Are there other victims?

[Tizzle]

From page 4 of People's Opposition to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery:

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/02/11/10/ProtectiveOrder021110.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

(2) In June 1976 (South Lake Tahoe, California), Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 19 year old victim into his car. He then handcuffed her, kidnapped her and raped her.​

I never knew of this. I knew of the 14 year old in 72, KCH in 76 and the woman he tried to kidnap an hour before KCH. But I never knew of this 19 year old victim in June of 76. I wonder what ever came of that? Was he never charged? Did they only find out about this victim recently? Maybe another one came forward? Or am I mistaken and have heard of this victim before?

I guess that accounts for the "I've done this twice before" statement he made to KCH when he kidnapped and raped her. I wonder if it was really only twice, though. Seems like if he was going to brag about doing this twice before, he would have just gone all out and said "I've done this many times before". Especially since he was most likely making the statement in order to instill fear in her, in order to ensure compliance. Is it possible that JC, KCH, the 14 y.o., the 19 y.o. and the woman that escaped are the only victims?

 

[FlaJohn]

Since only around 50% of women go to the police after being raped it's doubtful that these are the only victims of PG.

 

[Tizzle]

I find it hard to believe that those I mentioned are the only victims, too. I didn't word my question correctly. Is it possible that the 14 y.o. (in 72), the 19 y.o., the woman that escaped just before Katie and KCH(in 76) are the only victims prior to 1976? Because I feel like he would have said to KCH "I've done this many times before." instead of "I've done this twice before." I think the reason that he told her he had successfully kidnapped and raped before was to frighten her and to gain further control over her. Wouldn't it benefit him to scare her even more by just being honest and saying he'd done it many times? That's why I'm thinking these may be his only victims prior to 1976. Although, he may have been a "date" rapist in his younger years and in his mind didn't consider it to be rape since the girls were on a "date" with him and didn't have to be kidnapped? Perhaps he considered them to be "willing"?:sick: We know what he is capable of. Who knows what other horrible pain he was able to inflict on others since 88? I shudder to think. :nerves:

What I really want to know is, when did LE learn of this 19 y.o. victim from June of 76? Is this new information to them or is it information from records back in 76 and, if so, why the hell wasn't he charged with kidnapping and raping this young woman? Also, it really bothers me that PG was able to get away with kidnapping and raping the 14 y.o. in 72 by having his attorney threaten her. Who was his attorney for that case? Anyone know?

 

[kbl8201]

tizz im not sure if there confusing that with the girl he tried to abduct the same night he took katie?

 

[songline]

I find it hard to believe that those I mentioned are the only victims, too. I didn't word my question correctly. Is it possible that the 14 y.o. (in 72), the 19 y.o., the woman that escaped just before Katie and KCH(in 76) are the only victims prior to 1976? Because I feel like he would have said to KCH "I've done this many times before." instead of "I've done this twice before." I think the reason that he told her he had successfully kidnapped and raped before was to frighten her and to gain further control over her. Wouldn't it benefit him to scare her even more by just being honest and saying he'd done it many times? That's why I'm thinking these may be his only victims prior to 1976. Although, he may have been a "date" rapist in his younger years and in his mind didn't consider it to be rape since the girls were on a "date" with him and didn't have to be kidnapped? Perhaps he considered them to be "willing"?:sick: We know what he is capable of. Who knows what other horrible pain he was able to inflict on others since 88? I shudder to think. :nerves:

What I really want to know is, when did LE learn of this 19 y.o. victim from June of 76? Is this new information to them or is it information from records back in 76 and, if so, why the hell wasn't he charged with kidnapping and raping this young woman? Also, it really bothers me that PG was able to get away with kidnapping and raping the 14 y.o. in 72 by having his attorney threaten her. Who was his attorney for that case? Anyone know?

Maybe Natal should read this - it may help him to understand why she was
scared out of her mind to just WALK as he put it.

 

[Tizzle]

tizz im not sure if there confusing that with the girl he tried to abduct the same night he took katie?

Nope. If you read the report, you will see that the woman that escaped is mentioned, also. Unless the DA has it wrong, and I certainly hope not since I'm not really comfortable with the prosecution "confusing" anything, the 19 y.o. is a newly mentioned victim.

 

[Tizzle]

I don't think Natal has a problem understanding why JC couldn't or wouldn't walk. I've never felt that he is "anti-JC" since posting with him here. Natal is simply pointing out the tactics that the defense WILL try to use in this case. It's unfortunate, but most of what he says is what they will try to do to JC. Natal has even said how disgusting he feels the Garridos are. Be mad at the defense and their tactics and not Natal for being realistic.
JMO

 

[songline]

I don't think Natal has a problem understanding why JC couldn't or wouldn't walk. I've never felt that he is "anti-JC" since posting with him here. Natal is simply pointing out the tactics that the defense WILL try to use in this case. It's unfortunate, but most of what he says is what they will try to do to JC. Natal has even said how disgusting he feels the Garridos are. Be mad at the defense and their tactics and not Natal for being realistic.
JMO

Made it very clear to us that the Gs have a soul and deserve consideration. HE DID ...
So I really do not see a care for real justice. He also said she could walk....

I did give him the benefit of doubt but he made it clear himself.
Playing devils advocate sometimes is just a disguise.
read his posts on PGs attorney thread and you will see what he is really saying.
nobody put words in his mouth.

WE ALL know there are 2 sides in a courtroom, we all know that attorneys have a job...
The position one takes :innocent: you decide.

 

[Billylee]

From page 4 of People's Opposition to Defense Motion to Compel Discovery:

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2010/02/11/10/ProtectiveOrder021110.source.prod_affiliate.4.pdf

(2) In June 1976 (South Lake Tahoe, California), Defendant Phillip Garrido talked his 19 year old victim into his car. He then handcuffed her, kidnapped her and raped her.​

I never knew of this. I knew of the 14 year old in 72, KCH in 76 and the woman he tried to kidnap an hour before KCH. But I never knew of this 19 year old victim in June of 76. I wonder what ever came of that? Was he never charged? Did they only find out about this victim recently? Maybe another one came forward? Or am I mistaken and have heard of this victim before?

I guess that accounts for the "I've done this twice before" statement he made to KCH when he kidnapped and raped her. I wonder if it was really only twice, though. Seems like if he was going to brag about doing this twice before, he would have just gone all out and said "I've done this many times before". Especially since he was most likely making the statement in order to instill fear in her, in order to ensure compliance. Is it possible that JC, KCH, the 14 y.o., the 19 y.o. and the woman that escaped are the only victims?

News to me also. I don't ever recall this unless it's the person that reported an attempted that same night as Katie and they have the date wrong. It is REALLY weird that we haven't heard of this before and it makes me wonder, just how many more there may be that had a PG encounter of some kind that have maybe now come forward and that LE is holding close to their chests?

 

[kbl8201]

i mean it sounds just like the attempt he made the night katie was kidnapped.
i too wonder if they botched this

 

[Tizzle]

i mean it sounds just like the attempt he made the night katie was kidnapped.
i too wonder if they botched this

How does it sound just like the attempt he made earlier on the night KCH was kidnapped and raped?

In the People's Opposition document it says in JUNE of 1976 he lured a 19 y.o. into his car, handcuffed her, kidnapped her and raped her.

On November 22, 1976, at around 6:30P.M., PG talked a 25 y.o. woman into giving him a ride, he handcuffed her and attempted to kidnap her, but she was fortunate enough to escape without being raped. An hour later, at around 7:30P.M., he abducted another 25 y.o. woman, known to us as KCH.

One was raped, the other was able to escape. One was 19, the other was 25. One assault occured using his vehicle, the other occured in the victim's vehicle. One assault occured in June, the other in November.

These two cases are not similar enough to suggest that the prosecution has "botched" anything. It's clear in the document and PG DID say to KCH he had "done this twice before". So, my guess is this is an actual victim that we are just learning about. ANOTHER one. If you were to read the document, perhaps it would be easier for you to understand.

 

[songline]

i mean it sounds just like the attempt he made the night katie was kidnapped.
i too wonder if they botched this

:waitasec:
are you saying they just botched everything?
If you are saying that, you are correct.
Not sure what you are saying.

 

[kbl8201]

sorry i didnt read the full article. i was busy on other cases last night and didnt get much time to spend here cause i didnt see much new till the parole records came out.

 

[Natal]

I never knew of this. I knew of the 14 year old in 72, KCH in 76 and the woman he tried to kidnap an hour before KCH. But I never knew of this 19 year old victim in June of 76. I wonder what ever came of that? Was he never charged? Did they only find out about this victim recently? Maybe another one came forward? Or am I mistaken and have heard of this victim before?

I would guess that it is a statute of limitations thing. It could be that the charges were dropped for lack of evidence or that a complaint was never made.

 

[Natal]

Made it very clear to us that the Gs have a soul and deserve consideration. HE DID ...

Lol..Actually I said the girls have souls, but you can read whatever you want :crazy:

 

[Delrod]

Made it very clear to us that the Gs have a soul and deserve consideration. HE DID ...
So I really do not see a care for real justice. He also said she could walk....

I did give him the benefit of doubt but he made it clear himself.
Playing devils advocate sometimes is just a disguise.
read his posts on PGs attorney thread and you will see what he is really saying.
nobody put words in his mouth.

In all fairness to Natal, if you are talking about the comment a few days ago about the 2 souls deserving considerations, if you go back and read that again objectively, plus the clarification that Natal made later, it is very obvious that he/she was talking about the girls NOT the Garridos

 

[kbl8201]

In all fairness to Natal, if you are talking about the comment a few days ago about the 2 souls deserving considerations, if you go back and read that again objectively, plus the clarification that Natal made later, it is very obvious that he/she was talking about the girls NOT the Garridos

if you read the posts he's made for the past 5 months you could see where the mistake would be made.

 

[LinasK]

In all fairness to Natal, if you are talking about the comment a few days ago about the 2 souls deserving considerations, if you go back and read that again objectively, plus the clarification that Natal made later, it is very obvious that he/she was talking about the girls NOT the Garridos

No, it was not obvious to me, or I wouldn't have asked for clarification. Natal has taken up defense for the Garrido's at times, he seems to enjoy this role, so I wouldn't have thought the soles to be the girls...

 

[songline]

No, it was not obvious to me, or I wouldn't have asked for clarification. Natal has taken up defense for the Garrido's at times, he seems to enjoy this role, so I wouldn't have thought the soles to be the girls...

I am totally with you, you could not have said it better.
WELL SAID.
and anyone who takes up defense for Garrido IMHO is highly questionable; I would not want to be on the same street with anyone who is standing up for the Garrido's. :no:

 

[songline]

In all fairness to Natal, if you are talking about the comment a few days ago about the 2 souls deserving considerations, if you go back and read that again objectively, plus the clarification that Natal made later, it is very obvious that he/she was talking about the girls NOT the Garridos

Actually it was an assumption on my part that he was talking about the girls.
Linask asked which 2 souls he meant to get clarification and he helped out and clarified. then I got sick. :sick:
He clarified it very clearly that he was stalking about the Garridos.
In fact after he had done that I posted that I was embarrassed to assume he meant the girls.

It was an innocent assumption, I would have never thought he'd mean the G's.
But Linask was wise enough to ask.