee testifys I don't think they will really need NG. I think Carl's testimony along with Jaycee's, a description of the vehicle and evidence showing that PG owned that type of vehicle will be enough to support the witness testimony. I don't think it will be a complicated case. Unless they go for insanity or incompetent defendent. Then things will get more complicated.

That depends on how confident they are that Jaycee will be able/capable of testifying. Having Nancy as a plan B makes good sense under those circumstances. If she is not needed that is fine, otherwise they run the risk that they can't make their case if Jaycee flakes, and that would be a disaster. Having both of them would make the case rock solid no matter what happens. Even if they did do a deal with Nancy it would likely be for a reduced sentence, or limiting conviction to the kidnapping/confinement charges only, they wouldn't just let her go. Whether they do that or not IMO will depend on how involved she was in the actual assaults, if she wasn't involved directly those would become bargaining chips. If the case for her involvement is solid there is no way they could let her go on those two charges because of the circumstances of the case.

An insanity defence wouldn't fly for PG btw, it is clear from his public statements that he understands right from wrong. Nancy, we don't know enough about her state of mind to comment on that. The biggest issue as far as PG is concerned (I'm assuming that they will get at least one of the ladies to testify, so he won't get out of it in trial) is competentcy.

[Natal]

They will need brainwashing experts whether JC testifies or not.


There won't be any since their testimony would be ruled inadmissable.

[jjenny]

There won't be any since their testimony would be ruled inadmissable.

Since when is it inadmissible to put an expert on the stand?
It certainly was admissible for "girl in the box" trial. What exactly makes you think this trial would be any different?

[Natal]

Since when is it inadmissible to put an expert on the stand?
It certainly was admissible for "girl in the box" trial. What exactly makes you think this trial would be any different?

The test is that the subject matter has to be generally scientifically accepted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frye_Standard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard)

Expert evidence about "Mind control" doesn't meet that standard, hence is usually ruled inadmissable. There might be testimony about her mental state, but I seriously doubt the DA is going to be trying to enter any claims about mind control into evidence.

[jjenny]

The test is that the subject matter has to be generally scientifically accepted (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frye_Standard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_standard)

Expert evidence about "Mind control" doesn't meet that standard, hence is usually ruled inadmissable. There might be testimony about her mental state, but I seriously doubt the DA is going to be trying to enter any claims about mind control into evidence.

Well I seriously doubt DA isn't going to try enter claims of mind control.
It sure was allowed during "girl in the box" trial.

"Then psychologist Chris Hatcher, with impressive credentials and experience in such cases, explained to the jury how mind control worked. He addressed the dynamics of sado-masochism, and the dominant and submissive personalities involved—particularly the excitement factor for the "master" in getting someone to submit to his whims. Hatcher then talked about how the effects of sudden kidnapping, death threats, being housed in a dark tomb that disturbed daylight patterns, the physical abuse, the loss of control over necessary bodily functions, and the lack of communication were collectively effective in breaking down Carol's will. He had examined the crime scene and had interviewed Carol at length, and he believed that she had been coerced into staying with the Hookers. In other words, her values, her identity, and her whole way of looking at the world had been changed."
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/sex_slave/11.html

[cindysue]

Well it would be entered as part of PTSD , i think its pretty standard cause its used all the time in cases where women are abused by their husbands.

[songline]

That won't prove anything though. It was 18 years ago, seen for a few seconds at what was probably a fair distance. Any decent defence lawyer would rip that apart if there was nothing else. At best it would act as a support to corroborate testimony by either Jaycee or Nancy (if she turns state witness).

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[songline]

So, let me get this right, if they believe that they loved their father and they were happy, you would feel obliged to tell them no, they were wrong, they weren't happy and they didnt love him? If you were to do that you are essentially implying that they did something bad, that they have something to be ashamed of and should hide. You will create feelings of guilt and conflict in them that didnt exist before, and eventually that is going to eat away at their psyche. And they are not going to be able to talk about it, because if they don't agree with you they will feel that they are evil?

This is what I was talking about in an earlier post, people coming along down the line and being judgemental. It is tremendously damaging to victims and children in this sort of situation.
Some people get abuser boyfriends time and time again because they do not know what love really is.
Do you want to rewrite the definition????

Lets see how the girls feel when they are ready to speak.
Lets see what they think of not being controlled, or in constant fear?
Lets see if having a warm house, and hot food, clean cloths, hugs, education etc....
what will all that produce?.

I once knew a woman that used to come for counseling all black and blue, but would not leave her drug addicted slob.
telling me how much he loved her. The good news is...she knows better now. THANK God.

What worries me is reading posts that "stand up" for anything less then what the girls really deserve
as human beings, posts that stand up for a sick mentality. :crazy:
I did read through this thread and I cringed.

BACK TO THREAD TOPIC:

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/skinews/20091008/Other-suspect-in-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-kidnapping-case-having-a-tough-time-in-prison-
Other suspect in Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping case having a tough time in prison

I have no feelings for Nancy, none. and I know that she is damaged. But all I can feel for her is disgust.
I do not care if she kills herself because she cant handle prison.
I don't care -I feel mean for saying that - but I will get over it.

[songline]

The defense doesn't have to prove anything. They can just present this as a possibility to provide reasonable doubt. And yes, if Jaycee persuaded the G's that she was being abused and they agreed to help her, he could have seen just what he saw.

The SOB has a record as a rapist, was in jail, and had admitted to enjoying the rape and the violence.

JC came home with 2 kids :furious:
I do not think we need any blow by blow description of what he did to her or the times.
In fact I only wish that JC has a Birth date for her children. (not sure about that)

HE SAID that what he did when he took her was bad but what he did after the girls were born is an inspiration.
DO WE NEED MUCH MORE EVIDENCE when you have an SOB admitting his despicableness?

He is toast...He is never coming out.
Maybe they will get more on the SOB - I just wish him dead.

[JusticeForVictims]

The SOB has a record as a rapist, was in jail, and had admitted to enjoying the rape and the violence.

He is toast...He is never coming out.
Maybe they will get more on the SOB - I just wish him dead.

I SECOND THAT..
I hope he does have terminal melanoma & does not live long enough for a farse of a trial. Then his daughters & Jaycee can deal with their mourning (understandable) & move on with their precious lives.

Furthermore:
Both P&N are on record at the parole office admitting to the kidnapping, & being the bio dad of Jaycee's children.
Can't these parole officers be called as a witness to their statements that day.
Why else was he arrested but for the statements of guilt.
Jaycee admitting her true identity and that the G's kidnapped her from the school bustop at 11 years old led to their arrest also?
Can't the cold case & parole officers be called as a witness to Jaycee's statements?
He will not get out this time his parole violations alone are enough to keep him in prison.
They really don't need a trial.
He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping?
Again enough to put him away.
The only good Nancy can offer is information leading to other cases...
Her lawyer said she knows why she is in jail and thinks of them all as Family.
They are not her Family. They became a unit from her actions of force and brutality.
She is the one who told authorities that PG & her went shopping for a child to kidnapp.. Is that authority considered a witness to all her damaging statements admitting guilt?

[kbl8201]

[QUOTE=songline;4267015]Some people get abuser boyfriends time and time again because they do not know what love really is.
Do you want to rewrite the definition????

Lets see how the girls feel when they are ready to speak.
Lets see what they think of not being controlled, or in constant fear?
Lets see if having a warm house, and hot food, clean cloths, hugs, education etc....
what will all that produce?.

I once knew a woman that used to come for counseling all black and blue, but would not leave her drug addicted slob.
telling me how much he loved her. The good news is...she knows better now. THANK God.

What worries me is reading posts that "stand up" for anything less then what the girls really deserve
as human beings, posts that stand up for a sick mentality. :crazy:
I did read through this thread and I cringed.

BACK TO THREAD TOPIC:

http://www.theskichannel.com/news/skinews/20091008/Other-suspect-in-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-kidnapping-case-having-a-tough-time-in-prison-
Other suspect in Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping case having a tough time in prison

I have no feelings for Nancy, none. and I know that she is damaged. But all I can feel for her is disgust.
I do not care if she kills herself because she cant handle prison.
I don't care -I feel mean for saying that - but I will get over it.[/Q

to me she had a chance........2 years into this nightmare, to end this. she could have gotten a lot of lienency (and possibly sympathy) if she let jaycee go, called the cops, called jaycees mom............ANYTHING! in the 38 days garrido was locked up. she just kept her prisoner for him while he was gone.
evil *****

[JusticeForVictims]

The date of birth for the girls might have been written on a calendar or in his paper work in a journal if he kept one. Maybe even a photograph with date on it?
I can't even imagine what he would have written about their birth. Ugh
He would have boasted about it.

[kbl8201]

The date of birth for the girls might have been written on a calendar or in his paper work in a journal if he kept one. Maybe even a photograph with date on it?
I can't even imagine what he would have written about their birth. Ugh
He would have boasted about it.

ugh i dont even want to think about him boasting about this. ugh. what a sicko

[mysteriew]

I SECOND THAT..
I hope he does have terminal melanoma & does not live long enough for a farse of a trial. Then his daughters & Jaycee can deal with their mourning (understandable) & move on with their precious lives.

Furthermore:
Both P&N are on record at the parole office admitting to the kidnapping, & being the bio dad of Jaycee's children. They can always recant. Many suspects do if they find out that LE really doesn't have much evidence against them.
Can't these parole officers be called as a witness to their statements that day. No. That is hearsay and hearsay isn't permitted in court except under some very extreme conditions.
Why else was he arrested but for the statements of guilt. His statements, plus Jaycee's statements.
Jaycee admitting her true identity and that the G's kidnapped her from the school bustop at 11 years old led to their arrest also? Unless she states so in court, it wouldn't be heard at trial.
Can't the cold case & parole officers be called as a witness to Jaycee's statements? They can only testify as to what they saw and did themselves.
He will not get out this time his parole violations alone are enough to keep him in prison. True
They really don't need a trial.
He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping? Hearsay.
Again enough to put him away.
The only good Nancy can offer is information leading to other cases...
Her lawyer said she knows why she is in jail and thinks of them all as Family.
They are not her Family. They became a unit from her actions of force and brutality. She is the one who told authorities that PG & her went shopping for a child to kidnapp.. Is that authority considered a witness to all her damaging statements admitting guilt?

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.

[kbl8201]

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 itja is so essential that if she would refuse to testify, I would expect a prosecutor to supoena her to court in order to testify.

i feel confident jaycee will testify cause this is at least a couple of years down the road and she will be well into her recovery by then.

however, if some idiot jurors by that an 11 year old girl willingly became this POS'S sex slave then our jury system is totally worthless.

[songline]

I SECOND THAT..
I hope he does have terminal melanoma & does not live long enough for a farse of a trial. Then his daughters & Jaycee can deal with their mourning (understandable) & move on with their precious lives.

Furthermore:
Both P&N are on record at the parole office admitting to the kidnapping, & being the bio dad of Jaycee's children.
Can't these parole officers be called as a witness to their statements that day.
Why else was he arrested but for the statements of guilt.
Jaycee admitting her true identity and that the G's kidnapped her from the school bustop at 11 years old led to their arrest also?
Can't the cold case & parole officers be called as a witness to Jaycee's statements?
He will not get out this time his parole violations alone are enough to keep him in prison.
They really don't need a trial.
He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping?
Again enough to put him away.
The only good Nancy can offer is information leading to other cases...
Her lawyer said she knows why she is in jail and thinks of them all as Family.
They are not her Family. They became a unit from her actions of force and brutality.
She is the one who told authorities that PG & her went shopping for a child to kidnapp.. Is that authority considered a witness to all her damaging statements admitting guilt?
You are correct he ADMITED...I have no clue why some people want to take up for him, it just baffles me completely.
HE ADMITED HIS DOINGS and proceeded to say that what he did at first was bad and then it got inspiring....:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
and some people keep taking up for him. :banghead:
Why people take up for him is beyond me...I would only be guessing :crazy::crazy:

[kbl8201]

You are correct he ADMITED...I have no clue why some people want to take up for him, it just baffles me completely.
HE ADMITED HIS DOINGS and proceeded to say that what he did at first was bad and then it got inspiring....:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
and some people keep taking up for him. :banghead:
Why people take up for him is beyond me...I would only be guessing :crazy::crazy:

i dont think they are taking up for him. i think some comments can be construed that way though lets please try to remember we are all on the side, at least as far as jaycee is concerned. we want garrido and his wife locked up for ever

[my2sisters]

i dont think they are taking up for him. i think some comments can be construed that way though lets please try to remember we are all on the side, at least as far as jaycee is concerned. we want garrido and his wife locked up for ever

I think you're right, kbl. The defense will be asking these questions and making these comments so they might as well be brought up here and discussed. No sense in denying reality. IMO

[kbl8201]

I think you're right, kbl. The defense will be asking these questions and making these comments so they might as well be brought up here and discussed. No sense in denying reality. IMO

but the defense can try whatever they want.
there's no escaping the obvious of what happened.
unless they get total retards on the jury.

[songline]

The date of birth for the girls might have been written on a calendar or in his paper work in a journal if he kept one. Maybe even a photograph with date on it?
I can't even imagine what he would have written about their birth. Ugh
He would have boasted about it.
I would be surprised if he knew what day of the week it was. :waitasec:

[songline]

but the defense can try whatever they want.
there's no escaping the obvious of what happened.
unless they get total retards on the jury.
where do you get 12 retards?

[kbl8201]

I would be surprised if he knew what day of the week it was. :waitasec:

lmao too funny

[mysteriew]

You are correct he ADMITED...I have no clue why some people want to take up for him, it just baffles me completely.
HE ADMITED HIS DOINGS and proceeded to say that what he did at first was bad and then it got inspiring....:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
and some people keep taking up for him. :banghead:
Why people take up for him is beyond me...I would only be guessing :crazy::crazy:

I haven't seen anyone here "take up for him". But many of us have seen trials where suspects have recanted. And if they recant, that can change everything, unless there is other evidence there to back it up. LOL, even stupid criminals are usually smart enough to know that when their defense attorney tells them that the only evidence against them is their own statement, that they would be smart to recant.

The court basically looks at hearsay as 'gossip.' It isn't allowed in most cases. But the defendant has the right to cross examine any witnesses, and if their statements are in court only through a third party, then the defense can't cross examine the speaker. So anything that begins with "he said" or "she said" is usually not allowed, unless "he" or "she" is also expected to be testifying.

[my2sisters]

where do you get 12 retards?

You should know better than to say something this offensive, Songline.

[songline]

i dont think they are taking up for him. i think some comments can be construed that way though lets please try to remember we are all on the side, at least as far as jaycee is concerned. we want garrido and his wife locked up for ever

Did you really read some of the fantasy posts?
PG admitted it - JC admitted it
and they come up with fantasy how he can say whatever
to get around wherever and it it gong where?
HE ADMITTED IT.
SHE CAME HOME WITH 2 BABIES
the rest is history.
I don't understand I am practical - not in the ozone.
Maybe I need a new astrological chart with more air in it

[kbl8201]

where do you get 12 retards?

the nobel peace prize committee? :eek:

[songline]

You should know better than to say something this offensive, Songline.

She was talking about a jury. were 12 people are needed.
(that is not out of line - based on her saying that only a retard would ....)
We do have retards in this world and we are talking about a JUROR that would vote with out being mindful.
Not everything is ill mannered.

[mysteriew]

Did you really read some of the fantasy posts?
PG admitted it - JC admitted it
and they come up with fantasy how he can say whatever
to get around wherever and it it gong where?
HE ADMITTED IT.
SHE CAME HOME WITH 2 BABIES
the rest is history.
I don't understand I am practical - not in the ozone.
Maybe I need a new astrological chart with more air in it

Yeah Songline, that was my post. Like it or not, all the defense has to do is come up with an alternate theory that will fit the evidence or most of the known evidence. And if it is believable enough, the juror's can and often do fall for it.

They don't have to prove how it happened, that is the prosecutors job. All they have to do is show that other possibilities exist.

For clarification purposes, that post was in reference to a scenario where Jaycee would refuse to testify in the trial.

[flourish]

How are the parole officers' statements hearsay???????
The provided definition of the "hearsay rule" from thefreedictionary.com's legal section, is "the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible." These officers would be quoting PG, who would be in court. So...it does not make sense that their testimonies wouldn't be admissible. However, I am a teacher, not a lawyer, (and not a teacher in law school LOL), so please educate me if you can:)

I understand that playing the devil's advocate can help stimulate conversation and generate ideas. However, this case is, obviously, particularly sensitive for people, and is also a case which is very unique and still in its early stages. Any speculation we have right now is exactly that: speculation. Uninformed speculation, at that. None of us know how Jaycee feels about testifying. She may not even really know how she feels right now. And we certainly don't know what her ultimate decision will be.

At this point, my reaction to negative speculation is to feel infuriated. I'm not feeling better informed. I'm feeling like I'm not getting the benefit of a devil's advocate, just experiencing the same kind of frustration I feel after conversing with a person who is being deliberately contrary. I'm sure everyone's intentions are to educate and have a productive dialogue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows of any cases remotely similar, and can share more about what happened in those cases. Songline, you mentioned the Hooker case. Can you tell us more about that?

[songline]

the nobel peace prize committee? :eek:
:clap::clap::clap::clap::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Very good come back -LMAO

[songline]

Yeah Songline, that was my post. Like it or not, all the defense has to do is come up with an alternate theory that will fit the evidence or most of the known evidence. And if it is believable enough, the juror's can and often do fall for it.

They don't have to prove how it happened, that is the prosecutors job. All they have to do is show that other possibilities exist.

Right :crazy:
and with his record as a sex offender the jury would have to be composed of retards 12 retards. I dont think so!

[flourish]

Oops, I totally repeated a post...how in the world...? anyway, sorry for the repeat!

[Natal]

I SECOND THAT..
I hope he does have terminal melanoma & does not live long enough for a farse of a trial. Then his daughters & Jaycee can deal with their mourning (understandable) & move on with their precious lives.

Furthermore:
Both P&N are on record at the parole office admitting to the kidnapping, & being the bio dad of Jaycee's children.
Can't these parole officers be called as a witness to their statements that day.
Why else was he arrested but for the statements of guilt.
Jaycee admitting her true identity and that the G's kidnapped her from the school bustop at 11 years old led to their arrest also?
Can't the cold case & parole officers be called as a witness to Jaycee's statements?
He will not get out this time his parole violations alone are enough to keep him in prison.
They really don't need a trial.
He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping?
Again enough to put him away.
The only good Nancy can offer is information leading to other cases...
Her lawyer said she knows why she is in jail and thinks of them all as Family.
They are not her Family. They became a unit from her actions of force and brutality.
She is the one who told authorities that PG & her went shopping for a child to kidnapp.. Is that authority considered a witness to all her damaging statements admitting guilt?

It depends on whether he was read his rights and provided access to a lawyer when requested. It also depends on if he was capable of understanding those rights. If LE didnt follow the proper procedures at that time anything they said would be inadmissable. The actual arrest was made after Jaycee revealed who she was.

The statements made by Nancy were made some time after she was arrested, presumably with her lawyer present. If they had come to some sort of arrangement regarding cooperation, that wouldnt be unexpected.

[kbl8201]

:clap::clap::clap::clap::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Very good come back -LMAO

thanks. lol
they kinda made it easy lol

[songline]

How are the parole officers' statements hearsay???????
The provided definition of the "hearsay rule" from thefreedictionary.comcom's legal section, is "the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible." These officers would be quoting PG, who would be in court. So...it does not make sense that their testimonies wouldn't be admissible. However, I am a teacher, not a lawyer, (and not a teacher in law school LOL), so please educate me:)

I understand that playing the devil's advocate can help stimulate conversation and generate ideas. However, this case is, obviously, particularly sensitive for people, and is also a case which is very unique and still in its early stages. Any speculation we have right now is exactly that: speculation. Uninformed speculation, at that. None of us know how Jaycee feels about testifying. She may not even really know how she feels right now. And we certainly don't know what her ultimate decision will be.

At this point, my reaction to negative speculation is to feel infuriated. I'm not feeling better informed. I'm feeling like I'm not getting the benefit of a devil's advocate, just experiencing the same kind of frustration I feel after conversing with a person who is being deliberately contrary. I'm sure everyone's intentions are to educate and have a productive dialogue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows of any cases remotely similar, and can share more about what happened in those cases. Songline, you mentioned the Hooker case. Can you tell us more about that?
Right on and they insist that they are just playing devils advocate.
I am starting to wonder if there are people out there abusing someone and testing us as if we are jurors.:crazy:sounds nuts
IF SO.....Stop....Do something right, and stop playing devils advocate with an obvious case. HE IS TOAST.

[Natal]

He also admitted to the reporter that it was a horrible thing abducting Jaycee from the start to end (blah, blah, & then his heartwarming blah, blah blah,).
Can't that reporter be called as a witness to PG admitting the kidnapping?


He didnt admit to kidnapping anyone in the interview. He vaguely said that it was a horrible thing at the start but wonderfull after, but without specifying what he was actually talking about.

[songline]

It depends on whether he was read his rights and provided access to a lawyer when requested. It also depends on if he was capable of understanding those rights. If LE didnt follow the proper procedures at that time anything they said would be inadmissable. The actual arrest was made after Jaycee revealed who she was.

The statements made by Nancy were made some time after she was arrested, presumably with her lawyer present. If they had come to some sort of arrangement regarding cooperation, that wouldn't be unexpected.
It is true that our laws do have some flaws sometimes.
If you are suggesting that this SOB has one chance in hell to come out again forget it.
It is not happening. No way.

[flourish]

Right :crazy:
and with his record as a sex offender the jury would have to be composed of retards 12 retards. I dont think so!

Songline, not to be a snark, but I find the use of the term "retard" in this manner, to be offensive. Not only do I not appreciate "retard" being equated with bad or stupid, but also several of the many, many, people I've known and loved who actually had mental retardation could still figure this one out no prob.


:)

[kbl8201]

It is true that our laws do have some flaws sometimes.
If you are suggesting that there is one chance in hell that he is ever coming out again forget it. It is not happening. No way.

the parole violations should keep him in prison for good as it is
but knowing these bafoons a clerical error will probably let him out :(

[Natal]

and some people keep taking up for him. :banghead:
Why people take up for him is beyond me...I would only be guessing :crazy::crazy:

No one is "taking up for him". Just because people are not agreeing completely with you on a specific doesnt mean that they are on the other side.

You should consider the possibility that not everything you say or think is correct or objective.

[mysteriew]

How are the parole officers' statements hearsay???????
The provided definition of the "hearsay rule" from thefreedictionary.com's legal section, is "the basic rule that testimony or documents which quote persons not in court are not admissible." These officers would be quoting PG, who would be in court. So...it does not make sense that their testimonies wouldn't be admissible. However, I am a teacher, not a lawyer, (and not a teacher in law school LOL), so please educate me if you can:)

I understand that playing the devil's advocate can help stimulate conversation and generate ideas. However, this case is, obviously, particularly sensitive for people, and is also a case which is very unique and still in its early stages. Any speculation we have right now is exactly that: speculation. Uninformed speculation, at that. None of us know how Jaycee feels about testifying. She may not even really know how she feels right now. And we certainly don't know what her ultimate decision will be.

At this point, my reaction to negative speculation is to feel infuriated. I'm not feeling better informed. I'm feeling like I'm not getting the benefit of a devil's advocate, just experiencing the same kind of frustration I feel after conversing with a person who is being deliberately contrary. I'm sure everyone's intentions are to educate and have a productive dialogue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows of any cases remotely similar, and can share more about what happened in those cases. Songline, you mentioned the Hooker case. Can you tell us more about that?

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.

[songline]

Songline, not to be a snark, but I find the use of the term "retard" in this manner, to be offensive. Not only do I not appreciate "retard" being equated with bad or stupid, but also several of the many, many, people I've known and loved who actually had mental retardation could still figure this one out no prob.


:)Point accepted. Going forward I stop .
I did not intend to offend I just agreed with someone because it seemed to fit the moment.

[flourish]

Hey, just noticed it wasn't songline who originally mentioned the "retard" thing....so kbl...

[kbl8201]

Songline, not to be a snark, but I find the use of the term "retard" in this manner, to be offensive. Not only do I not appreciate "retard" being equated with bad or stupid, but also several of the many, many, people I've known and loved who actually had mental retardation could still figure this one out no prob.


:)

good point. and i apologize for using that term first.

[mysteriew]

Right on and they insist that they are just playing devils advocate.
I am starting to wonder if there are people out there abusing someone and testing us as if we are jurors.:crazy:sounds nuts
IF SO.....Stop....Do something right, and stop playing devils advocate with an obvious case. HE IS TOAST.

Are you accusing me of something?

[songline]

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.
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.

[songline]

Are you accusing me of something?

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....

[kbl8201]

[QUOTE=songline;4268502]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

[mysteriew]

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....

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.

[kbl8201]

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.

this might seem funny come from me but....we all need to calm down right now. we're all upset, we all hate what happened to jaycee, we all went these two to be punished, and we all hope jaycee and her girls will heal as much as possible.

[mysteriew]

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

[SunnieRN]

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.

[mysteriew]

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.

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.

[JusticeForVictims]

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

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.

[kbl8201]

[/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.

i have a broken heart for what happened to her for 18 years. i have a glad hear that she was finally rescued, and a hopeful heart that someday she will be able to overcome this as much as possible. she is on the right road. she already had the strength to get thru this, now she has the added support of therapists, and more importantly the famiy who loves her. and im sure the support of absolute strangers like all of us cant hurt either :)

[jjenny]

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.

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.

[jjenny]

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.
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?

[kbl8201]

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.

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!'

[SunnieRN]

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.

I did understand your post prior to my posting.;) I just felt strongly about the subject matter.

[Natal]

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?

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.

[Natal]

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!'

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.

[songline]

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.

I think JC can identify plenty and has already talked plenty too.

PG can deny all he wants - nobody would expect this SOB to be honest.

JC came home with 2 kids 18 years after she had been kidnapped at the age of 11 - even Houdini could not change those facts.

He is toast.

[songline]

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.
YES the only DNA relevant is The girls and they have to take JC and PG to establish that.
Unless grabbed the girls off the street too and told JC she had given birth while sleeping. :hand: NOT!
no my computer is not having a glitch....I actualy dont know how to reply to 1/2 of this fantacy.

As far as the argument about maybe Angel was not a result of rape. only Starlet Pleeeeezzz.:hand: :doh:

JC was detained at his compound. Not free to leave. Let us just start there...the rest about her second child not being a result of rape ...
I will not even dignify that statement at all. I find it to be insulting to JC.

[songline]

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.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Did you actualy write that BBM.
Or is your computer having a glitch?

[SunnieRN]

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

[QUOTE=JusticeForVictims;4268913][/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.)

[JulieNMM]

where do you get 12 retards?


In the local LE agency.

[JusticeForVictims]

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.

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 prosecution team will win in court.
I'm Repeating my own Quote. As it makes me happy to know this fact.

I just felt the need to state my opinion again.
I do feel a discussion can be useful on debating Prosecution vs Defense using the facts in each unique case.
The the fact in this case is Prosecution has stated she will give her testimony when needed.
You seem to make your final point clear that you say testimony is needed.
The lawyer has addressed that already. Does this not satisfy you.

Therefore why bother with all sorts of defense ideas that I feel are insulting towards the victims in this case and not necessary to put out into the universe?
Let the defense in this case come up with their own creepy defense ideas.

The witness in this case will make mince meat out of the defendants just like Elizabeth Smart has done in her case.

That is hopefully my final :twocents: worth.
Janice

[songline]

In the local LE agency.

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:
Good one JulieNMM :)

[songline]

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 prosecution team will win in court.
I'm Repeating my own Quote. As it makes me happy to know this fact.

I just felt the need to state my opinion again.
I do feel a discussion can be useful on debating Prosecution vs Defense using the facts in each unique case.
The the fact in this case is Prosecution has stated she will give her testimony when needed.
You seem to make your final point clear that you say testimony is needed.
The lawyer has addressed that already. Does this not satisfy you.

Therefore why bother with all sorts of defense ideas that I feel are insulting towards the victims in this case and not necessary to put out into the universe?
Let the defense in this case come up with their own creepy defense ideas.

The witness in this case will make mince meat out of the defendants just like Elizabeth Smart has done in her case.

That is hopefully my final :twocents: worth.
Janice

Thank you...You said it much better then I have.
I was just so baffled by some posts that I don't even know why I bothered to answer.
Hopefully they wont play the "I am right card" LOL and will stop the insanity.:crazy:

I e-mailed her lawyer and he sounds like a very caring man. And he IS a great attorney.
His last line in his reply was "I promise to do my very very best".
I totally teared up from joy.

My :twocents:worth and the END :)

[songline]

the parole violations should keep him in prison for good as it is
but knowing these bafoons a clerical error will probably let him out :(


I think you should bite your tongue. HE IS TOAST.
and yes they are bafoons.

[mysteriew]

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 prosecution team will win in court.
I'm Repeating my own Quote. As it makes me happy to know this fact.

I just felt the need to state my opinion again.
I do feel a discussion can be useful on debating Prosecution vs Defense using the facts in each unique case.
The the fact in this case is Prosecution has stated she will give her testimony when needed.
You seem to make your final point clear that you say testimony is needed.
The lawyer has addressed that already. Does this not satisfy you.

Therefore why bother with all sorts of defense ideas that I feel are insulting towards the victims in this case and not necessary to put out into the universe?
Let the defense in this case come up with their own creepy defense ideas.

The witness in this case will make mince meat out of the defendants just like Elizabeth Smart has done in her case.

That is hopefully my final :twocents: worth.
Janice

I'm not the one who started the discussion that Jaycee shouldn't have to testify or wouldn't testify. But yes, I responded to the discussion. And yes, I pointed out that if Jaycee did not testify, there would very likely not be a conviction and that anything could be said in court about her without her testimony, if the prosecution attempted to pursue the charges without her testimony.

As I have said before and will say again I believe that Jaycee won't have a choice but to testify.

[mysteriew]

YES the only DNA relevant is The girls and they have to take JC and PG to establish that.
Unless grabbed the girls off the street too and told JC she had given birth while sleeping. :hand: NOT!
no my computer is not having a glitch....I actualy dont know how to reply to 1/2 of this fantacy.

As far as the argument about maybe Angel was not a result of rape. only Starlet Pleeeeezzz.:hand: :doh:

JC was detained at his compound. Not free to leave. Let us just start there...the rest about her second child not being a result of rape ...
I will not even dignify that statement at all. I find it to be insulting to JC.

Without Jaycee's testimony, how do you prove those statements? I have shown how you defend against them (which made everyone angry), but prove them. Was it forcible rape, or statuatory rape? Big difference in the sentencing on that. Was it kidnapping or assisting a runaway? Was she forced to stay with the G's or was she with them voluntarily?

Only Jaycee can answer those questions.

Remember in court nothing is taken for granted. Prosecution must prove everything. All the defense has to do is to offer an alternate explanation and if no one disputes it, then it stands. If Jaycee isn't there, then no one else can dispute it. (Unless NG should agree to testify against PG.)

[mysteriew]

Thank you...You said it much better then I have.
I was just so baffled by some posts that I don't even know why I bothered to answer.
Hopefully they wont play the "I am right card" LOL and will stop the insanity.:crazy:

I e-mailed her lawyer and he sounds like a very caring man. And he IS a great attorney.
His last line in his reply was "I promise to do my very very best".
I totally teared up from joy.

My :twocents:worth and the END :)

First you accuse me of an illegal act, now I am insane because I don't respond to your posts in a way you like?

[songline]

Without Jaycee's testimony, how do you prove those statements? I have shown how you defend against them (which made everyone angry), but prove them. Was it forcible rape, or statuatory rape? Big difference in the sentencing on that. Was it kidnapping or assisting a runaway? Was she forced to stay with the G's or was she with them voluntarily?

Only Jaycee can answer those questions.

Remember in court nothing is taken for granted. Prosecution must prove everything. All the defense has to do is to offer an alternate explanation and if no one disputes it, then it stands. If Jaycee isn't there, then no one else can dispute it. (Unless NG should agree to testify against PG.)

I refuse to dignify this post.
JC was Kidnapped and raped - end of story.

[songline]

First you accuse me of an illegal act, now I am insane because I don't respond to your posts in a way you like?

I never accused you of any illegal act :crazy:
NOT EVER. :banghead:
MAYBE you noticed - you are not the only one writing in ways that baffle me.
Have fun,
I have dignified some posts against my better judgment in the hope to stand up for JC.
My reply to JusticeForVictims had -0- to do with you as she was conversing with someone else.
But my post included all who baffle me.
Not everything in the world is about you. NOP it is not.

Now I am done.

[songline]

I'm not the one who started the discussion that Jaycee shouldn't have to testify or wouldn't testify. But yes, I responded to the discussion. And yes, I pointed out that if Jaycee did not testify, there would very likely not be a conviction and that anything could be said in court about her without her testimony, if the prosecution attempted to pursue the charges without her testimony.

As I have said before and will say again I believe that Jaycee won't have a choice but to testify.

Conviction can and do happen with out testifying. Not much, but they do happen.
She may and most likely will but maybe won't testify. The SOB is not coming out of jail again.
:woohoo:
<<THE END>>

[MBK]

Without Jaycee's testimony, how do you prove those statements? I have shown how you defend against them (which made everyone angry), but prove them. Was it forcible rape, or statuatory rape? Big difference in the sentencing on that. Was it kidnapping or assisting a runaway? Was she forced to stay with the G's or was she with them voluntarily?
(Unless NG should agree to testify against PG.)

Can somebody who knows and understands the law please explain, referring to the California Penal Code, the difference between forcible and statutory rape? (Please, if possible, refer to the exact charges against Philip and Nancy Garrido, which are found in a link in the thread about the charges.) Thank you.

[JusticeForVictims]

I'm not the one who started the discussion that Jaycee shouldn't have to testify or wouldn't testify. But yes, I responded to the discussion. And yes, I pointed out that if Jaycee did not testify, there would very likely not be a conviction and that anything could be said in court about her without her testimony, if the prosecution attempted to pursue the charges without her testimony.

As I have said before and will say again I believe that Jaycee won't have a choice but to testify.

I just got home from a refreshing Autumn walk, it is a nice time of year.

I'm just giving you a heads-up that mypost#162 was response to post#155
by someone else. I thought my reply to you last night was all we needed.
Today I believe my reply to post #155 and now to you is that I am not
comfortable debating Prosecution vs Defense in this case.
I gather I'm not alone on this..
Maybe I would on a case that involves a crime that didn't last 18 years.
However I am very sensitive to the feelings of Jaycee, & all her Family.
There is a chance some of them might be reading the comments.

I will repeat that the Lawyer said she is going to testify.

Just like you have repeated that she needs to testify to prove herself.

No one has to give a detailed explanation or debate on all the personal, private, details on the attacks made against Jaycee over the years
to prove a guilty verdict or give details on a defense against the pedophiles.
We don't have to debate or explain or prove to each other this or that on this case.

This blog is titled Nancy.
I didn't see a title on the blog called lets have a ruthless debate on pros & cons of Prosecution and Defense in the J.D. vs P&N G's case.

So my vote is to take all our energy and focus it on a topic less hurtful to all the victims.
AS we all agree we all feel bad and want the best outcome for Jaycee.

[JusticeForVictims]

Thank you...

I e-mailed her lawyer and he sounds like a very caring man.
And he IS a great attorney.
His last line in his reply was "I promise to do my very very best".
I totally teared up from joy.

My :twocents:worth and the END :)

Sending an email to Jaycee's Lawyer was a really nice thing to do.
I'm sure He appreciates all the kind supporters.
That is a touching reply from him. I am confident He will do his best & more.

.:angel:

[jjenny]

Without Jaycee's testimony, how do you prove those statements? I have shown how you defend against them (which made everyone angry), but prove them. Was it forcible rape, or statuatory rape? Big difference in the sentencing on that. Was it kidnapping or assisting a runaway? Was she forced to stay with the G's or was she with them voluntarily?

Only Jaycee can answer those questions.

Remember in court nothing is taken for granted. Prosecution must prove everything. All the defense has to do is to offer an alternate explanation and if no one disputes it, then it stands. If Jaycee isn't there, then no one else can dispute it. (Unless NG should agree to testify against PG.)

What runway? Her step father witnessed JC being abducted.
If JC doesn't say a word, there is still her step father as a witness. He saw a man, a woman, was able to provide description of a woman for a composite, and described the car. So, I ask you again, what runway can you possibly talk about?

[songline]

I just got home from a refreshing Autumn walk, it is a nice time of year.

I'm just giving you a heads-up that mypost#162 was response to post#155
by someone else. I thought my reply to you last night was all we needed.
Today I believe my reply to post #155 and now to you is that I am not
comfortable debating Prosecution vs Defense in this case.
I gather I'm not alone on this..
Maybe I would on a case that involves a crime that didn't last 18 years.
However I am very sensitive to the feelings of Jaycee, & all her Family.
There is a chance some of them might be reading the comments.

I will repeat that the Lawyer said she is going to testify.

Just like you have repeated that she needs to testify to prove herself.

No one has to give a detailed explanation or debate on all the personal, private, details on the attacks made against Jaycee over the years
to prove a guilty verdict or give details on a defense against the pedophiles.
We don't have to debate or explain or prove to each other this or that on this case.

This blog is titled Nancy.
I didn't see a title on the blog called lets have a ruthless debate on pros & cons of Prosecution and Defense in the J.D. vs P&N G's case.

So my vote is to take all our energy and focus it on a topic less hurtful to all the victims.
AS we all agree we all feel bad and want the best outcome for Jaycee.
GREAT POST :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


But I have one heads up for you LOL
God did not create us all equal - even though we want to think that he did.
some are pretier, some are smarter, and some are more sensitive to others.
I think it is our job to not qualify, or dignify the type of posts that would be
an insult to JC or her family. That includes people who take up for JCs bio Dad,
or for PG or anything else that is in part fantasy or misdirected.
I am guilty for having done in too...But I will try hard to refrain. ;)


And in the voice of the "Golden Girls" :) lol
I imagine JC said ......
thank you for being a friend.... :blowkiss:

[songline]

Can somebody who knows and understands the law please explain, referring to the California Penal Code, the difference between forcible and statutory rape? (Please, if possible, refer to the exact charges against Philip and Nancy Garrido, which are found in a link in the thread about the charges.) Thank you.


http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_statutory_rape_and_ forcible_rape

Statutory rape occurs when the victim is automatically considered incapable of giving legal consent by a pre-defined set of legal criteria. In North America this mainly refers to a person being too young to be able to intelligently consent to sex. No force or other coercion is required for Statutory Rape to apply.
Forcible - would be someone of age.

Maybe someone else can offer up the exact charges against PG, but I think there will be more coming so it may not have yet been released.

[Natal]

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
Did you actualy write that BBM.
Or is your computer having a glitch?

You may not like it but that is how the system works.

[songline]

I have a very strong feeling this case will change some laws.
I have a very strong feeling that this case will be governed by its own merits.

I do not believe we have a case on the books in the US where someone turned up alive
with kids after many years.

I know we had one in Stockholm - that poor woman is still hunted by her life or lack of it.

They should put those animals to sleep because in essence they did take a life
of a young girl - her life as it should have been.
In essence they did not give her a chance to live as we all know it.
In essence she was a prisoner without having needed to be punished.

There should be a law that puts these SOB's to sleep.

YAP the law as we know it is ineffective for this very special case.
JC had touched the hearts of the world he is never walking.
and hope that anyone like him will never walk again too.

[kbl8201]

I have a very strong feeling this case will change some laws.
I have a very strong feeling that this case will be governed by its own merits.

I do not believe we have a case on the books in the US where someone turned up alive with kids after many years.

I know we had one in Stockholm - that poor woman is still hunted by her life or lack of it.

They should put those animals to sleep because in essence they did take a life of a young girl - her life as it should have been.
In essence they did not give her a chance to live as we all know it.
In essence she was a prisoner without having needed to be punished.

There should be a law that puts them these SOB's to sleep.

YAP the law as we know it is ineffective for this very special case.
JC had touched the hearts of the world he is never walking.
and hope that anyone like him will never wal again too.

the case in stockholm had the added horror that it was her family itself that was doing it to her. (her mom couldnt possibly be that stupid).
at least her jaycee has the chance at a real life with her family that loves her behind her.
but i agree a 100 percent that monsters like this should never walk again.

[checkercab]

I'm not the one who started the discussion that Jaycee shouldn't have to testify or wouldn't testify. But yes, I responded to the discussion. And yes, I pointed out that if Jaycee did not testify, there would very likely not be a conviction and that anything could be said in court about her without her testimony, if the prosecution attempted to pursue the charges without her testimony.

As I have said before and will say again I believe that Jaycee won't have a choice but to testify.

:twocents: Just a thought: testimony from JC could be selective??
She could testify regards, say, the kidnapping, but decline to testify on
the charge of rape. I have little background at law.

[my2sisters]

I'm not the one who started the discussion that Jaycee shouldn't have to testify or wouldn't testify. But yes, I responded to the discussion. And yes, I pointed out that if Jaycee did not testify, there would very likely not be a conviction and that anything could be said in court about her without her testimony, if the prosecution attempted to pursue the charges without her testimony.

As I have said before and will say again I believe that Jaycee won't have a choice but to testify.

I posted something in the "Corruption" thread that I started (not knowing where else to post it) that I thought you might like to read. It talks about how a judge is not requiring the victim to publicly testify.

[songline]

HAVE A GOOD TIME NANCY - IMAGINE HOW JC FELT

Nancy Garrido threatened by fellow inmates
Convicted sex offender, Phillip Garrido, and his wife, Nancy, are behind bars, awaiting trial for kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard. They are also accused of holding her captive for 18 years in a makeshift backyard compound.

Media attention has focused on Phillip, however, Nancy is accused of being the individual who physically abducted Jaycee from a school bus stop in 1991. She was also allegedly responsible for holding Jaycee captive when Phillip was behind bars from April to August 1993, after his arrest for a parole violation.

The Ski Channel TV Network is reporting that Nancy has been placed in isolation because fellow inmates have threatened to rape and kill her. A source told the network she is “very lonely” and spends most of her time reading the Bible. She is also said to be very cooperative with the ongoing police investigation.

<<SNIP>>

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m10d10-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-case-Nancy-Garrido-threatened-by-fellow-inmates

[Natal]

:twocents: Just a thought: testimony from JC could be selective??
She could testify regards, say, the kidnapping, but decline to testify on
the charge of rape. I have little background at law.

Depends what questions the proscutor and defense ask. Once she is on the stand she can't refuse to answer unless she takes the 5th.

[Natal]

HAVE A GOOD TIME NANCY - IMAGINE HOW JC FELT

Nancy Garrido threatened by fellow inmates
Convicted sex offender, Phillip Garrido, and his wife, Nancy, are behind bars, awaiting trial for kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard. They are also accused of holding her captive for 18 years in a makeshift backyard compound.

Media attention has focused on Phillip, however, Nancy is accused of being the individual who physically abducted Jaycee from a school bus stop in 1991. She was also allegedly responsible for holding Jaycee captive when Phillip was behind bars from April to August 1993, after his arrest for a parole violation.

The Ski Channel TV Network is reporting that Nancy has been placed in isolation because fellow inmates have threatened to rape and kill her. A source told the network she is “very lonely” and spends most of her time reading the Bible. She is also said to be very cooperative with the ongoing police investigation.

<<SNIP>>

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m10d10-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-case-Nancy-Garrido-threatened-by-fellow-inmates

That is old news. The ski channel is WAY behind the news curve on it's content.

[kbl8201]

HAVE A GOOD TIME NANCY - IMAGINE HOW JC FELT

Nancy Garrido threatened by fellow inmates
Convicted sex offender, Phillip Garrido, and his wife, Nancy, are behind bars, awaiting trial for kidnapping and raping an 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard. They are also accused of holding her captive for 18 years in a makeshift backyard compound.

Media attention has focused on Phillip, however, Nancy is accused of being the individual who physically abducted Jaycee from a school bus stop in 1991. She was also allegedly responsible for holding Jaycee captive when Phillip was behind bars from April to August 1993, after his arrest for a parole violation.

The Ski Channel TV Network is reporting that Nancy has been placed in isolation because fellow inmates have threatened to rape and kill her. A source told the network she is “very lonely” and spends most of her time reading the Bible. She is also said to be very cooperative with the ongoing police investigation.

<<SNIP>>

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m10d10-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-case-Nancy-Garrido-threatened-by-fellow-inmates

so now she knows what it's like to be shackled up and no one will let her go and she's under threat of rape or death every day.
poor nancy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
she shoud have thuoght about this outcome those 38 days she could have let jaycee go withot garrido being able to stop her.

[Tizzle]

so now she knows what it's like to be shackled up and no one will let her go and she's under threat of rape or death every day.
poor nancy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NOTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!
she shoud have thuoght about this outcome those 38 days she could have let jaycee go withot garrido being able to stop her.

She actually had almost 5 months to release JC. He was locked up from early April 93 through late August 93. I just wanted to mention it because you keep mentioning 38 days when it was actually quite a bit longer.

[songline]

That is old news. The ski channel is WAY behind the news curve on it's content.

And the point is ??????????? Still posting worthy in my opinion.....

And what part of this is about the defense?
Stop the BS that your position is about the defense. I am not buying.....

[Billylee]

I just got home from a refreshing Autumn walk, it is a nice time of year.

I'm just giving you a heads-up that mypost#162 was response to post#155
by someone else. I thought my reply to you last night was all we needed.
Today I believe my reply to post #155 and now to you is that I am not
comfortable debating Prosecution vs Defense in this case.
I gather I'm not alone on this..
Maybe I would on a case that involves a crime that didn't last 18 years.
However I am very sensitive to the feelings of Jaycee, & all her Family.
There is a chance some of them might be reading the comments.

I will repeat that the Lawyer said she is going to testify.

Just like you have repeated that she needs to testify to prove herself.

No one has to give a detailed explanation or debate on all the personal, private, details on the attacks made against Jaycee over the years
to prove a guilty verdict or give details on a defense against the pedophiles.
We don't have to debate or explain or prove to each other this or that on this case.

This blog is titled Nancy.
I didn't see a title on the blog called lets have a ruthless debate on pros & cons of Prosecution and Defense in the J.D. vs P&N G's case.
So my vote is to take all our energy and focus it on a topic less hurtful to all the victims.
AS we all agree we all feel bad and want the best outcome for Jaycee.


Indeed it is and somehow, it's getting side tracked into a pretrial movie preview. I have a question about Nancy. She married Phillip in prison and that was well before he was released on bail. Is that correct? Where was she living after that? I presume she knew why he was incarcerated. Does anyone have any idea why they, the newlywed couple, moved in with Mom in Antioch? Or did they set up house elsewhere first? Most newlyweds wouldn't want to be living with Mom. Just an observation and tyring to get back on the subject of Nancy.

[joga]

She actually had almost 5 months to release JC. He was locked up from early April 93 through late August 93. I just wanted to mention it because you keep mentioning 38 days when it was actually quite a bit longer.

i thought that he was only incarcerated for the first month or so and then served the rest of his prob. violation via home arrest?

[songline]

i thought that he was only incarcerated for the first month or so and then served the rest of his prob. violation via home arrest?

I do not know which is correct but both of these are floating out there.
1) he was incarcerated for 5 months
2) he served 1 month in and the rest on house arrest.

[Tizzle]

Indeed it is and somehow, it's getting side tracked into a pretrial movie preview. I have a question about Nancy. She married Phillip in prison and that was well before he was released on bail. Is that correct? Where was she living after that? I presume she knew why he was incarcerated. Does anyone have any idea why they, the newlywed couple, moved in with Mom in Antioch? Or did they set up house elsewhere first? Most newlyweds wouldn't want to be living with Mom. Just an observation and tyring to get back on the subject of Nancy.

After they married in Oct 81, she moved to Leavenworth, KS. Sometime before he was paroled (not released on bail), NG moved to Antioch with PF. PG was paroled from NDOC in 88 a halfway house in Oakland and from there to Antioch, CA. I have no idea why they, as newlyweds, would want to live with his mother, but part of my theory is that PG is/was a "mama's boy". IIRC, PF had also remarried by this time. Her second husband died in the late 90s, I believe.

i thought that he was only incarcerated for the first month or so and then served the rest of his prob. violation via home arrest?

I haven't heard or read that he was released to house arrest, is there a link? It's possible, but this suggests he was in an actual facility for close to 5mos...

April 2, 1993
Garrido is returned to custody in a federal correctional facility for a parole violation. (Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons)

August 31, 1993
Garrido is released to parole again from a federal correctional facility. (Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons)

PG arrest/parole timeline:
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/56762052.html

[joga]

this is one of many links re: the "home detention", but your link says per fed. bur. of prisons, so that would seem the most correct... i rememeber seeing this being discussed, but i don't know if we ever got an answer... thanks!

http://www.examiner.com/x-1168-Crime-Examiner~y2009m8d27-Phillip-Garrido-on-parole-for-kidnapping-at-time-of-Jaycee-Lee-Dugard-abduction

[Billylee]

After they married in Oct 81, she moved to Leavenworth, KS. Sometime before he was paroled (not released on bail), NG moved to Antioch with PF. PG was paroled from NDOC in 88 to Antioch, CA. I have no idea why they, as newlyweds, would want to live with his mother, but my theory is that PG is/was a "mama's boy". IIRC, PF had also remarried by this time. Her second husband died in the late 90s, I believe.



I haven't heard or read that he was released to house arrest, is there a link? It's possible, but this suggests he was in an actual facility for close to 5mos...

April 2, 1993
Garrido is returned to custody in a federal correctional facility for a parole violation. (Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons)

August 31, 1993
Garrido is released to parole again from a federal correctional facility. (Source: Federal Bureau of Prisons)

PG arrest/parole timeline:
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/56762052.html


Sorry, braindead today, that's what I meant to say! Thanks for the info. I guess what I'm wondering here is especially since NG apparently had a job, it seems really odd that they would move in with PG's mom back then. He'd been living in the Tahoe/Reno area before he went to jail, yes? UNLESS,
of course, they'd already planned to use this particular larger yard for something, and planned to drug up his mother and use her money. (Even more so, now, I didn't realize NG moved in there first.) She wasn't "taking care Patricia" back then. From what I've read she was an active woman. I was just thinking the hoarders that they appear to be, makes me wonder about correspondence NG & PG would have had while he was in prison. Hope it didn't get trashed somewhere in the searching.

[human]

I found this website when I was looking for info on NG because there is basically nothing known about her. I was wondering how a woman who looked so beautiful could end up like this. Since she waited 7 years while he was in prison, she already was not playing with a full deck. I find it astounding that there are no reports from any classmates or neighbors before she met PG. And we know that they could get paid for info. I am really grateful for this site that has given information that simply is not anywhere else. But I have to say, that I have been astounded by some of the comments that seem to support PG and especially him as a parent (that's the way I read it). PG has a tremendous amount of love in him-for himself only. He is totally incapable of caring about anyone but himself. His revelation to the world is how he was cured of his issues (still looking at porn sites, though). So his cure is to rape and 11 year old and have children. It's the same to him as him saying that he cured a headache with aspirin. All actions and relationships only relate to how they can enrich or be of use to him. I simply cannot believe the comments of how Jaycee's life in the backyard was no big deal Cold water showers, etc. Jaycee and girls were just objects to PG
I hope that this case helps other children.

[txsvicki]

The most probably reason I can think of why the two lived with his mama is called freeloading and mooching.

[songline]

I found this website when I was looking for info on NG because there is basically nothing known about her. I was wondering how a woman who looked so beautiful could end up like this. Since she waited 7 years while he was in prison, she already was not playing with a full deck. I find it astounding that there are no reports from any classmates or neighbors before she met PG. And we know that they could get paid for info. I am really grateful for this site that has given information that simply is not anywhere else. But I have to say, that I have been astounded by some of the comments that seem to support PG and especially him as a parent (that's the way I read it). PG has a tremendous amount of love in him-for himself only. He is totally incapable of caring about anyone but himself. His revelation to the world is how he was cured of his issues (still looking at porn sites, though). So his cure is to rape and 11 year old and have children. It's the same to him as him saying that he cured a headache with aspirin. All actions and relationships only relate to how they can enrich or be of use to him. I simply cannot believe the comments of how Jaycee's life in the backyard was no big deal Cold water showers, etc. Jaycee and girls were just objects to PG
I hope that this case helps other children.

I agree...

I think I read somewhere that Nancy and her original family come from Mexico.
Maybe she was educated in Mexico and does not have a long history here in the US.
Also if she was raised in Mexico it is a male dominant culture, so I am not surprised
that she would be subservient to him.
But when he wanted to do the wrong thing that is when she should have ended it
just as his first wife did.

[cindysue]

I found this website when I was looking for info on NG because there is basically nothing known about her. I was wondering how a woman who looked so beautiful could end up like this. Since she waited 7 years while he was in prison, she already was not playing with a full deck. I find it astounding that there are no reports from any classmates or neighbors before she met PG. And we know that they could get paid for info. I am really grateful for this site that has given information that simply is not anywhere else. But I have to say, that I have been astounded by some of the comments that seem to support PG and especially him as a parent (that's the way I read it). PG has a tremendous amount of love in him-for himself only. He is totally incapable of caring about anyone but himself. His revelation to the world is how he was cured of his issues (still looking at porn sites, though). So his cure is to rape and 11 year old and have children. It's the same to him as him saying that he cured a headache with aspirin. All actions and relationships only relate to how they can enrich or be of use to him. I simply cannot believe the comments of how Jaycee's life in the backyard was no big deal Cold water showers, etc. Jaycee and girls were just objects to PG
I hope that this case helps other children.

Well that was only one person's comments , the rest of us think on the same lines as you do.

[songline]

Sorry, braindead today, that's what I meant to say! Thanks for the info. I guess what I'm wondering here is especially since NG apparently had a job, it seems really odd that they would move in with PG's mom back then. He'd been living in the Tahoe/Reno area before he went to jail, yes? UNLESS,
of course, they'd already planned to use this particular larger yard for something, and planned to drug up his mother and use her money. (Even more so, now, I didn't realize NG moved in there first.) She wasn't "taking care Patricia" back then. From what I've read she was an active woman. I was just thinking the hoarders that they appear to be, makes me wonder about correspondence NG & PG would have had while he was in prison. Hope it didn't get trashed somewhere in the searching.

Her job was not enough for a large apartment for all.
she started out in better positions, years back she was taking care of patients.
Then she hooked up with him and went down hill......
Last job she was the cleaning girl at another facility.
I know on one job she was fired because they took a drug test and she did not pass.
But I do not think she ever made enough to house themselves and the girls.

I think he was smart in some ways or he would not be in the mecca of rapists,
murderers and thieves. seems the perfect place to hide. And the perfect house to hide in. :(

[checkercab]

I have been astounded by some of the comments that seem to support PG and especially him as a parent (that's the way I read it). PG has a tremendous amount of love in him-for himself only. He is totally incapable of caring about anyone but himself. His revelation to the world is how he was cured of his issues (still looking at porn sites, though). So his cure is to rape and 11 year old and have children. It's the same to him as him saying that he cured a headache with aspirin. All actions and relationships only relate to how they can enrich or be of use to him. .

:truce: I was one of those who expounded on PG as a "caring parent".
You're right on that PG is incapable of love. His "caring", i think, was
just going through the motions for a couple of reasons:
Nearly all religions sanction family (Heaven's Gate excepted)
PG's mother wanted her granddaughters to grow up well, and so does NG.
His children were a source of pride to PG, mainly in the sense of showing
them off to ingratiate himself --- as you are saying m/l.
The only justification i ever had to modify PG's incarceration is to allow
Starlet and Angel the option to make peace with the home from which
they were suddenly yanked --- saying that as a foster parent myself.

[checkercab]

I agree...

I think I read somewhere that Nancy and her original family come from Mexico.
Maybe she was educated in Mexico and does not have a long history here in the US..

:back: The Bocanegra's were in San Antonio area at NG's birth, and then
moved to Denver area. NG was the eldest of 5(?) or more.

[Tizzle]

Sorry, braindead today, that's what I meant to say! Thanks for the info. I guess what I'm wondering here is especially since NG apparently had a job, it seems really odd that they would move in with PG's mom back then. He'd been living in the Tahoe/Reno area before he went to jail, yes? UNLESS,
of course, they'd already planned to use this particular larger yard for something, and planned to drug up his mother and use her money. (Even more so, now, I didn't realize NG moved in there first.) She wasn't "taking care Patricia" back then. From what I've read she was an active woman. I was just thinking the hoarders that they appear to be, makes me wonder about correspondence NG & PG would have had while he was in prison. Hope it didn't get trashed somewhere in the searching.

I think P&N planned this while he was incarcerated. I'm also suspicious of PF, PF's second husband and Jack. One is deceased and the other two are in the early stages of dementia, but, IIRCC, until the late 90's they were all alive and well which we all know was years into JC's torment...:waitasec: Their jailhouse correspondence would be interesting.

[Tizzle]

Her job was not enough for a large apartment for all.
she started out in better positions, years back she was taking care of patients.
Then she hooked up with him and went down hill......
Last job she was the cleaning girl at another facility.

N can only be traced back in the health care field to 1981, the same year she married P...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_13255972

This article says he only did 38 days in 93.:waitasec:
I know on one job she was fired because they took a drug test and she did not pass.

Can you please provide a link?


I think he was smart in some ways or he would not be in the mecca of rapists,
murderers and thieves. seems the perfect place to hide. And the perfect house to hide in. :(

Yes, this was the perfect environment for this horror to take place. I hope something can be done to fix the entire system we currently have. JC was basically in plain sight in a backyard campground but never found. How could this happen? Is she the only one? Not just in CCC, but everywhere? It's a sickening thought. This didn't just happen because he is "smarter" than some doofus cops and unaware neighbors.

[Natal]

Yes, this was the perfect environment for this horror to take place. I hope something can be done to fix the entire system we currently have. JC was basically in plain sight in a backyard campground but never found. How could this happen? Is she the only one? Not just in CCC, but everywhere? It's a sickening thought. This didn't just happen because he is "smarter" than some doofus cops and unaware neighbors.

She is probably not the only one. The only reason she got found is because PG was on parole, if he wasn't she would never have resurfaced until he died, but by then I think the identity of Jaycee would have long faded.

[SunnieRN]

She is probably not the only one. The only reason she got found is because PG was on parole, if he wasn't she would never have resurfaced until he died, but by then I think the identity of Jaycee would have long faded.

I beg to differ. The only reason she was found is because pg brought the two girls to Berkeley, who got suspicious. His PO's knew nothing of the situation.

This describes ng perfectly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy

Sociopathy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sociopaths are unable to experience emotional responses for other people outside of their own personal interests. This is not to be confused with ideological or philosophical traits that share the same viewpoint from outside perception, instead it is the psychological inability to show emotion or caring for others. While a sociopath can feel emotion, it is (even if it results in care for another) because they find it viable for themselves, as opposed to what would be termed as selflessness.

[Tizzle]

I beg to differ. The only reason she was found is because pg brought the two girls to Berkeley, who got suspicious. His PO's knew nothing of the situation.

This describes ng perfectly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy

Sociopathy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sociopaths are unable to experience emotional responses for other people outside of their own personal interests. This is not to be confused with ideological or philosophical traits that share the same viewpoint from outside perception, instead it is the psychological inability to show emotion or caring for others. While a sociopath can feel emotion, it is (even if it results in care for another) because they find it viable for themselves, as opposed to what would be termed as selflessness.

Natal is right, in that, if PG hadn't been on parole and hadn't been registered as a SO, it wouldn't have raised any suspicions (other than the girls acting strangely) for the Berkley safety officers. They would have had no choice but to brush him off as a strange religious fanatic that brought his "robotic" daughters along with him. But he was on parole and a RSO and this is why they contacted his PO.
Sadly, he is also right that JC probably isn't the only one.

Also, here is some more info that I think describes NG...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

[kbl8201]

Natal is right, in that, if PG hadn't been on parole he wouldn't have been registered as a SO and wouldn't have raised any suspicions, other than the girls acting strangely, for the Berkley safety officers. They would have had no choice but to brush him off as a strange religious fanatic that brought his "robitic" daughters along with him. But he was on parole and a RSO and this is why they contacted his PO.
Sadly, he is also right that JC probably isn't the only one.

Also, here is some more info that I think describes NG...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia


im sorry but the fact he was registered for at least a decade or more and none of the morons in the par0le office figured this out but two campus officers at a college he spent a couple of hours at did, shows how pathetic and lame the parole officers are. if theyd done there job in the first place the berkley indident would never have happened cause this would have been over years ago

[kbl8201]

N can only be traced back in the health care field to 1981, the same year she married P...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_13255972

This article says he only did 38 days in 93.:waitasec:


Can you please provide a link?




Yes, this was the perfect environment for this horror to take place. I hope something can be done to fix the entire system we currently have. JC was basically in plain sight in a backyard campground but never found. How could this happen? Is she the only one? Not just in CCC, but everywhere? It's a sickening thought. This didn't just happen because he is "smarter" than some doofus cops and unaware neighbors.

imo its our duty to be able to sense stuff like this happening. already people turn there heads to wife/spousal/child abuse cause they feel its not there place to get involved. its all our 'places" to get involved.

[SunnieRN]

N can only be traced back in the health care field to 1981, the same year she married P...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_13255972

This article says he only did 38 days in 93.:waitasec:


Can you please provide a link?




Yes, this was the perfect environment for this horror to take place. I hope something can be done to fix the entire system we currently have. JC was basically in plain sight in a backyard campground but never found. How could this happen? Is she the only one? Not just in CCC, but everywhere? It's a sickening thought. This didn't just happen because he is "smarter" than some doofus cops and unaware neighbors.

Doh, lightbulb moment. There may have been many reasons the neighbors could not call to report him. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones! Sometimes I am very slow!!:waitasec:

Natal is right, in that, if PG hadn't been on parole he wouldn't have been registered as a SO and wouldn't have raised any suspicions (other than the girls acting strangely) for the Berkley safety officers. They would have had no choice but to brush him off as a strange religious fanatic that brought his "robotic" daughters along with him. But he was on parole and a RSO and this is why they contacted his PO.
Sadly, he is also right that JC probably isn't the only one.

Also, here is some more info that I think describes NG...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia

I think you have a misconception in your idea. Not all registered sex offenders are on parole. Sex offenders now have to register for life. That does not mean they are still seeing parole officers the rest of their lives.

You can find out about all 50 states here, you may be shocked at what you find:

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf


Lifetime Supervision and Risk Assessment
A number of state and local jurisdictions require lifetime supervision for sex offenders. Lifetime supervision is based on the assumption that sex offending can be a life-long, chronic pattern of abusive behavior, and that sex offenders may be unable or unwilling to control their criminal sexual behavior. Lengthy probation or parole terms have approximately the same effects.
Proponents of lifetime supervision assert that sex offending begins at an early age (between 14 and 20) and that their deviant sexual behavior is well ingrained, well rehearsed, and difficult to control by the time the criminal justice system and treatment providers intervene.25 Even after treating sex offenders and releasing them back into the community there is a certain risk that they will commit another sex offense. Therefore, proponents believe that the best way to avoid future victimization is through ongoing and extended surveillance and specialized treatment. Such close supervision and surveillance may also improve the ability of supervising officers to prevent or detect changes in offenders’ behavior patterns, such as a potential crossover to other types of sex offending, high risk lifestyle changes, or a shift to a new victim group.26



Sex Offender Registration
Sex offender registration laws are now commonplace throughout the United States.♦ Federal law initially required that states adopt minimum standards for sex offender registration and community notification in order to receive federal funding. However, many states are exceeding those standards. The goals of the federal registration law (the Wetterling Act) include increasing public safety, deterring offenders from committing future crimes, and providing law enforcement with additional investigative powers. In order to achieve these goals, states have developed a number of approaches to sex offender registration. These include:
• Development of written policy and procedures, detailing the registration process.
• Collection of thorough information on registered sex offenders, with ready access to this information by all law enforcement officers.
• Development of systems to efficiently transfer registration information within and across state lines so that offenders cannot escape registration obligations.
The most comprehensive approaches to sex offender registration involve sharing information among state and local agencies include the sentencing court, state corrections and justice departments, local law enforcement, community organizations, and probation and parole. Close communication between those managing registration, those engaged in broad policy analysis and development, and those conducting the day-to-day monitoring of offenders, have prevented offenders from slipping through “cracks” in the system.30



So, being a RSO does not mean you will always be on lifetime parole. I hope that everyone realizes that the system, the way it is set up does not protect us, just as this case has proven. There was even a period of time between the release of his federal parole changing to parole for the state of Nevada, administered by CA that pg did not have parole administered upon him. Parole does NOT keep citizens safe!! This causes me to respectfully disagree with both you and Natal.

[kbl8201]

Doh, lightbulb moment. There may have been many reasons the neighbors could not call to report him. If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones! Sometimes I am very slow!!:waitasec:



I think you have a misconception in your idea. Not all registered sex offenders are on parole. Sex offenders now have to register for life. That does not mean they are still seeing parole officers the rest of their lives.

You can find out about all 50 states here, you may be shocked at what you find:

http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/04/12/04-012.pdf

starting to think only the grace of god keeps us safe.
and he isnt everywhere at once either :(
Lifetime Supervision and Risk Assessment
A number of state and local jurisdictions require lifetime supervision for sex offenders. Lifetime supervision is based on the assumption that sex offending can be a life-long, chronic pattern of abusive behavior, and that sex offenders may be unable or unwilling to control their criminal sexual behavior. Lengthy probation or parole terms have approximately the same effects.
Proponents of lifetime supervision assert that sex offending begins at an early age (between 14 and 20) and that their deviant sexual behavior is well ingrained, well rehearsed, and difficult to control by the time the criminal justice system and treatment providers intervene.25 Even after treating sex offenders and releasing them back into the community there is a certain risk that they will commit another sex offense. Therefore, proponents believe that the best way to avoid future victimization is through ongoing and extended surveillance and specialized treatment. Such close supervision and surveillance may also improve the ability of supervising officers to prevent or detect changes in offenders’ behavior patterns, such as a potential crossover to other types of sex offending, high risk lifestyle changes, or a shift to a new victim group.26



Sex Offender Registration
Sex offender registration laws are now commonplace throughout the United States.♦ Federal law initially required that states adopt minimum standards for sex offender registration and community notification in order to receive federal funding. However, many states are exceeding those standards. The goals of the federal registration law (the Wetterling Act) include increasing public safety, deterring offenders from committing future crimes, and providing law enforcement with additional investigative powers. In order to achieve these goals, states have developed a number of approaches to sex offender registration. These include:
• Development of written policy and procedures, detailing the registration process.
• Collection of thorough information on registered sex offenders, with ready access to this information by all law enforcement officers.
• Development of systems to efficiently transfer registration information within and across state lines so that offenders cannot escape registration obligations.
The most comprehensive approaches to sex offender registration involve sharing information among state and local agencies include the sentencing court, state corrections and justice departments, local law enforcement, community organizations, and probation and parole. Close communication between those managing registration, those engaged in broad policy analysis and development, and those conducting the day-to-day monitoring of offenders, have prevented offenders from slipping through “cracks” in the system.30



So, being a RSO does not mean you will always be on lifetime parole. I hope that everyone realizes that the system, the way it is set up does not protect us, just as this case has proven. There was even a period of time between the release of his federal parole changing to parole for the state of Nevada, administered by CA that pg did not have parole administered upon him. Parole does NOT keep citizens safe!! This causes me to respectfully disagree with both you and Natal.

our legal system is a joke. convict innocent people. parole murderers and let pedophiles out for "good behavior" or prison overcrowding. then the polliticians play the blame game in congress and yet no laws are passed to change anything.

[SunnieRN]

our legal system is a joke. convict innocent people. parole murderers and let pedophiles out for "good behavior" or prison overcrowding. then the polliticians play the blame game in congress and yet no laws are passed to change anything.

Ok I'm new here, but how can we, as a community, help change this? I have brought this up in other threads also. Parents of missing children, or who have lost a child protest, give interviews, carry out their own searches, write or talk to officials, but nothing changes. What can we do that will help constitute change? How do we prevent the ng's from EVER seeing the light of day?

[kbl8201]

Ok I'm new here, but how can we, as a community, help change this? I have brought this up in other threads also. Parents of missing children, or who have lost a child protest, give interviews, carry out their own searches, write or talk to officials, but nothing changes. What can we do that will help constitute change? How do we prevent the ng's from EVER seeing the light of day?

honestly? get a federal law passed giving the death penalty to first time convitcted child rapists. otherwise they just keep getting out.

[SunnieRN]

honestly? get a federal law passed giving the death penalty to first time convitcted child rapists. otherwise they just keep getting out.

With the ACLU that will never happen.:waitasec:

[kbl8201]

With the ACLU that will never happen.:waitasec:

ugh.......aclu :sick:

[Natal]

I beg to differ. The only reason she was found is because pg brought the two girls to Berkeley, who got suspicious. His PO's knew nothing of the situation.



Ya, but if he was a first offender, or off parole but still a RSO, the Berkley cops getting suspicious would have amounted to nothing since no one would have pursued it.

[cindysue]

honestly? get a federal law passed giving the death penalty to first time convitcted child rapists. otherwise they just keep getting out.

some kind of mandatory castration would suit me and hopefully eliminate the problem.

[kbl8201]

some kind of mandatory castration would suit me and hopefully eliminate the problem.

that works too ;)

[Tizzle]

Sunn, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the only reason he's a RSO is because he's on parole. I was saying that because he was on parole AND a RSO, this gave the Berkley officers options other than just letting this nut go with his "robotic" girls. They would probably have still been suspicious, but w/out him being on parole and a RSO, there wouldn't have been much they would or could do.

I think one of the problems with our current system is the "flooding" of the National Sex Offender Registry with small offenses such as urinating in public or a kid that just turned 18 and has been having relations with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, the parents find out and press charges. These are not actually sex offenders, IMO. I think that if these types of offenses HAVE to be included in the NSOR, then they need to offer the option of a more detailed description of what the person's offense was. We need to know if the person we are looking at as an offender is a real danger or if the person is horny teenager or a drunk that peed in public.

[kbl8201]

[QUOTE=Tizzle;4280591]Sunn, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the only reason he's a RSO is because he's on parole. I was saying that because he was on parole AND a RSO, this gave the Berkley officers other options other than just letting this nut go with his "robotic" girls. They would probably have still been suspicious, but w/out him being on parole and a RSO, there wouldn't have been much they would or could do.

I think one of the problems with our current system is the "flooding" of the National Sex Offender Registry with small offenses such as urinating in public or a kid that just turned 18 and has been having relations with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, the parents find out and press charges. These are not actually sex offenders, IMO. I think that if these types of offenses HAVE to be included in the NSOR, then they need to offer the option of a more detailed description of what the person's offense was. We need to know if the person we are looking at as an offender is a real danger or if the person is horny teenager or a drunk that peed in public.[/QU

and there so focused on that small time stuff the repeat offenders keep slipping thru there fingers :(

[songline]

N can only be traced back in the health care field to 1981, the same year she married P...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_13255972

This article says he only did 38 days in 93.:waitasec:


Can you please provide a link?
I more then likely read it on one of the million posts here on WS - I can not go re-read them all.




Yes, this was the perfect environment for this horror to take place. I hope something can be done to fix the entire system we currently have. JC was basically in plain sight in a backyard campground but never found. How could this happen? Is she the only one? Not just in CCC, but everywhere? It's a sickening thought. This didn't just happen because he is "smarter" than some doofus cops and unaware neighbors.

I read a lot on her and I do not keep any links to any case on my computer. It has to be here somewhere.

[songline]

:back: The Bocanegra's were in San Antonio area at NG's birth, and then
moved to Denver area. NG was the eldest of 5(?) or more.
Thank you

[songline]

Ok I'm new here, but how can we, as a community, help change this? I have brought this up in other threads also. Parents of missing children, or who have lost a child protest, give interviews, carry out their own searches, write or talk to officials, but nothing changes. What can we do that will help constitute change? How do we prevent the ng's from EVER seeing the light of day?
Corruption - when it begins at the top then there is a game called "you cover my butt and I will cover your butt".
Until we clean up the corruption in the government, it will continue to trickle all the way down.
AS you can see the head of the Police in CCC was a Violent Rapist, so as a result what do you see happen....They all cover for each other.....

Obama's platform was to change Corruption at the top :rolleyes:
That will obviously not happen :twocents:

[kbl8201]

Corruption - when it begins at the top then there is a game called "you cover my butt and I will cover your butt".
Until we clean up the corruption in the government, it will continue to trickle all the way down.
AS you can see the head of the Police in CCC was a Violent Rapist, so as a result what do you see happen....They all cover for each other.....

Obama's platform was to change Corruption at the top :rolleyes:
That will obviously not happen :twocents:

poitiicians say anything to get elected.
power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutey............

[songline]

Ya, but if he was a first offender, or off parole but still a RSO, the Berkley cops getting suspicious would have amounted to nothing since no one would have pursued it.


Well with a Chief of Police that is also a rapist that is one possibility.
BUT but it is certainly NOT a fact.
You seem to spew many twists that lean only toward the dark side.
there is a chance that it could have happened it only needed TWO decent officers and it did happen.
and if any rapists are reading your post I bet you they are heading over there now, thinking it will never happen. :rolleyes:

[kbl8201]

Well with a Chief of Police that is also a rapist that is one possibility.
BUT but it is certainly NOT a fact.
You seem to spew many twists that lean only toward the dark side.
there is a chance that it could have happened it only needed TWO decent officers and it did happen.
and if any rapists are reading your post I bet you they are heading over there now, thinking it will never happen. :rolleyes:

if the berkley officers had had the same "who gives a crap" attitude that most of garridos neighbors and parole officers did, jaycee and the girls would still be in that hell hole.

[songline]

Trying o gather some links here on Nancys Jobs:
Nancy Garrido Was Well-Liked Nursing Aide
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/breaking/Nancy-Garrido-I-Miss-My-Family-56724712.html
http://www.contracostatimes.com/top-stories/ci_13255972
http://www.evoca.com/everyone_recording.jsp?rid=197166

I will continue to look but please add any that you all find.
:) TY

[songline]

Wife who joined in Dugard's abduction and rape worked as nursing aide

This is a long article not only about her work.....
good synopsis of her time since she met the SOB
http://www.allbusiness.com/crime-law-enforcement-corrections/criminal-offenses-crimes/12838181-1.html

[Billylee]

I had not seen this link in the media section thread, and I have no idea if these UK magazines/papers are to be believed, but I found this article interesting in that it is the only time I've read of anyone seeing Nancy and Jaycee at the same place and how this so called "friend" of Garrido's that they're quoting says Phillip treated Jaycee like "his wife" and "Nancy" as his maid. Does anyone have an idea about the credibility of their news reporting?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/31/pervert-phillip-garrido-wrote-sick-fantasy-sex-lyrics-in-jail-115875-21636491/

[songline]

I had not seen this link in the media section thread, and I have no idea if these UK magazines/papers are to be believed, but I found this article interesting in that it is the only time I've read of anyone seeing Nancy and Jaycee at the same place and how this so called "friend" of Garrido's that they're quoting says Phillip treated Jaycee like "his wife" and "Nancy" as his maid. Does anyone have an idea about the credibility of their news reporting?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/08/31/pervert-phillip-garrido-wrote-sick-fantasy-sex-lyrics-in-jail-115875-21636491/
Can you please copy and paste that part, because i do not see that. Thank you.
Maybe I need a subscription for a UK paper, but I can read most of it , So I am confused.

[Billylee]

Can you please copy and paste that part, because i do not see that. Thank you.
Maybe I need a subscription for a UK paper, but I can read most of it , So I am confused.



Phillip Garrido treated his prisoner Jaycee Lee Dugard like a wife, a friend of the sex fiend revealed last night.

The pervert idolised her while real wife Nancy did chores, it is claimed. Jaycee was also said to be the brains behind his businesscard firm. The pal added: "I thought she was Phil's wife. Nancy was cleaning around like she was the maid and Phil gave the young girl all the attention."
This is the part where it appears to me this person was in that house and saw Phillip treating Jaycee "like a wife", while "Nancy was cleaning around like she was the maid". It would be interesting to know who this annonymous person is, because, like I said, it sounds like this person was right in the house with both all three of them. Yes? I also find it interesting that this person is referred to as Garrido's friend/pal. NOT A BUSINESS CLIENT. Makes one wonder who the heck this person is???? No?

[flourish]

Obama's platform was to change Corruption at the top :rolleyes: That will obviously not happen :twocents:

Okay folks, I'm sure there's a political forum somewhere for that talk...

[flourish]

Ya, but if he was a first offender, or off parole but still a RSO, the Berkley cops getting suspicious would have amounted to nothing since no one would have pursued it.

I think Natal must be psychic, because he knows what would happen in alternate realities!

[JulieNMM]

I agree...

I think I read somewhere that Nancy and her original family come from Mexico.
Maybe she was educated in Mexico and does not have a long history here in the US.
Also if she was raised in Mexico it is a male dominant culture, so I am not surprised
that she would be subservient to him.
But when he wanted to do the wrong thing that is when she should have ended it
just as his first wife did.

She was born in Texas and has lived in the US her whole life.

[songline]

She was born in Texas and has lived in the US her whole life.

Someone has corrected it...and thank you.
that is why I wrote: I think....
I knew they were Mexican, I just did not remember where Nancy was from.

[SunnieRN]

Ya, but if he was a first offender, or off parole but still a RSO, the Berkley cops getting suspicious would have amounted to nothing since no one would have pursued it.

Sunn, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn't saying that the only reason he's a RSO is because he's on parole. I was saying that because he was on parole AND a RSO, this gave the Berkley officers options other than just letting this nut go with his "robotic" girls. They would probably have still been suspicious, but w/out him being on parole and a RSO, there wouldn't have been much they would or could do.

I think one of the problems with our current system is the "flooding" of the National Sex Offender Registry with small offenses such as urinating in public or a kid that just turned 18 and has been having relations with his 16 y.o. girlfriend, the parents find out and press charges. These are not actually sex offenders, IMO. I think that if these types of offenses HAVE to be included in the NSOR, then they need to offer the option of a more detailed description of what the person's offense was. We need to know if the person we are looking at as an offender is a real danger or if the person is horny teenager or a drunk that peed in public.

You are correct, I misunderstood the context of your reply, however you are both forgetting a very important fact. Registered sex offender or not, if a person is a court mandated child abuse reporter, suspicious behavior, unexplained injuries, must be followed up upon. I believe that the actions of pg in his speech and conversation, the actions of the girls, the "birthhmark" that was questioned, were suspicious enough to warrant further intervention into the safety of the girls. If he had not been a RSO I would hope the officers would have intervened through CPS. Most mentally ill people are not a threat to others, but when you have an ill adult in a position of responsibility over minors, the behaviors they noticed should be investigated. Yes, he was registered, yes they notified his parole officer, BUT what action did he take? There was just as great a chance of pg, ng and the girls disappearing as there was of him showing up at the Concord parole office. If his PO had gone to the house with a warrant I would feel much different about the situation.

Corruption - when it begins at the top then there is a game called "you cover my butt and I will cover your butt".
Until we clean up the corruption in the government, it will continue to trickle all the way down.
AS you can see the head of the Police in CCC was a Violent Rapist, so as a result what do you see happen....They all cover for each other.....

Obama's platform was to change Corruption at the top :rolleyes:
That will obviously not happen :twocents:

So,, what can the average person do? I am honestly asking, as parents such as Marc Klass and John Walsh, as well as many more, have been unable to get the harsh changes that are needed. Polly's killer was also on parole if I am not mistaken.

[songline]

<<SNIP>>

So,, what can the average person do? I am honestly asking, as parents such as Marc Klass and John Walsh, as well as many more, have been unable to get the harsh changes that are needed. Polly's killer was also on parole if I am not mistaken.
I wish I had an answer for you :(
We keep doing what we do....Laws do change and it is slow in the making...KEEP writing to congress, keep writing to the heads of state, keep making a lot of noice and give facts....
They all look when it is election time....
Now with a bad economy...they are not going to add more LE to that area, they may only change some :(
I dont know.....

ALL OF THEM IN THAT COUNTY NE$D TO BE FIRED AND HAVE PENSIONS REMOVED it is not until they change the heads o that entire area - will anything happen.
But we should all be trying to find ways to reach out to government. Especially people like Walsh who has their ear....

[JusticeForVictims]

I wish I had an answear for you :(
We keep doing what we do....Laws do change and it is slow in the making...
Now with a bad economy...they are not going to add more LE to that area, they may only change some :(
I dont know.....
But we should all be trying to find ways to reach out to government. Especially people like Walsh who has their ear....

Just posted in the Oprah thread.
Keep the pressure on Government and feel good helping Adam Walsh.
Use his letter & send them in...

http://www.oprah.com/article/oprahshow/20090220-tows-adam-walsh-act

[songline]

Okay folks, I'm sure there's a political forum somewhere for that talk...
This was part of another post...And I do post in the Political forum,
You can be his fan all you want,
I will say thing of that nature in posts that fits the bill.

[checkercab]

[QUOTE=Tizzle;4
Can you please provide a link?[/QUOTE]

:back: Post #250 on NG Thread #1: NG was fired from Diamond Ridge Health
Centers as reported by "Globe"

[songline]

:back: Post #250 on NG Thread #1: NG was fired from Diamond Ridge Health
Centers as reported by "Globe"

I know you did not send this to me...but to Tizzle.
But I reply because someone asked me for the same link and I did not remember where I read it.
BUT...the Globe does not have anything on the JC story on their site. NADA that I can see.
If there are no stories on this case then there are no links unless somebody want to go scan it for you.
Some tabloids do post their stories on the web a while after the paper is in print ...OR they would go out of business, nobody would buy their paper.

[kbl8201]

I know you did not send this to me...but to Tizzle.
But I reply because someone asked me for the same link and I did not remember where I read it.
BUT...the Globe does not have anything on the JC story on their site. NADA that I can see.
If there are no stories on this case then there are no links unless somebody want to go scan it for you.
Some tabloids do post their stories on the web a while after the paper is in print ...OR they would go out of business, nobody would buy their paper.

i saw the globe in the store today and all it had was a brief article on sleyton. iroronically it makes him look much more human then the way he is potrayed here. the national enquirer is taking a jaycee break to trash elizabeth smart now.

[Missizzy]

What can you do? You can support your state's Crime Victims Advocacy group. In Oregon, many laws have been changed to support the victims and to extend sentences for SOs. Our family was greatly impacted by their work when it became clear that our children's rapist would not be released from the Oregon Youth Authority when he turned 21 but that jurisdiction could be held until he turned 25, due to a law pushed through by Crime Victims United. That gave us four more years of healing and saved who knows how many victims. These advocacy groups often are tireless in their lobbying but sorely underfunded. Research your state and support these groups!! Their very existence is to work for and support the victim.

[kbl8201]

What can you do? You can support your state's Crime Victims Advocacy group. In Oregon, many laws have been changed to support the victims and to extend sentences for SOs. Our family was greatly impacted by their work when it became clear that our children's rapist would not be released from the Oregon Youth Authority when he turned 21 but that jurisdiction could be held until he turned 25, due to a law pushed through by Crime Victims United. That gave us four more years of healing and saved who knows how many victims. These advocacy groups often are tireless in their lobbying but sorely underfunded. Research your state and support these groups!! Their very existence is to work for and support the victim.

i dont like oprah but agreed 100 percent with her today when she said to him 'when are we gonna make it that guys like these cant get out again?"

[flourish]

Corruption - when it begins at the top then there is a game called "you cover my butt and I will cover your butt".
Until we clean up the corruption in the government, it will continue to trickle all the way down.
AS you can see the head of the Police in CCC was a Violent Rapist, so as a result what do you see happen....They all cover for each other.....

Obama's platform was to change Corruption at the top :rolleyes:
That will obviously not happen :twocents:

bbm

This was part of another post...And I do post in the Political forum,
You can be his fan all you want,
I will say thing of that nature in posts that fits the bill.

I am still allowed to read and respond to parts of posts....I'm not sure why you mention that was part of another post...? :waitasec:

I am glad that you do post in the political forum.

Thank you for the permission to have my own political ideas.

When what you say could easily be considered off topic, and is political in nature, the political forum might be a better venue. When you make statements that you feel are facts, providing links and other supporting evidence is always appreciated. For example, you have expressed that you feel it's "obvious" that Obama hasn't done/doesn't intend to do anything to stop corruption in the government. It is not obvious to me. Perhaps you could provide me with some supporting evidence, like bills which have or have not been written or supported, etc. Something like that would be more helpful and would feel less inflammatory.

I certainly agree that the government agencies which are involved with the subject of this thread are corrupt. I've seen the evidence for that.

[songline]

i saw the globe in the store today and all it had was a brief article on sleyton. iroronically it makes him look much more human then the way he is potrayed here. the national enquirer is taking a jaycee break to trash Elizabeth smart now.

It was not the globe of this week, (an older one) where Nancy's Story was about being fired due to a drug test.

And Jeshhhh. I will have to go see the Enquirer. They best not trash elizabeth....

[kbl8201]

It was not the globe of this week, (an older one) where Nancy's Story was about being fired due to a drug test.

And Jeshhhh. I will have to go see the Enquirer. They best not trash elizabeth....

basically said she became a junkie during her captivity (smart that is). to my knowledge this is the first time i've ever heard that claimed

[songline]

basically said she became a junkie during her captivity (smart that is). to my knowledge this is the first time i've ever heard that claimed

It said that he gave her drugs and liquor so she would not be so obstinate. because the SOBMF raped her 4 times a day based on the People magazine story...
But...ENQUIRER gave it a title - that helps sell magazines.....

[songline]

bbm



I am still allowed to read and respond to parts of posts....I'm not sure why you mention that was part of another post...? :waitasec:

I am glad that you do post in the political forum.

Thank you for the permission to have my own political ideas.

When what you say could easily be considered off topic, and is political in nature, the political forum might be a better venue. When you make statements that you feel are facts, providing links and other supporting evidence is always appreciated. For example, you have expressed that you feel it's "obvious" that Obama hasn't done/doesn't intend to do anything to stop corruption in the government. It is not obvious to me. Perhaps you could provide me with some supporting evidence, like bills which have or have not been written or supported, etc. Something like that would be more helpful and would feel less inflammatory.

I certainly agree that the government agencies which are involved with the subject of this thread are corrupt. I've seen the evidence for that.
You don't want to be told what to write...Neither do I. So I will proceed my way...
You will see me reference political anything I wish when we are discussing us including government in our cry for change.
:snooty:

[flourish]

You don't want to be told what to write...Neither do I. So I will proceed my way...
You will see me reference political anything I wish when we are discussing us including government in our cry for change.
:snooty:

Again, it is always nice when supporting evidence is provided. I certainly never told you what to write. I expressed my strong preference for political comments to be on topic, and include supporting evidence. Still waiting for those links in regards to your original comment, btw. If you'd like to tell me how Obama's alleged corruption-supporting ways have influenced the Garrido case, I'd love to hear about it so I could be better informed. Otherwise, since you've made it clear you don't intend to offer your political opinions in a more informative, on-topic manner, then me saying anything else would just be :banghead:.

[kbl8201]

You don't want to be told what to write...Neither do I. So I will proceed my way...
You will see me reference political anything I wish when we are discussing us including government in our cry for change.
:snooty:

im not gonna apologize for my political views.
i hate all politicians equaly. :woohoo: