Are there other victims?

[jjenny]

Yes, she could. But if that is so then it is a therapy issue. If she is suppressing further crimes, then she may remember with therapy and it can be dealt with in a safe atmosphere.

But if she is denying it to LE, then it is possible that it stopped. And if it did stop, then how hurtful would it be when everybody believed that she was lying and that it didn't stop like she said? Would she feel like people were calling her a liar? Would she feel like everybody wanted to sensationalize her life? After all she is the one who lived it and knows what happened. Would she feel mimimalized because people didn't feel her story was bad enough when she told the truth, and that people had to make it more sensational than it was?

I understand as to what you are trying to say, but if it is possible for Garrido to get any benefits from claiming there was no sex for years (at trial), I would be less inclined to believe these claims. If it wouldn't make any difference, I would be more inclined to believe these claims.

 

[Natal]

From my understanding of it, I don't think Stockholm syndrome just stops after a victim is removed from the situation.

The psycological scars of captivity/trauma remain, but the adaptive defensive reflex goes away. The victim adapts to survive in their new situation, which in this case involves spilling the beans (unless there is some other reason for keeping silent).

 

[mysteriew]

I understand as to what you are trying to say, but if it is possible for Garrido to get any benefits from claiming there was no sex for years (at trial), I would be less inclined to believe these claims. If it wouldn't make any difference, I would be more inclined to believe these claims.

With the charges they have on him, they don't need more. The kidnapping charge alone should get him put away for life. And if those charges should fall through then I am sure they can come up with more.

 

[jjenny]

The psycological scars of captivity/trauma remain, but the adaptive defensive reflex goes away. The victim adapts to survive in their new situation, which in this case involves spilling the beans (unless there is some other reason for keeping silent).

The article in my link says this about the original victims of Stockholm syndrome (it was named after them): they've refused to testify against the robbers and even raised money for their defense. Don't know how true that is, but it would seem the syndrome can continue on even after someone has been released from the situation. And the original Stockholm victims spend days as hostages, not years.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090831-stockholm-syndrome.html
Jaycee's stepfather has said she has "strong feelings" for Garrido and even feels it was "almost like a marriage." So it seems like she fits the description of a victim of Stockholm syndrome.

 

[LinasK]

We were talking about JD and the girls. Nothing else.

As far as Stockholm syndrome is concerned, she is no longer in that situation and there isn't any obvious reason for her to lie about that.

So do you think the Stockholm syndrome immediately disappears when she is removed from her captor???:waitasec: Not likely considering he had 18 years to brainwash her...

 

[Natal]

The article in my link says this about the original victims of Stockholm syndrome (it was named after them): they've refused to testify against the robbers and even raised money for their defense. Don't know how true that is, but it would seem the syndrome can continue on even after someone has been released from the situation. And the original Stockholm victims spend days as hostages, not years.
http://www.livescience.com/culture/090831-stockholm-syndrome.html
Jaycee's stepfather has said she has "strong feelings" for Garrido and even feels it was "almost like a marriage." So it seems like she fits the description of a victim of Stockholm syndrome.

Except that she isn't protecting him, she doesnt say he did nothing, only that he hadn't done anything in recent years. In the case you cited, they didn't deny the facts, they refused to talk about them, which is completely different.

 

[jjenny]

Except that she isn't protecting him, she doesnt say he did nothing, only that he hadn't done anything in recent years. In the case you cited, they didn't deny the facts, they refused to talk about them, which is completely different.

Look. We don't even know what she is saying for sure. It was one report attributed to some anonymous source. And I suppose it is possible he for whatever reason stopped having sex with her, and had no sex with her in years. But she couldn't possibly deny he ever had sex with her-she has two children.

 

[txsvicki]

I won't be believing any anonymous report about anything especially where a psychopath and pedophile is involved and don't believe that a captor with Stockholm Syndrome would automatically right away start telling all.

 

[Stephens]

jjeny: Garrido never had "sex with" Dugard. He raped her. Stop calling it "sex." It's not a clinical term, but one with clear meanings: consensual. Also, it has powerfully positive associations: natural and intensely desirable. It's just as potent as the word "joy." All it does is sexualize the act, when in fact rape, as has been stated several times, is about hatred and control, with sexuality serving as the medium and weapon of choice.

There is a clear difference in meaning between sex and rape (think: swimming vs. being drowned). It's not a mere technicality. One is consensual (an impossibility for a child). The other is a violation of will (of a child captive, no less).

There should be no blurring of the lines between the two, especially in such an extreme case as this. Our entire justice system is based on safeguarding our free will, which is why consent and violation are the universal tents of whether or not an act is a crime. To muddy the waters would invariably weaken the core of our justice system. Yes, words are that powerful since they shape the way we perceive the world around us, our reality. Orwell himself noted the power of language in "1984" (e.g., war is peace, strength is weakness).

 

[jjenny]

Sex can be either consensual or non-consensual.
I fail to see how you can claim that only clear meaning is consensual.

 

[Natal]

jjeny: Garrido never had "sex with" Dugard. He raped her. Stop calling it "sex." It's not a clinical term, but one with clear meanings: consensual. Also, it has powerfully positive associations: natural and intensely desirable. It's just as potent as the word "joy." All it does is sexualize the act, when in fact rape, as has been stated several times, is about hatred and control, with sexuality serving as the medium and weapon of choice.

There is a clear difference in meaning between sex and rape (think: swimming vs. being drowned). It's not a mere technicality. One is consensual (an impossibility for a child). The other is a violation of will (of a child captive, no less).

There should be no blurring of the lines between the two, especially in such an extreme case as this. Our entire justice system is based on safeguarding our free will, which is why consent and violation are the universal tents of whether or not an act is a crime. To muddy the waters would invariably weaken the core of our justice system. Yes, words are that powerful since they shape the way we perceive the world around us, our reality. Orwell himself noted the power of language in "1984" (e.g., war is peace, strength is weakness).

"Sex" is just the act of reproduction, it carries no meaning beyond that. Non consensual sex is called rape, an act of violent assault. These are just words however, the true distinction lies the psycological impact it has on both parties involved.

Btw, children can engage in consensual sex, they just don't have the legal right to consent, hence the term statutory rape. Allthough people will go to prison in both cases, the psychological damage from statutory rape is in no way comparable to that from a real rape.

 

[Stephens]

jjeny: As I've said before "sex" is not a mere clinical term, but one loaded with heavy, positive emotional associations. Therefore, calling a clear-cut case of rape "sex" only associates it with all those positives.

 

[Stephens]

In terms of simple biology, "intercourse" is a clinical term that covers the reproductive angle.

I am amazed that when it comes to other generic terms distinguishing between consent ("gift;" "caress") versus violation ("theft;" "groping") people don't have a hint of a problem. But here, in a truly heinous case, all of a sudden up is down. "Sex" sells because it's so hugely intertwined with intensely, automatic, positive emotional triggers. It's the reason why pedophiles and other rapists love calling rape "sex," too.

 

[Stephens]

Damn, I meant (sexual) "assault" instead of "groping." Obviously, the latter can be consensual.

O/T: Is anyone else having edit problems or is it just me? I can't use the advanced option either.

 

[jjenny]

In terms of simple biology, "intercourse" is a clinical term that covers the reproductive angle.

I am amazed that when it comes to other generic terms distinguishing between consent ("gift;" "caress") versus violation ("theft;" "groping") people don't have a hint of a problem. But here, in a truly heinous case, all of a sudden up is down. "Sex" sells because it's so hugely intertwined with intensely, automatic, positive emotional triggers. It's the reason why pedophiles and other rapists love calling rape "sex," too.

It is your interpretation. Sex can be consensual or non-consensual. If sex was only associated with "positive emotional triggers" then there would be no such term as non-consensual sex, would be there?

 

[minazoe]

penetration of an eleven year old is child rape. Sexual touching is molestation. Non vaginal penetration of the mouth or anus is sodomy.

It seems like when women molest and rape young boys the media always says a woman was having sex with a minor. Rather than a woman raped a minor boy...

Funny though it seems if the woman is particularly unattractive...as in the case of Sandra Cantu where the child died and the crime was female on a female victim, they immediatley call it rape, even though a woman is incapapable of penetration.

just an observation.

 

[Meme5]

I believe there were no charges filed after 1997, because in 1998 Jaycee legally became an adult. She would have to file charges of rape against him herself. No one knows when the abuse stopped, only that "Dugard has also told authorities that Phillip Garrido "hadn't touched her in years."

 

[jjenny]

I believe there were no charges filed after 1997, because in 1998 Jaycee legally became an adult. She would have to file charges of rape against him herself. No one knows when the abuse stopped, only that "Dugard has also told authorities that Phillip Garrido "hadn't touched her in years."

No. I don't think that's correct. If the rape is alleged, it's still the state that files the charges, not the alleged victim. Of course if Jaycee tells LE that Garrido hasn't touched her in years, they can not file charges on her behalf if she says nothing happened. Before age 18, she had two children so the state can have them DNA tested, and I don't think the state would even need Jaycee's testimony if Garrido is the father of these children.

 

[flourish]

penetration of an eleven year old is child rape. Sexual touching is molestation. Non vaginal penetration of the mouth or anus is sodomy.

It seems like when women molest and rape young boys the media always says a woman was having sex with a minor. Rather than a woman raped a minor boy...

Funny though it seems if the woman is particularly unattractive...as in the case of Sandra Cantu where the child died and the crime was female on a female victim, they immediatley call it rape, even though a woman is incapapable of penetration.

just an observation.

Okay, not to be gross here, but technically women are only incapable of penile penetration. Digits and foreign objects are available. Gross again, and again here I go perseverating on Karla Homolka, but she definitely managed to penetrate her victims, and she is a woman.

I totally agree that there is a double standard thing about how women rapists are discussed and labeled differently than men rapists and it is not okay. Blech.

 

[Natal]

I believe there were no charges filed after 1997, because in 1998 Jaycee legally became an adult. She would have to file charges of rape against him herself. No one knows when the abuse stopped, only that "Dugard has also told authorities that Phillip Garrido "hadn't touched her in years."

If she didn't make a complaint they would only be able to file two counts of statutory rape charges, because that would be the only thing they had evidence for. Either they made the charges on the assumption (which would likely result in the additional charges being dismissed), or Jaycee had provided the period over which the assaults occurred.