Nancy Garrido - thread #2

[my2sisters]

Would you please just knock it off, you have absolutely no basis for saying Nancy is getting away with anything and this just counts as drama. Disparaging remarks about some 'bleeding heart' are offensive because they are targeted towards liberals/Democrats. I happen to be one of those and don't like the label.

Thank you! I get so tired of the drama and games, it's exhausting when trying to keep the facts in the forum protected! Someone here recently explained to me that just one misinformation allowed to go without correction can take on a life of it's own and become thought of as fact after repeated a few times. Thank you for continually trying to keep the facts straight, time and others.

 

[kbl8201]

Thank you! I get so tired of the drama and games, it's exhausting when trying to keep the facts in the forum protected! Someone here recently explained to me that just one misinformation allowed to go without correction can take on a life of it's own and become thought of as fact after repeated a few times. Thank you for continually trying to keep the facts straight, time and others.

what facts did i mess up?
the comment about the bleeding hearts was off base, and since i happen to be a bit of one, pretty stupid.
but i made no misjudgements about patricia or the possibiity of nancy gettinga lighter sentece.

 

[my2sisters]

what facts did i mess up?
the comment about the bleeding hearts was off base, and since i happen to be a bit of one, pretty stupid.
but i made no misjudgements about patricia or the possibiity of nancy gettinga lighter sentece.

I'm not referring to just this one discussion. It was the same thing last night and ...

 

[kbl8201]

I'm not referring to just this one discussion. It was the same thing last night and ...

i try to stick to the facts around here.
maybe its my personality.
maybe i should just sit here and keep my mouth shut.
for the most part im trying to be helpful and for the most part i come out soundig like the worlds biggest jerk.

 

[SunnieRN]

I have recently learned to enjoy the wonderful thing that is "ignore"!! This thread is, I'm sure, in danger of being closed if we can not control our emotions. This case and the impending trial is sure to be emotionally charged and push everyones buttons at some time or another. I am trying to maintain my dignity and only attack the post and not the poster. Ignore has helped immensely!!

Every thread is filled with peoples opinions. For some reason, myself included in this, I can not be rational when it comes to certain types of posts. Inflammatory opinions are usually given to elicit a response, which will then fuel more inflammatory posts. I am trying to learn to keep my blood pressure in check and post links and ideas that will re-direct the opinions which have been proven to be untrue in the threads.

Remember, another persons opinion is just as important as your own, whether you like it or not. If you don't, take it to pm and keep it out of the threads.

Stepping down off of my VERY tarnished soapbox. These are my opinions only, of course.

I thank those who have let me vent in pm's as it may be the only thing that has kept me from being banned.

 

[SunnieRN]

I think the larger point of all this is that we all benefit from giving our posts a little thought. I know I am certainly guilty of hitting "reply" too quickly on occasion and I've tried to be better about it. This is a complicated case with many subtleties and points of view. It is still early in the investigation. The crimes took place over a long period of time, and delving into Garrido's past makes the timeline even longer. There is the highly complex psychological side of the events. There is a lot to keep straight and a lot to try to understand and I get very frustrated at times just trying to wrap my head around everything.

I find it very helpful when trying to understand a certain aspect of the case to take a break from posting, read over the discussion and any relevant links, sometimes even write things out, then go away a let it all "compute" for a couple of hours. If I feel like I've come up with anything useful or interesting I may post about it after checking that no one else has had a similar thought in the meantime.

Use the "preview" feature and read over your post. It might be helpful to ask if you are simply "dittoing" someone else's post or an understood general consensus. Posts such as these tend to only be one or two sentences. If that's the case it may be better to wait and include it in your next post as an aside or just use the "thank you" feature instead.

Are you sharing something not previously mentioned, something from another topic that may overlap, or something that may be forgotten? Are your facts straight? Have you thoroughly read and understood any documents pertaining to the topic? Do you have any reputable links to share? Are you interested in hearing what others think about your idea? I find posts such as these to be the most insightful and try to use them as a template for my own.

:twocents:

Much better written than what I said!! Thank you for your most rational post!!

 

[Natal]

I can guarantee Garrido is never getting out of prison unless he escapes or it is in a coffin. I sincerely doubt Nancy will ever get out of prison either. This cannot be flubbed up, there is too much evidence. My greatest worry at this point is that they are not going to charge Patricia with anything and that Garrido could h ave had other partners in crime that will never be caught. I don't care how old Patricia is either, she knew and she could be dangerous. I wouldn't put my mother in the same nursing home with her.

I agree that PG is not getting out, nor should he, he is just too dangerous. I disagree about Nancy though, allthough she will be convicted on at least the kidnapping and imprisonment counts, depending on what Jaycee says she may not be convicted of everything. And if that happens I think it will be very likely that she will get out eventually. You need to remember that she probably wasn't the prime motivator here, PG was, so the chances of her doing something like this again on release are slim. When it comes to things like parole, that would be taken into account.

 

[time]

I agree that PG is not getting out, nor should he, he is just too dangerous. I disagree about Nancy though, allthough she will be convicted on at least the kidnapping and imprisonment counts, depending on what Jaycee says she may not be convicted of everything. And if that happens I think it will be very likely that she will get out eventually. You need to remember that she probably wasn't the prime motivator here, PG was, so the chances of her doing something like this again on release are slim. When it comes to things like parole, that would be taken into account.

I believe Nancy will absolutely be locked up for a minimum of 30 years if not more just for kidnapping a child under 14 with force and transporting across state lines (although I can't find what the minimum sentence for this would be). Further, Nancy knew Jaycee was raped and that her own husband was the father to those children, she kept her captive while he was in prison - these things are not really disputable even if she tries to dispute them (a jury won't buy it). I believe any leniency she would get for testifying against Garrido or a defense that she was controlled would be minimal if any at all.

If she gets a minimum of 30 years even, she will not be paroled before that time is up because this case is too horrendous. At that point, she would be in her 80's and maybe not even alive. I wouldn't doubt she gets closer to 50 years because there are too many sadistic elements to this case and it ultimately will rest with the jury and the judge. No one is going to have sympathy for her.

Having said all that, it's really just my opinion.

 

[kbl8201]

I believe Nancy will absolutely be locked up for a minimum of 30 years if not more just for kidnapping a child under 14 with force and transporting across state lines (although I can't find what the minimum sentence for this would be). Further, Nancy knew Jaycee was raped and that her own husband was the father to those children, she kept her captive while he was in prison - these things are not really disputable even if she tries to dispute them (a jury won't buy it). I believe any leniency she would get for testifying against Garrido or a defense that she was controlled would be minimal if any at all.

If she gets a minimum of 30 years even, she will not be paroled before that time is up because this case is too horrendous. At that point, she would be in her 80's and maybe not even alive. I wouldn't doubt she gets closer to 50 years because there are too many sadistic elements to this case and it ultimately will rest with the jury and the judge. No one is going to have sympathy for her.

Having said all that, it's really just my opinion.

Those are all excellent arguments, and in a perfect justie system she would never see freedom ever again. But this is our justie system, a system that repeatedly fails the victims, and the innocent.
All of us here know that Nancy is just as guilty as Phil is. All of us want to see her punished as badly as he is.
Do i have faith she we'll get the same sentence? If she doesnt get a deal to testify I say she gets life......this is also why it is critcal Jaycee testifies If the state has to rely on Nancy as its star witness.....

 

[Natal]

I believe Nancy will absolutely be locked up for a minimum of 30 years if not more just for kidnapping a child under 14 with force and transporting across state lines (although I can't find what the minimum sentence for this would be). Further, Nancy knew Jaycee was raped and that her own husband was the father to those children, she kept her captive while he was in prison - these things are not really disputable even if she tries to dispute them (a jury won't buy it). I believe any leniency she would get for testifying against Garrido or a defense that she was controlled would be minimal if any at all.

If she gets a minimum of 30 years even, she will not be paroled before that time is up because this case is too horrendous. At that point, she would be in her 80's and maybe not even alive. I wouldn't doubt she gets closer to 50 years because there are too many sadistic elements to this case and it ultimately will rest with the jury and the judge. No one is going to have sympathy for her.

Having said all that, it's really just my opinion.

She wasn't transported across state lines.

Keep in mind that PG was convicted of these sorts of things, he was the actual central figure in that case, and he got paroled.

As far as the rape is concerned, they will need Jaycee's testimony there, otherwise Nancy could simply argue that she never went into the back yard while PG was around and had no idea what was going on there. Like I said, for those charges to stick on Nancy, it will depend on what Jaycee says and for now we don't know what that is going to be.

Btw I looked up the code for charge 2 (Penal code section 208(D) ) on the www.leginfo.ca.gov site, and there apparently is no 208(D)....what gives with that? It seems like 209(B) is what they should be talking about in that charge.

Charge 1 (kidnapping someone under the age of 14) carries a sentence of 5, 8 or 11 years. The sentence for charge 2 appears to be life with the possibility of parole (using 209(B) as the "real" charge).

 

[time]

She wasn't transported across state lines.

Keep in mind that PG was convicted of these sorts of things, he was the actual central figure in that case, and he got paroled.

As far as the rape is concerned, they will need Jaycee's testimony there, otherwise Nancy could simply argue that she never went into the back yard while PG was around and had no idea what was going on there. Like I said, for those charges to stick on Nancy, it will depend on what Jaycee says and for now we don't know what that is going to be.

Btw I looked up the code for charge 2 (Penal code section 208(D) ) on the www.leginfo.ca.gov site, and there apparently is no 208(D)....what gives with that? It seems like 209(B) is what they should be talking about in that charge.

Charge 1 (kidnapping someone under the age of 14) carries a sentence of 5, 8 or 11 years. The sentence for charge 2 appears to be life with the possibility of parole (using 209(B) as the "real" charge).

Oh, you're right. Cripe I can't believe I didn't catch that I was thinking of the 1976 case! Thanks.

Thanks for looking that up. A bit of a mystery there.

In what I looked up there seemed to be a difference in a simple kidnapping and an aggravated kidnapping, first or second degree kidnapping (but I didn't check back as you did on what the actual charges state - good catch)...

http://www.losangelesviolentcrimesattorney.com/Practice_Areas/Kidnapping.aspx

Aggravated kidnapping carries with it more severe penalties. Aggravated kidnapping involves rape, spousal rape, oral copulation, sodomy, sexual penetration, robbery, ransom, extortion, carjacking, hostage situations and/or commission of a felony during or after the kidnapping. If you are convicted for aggravated kidnapping in California, you are looking at 20 years to life in a California state prison

.

I'm hoping they put together a case where Nancy gets LWOP - I think that is entirely possible, but you are right Jaycee's testimony will be important. However, a strong circumstantial case could also win it using whatever they have found (pictures, etc.). Nancy knows there is no way that a 14 year old can have consensual sex (Jaycee might have been 13 when she conceived?). She knows Phillip had sex with her repeatedly (I think they can make that case without Jaycee's testimony). Nancy did hold her captive (is Nancy going to claim she was not part of the kidnapping and that Phillip told her Jaycee was from another woman? Actually, if Nancy knew who she was and knew her birthday there's no way Jaycee could be Phillip's child, right? Or am I calculating wrong. I think they will have far more evidence than we know by trial (and probably do now).

 

[kbl8201]

Oh, you're right. Cripe I can't believe I didn't catch that I was thinking of the 1976 case! Thanks.

Thanks for looking that up. A bit of a mystery there.

I'm hoping they put together a case where Nancy gets LWOP - I think that is entirely possible, but you are right Jaycee's testimony will be important. However, a strong circumstantial case could also win it using whatever they have found (pictures, etc.). Nancy knows there is no way that a 14 year old can have consensual sex (Jaycee might have been 13 when she conceived?). Nancy did hold her captive (is Nancy going to claim she was not part of the kidnapping and that Phillip told her Jaycee was from another woman? Actually, if Nancy knew who she was and knew her birthday there's no way Jaycee could be Phillip's child, right? Or am I calculating wrong. I think they will have far more evidence than we know by trial (and probably do now).

when jaycee would have been concieved (sometime around august 1979) garrido was safely locked away. so i still dont get how either nancy or patricia could claim they thought jaycee was his daughter and get away with it.
as for claiming she wasnt part of the kidnapping, how's she gonna explain away the matching sketch carl gave?

 

[anthroamy]

She wasn't transported across state lines.

Keep in mind that PG was convicted of these sorts of things, he was the actual central figure in that case, and he got paroled.

As far as the rape is concerned, they will need Jaycee's testimony there, otherwise Nancy could simply argue that she never went into the back yard while PG was around and had no idea what was going on there. Like I said, for those charges to stick on Nancy, it will depend on what Jaycee says and for now we don't know what that is going to be.

Btw I looked up the code for charge 2 (Penal code section 208(D) ) on the www.leginfo.ca.gov site, and there apparently is no 208(D)....what gives with that? It seems like 209(B) is what they should be talking about in that charge.

Charge 1 (kidnapping someone under the age of 14) carries a sentence of 5, 8 or 11 years. The sentence for charge 2 appears to be life with the possibility of parole (using 209(B) as the "real" charge).

Weird, it's not listed there, but I googled and found numerous references to it:
Kidnap with the Intent to Commit Rape, Oral Copulation, Sodomy or Rape by
Instrument (208(d) Penal Code)

Page 15 here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...6uGFAQ&usg=AFQjCNFJBojxCBjiMH8aayxg4DtHrjKZbA

 

[time]

Weird, it's not listed there, but I googled and found numerous references to it:
Kidnap with the Intent to Commit Rape, Oral Copulation, Sodomy or Rape by
Instrument (208(d) Penal Code)

Page 15 here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...6uGFAQ&usg=AFQjCNFJBojxCBjiMH8aayxg4DtHrjKZbA

I think this will get you directly to what Natal found also
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=99735015100+17+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

 

[time]

http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/registration/juvenile.htm

208(d) (Prior Code): Kidnapping victim under 14 with the intent to violate sections 261, 286, 288, 288a, or 289.

***

261 Rape: Not specified
261.1 (Prior Code) Rape: Victim incapable of giving consent
261(a)(1) Rape: Victim incapable of giving consent.
261(a)(2) Rape by force/fear/etc.
261(a)(3) Rape of drugged victim.
261.3 (Prior Code) Rape by force or victim intoxication.
261.4 (Prior Code) Rape by threat or rape of drugged victim.
264.1 Rape/etc. in concert with force/violence.


286(b)(1) Sodomy with person under 18 years.
286(c) (Prior Code) Sodomy with person under 14 years or with force.
286(c)(1) Sodomy with person under 14 years.
286(c)(2) Sodomy with force or violence.
286(c)(3) Sodomy with threat of retaliation.
286(d) Sodomy in concert with force.

288 Crimes against children; lewd or lascivious.
288(a) Lewd or lascivious acts with child under 14 years.
288(b) (Prior Code) Lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years with force.
288(b)(1) Lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years with force.
288(c) (Prior Code) Lewd or lascivious acts with child 14 or 15 years old.
288(c)(1) Lewd or lascivious acts with child 14 or 15 years old.
288a(b)(1) Oral copulation with person under 18 years.
288a(c) (Prior Code) Oral copulation with person under 14 or by force.
288a(c)(1) Oral copulation with person under 14.
288a(c)(2) Oral copulation with force or violence.
288a(c)(3) Oral copulation in concern with force/etc.
288a(d) Oral copulation in concert with force or fear.
288a(d)(1) (Prior Code) Oral copulation in concert with force or fear.
288a(d)(2) (Prior Code) Oral copulation in concert by threat of retaliation.
288a(d)(3) (Prior Code) Oral copulation in concert: victim incapable of consent.
288.5 (Prior Code) Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
288.5(a) Continuous sexual abuse of child.

289(a) (Prior Code) Sexual penetration by foreign object.
289(a)(1) Sexual penetration by foreign object with force.
289(a)(2) Sexual penetration by foreign object with threat of retaliation.


(I removed any that seemed like they wouldn't pertain)

 

[time]

Jaycee b-day is May 3, 1980

 

[kbl8201]

Jaycee b-day is May 3, 1980

i know. that's why i estimated august 1979 for conception

 

[time]

Well, there is now way Nancy didn't know she was so young and can't claim stupid stuff like she thought she was his daughter (in my mind neither can Patricia - Patricia had to have known when Jaycee arrived that she was not ~ 15 years old). There is no way Nancy didn't know Garrido had raped her.

 

[anthroamy]

Oh, you're right. Cripe I can't believe I didn't catch that I was thinking of the 1976 case! Thanks.

Thanks for looking that up. A bit of a mystery there.

In what I looked up there seemed to be a difference in a simple kidnapping and an aggravated kidnapping, first or second degree kidnapping (but I didn't check back as you did on what the actual charges state - good catch)...

http://www.losangelesviolentcrimesattorney.com/Practice_Areas/Kidnapping.aspx

.

I'm hoping they put together a case where Nancy gets LWOP - I think that is entirely possible, but you are right Jaycee's testimony will be important. However, a strong circumstantial case could also win it using whatever they have found (pictures, etc.). Nancy knows there is no way that a 14 year old can have consensual sex (Jaycee might have been 13 when she conceived?). She knows Phillip had sex with her repeatedly (I think they can make that case without Jaycee's testimony). Nancy did hold her captive (is Nancy going to claim she was not part of the kidnapping and that Phillip told her Jaycee was from another woman? Actually, if Nancy knew who she was and knew her birthday there's no way Jaycee could be Phillip's child, right? Or am I calculating wrong. I think they will have far more evidence than we know by trial (and probably do now).

BBM. I think Jaycee would have been 13 when she conceived, right? Angel was born in 1994. Even if her birthday is December 31st, 1994, that would still mean a conception date in April, before Jaycee's 14th birthday. Is that right? My math skills are shoddy at best

 

[time]

BBM. I think Jaycee would have been 13 when she conceived, right? Angel was born in 1994. Even if her birthday is December 31st, 1994, that would still mean a conception date in April, before Jaycee's 14th birthday. Is that right? My math skills are shoddy at best

I think you are right - I was thinking she was 13 too. Ugh