Question and Answer Thread **No Discussion**

Discussion in 'Jaycee Lee Dugard' started by kbl8201, Sep 28, 2009.

  1. LillyRush

    LillyRush Active Member

    Messages:
    1,438
    Likes Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Do we know what timeframe that barber (hairstylist, whatever lol) was typically cutting his hair? I thought he was referred to as his former barber? So, maybe he was talking about a past memory and the girls who are now 11 and 15 actually were a lot younger when he saw them?

    There is also that other neighbor who said that she saw a young girl through the fence and when she asked her name the girl ran away. I believe that was the same neighbor who said she saw Patricia Garrido driving around. I watched a video with her making those statements on Radar Online. But, again, I seem to recall that she didn't give a specific date or timeframe for when she allegedly saw those things. I'll have to go look around for the Radar Online link.
     


  2. txsvicki

    txsvicki Active Member

    Messages:
    14,192
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    38

    If this is all true it would fit the timeline. The neighbor reported seeing about age 4 blonde girls in, I believe, 2006. A few years later they could be about age seven and been seen by the barber. The neighbor was concerned enough to alert authorities and Barbers cut lots of kids' hair, so they should be able to recognize a younger child when they see one especially with someone like PG. That ought to make it even more memorable since he is so strange.
     
  3. my2sisters

    my2sisters New Member

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  4. cindysue

    cindysue New Member

    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Im wondering who was taking care of PG mother while they went on vacation?
     
  5. songline

    songline New Member

    Messages:
    20,159
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    JC took care of the original demon seed. :crazy:-
    I do not think she went to SF with them.
     
  6. my2sisters

    my2sisters New Member

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I could have sworn that I read newspaper articles with 2 different versions of the '92 tipster report. The SFGate article says, "He said dispatchers would have alerted other officers to be on the lookout for the van, and that a copy of the report had been sent to investigators in El Dorado County, who were leading the search for Dugard."

    I thought I read a different one that said El Dorado County said they did NOT receive the report, but I can't find it now. Am I losing it or does anyone else remember reading this too?
     
  7. kbl8201

    kbl8201 Former Member

    Messages:
    6,340
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    there is so much contradictory stuff out there, and on top of that LE Agencies trying to cover there behinds. so who knows what the real story is.
     
  8. Jersey*Girl

    Jersey*Girl New Member

    Messages:
    10,266
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Something's been on my mind since Jaycee advised who she was and that she had 2 children with the perp. Jaycee has stated that that her abductor didn't molest their children, however for me, it's very hard to believe. This question makes me feel ill but one that is bothering me very much. If it comes out that Jaycee's children were molested, and that she was aware of it but was afraid, therefore didn't seek help, could she possibly pay a penalty for that? The reason I'm asking is b/c I can't find any law regarding such issue which would protect the mother that suffered abuse herself, whom did not in return seek protection for her children from the same harm. I understand her mind may not be there as she is an incredible survivor of severe abuse, but would she be protected under the law if something did happen to her children that went unreported? This is something that's been bothering me for a long time, ever since it was reported she had children with this man. I would think she should be protected, I just haven't found proof to back up that idea of protection. Anybody know?
     
  9. kbl8201

    kbl8201 Former Member

    Messages:
    6,340
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i beieve her when she says the kids werent molested.......at least not to her knowledge. and i dont think she will face ramificatins if they were.
    she isnt nancy.........she's the victim here not one of the perpetrators.
     
  10. JenB

    JenB Member

    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I thought I'd read that in the initial meeting with the campus security officer, the girls referred to an older sister at home.

    Were they aware that Jaycee was their mother? Did she raise them as her children or were they raised as PG and NG's children, as though Jaycee was their sister?

    Was Jaycee the only one living outside in the tent compound, if the girls were sleeping inside with PG every night (according to him)?
     
  11. my2sisters

    my2sisters New Member

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The girls thought Jaycee was their sister. Jaycee had to tell them that she was actually their Mother, but I don't know at what point in the arrest procedure she did that.
     
  12. time

    time New Member

    Messages:
    9,379
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I forget how many time the fire dept was at Garrido's house, but new reports said he was cooking meth in the car in the back yard. Is this possibly what caused the fires and has anyone in the news reported on these two things as connected?

    Also, what is the deal with the one car being halfway buried in the backyard?
     
  13. time

    time New Member

    Messages:
    9,379
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Does anyone know the address of the Bay Point rental property that was raided by the police?
     
  14. anthroamy

    anthroamy New Member

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I posted this under the "charges" thread, but decided to put it here, too.

    ****
    I have a question....

    Why are some of the charges "forcible rape" and others are "forcible lewd act upon a child" which then go on to say that the victim stated that intercourse took place during the acts and that "force, violence, threats, duress, menace, and threat of great bodily harm" were used? Is there some kind of subtle difference or advantage to charging them with lewd acts on a child rather than adding more forcible rape charges? I looked up the CA code, but I don't see why they would pick one over the other. TIA
     
  15. kbl8201

    kbl8201 Former Member

    Messages:
    6,340
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    im assuming (key word assuming) the fact it's a lewd act on a minor that it's an enhancment charge. but there's enough rape and lewd charges here that it really doesnt matter.
    and by the way........reading the charge like that makes me want to go and do bad things to garrido again..........
     
  16. anthroamy

    anthroamy New Member

    Messages:
    238
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're absolutely right! I realized that the site I was looking at wasn't showing me the complete code. The Garrido charge for lewd acts is 288(b)(1), which is a lewd act by force on a child under 14. I looked it up on the CA government's website and the complete code reads as follows.

    "288. (a) Any person who willfully and lewdly commits any lewd or
    lascivious act, including any of the acts constituting other crimes
    provided for in Part 1
    , upon or with the body, or any part or member
    thereof, of a child who is under the age of 14 years, with the intent
    of arousing, appealing to, or gratifying the lust, passions, or
    sexual desires of that person or the child, is guilty of a felony and
    shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three,
    six, or eight years.
    (b) (1) Any person who commits an act described in subdivision (a)
    by use of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and
    unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person, is guilty of
    a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
    for three, six, or eight years."

    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=65307528068+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    BBM. I kept missing the (a) part, since (b)(1) is the specific charge. Forcible rape is a crime provided for in part 1, so this is an enhancement charge.

    Thanks for your help :)
     
  17. time

    time New Member

    Messages:
    9,379
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
  18. my2sisters

    my2sisters New Member

    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. time

    time New Member

    Messages:
    9,379
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for validating, that's what I thought. Here are two more questions to validate or not.

    1. I read somewhere the God's Desire thing in August at JM was a week long event, (else, it was originally planned or envisioned as a week long thing by Garrido) - how long was it?

    2. I thought I read somewhere that Garrido had his church at JM, is that true?

    3. Oops, I have another. I thought I read Garrido had his church or held church in his basement, is that true? That was the first I heard he had a basement too!
     
  20. Natal

    Natal Former Member

    Messages:
    1,157
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The charge sheet can be seen here: http://llnw.static.cbslocal.com/station/kpix/docs/2009/garrido-complaint.pdf

    They way they are structured (for both Nancy and PG) is as follows:

    Common charges for both of them include the following:

    1 count of kidnapping a child under 14 sometime between June 91 and May 94 (I am guessing that is when Jaycee turned 14)
    1 count of kidnapping sometime between June 91 and August 09
    1 charge of false imprisonment sometime between June 91 and August 09.

    Individual charges for each of them:

    2 counts of rape in the first month (June-July 91). I'm not sure why these two would be considered distinct from the lewd conduct ones. It may be that specific dates can be attached to them or those particular ones were described in detail when the evidence was collected.

    7 counts of lewd conduct with a child under the age of 14 structured as follows:
    --- 1 count between June 91 and July 91 (the first month)
    --- 5 counts at 6 month intervals between July 91 and December 93
    --- 1 count between January 94 and May 94 (5 months, till she turned 14)

    Then there is a gap between June 94 until November 94 (I'm guessing she was heavily pregnant at this time and consequently wasn't assaulted. That would mean the first daughter would have been born around November 94 if true)

    Then rape charges start.
    1 count in the month of December 94
    3 counts sometime during 12 month intervals starting January 95 and ending December 97

    Collectively these make the 29 charges.

    Jaycee would have turned 18 in May 98, however, she would have been heavily pregnant with the second daughter around then, so there may have been no assaults for the last 5 months. Garrido claimed that things changed after the second child was born, and Jaycee claimed that Garrido "hadn't touched her in years". In any event no further rape charges are made after this point.

    A point to note is that these charges were made soon after the arrests, and presumably before full investigation and assembly of evidence, so it is possible that some may dropped and others added depending on what subsequent investigations have revealed.
     

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice