Nancy Garrido - thread #2

[SunnieRN]

Originally Posted by Billylee

I agree Sunnie, IMO the only reason they'd be inclined to offer Nancy anything is if she KNOWS anything about other possible victims. And I also think that the dementia thing is over rated! However, I have a mother in law living with me who has beginning dementia and it can affect different memory patterns. My mother in law can remember everything from her childhood and even stuff from as near as 5 years ago. But she can't remember what doctor she saw yesterday, or last month or what she had for breakfast. So her dementia is having problem with making "new" memories. It's actually very difficult for her and all of us, but anyway, point is, dementia can differ among people. Some lose short term memory, some lose long term, some lose it all.
Sounds to me like Patricia's long term memory is pretty much in tact. (I'm still not sure they didn't just have her constant drugged up.) And I'm with you, that comment about Phillip not be hurt or scarred prison, makes me wonder what that was all about. Also, she stated that Nancy came to take care of her, that was in what year? It wasn't 81, was it? I thought it was more like 86? Anyway, how old was Patricia when Nancy moved in with her? Anybody know?

Hi Billylee, we've had the discussion prior to this, but when Ron Garrido said:

Their mother still lives at the home but has suffered major dementia for about eight years, according to her son. On Thursday, she was at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez.

http://www.sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/ar...MNHQ19EU4O.DTL

People "suffering from major dementia for eight years" will have some problems. Will they be totally out there, unable to remember everything? No, but there should be confusion of some short or long term memory. Major is a word obviously given to him by someone. Was it by pg to circumvent culpability in case he was caught? Was it a medical professional (which I highly doubt he brought her to appointments, or he would have said that), or was she really just a little bit forgetful and she doesn't have "major dementia".

Not trying to argue with YOU Billylee, but with the concept that she had a major memory problem. Doesn't seem to fit, with the interview she gave.

Caring for a dementia or alzheimers victim is a major undertaking. I admire you for all that you do for your Mother in law!!! I hope you have respite care at times so you can have a break!!

[kbl8201]

Originally Posted by SunnieRN

Hi Billylee, we've had the discussion prior to this, but when Ron Garrido said:

Their mother still lives at the home but has suffered major dementia for about eight years, according to her son. On Thursday, she was at the Contra Costa Regional Medical Center in Martinez.

http://www.sfchronicle.us/cgi-bin/ar...MNHQ19EU4O.DTL

People "suffering from major dementia for eight years" will have some problems. Will they be totally out there, unable to remember everything? No, but there should be confusion of some short or long term memory. Major is a word obviously given to him by someone. Was it by pg to circumvent culpability in case he was caught? Was it a medical professional (which I highly doubt he brought her to appointments, or he would have said that), or was she really just a little bit forgetful and she doesn't have "major dementia".

Not trying to argue with YOU Billylee, but with the concept that she had a major memory problem. Doesn't seem to fit, with the interview she gave.

Caring for a dementia or alzheimers victim is a major undertaking. I admire you for all that you do for your Mother in law!!! I hope you have respite care at times so you can have a break!!

she could have been drooling on a bib for the last 8 years for all i care.
all that matters is she obviously knew about jaycee, knew almost from the start, thought garrido was her father and was was still fathering kids with her, and had no problem with it.

[Billylee]

Originally Posted by time

Is that an actual picture of Garrido playing guitar at 2:42 with the long hair and beard?

Yes, and see how much lighter his hair looks. I've made this comment several times, the guy seemed to change his appearance a lot! Short, long, lighter, darker, mustache, no mustache. I wonder why?

[Tizzle]

Originally Posted by Billylee

Yes, and see how much lighter his hair looks. I've made this comment several times, the guy seemed to change his appearance a lot! Short, long, lighter, darker, mustache, no mustache. I wonder why?

Most people's appearance changes over time. I don't look exactly the same as I did 5 years ago, I didn't look the same 5 years ago as I did 5 years before that and so on. Sometimes I look back and think "What was I thinking?" The same is true for most people, even you if you think about it. New hairstyles/lengths, different eyewear, men change facial hairstyles. I don't know that PG's hair ever changed unnaturally. I think it only looks dark in certain pictures and maybe lighter in others, like many dark blonde to light brown haircolors do, depending on the lighting and over/underexposure of the film. Mine does, anyway.

JMO, but I don't think PG's appearance changes are all that unusual. NG's appearance changed a lot in all of the pictures I've seen of her, as well. It's normal. I do, however, think it's important for LE to take note of his different appearances over the years to compare to other possible missing persons cases.

[kbl8201]

Originally Posted by Tizzle

Most people's appearance changes over time. I don't look exactly the same as I did 5 years ago, I didn't look the same 5 years ago as I did 5 years before that and so on. Sometimes I look back and think "What was I thinking?" The same is true for most people, even you if you think about it. New hairstyles/lengths, different eyewear, men change facial hairstyles. I don't know that PG's hair ever changed unnaturally. I think it only looks dark in certain pictures and maybe lighter in others, like many dark blonde to light brown haircolors do, depending on the lighting and over/underexposure of the film. Mine does, anyway.

JMO, but I don't think PG's appearance changes are all that unusual. NG's appearance changed a lot in all of the pictures I've seen of her, as well. It's normal. I do, however, think it's important for LE to take note of his different appearances over the years to compare to other possible missing persons cases.

yeah i mean katie had obviously looked diffrent since 1976 but garrido recognized her on site.
jaycee hadnt seen aunt tina in over 18 years but knew it was her instantly. there's just certian qualities that doont change

[Tizzle]

Originally Posted by kbl8201

yeah i mean katie had obviously looked diffrent since 1976 but garrido recognized her on site.
jaycee hadnt seen aunt tina in over 18 years but knew it was her instantly. there's just certian qualities that doont change

I don't think I said that ALL of a person's physical attributes would change, just the basic ones that Billy was referring to like hairstyle and facial hair, also eyewear. PG is still recognizable as PG in all of the photos I've seen of him. I recognize most people from elementary, junior high and high school after all these years, but rarely do I come across one that still has the same hair style or that hasn't grown a beard or a moustache over the years.

[kbl8201]

Originally Posted by Tizzle

I don't think I said that ALL of a person's physical attributes would change, just the basic ones that Billy was referring to like hairstyle and facial hair, also eyewear. PG is still recognizable as PG in all of the photos I've seen of him. I recognize most people from elementary, junior high and high school after all these years, but rarely do I come across one that still has the same hair style or that hasn't grown a beard or a moustache over the years.

i know.
i think i need we need a kbl to english dictionary here lol.
i was agreeing with you tizzle

[anthroamy]

http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2315213.html

By Sam Stanton
sstanton@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Nov. 9, 2009 - 10:37 am

Nancy Garrido's court-appointed attorney has been removed from the case, pending a possible appeal later this month, court records indicate.

The move took place last Thursday in a secret court hearing during which only Nancy Garrido, defense attorney Gilbert Maines, court staff and security officers were present, according to El Dorado County Superior Court records.

A court order issued the day before the hearing indicates that "the court is in receipt of confidential evidence," but there is no indication of what it might be.

The hearing itself was held behind closed doors, and afterward Judge Douglas Phimister ordered Maines relieved as Garrido's attorney. The judge also ordered that Maines' removal be stayed until Nov. 30 and that if an appeal is issued it will be sealed.

All records of the Thursday hearing also were ordered sealed.

Maines and Deputy District Attorney James Clinchard did not respond to telephone messages today, but a veteran defense attorney and former prosecutor said it appears as though Garrido sought the removal of her attorney in what is referred to as a "Marsden hearing."

"Ninety-nine times out of 100 that's how it works," said attorney William J. Portanova. "One time out of 100 it's the attorney who wants out of the case."

Maines was in the national spotlight after being appointed as Garrido's attorney and appearing on NBC's Today show, where he said his client was "distraught" and "scared" and "seems to be a little lost."

He also said he planned to have his client evaluated to assess her state of mind.

Authorities believe Nancy Garrido may have been the one who grabbed Jaycee Lee Dugard and pulled her into a car with her husband, Phillip, in 1991 when Dugard was an 11-year-old girl walking to her school bus stop.

Both are charged with kidnap, rape and other charges and are believed to have held Dugard for 18 years, most of the time in the backyard of the Garrido's Antioch-area home.

Both have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which could send them to prison for life.

The Garridos, who being held at the El Dorado County Jail, are scheduled to return to court Dec. 11 as their case proceeds.

[time]

Hmmm??? ... thanks anthro.

I wonder what's up, probably that Nancy asked he be removed... I wouldn't doubt Phillip is behind it one way or another, maybe they didn't want her state of mind assessed

[anthroamy]

Originally Posted by time

Hmmm??? ... thanks anthro.

I wonder what's up, probably that Nancy asked he be removed... I wouldn't doubt Phillip is behind it one way or another, maybe they didn't want her state of mind assessed

Do you think it's feasible that Phillip wrote to her in jail and told her to get rid of her PD?

[songline]

Removing Nancy's attorney can very well be a delay tactic. since the next hearing is on December 11 they may ask for a postponement till her new lawyer is up to speed.

He is better off not defending her anyway. JMO
I cant see it adding to his career at all, yes it is high profile but he can only get hate mail from this case.

[Billylee]

Has it been brought up in this thread that Nancy is actually charged in a separate charge with forcible rape in this case? I looked over the threads here and really didn't see anyone discussing that, but, unless she confessed that, which I doubt, that information had to come from either Jaycee or Phillip, correct?

[my2sisters]

I just now saw these posts about Nancy's attorney. Ooops, I started a new thread, sorry.

[time]

Originally Posted by anthroamy

Do you think it's feasible that Phillip wrote to her in jail and told her to get rid of her PD?

I'd bet they have exchanged contact somehow. Phillip knows all the ropes on how to do this from being in prison before. I'm not ready yet to think Nancy is being controlled by him though - I think they could work together to strategize and I think she knows darn well that she isn't going to get off much by claiming she was a victim or making any deals. On the other hand, maybe Phillip got word that he would out her on something else if she followed the victim path! Who knows what the two of them have up their proverbial sleeves.

[time]

Originally Posted by Billylee

Has it been brought up in this thread that Nancy is actually charged in a separate charge with forcible rape in this case? I looked over the threads here and really didn't see anyone discussing that, but, unless she confessed that, which I doubt, that information had to come from either Jaycee or Phillip, correct?

Interesting... I missed that also, that might have been brought up earlier?

[Billylee]

Originally Posted by time

Interesting... I missed that also, that might have been brought up earlier?

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!

[anthroamy]

Originally Posted by Billylee

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!

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

[Billylee]

Originally Posted by anthroamy

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

In reading it, I think maybe the kidnapping charge has a lot to do with "detaining" so that's probably why there's a longer timespan. But what gets me is "rape" is "rape" (I think?) and that Nancy is actually charge with rape. So my question is if she didn't confess to that, which I doubt she did. then the "rape" allegation either came from Jaycee saying that Nancy did rape her, or PG said that Nancy raped Jaycee? Where's a legal mind when we need one???? lol

[anthroamy]

Originally Posted by Billylee

In reading it, I think maybe the kidnapping charge has a lot to do with "detaining" so that's probably why there's a longer timespan. But what gets me is "rape" is "rape" (I think?) and that Nancy is actually charge with rape. So my question is if she didn't confess to that, which I doubt she did. then the "rape" allegation either came from Jaycee saying that Nancy did rape her, or PG said that Nancy raped Jaycee? Where's a legal mind when we need one???? lol

But that's what I'm saying, I think in CA you don't have to actually rape someone to be charged with rape, you can ENABLE someone to commit rape and still be charged with rape. Nancy would have enabled Phillip to rape Jaycee by kidnapping Jaycee for him, holding her captive for that purpose, never telling anyone or freeing her, etc.

Not sure what you mean by detaining about the kidnap charge? She was kidnapped on 6/10/1991. They have separate false imprisonment charges.

What's interesting date wise is that the charges generally run a span from the 1st of the month through the 30th or 31st, except the kidnapping charge which spans the date of the actual kidnapping through 5/3/1994. The only other charge to be dated that way is the Lewd Acts charge for that year: 1/1/94-5/3/94. Is 5/3/1994 when PG was sent back to prison?

ETA: my mistake. He was sent back to prison in 1993.

[Natal]

Originally Posted by Billylee

Has it been brought up in this thread that Nancy is actually charged in a separate charge with forcible rape in this case? I looked over the threads here and really didn't see anyone discussing that, but, unless she confessed that, which I doubt, that information had to come from either Jaycee or Phillip, correct?

No, they have been charged with the same counts. I did a summary of them

here

here

[Billylee]

Originally Posted by anthroamy

But that's what I'm saying, I think in CA you don't have to actually rape someone to be charged with rape, you can ENABLE someone to commit rape and still be charged with rape. Nancy would have enabled Phillip to rape Jaycee by kidnapping Jaycee for him, holding her captive for that purpose, never telling anyone or freeing her, etc.

Also, not sure what you mean by detaining?

What's interesting date wise is that the charges generally run a span from the 1st of the month through the 30th or 31st, except the kidnapping charge which spans the date of the actual kidnapping through 5/3/1994. The only other charge to be dated that way is the Lewd Acts charge for that year: 1/1/94-5/3/94. Is 5/3/1994 when PG was sent back to prison?

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". ????

[anthroamy]

Originally Posted by Natal

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.

[anthroamy]

Originally Posted by Billylee

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

[SunnieRN]

Originally Posted by anthroamy

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!!

[time]

Originally Posted by Billylee

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.