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!
Nancy Garrido - thread #2
- Thread starter arielilane
- Start date
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.
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
Verified insider- Mark Dribin case
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 26,743
- Reaction score
- 23,398
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).
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.
uhhhhhhh no defnse attorney is gonna get past the description carl gave which matches nancy even 18 years later
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?
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.
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.
exactly. they dont even have to time progress it to match it. she doesnt look much diffrent now other then wrinkle lines
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
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).
None of which is evidence that she was involved in the kidnapping. That is why testimony will be needed, to make that connection.
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.
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.