9/14/09 Bail Hearing & Press Conference 8:00 am PT

[Natal]

Actually, parole officers are required by CA law to interview neighbors and business associates when dealing with high-level threats, which Garrido was one of. In the past 20 years, neighbors and others have said no PO ever interviewed them.

He was talking about nosing about around property. To do that on property outside of Garrido's resident he would need a warrant and for that he would need to show cause. Garrido had gone 18 years with one minor violation and no known related re-offenses, so he was probably regarded as low risk.

 

[SunnieRN]

What!?! How could they leave out the fact that she was a child and all charges specifically related to sex with a minor? What about raising children in such conditions? What about imprisoning a person? I want them to stick as much as they can to this disgusting excuse of a human.

Maybe the prosecuters have learned something from cases like OJ Simpson. The key is to make sure he is locked up on a case they KNOW they can win. Other trials can occur at a later date, when there is further evidence. Maybe trying double murder cases one at a time can be better served by trying the defendant one murder at a time. If you mess up, learn your mistakes and get it right the next time. Also, be aware of the words "at this time...." That leaves this case wide open at this time!

Well, thats fine, but the parole officer didn't know about the girls. There was no sign of them in the "presentable" facade of the property, which is what he saw. You say "Talk to neighbors about your perp", but even the neighbors didnt really know about the girls and they LIVE there. The parole officer might see him a hour or so every few weeks, but the neighbors are there 24 hours a day every day every year for eighteen years, and they saw nothing.

You guys need to cut the parole officer a bit of slack, he didn't have the critical information he needed, namely that Garrido was wandering around town with kids in tow claiming they were his daughters. But once he had been made aware of it, he knew that Garrido had no children on record. Something was obviously screwy and he put the pieces together, so that the situation was resolved in a day. If this guy had recieved that report about the children living in the extended back yard that was made 3 years ago, he would have likely resolved the case in a day back then as well. But he didnt have that critical piece of information. So, it's easy to second guess him in retrospect, and say he should have known, but would you if you had been in his shoes not knowing what you know now?

Whether the officer knew about the girls ahead of time or not, the case was dropped into his lap. When he got the telephone call the day before, he should have acted immediately, gotten a search warrant issued and gone to PG home. This case was dropped right into his lap! What if PG had decided to run, instead of going to his PO's office? He had NOTHING stopping him. That includes a PO that sat on his haunches and took no action UNTIL PG handed over his "family". I feel VERY passionate about this point.

Actually, parole officers are required by CA law to interview neighbors and business associates when dealing with high-level threats, which Garrido was one of. In the past 20 years, neighbors and others have said no PO ever interviewed them.

Not surprising with the case loads they carry, but this NEEDS to be a red flag that will change the way parole operates and monitors released felons!:sick:

 

[mysteriew]

Maybe the prosecuters have learned something from cases like OJ Simpson. The key is to make sure he is locked up on a case they KNOW they can win. Other trials can occur at a later date, when there is further evidence. Maybe trying double murder cases one at a time can be better served by trying the defendant one murder at a time. If you mess up, learn your mistakes and get it right the next time. Also, be aware of the words "at this time...." That leaves this case wide open at this time!



Whether the officer knew about the girls ahead of time or not, the case was dropped into his lap. When he got the telephone call the day before, he should have acted immediately, gotten a search warrant issued and gone to PG home. This case was dropped right into his lap! What if PG had decided to run, instead of going to his PO's office? He had NOTHING stopping him. That includes a PO that sat on his haunches and took no action UNTIL PG handed over his "family". I feel VERY passionate about this point.



Not surprising with the case loads they carry, but this NEEDS to be a red flag that will change the way parole operates and monitors released felons!:sick:

There are statuatory limits on crimes like rape, child exploitation, and the like. It is possible that any sex crimes against Jaycee is beyond the statuatory limits. If sex crimes charges show up against them it isn't a good thing. Because it might be an indication that the girls were also attacked.

 

[MBK]

There are statuatory limits on crimes like rape, child exploitation, and the like. It is possible that any sex crimes against Jaycee is beyond the statuatory limits. If sex crimes charges show up against them it isn't a good thing. Because it might be an indication that the girls were also attacked.

Here are the charges:

The Garridos are each charged with:

• 1 count of kidnapping someone younger than age 14
• 1 count of kidnapping for sexual purposes
• 4 counts of forcible rape with a special allegation of one strike
• 2 counts of forcible rape
• 7 counts of a forcible lewd act on a child, with special allegation of kidnapping a victim younger than age 14 for sex
• 1 count of false imprisonment by violence with special allegations of use of force, violent sex offenses, a stranger victim, and substantial sexual conduct with someone younger than 14

Phillip Garrido is also charged with a special allegation of 2/3 strikes because he has two prior convictions for kidnapping and forcible rape.

http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/jaycee_lee_dugard_kidnapping_h.html

 

[LinasK]

Here are the charges:





http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/jaycee_lee_dugard_kidnapping_h.html

Let's put this on a separate thread, as it will be important when the trial comes up...

 

[MBK]

Let's put this on a separate thread, as it will be important when the trial comes up...

Good idea. I put it in this thread because there seemed to be some confusion amongst people posting as to what the charges really were. I will make another thread, too.

 

[Natal]

There are statuatory limits on crimes like rape, child exploitation, and the like. It is possible that any sex crimes against Jaycee is beyond the statuatory limits. If sex crimes charges show up against them it isn't a good thing. Because it might be an indication that the girls were also attacked.

The statute of limitations probably kicks in when the crimes become reportable. Since she was in forcible confinement, I would think that the clock started ticking when she was released, not when the crimes were commited.

Oh, also, the charges cover specific periods of time, so they are clearly regarding Jaycee, not her children.

 

[mysteriew]

Here are the charges:





http://www.bostoncriminallawyerblog.com/2009/08/jaycee_lee_dugard_kidnapping_h.html

They must be claiming an exception to the statute of limitations because she has been under his control since she reached the age of majority. I think the California statute of limitations for most sex crimes is about 6 years.

 

[Pink Panther]

...To think that US tax payers absorbed the cost of removing those three disgusting black things on the side of his nose within weeks of his being arrested is beyond the pale!

Just thinking out loud.

Forgive me.

MOO

 

[Tom'sGirl]

...To think that US tax payers absorbed the cost of removing those three disgusting black things on the side of his nose within weeks of his being arrested is beyond the pale!

Just thinking out loud.

Forgive me.

MOO

They probably removed them so they wouldn't have to pay the cost later on down the line if complications set in.

 

[Pink Panther]

They probably removed them so they wouldn't have to pay the cost later on down the line if complications set in.

You're probably right Tom'sGirl but how sad is it that good honest folk aren't granted the same care? What message does it relay? Go to jail and the disgusting growth on your nose will be removed. Be a good citizen, abide by the law and the disgusting growth on your nose is your problem?

Again. I'm angry and this is all JMO. 2 cents worth and nothing more.

ETA - Since it IS the US taxpayers who paid for the removal of those disgusting black things and since this IS a high profile case, why aren't the people who paid for his surgery given any information as to why it was required??? Don't they have a right to know what it was that they paid for?

 

[kbl8201]

another excerpt from the article linked above:

He (the judge) also credited the action of parole agent Eddy Santos who he said broke through a "well planned cover story." The agent brought in Garrido for routine questioning after he attempted to get a permit to hand out fliers at UC Berkeley. During that interview, Santos figured out the woman with Garrido was the kidnapped child-now adult Jaycee Dugard.​

The judge praised the parole officer, but does the PO deserve such "credit"? Did the parole officer think "outside the box" this time by ordering Garrido into his Concord office instead of visiting Garrido's home based on the suspicions raised by the Berkeley officers? I'd like to know how long Eddy Santos served as Garrido's PO prior to 8/25/09, i.e. how many contacts he had made with this criminal.

EDITED AT 10:00 AM TO ADD info from a second article; I won't be getting the answer to the question above after all:

But he (the judge) praised parole agent Edward Santos for finally discovering that Dugard was allegedly being held by the Garridos. "This parole agent successfully broke through an elaborate, well-planned cover story that was 18 years in the making," Pierson said.

California corrections officials have refused to release details of how Garrido, who was on lifetime parole, was supervised by Santos or to provide dates that Santos visited the Garrido home or backyard. James Scarver, a parole agent who responded to a state Public Records Act request filed by The Bee on Aug. 28, said such dates are "exempt from disclosure." He did not respond to a request for the Corrections Department's policies on how frequently Santos should have visited the home and inspected the premises.

Corrections spokesman Gordon Hinkle has said Santos operated "by the book" and would have been to the home numerous times. However, he said, Garrido managed to conceal the presence of Dugard and the two children. The department called a news conference Aug. 27 to take credit for helping to finally find Dugard, and the news release claiming parole agents helped uncover her presence is featured prominently on the department's main Web site.​

source: http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2181498.html.

here its is. ok the excerpts say it was the judge, but the article says it was the da.