No, that was 1993. I wish I could get this pdf copy to post, but it won't. The kidnapping charge (count I) actually states "detained". Then there's a charge kidnapping for sexual purposes (count II) , a separate charge (both NG & PG are implicated there) Then there's (countIII) forcible rape, implicating only PG. Then there's (count IV) forciible rape, implicating only NG, with the same exact words as the count III on Phillip. Doesn't seem to mean "aiding" seems to mean "rape". ????
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Nancy Garrido - thread #2
- Thread starter arielilane
- Start date
No, that was 1993. I wish I could get this pdf copy to post, but it won't. The kidnapping charge (count I) actually states "detained". Then there's a charge kidnapping for sexual purposes (count II) , a separate charge (both NG & PG are implicated there) Then there's (countIII) forcible rape, implicating only PG. Then there's (count IV) forciible rape, implicating only NG, with the same exact words as the count III on Phillip. Doesn't seem to mean "aiding" seems to mean "rape". ????
No, they have been charged with the same counts. I did a summary of them here
Thanks for linking that. Re-reading it answered a couple of my questions.
No, that was 1993. I wish I could get this pdf copy to post, but it won't. The kidnapping charge (count I) actually states "detained". Then there's a charge kidnapping for sexual purposes (count II) , a separate charge (both NG & PG are implicated there) Then there's (countIII) forcible rape, implicating only PG. Then there's (count IV) forciible rape, implicating only NG, with the same exact words as the count III on Phillip. Doesn't seem to mean "aiding" seems to mean "rape". ????
Here we go, BBM:
After the hearing, Chief Assistant District Attorney William Clark refused to specify Nancy Garrido's role or detail the evidence prosecutors have.
"She's legally charged with rape based on the theory she participated in it," he said. "We don't have to prove she physically did a rape. All we have to prove is she aided and abetted with knowledge of the crime."
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_13223052
Here we go, BBM:
After the hearing, Chief Assistant District Attorney William Clark refused to specify Nancy Garrido's role or detail the evidence prosecutors have.
"She's legally charged with rape based on the theory she participated in it," he said. "We don't have to prove she physically did a rape. All we have to prove is she aided and abetted with knowledge of the crime."
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_13223052
Thank you for the link!! I would say that Jaycee having 2 children proves that beyond a reasonable doubt!!
Yeah, I just went back and looked at the actual charges, for some reason I can't copy it here?
This makes me wonder if PG is trying to pin it all on NG. That'd be a switch!
Who knows what they/he might try ... maybe he thinks if Nancy is not using the victim defense, she can claim she just kidnapped Jaycee and Phillip wasn't the one driving the car? Ok, wacky, I know... just going through claims they could make and that is one of them. I tend to think that for one reason or another, PG does not want Nancy to have a victim defense and/or be tested mentally? I guess I haven't thought this all through.
There's some reason to get rid of her lawyer. My thoughts on that tend towards she told him something and doesn't want it to effect his representation of her or help in any claim of something Phillip did? He would still have to maintain lawyer/client confidentiality I think. Could just be Phillip wants a coordinated story and needs to get rid of her current lawyer to do that? I think Nancy as the victim doesn't fit well with the changed man story.
Here we go, BBM:
After the hearing, Chief Assistant District Attorney William Clark refused to specify Nancy Garrido's role or detail the evidence prosecutors have.
"She's legally charged with rape based on the theory she participated in it," he said. "We don't have to prove she physically did a rape. All we have to prove is she aided and abetted with knowledge of the crime."
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_13223052
So, even though the charge doesn't read it, you get charged with rape even thought you physically didn't rape anyone? Funny, you don't get charged with murder when you didn't murder anyone do you? Wouldn't that charge be aiding and abetting? (Glad I'm not a lawyer!) OTH I was thinking these are, again, just "charges" perhaps they put them all out there and then prove what they may?
Who knows what they/he might try ... maybe he thinks if Nancy is not using the victim defense, she can claim she just kidnapped Jaycee and Phillip wasn't the one driving the car? Ok, wacky, I know... just going through claims they could make and that is one of them. I tend to think that for one reason or another, PG does not want Nancy to have a victim defense and/or be tested mentally? I guess I haven't thought this all through.
There's some reason to get rid of her lawyer. My thoughts on that tend towards she told him something and doesn't want it to effect his representation of her or help in any claim of something Phillip did? He would still have to maintain lawyer/client confidentiality I think. Could just be Phillip wants a coordinated story and needs to get rid of her current lawyer to do that? I think Nancy as the victim doesn't fit well with the changed man story.
You have a lot of interesting ideas within this one post!! I don't think that pg would allow ng to turn states evidence for a lesser sentence, without a fight. I am sure that she is still very much controlled by him mentally! I have a feeling that her lawyer was pressing her to testify against pg in turn for a lighter sentence or to drop the charges down to a lower level. pg could have possibly learned of this through ng or his lawyer, setting off a chain reaction.
So, even though the charge doesn't read it, you get charged with rape even thought you physically didn't rape anyone? Funny, you don't get charged with murder when you didn't murder anyone do you? Wouldn't that charge be aiding and abetting? (Glad I'm not a lawyer!) OTH I was thinking these are, again, just "charges" perhaps they put them all out there and then prove what they may?
I thought you could be charged with murder, if you were with someone or helped them commit the crime, even if you didn't perform the actual act? Tells you how much I don't know!
Thank you for the link!! I would say that Jaycee having 2 children proves that beyond a reasonable doubt!!
I know, right!
On a slightly related note, I don't care what anyone says, I seriously doubt NG "helped" deliver those babies with her CNA skills. I was hospitalized for a month before I had my son, and even the CNA's who worked specifically in the maternity wing did nothing related to my medical care. They were nice people, they were great about bringing me anything I wanted comfort-wise, and goodness knows I was happy to see any smiling face, but they quite obviously had little to no specialized medical knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)
accessory to murder vs being the principal murderer
accessory to murder vs being the principal murderer
You have a lot of interesting ideas within this one post!! I don't think that pg would allow ng to turn states evidence for a lesser sentence, without a fight. I am sure that she is still very much controlled by him mentally! I have a feeling that her lawyer was pressing her to testify against pg in turn for a lighter sentence or to drop the charges down to a lower level. pg could have possibly learned of this through ng or his lawyer, setting off a chain reaction.
Haha ... I'm not very focused today!
No, he would not want her to make a plea deal and claiming she was a victim and having her psychologically evaluated would be a part of that, I think.
Please forgive me having zero links right now to back this up, but IIRC it is because in CA if you are an accomplice to certain types of crimes you can be charged as a full participant.
I counted 6 forcible rape charges for each of them. Frankly, I don't understand the way the charges read at all. Why would they charge them with forcible lewd acts on a child, specifying that sexual intercourse took place, instead of more forcible rape charges? Why do each of the charges cover such a large time span? Why do they give a date of "between 10th June 1991 and 3rd May 1994" for the kidnapping charge? Most of the dates make no sense to me, but I would think of all the dates for charges that the kidnapping would be the easiest to pin down
BBM
JC turned 14 on "3rd May 1994". I think the charges are different for kidnapping someone under the age of 14. The reason for these dates could be because she turned 14, which would also change the charges against P&N. This might also explain the "forcible lewd acts on a child" charges vs "forcible rape" charges.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)
accessory to murder vs being the principal murderer
Thanks for that link. Nancy wouldn't be an accessory as much as she would be an "accomplice", which has according to the article, replaced the word "abettor". From the wiki article:
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal (the principal) is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
In older sources, an accomplice was often referred to as an abettor. This term is not in active use, having been replaced by accomplice.
At law, an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. As such, the three accomplices to the bank robbery above can also be found guilty of armed robbery even though only one stole the money.
So I guess they don't have to specify "accomplice" when they make the charges because the perp is considered as guilty as the one actually committing the crime?
Any way, IMO, Nancy isn't receiving diddly from PG, they didn't even LOOK at one another at the prelim. I think the opposite is going on, she's try to save her own arse and is trying to find an attorney who will help her do it? JMO
BBM
JC turned 14 on "3rd May 1994". I think the charges are different for kidnapping someone under the age of 14. The reason for these dates could be because she turned 14, which would also change the charges against P&N. This might also explain the "forcible lewd acts on a child" charges vs "forcible rape" charges.
You're absolutely right about the kidnapping charge, thank you.
It doesn't explain the forcible lewd acts, though. I looked up the code a while back. FLA can be applied concurrently with a forcible rape charge, as it is in the charges spanning 6/10/1991-7/10/1991. That time period charges NG & PG each with two counts of forcible rape and one count each forcible lewd acts. After that they're each charged with 6 FLA spanning the time period between 7/11/91 through 5/3/1994, Jaycee's 14th birthday. Forcible rape charges resume 12/1/1994. Since the FLA charges state that intercourse took place and substantial sexual contact occurred why not more concurrent rape charges? The 1993 and 1994 time periods would also cover the conception of Jaycee's oldest daughter, so I think it would be easier to prove than the 1991 charges.
You're absolutely right about the kidnapping charge, thank you.
It doesn't explain the forcible lewd acts, though. I looked up the code a while back. FLA can be applied concurrently with a forcible rape charge, as it is in the charges spanning 6/10/1991-7/10/1991. That time period charges NG & PG each with two counts of forcible rape and one count each forcible lewd acts. After that they're each charged with 6 FLA spanning the time period between 7/11/91 through 5/3/1994, Jaycee's 14th birthday. Forcible rape charges resume 12/1/1994. Since the FLA charges state that intercourse took place and substantial sexual contact occurred why not more concurrent rape charges? The 1993 and 1994 time periods would also cover the conception of Jaycee's oldest daughter, so I think it would be easier to prove than the 1991 charges.
That is interesting! Seems really odd the forcible rape wouldn't have been there, specifically for the years her daughters were conceived. Also made me think there should be charges in here of administering drugs or something, to a minor if they had done so, but I don't really know if they'd bother with that with all this other stuff?
I thought you could be charged with murder, if you were with someone or helped them commit the crime, even if you didn't perform the actual act? Tells you how much I don't know!
felony murder depending on what state your in.
You're absolutely right about the kidnapping charge, thank you.
It doesn't explain the forcible lewd acts, though. I looked up the code a while back. FLA can be applied concurrently with a forcible rape charge, as it is in the charges spanning 6/10/1991-7/10/1991. That time period charges NG & PG each with two counts of forcible rape and one count each forcible lewd acts. After that they're each charged with 6 FLA spanning the time period between 7/11/91 through 5/3/1994, Jaycee's 14th birthday. Forcible rape charges resume 12/1/1994. Since the FLA charges state that intercourse took place and substantial sexual contact occurred why not more concurrent rape charges? The 1993 and 1994 time periods would also cover the conception of Jaycee's oldest daughter, so I think it would be easier to prove than the 1991 charges.
just reading thru the lines here but..........
this would indicate jaycee's first daughter was born shortly before 12/1/94 and then the rapes resumed till her second daughter was born 3/4 years later? it says the charges resume, 12/1/94, not end
Those charges were drawn up pretty soon after the arrest, they wouldn't have had time to do a full investigation and victim interview, so I think that the charges as listed were basically a catch all based on what they knew and/or suspected at the time.
just reading thru the lines here but..........
this would indicate jaycee's first daughter was born shortly before 12/1/94 and then the rapes resumed till her second daughter was born 3/4 years later? it says the charges resume, 12/1/94, not end
I'm sorry, I don't really follow what you're saying. The PDF of the charges is linked in the Official Documents sticky thread at the top of the forum, maybe you would like to take a look?
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 185
- Guests online
- 4,080
- Total visitors
- 4,265
Totals may include hidden visitors.