Early Parole and Missed Opportunities-What happened?

[time]

Here is my email communication and response from the journalist that authored this article:

My email:

Mr. Sam Stanton,

Back on Sept 3, 2009 you wrote the extensive, researched article, Details of earlier alleged Garrido abductions emerge and I have a question about something reported in the GarridoTimeline.

You write, "Aug. 25: Garrido returns to campus and officials notify parole agent. Agent goes to Garrido's home but sees nothing amiss. Also summons Garrido to his office.
Aug 26: Agent summons Garrido to his office again...."

I haven't been able to verify from any other source the accuracy of the above event. I noticed that your article was updated on Sept. 30, 2009, did that include the information in the Timeline? In other words is the above statement correct?

Thank you,
xxxxxx

Response:

Re: Question: Details of earlier alleged Garrido abductions emerge
Saturday, October 31, 2009 3:17 AM
From:"sstanton@sacbee.com" <sstanton@sacbee.com>

To:xxxxxxx
Yes, the information is correct as reported to us by corrections and other officials.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

Seems like the Berkeldy Police would have also notified LE that oversaw where Garrido lived - Contra Costa Sheriff's Office - not just his parole officer?

I do remember being confused by the reporting at the time as to the sequence of events.

 

[time]

Sorry, here are the links.

I know you provided those for a different reason, but I want to revisit this one more time

"On the way there the girl tells our victim they're going to meet a couple of guys," Orman said. "The victim assumes these guys are going to be age appropriate, and when they get there it's a couple of guys quite a bit older than they expected.

"They get into the car with these guys and start driving around the city."

One of the men was Garrido, Orman said, and they began giving the girls barbiturates. For some reason that Orman said isn't clear, a police car began chasing the car but the men were able to elude it and ended up at a house near where Garrido lived until his arrest last week.

So, weird, the video interview doesn't really include most of these details, but the same guy is quoted.

It still seems odd to me that her girlfriend arranged to meet these guys, then seemingly didn't tell her until they were almost to the library.

They both were given drugs by both men and went either to some house or shed near where Garrido lived later.

I the video interview, the policeman says he doesn't know if the other guy was ever arrested for anything, but there weren't many records left and they never found anything. Isn't this the kind of thing someone who worked on the force at the time would remember? Antioch wasn't that big back in 1972 was it?

 

[my2sisters]

I know you provided those for a different reason, but I want to revisit this one more time

So, weird, the video interview doesn't really include most of these details, but the same guy is quoted.

It still seems odd to me that her girlfriend arranged to meet these guys, then seemingly didn't tell her until they were almost to the library.

They both were given drugs by both men and went either to some house or shed near where Garrido lived later.

I the video interview, the policeman says he doesn't know if the other guy was ever arrested for anything, but there weren't many records left and they never found anything. Isn't this the kind of thing someone who worked on the force at the time would remember? Antioch wasn't that big back in 1972 was it?

YES! It almost appears to be a cover-up, doesn't it?

 

[time]

YES! It almost appears to be a cover-up, doesn't it?

Something's amiss ... do you think it's an attempt to say yet another person went to the house and saw nothing?

 

[kbl8201]

I've not heard about that before either.
Why ask PG to come to a meeting the next day if the parole agent saw PG at the house?

and why would garrido then bring the girls to the po office.......it doesnt make sense.
i dont think this guy writing this article has his facts right.

 

[SunnieRN]

YES! It almost appears to be a cover-up, doesn't it?

I hate to say there is no "almost" about it!! I think it's "more then likely" a cover up!

 

[kbl8201]

I hate to say there is no "almost" about it!! I think it's "more then likely" a cover up!

so on top of everythingelse in this case, we can add "lack of jounalistic integrity" to the horse manure.
sweet:banghead:

 

[SunnieRN]

Or lack of LE forthcomings in accurate information in a timely fashion. Take your pick!

 

[kbl8201]

Or lack of LE forthcomings in accurate information in a timely fashion. Take your pick!

well he claims that's what he wrote originally so apperently he's lying one way or the other.

 

[my2sisters]

"A man works inside corrections with parole agents and parolees says Phillip Garrido's parole agent didn't do his job properly."

http://www.kcra.com/video/20913668/index.html

 

[my2sisters]

so on top of everythingelse in this case, we can add "lack of jounalistic integrity" to the horse manure.
sweet:banghead:

I don't understand what you're referring to. The journalist just reported what was given him by the SO and parole office. How is that a "lack of journalistic integrity"? Did you read the posts correctly?

 

[i.b.nora]

This isn't about journalistic integrity, imo, it is simply about a detail in a news report, that is being questioned. It doesn't make the journalist a criminal or lacking in integrity.

I still think it is inaccurate about the parole agent:
"Aug. 25: Garrido returns to campus and officials notify parole agent. Agent goes to Garrido's home but sees nothing amiss. Also summons Garrido to his office.
Aug 26: Agent summons Garrido to his office again...."

I think it is entirely possible that the journalist misunderstood m2sisters question. We can tell by reading the timeline, that the prison info came from some prison / corrections sources.
I do think that the parole people are highly suspect as being possibly overwhelmed, overpaid, and largely incompetent. In fact, I think the whole agency needs reform.

But, this is one tiny detail that I think is totally in error. And, I suppose it is possible that it was 'advanced' by the parole people after the fact to make them look like they were really on top of it. Obviously, we know they weren't. That parole agent should have been severely reprimanded in my opinion. He is not a hero in this case. That is my perception. It could be an attempt by "corrections" to rewrite their own history.

 

[i.b.nora]

I can really do without all the 'horse manure' stuff, all the name calling. I detest it. It doesn't really add to the conversation.

 

[SunnieRN]

"A man works inside corrections with parole agents and parolees says Phillip Garrido's parole agent didn't do his job properly."

http://www.kcra.com/video/20913668/index.html

Well this is another piece that clears up part of the 8/25-8/27 mystery. In this video the media rep Vern Pierson, El Dorado County DA, states that the PO actions on the 26th and 27th helped end the 18 year mystery. NO mention of the PO going to the house on the 25th. That would be a redeeming action. in my honest opinion. I really believe it would have been mentioned at this media briefing had it happened.

 

[my2sisters]

Well this is another piece that clears up part of the 8/25-8/27 mystery. In this video the media rep Vern Pierson, El Dorado County DA, states that the PO actions on the 26th and 27th helped end the 18 year mystery. NO mention of the PO going to the house on the 25th. That would be a redeeming action. in my honest opinion. I really believe it would have been mentioned at this media briefing had it happened.

Yeah, I have another note into the SacBee and I want to get them to either change their timeline or confirm it's correctness. I would like to see the docs this info supposedly came from. I don't want to dismiss something this important until I'm certain.

Garrido had 24 hours to hide any other children or to alert any accomplice. I really don't think he was worried about Jaycee giving him up to his PO. hahaha

 

[my2sisters]

This isn't about journalistic integrity, imo, it is simply about a detail in a news report, that is being questioned. It doesn't make the journalist a criminal or lacking in integrity.

I still think it is inaccurate about the parole agent:
"Aug. 25: Garrido returns to campus and officials notify parole agent. Agent goes to Garrido's home but sees nothing amiss. Also summons Garrido to his office.
Aug 26: Agent summons Garrido to his office again...."

I think it is entirely possible that the journalist misunderstood m2sisters question. We can tell by reading the timeline, that the prison info came from some prison / corrections sources.
I do think that the parole people are highly suspect as being possibly overwhelmed, overpaid, and largely incompetent. In fact, I think the whole agency needs reform.

But, this is one tiny detail that I think is totally in error. And, I suppose it is possible that it was 'advanced' by the parole people after the fact to make them look like they were really on top of it. Obviously, we know they weren't. That parole agent should have been severely reprimanded in my opinion. He is not a hero in this case. That is my perception. It could be an attempt by "corrections" to rewrite their own history.

My intent is not to put blame on any agency. I don't want to miss any clues that could lead us to any other missing children. So, please don't assume that every post I make about LE is to make them look bad. Thanks.

 

[time]

Yeah, I have another note into the SacBee and I want to get them to either change their timeline or confirm it's correctness. I would like to see the docs this info supposedly came from. I don't want to dismiss something this important until I'm certain.

Garrido had 24 hours to hide any other children or to alert any accomplice. I really don't think he was worried about Jaycee giving him up to his PO. hahaha

You're right... he had time, I didn't even think about or catch that. I would have assumed that once a cop calls in with a serious concern, they might have went to his house immediately with parole officers and the Sheriff's office and insisted on a thorough search. And, if Jaycee and the girls hadn't been there, then where would he put them? I think they would have been there. But any other girls, must belong to someone?

I guess in my simple mind, I can't see how even a simple search would miss all the pictures, toys, clothing, etc. You can't tell me all that was hauled out of the house or backyard.

 

[SunnieRN]

One thing my mind keeps going back to is the picture of the back yard showing the small folding outdoor chair. This looked to be in good condition and seeing the age/size of the youngest daughter, I don't see how she could have comfortably sat in that chair.

When I brought up the fact that pg had 24 hours to "clean things up" prior to going to the PO office, I was thinking along the same exact terms you mentioned. It was plenty of time to warn other people to hide the two children. Whether they lived with pg, or he "chaperoned" them at times, they need to be found.

The PO, if he DID go to the house on the 25th, needs to answer why he left ANY stones unturned. If he didn't, that is even more upsetting. That was the reason I started thinking about the 24 hour period in the first place! pg had a lot of motivation to "make the problem disappear". Thank God he didn't!

 

[anthroamy]

One thing my mind keeps going back to is the picture of the back yard showing the small folding outdoor chair. This looked to be in good condition and seeing the age/size of the youngest daughter, I don't see how she could have comfortably sat in that chair.

When I brought up the fact that pg had 24 hours to "clean things up" prior to going to the PO office, I was thinking along the same exact terms you mentioned. It was plenty of time to warn other people to hide the two children. Whether they lived with pg, or he "chaperoned" them at times, they need to be found.

The PO, if he DID go to the house on the 25th, needs to answer why he left ANY stones unturned. If he didn't, that is even more upsetting. That was the reason I started thinking about the 24 hour period in the first place! pg had a lot of motivation to "make the problem disappear". Thank God he didn't!

Not only the chair, but some of the other toddler aged toys as well raised my suspicions. Jaycee's youngest is 11, would toys like the plastic toddler tricycle really look that good after sitting outside in the scorching sun, wind, and rain for 8-10 years? I mean, it doesn't look great, but it doesn't look 8-10 years old to me.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kca5Daij6hk/SrONLu8lYBI/AAAAAAAAJsE/HRc77KOZY9E/s400/image5271835.jpg

 

[SunnieRN]

Not only the chair, but some of the other toddler aged toys as well raised my suspicions. Jaycee's youngest is 11, would toys like the plastic toddler tricycle really look that good after sitting outside in the scorching sun, wind, and rain for 8-10 years? I mean, it doesn't look great, but it doesn't look 8-10 years old to me.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kca5Daij6hk/SrONLu8lYBI/AAAAAAAAJsE/HRc77KOZY9E/s400/image5271835.jpg

Thank you for the link!

At this link: http://www.courant.com/news/breakin...hotogallery?index=la-me-kidnapping11_kp3u1qnc

picture three shows the teddy bear, that doesn't look 8 or 10 years old either

This is one site that shows the outdoor kiddie chair:

http://www.mahalo.com/jaycee-dugard-photos

I think it can be found on radar.com also.