Nancy Garrido - thread #2

[Natal]

Not if Jaycee testifies. If she doesn't, it will be a problem to prove anything against Nancy.

 

[Tizzle]

I think you guys, either one one of you could be right. And, Tizzle, the only reason I could see what difference it makes is that it makes a difference in how NG is prosecuted. PG is down and done, DNA of the children totally does him in. However, NG's involvement is much more "up in the air" if, in fact, her attorneys are going to say she didn't "physically snatch" Jaycee. So, the determination of whether or not Nancy was or was not the snactcher, and if involved how much, in the actual "physical kidnapping" of Jaycee is really, really important. Sooo, trying to determine what actually transpired; front door?; back door; driver's side'; passenger side; it's all really quite important. JMO

Yes, ITA. It is very important for the prosecution to determine this. I was saying I didn't see the relevance here, at this time. It is an important detail, so I guess I should have left that part out of my previous post.

 

[kbl8201]

nancy was obviously there.......carl obviously described it. this stuff about who actually snatched her is beside the point. if you drive the getaway car at a bank robbery but dont actually commit the robbery, you go down for the same thing.
its not like nancy did anything to prevent the kidnapping, even if she wasnt the one who actually grabbed jaycee.
we wouldnt be sitting here debating pg's culpability in the kidnapping if we knew for sure it wasnt him who actually grabbed her.
would love to see her lawyer spin it that she wasnt involved though. it will be comical.

 

[SunnieRN]

The reason I posted is as Billylee stated, in the prosecution aspect. Sorry you don't feel it is appropriate here, but since it is the ng thread, a statement was made that could be refuted in court, I posted it on this thread. I already know culpability exists, as all you have to do is look at the charges and ng has stated they went "child shopping". There is no difference in guilt between ng and pg in my mind. What I question is what arguments ng will be able to make in her own defense.

 

[songline]

nancy was obviously there.......carl obviously described it. this stuff about who actually snatched her is beside the point. if you drive the getaway car at a bank robbery but dont actually commit the robbery, you go down for the same thing.
its not like nancy did anything to prevent the kidnapping, even if she wasnt the one who actually grabbed jaycee.
we wouldnt be sitting here debating pg's culpability in the kidnapping if we knew for sure it wasnt him who actually grabbed her.
would love to see her lawyer spin it that she wasnt involved though. it will be comical.

The extent of involvement can vary; so knowing precisely the extent will guide in the level of punishment she will get.
there is a huge difference between 15 years and LWOP.
No way at all is anyone here debating about "no involvement"

 

[songline]

The reason I posted is as Billylee stated, in the prosecution aspect. Sorry you don't feel it is appropriate here, but since it is the ng thread, a statement was made that could be refuted in court, I posted it on this thread. I already know culpability exists, as all you have to do is look at the charges and ng has stated they went "child shopping". There is no difference in guilt between ng and pg in my mind. What I question is what arguments ng will be able to make in her own defense.

ITA :blowkiss:

 

[songline]

Not if Jaycee testifies. If she doesn't, it will be a problem to prove anything against Nancy.

All accept one thing...it was Nancy who said that they went "shopping" for a girl. Sounds like a plan to me.
a plan that IMHO she could have sabotaged somehow.

 

[songline]

she spent most of the first 3 and a half years locked in a sound proof shed and/or shackled. i doubt escape was possible pregnant or not

And how do we know this for SURE?
Maybe it is true, and maybe it is not.

 

[Tizzle]

Sunnie, I must be coming across in a way that I don't intend. I understand the importance of whether or not NG grabbed JC. I guess I was just trying to make it seem like I was being less argumentative by saying...

I don't really know why it matters whether or not she was dragged into the front driver door or back or whether it was NG or PG. But I think it was the back door and I think it was NG.

and this is why I said in my post after that I should have just left that part out. I think it's a very important detail and this thread is the proper place for such a discussion. I don't want it to seem as though I am minimizing the importance of your post and just wanted to be more clear.

Whether or not NG is able to successfully deny that she grabbed JC in 91, she still didn't take any action to release her when PG was locked up in 93. This is a detail she is going to have a much harder time explaining/denying. I think this is something we can all agree on.

I hope everyone had a wonder-FULL Thankgiving.

 

[SunnieRN]

Sunnie, I must be coming across in a way that I don't intend. I understand the importance of whether or not NG grabbed JC. I guess I was just trying to make it seem like I was being less argumentative by saying...



and this is why I said in my post after that I should have just left that part out. I think it's a very important detail and this thread is the proper place for such a discussion. I don't want it to seem as though I am minimizing the importance of your post and just wanted to be more clear.

Whether or not NG is able to successfully deny that she grabbed JC in 91, she still didn't take any action to release her when PG was locked up in 93. This is a detail she is going to have a much harder time explaining/denying. I think this is something we can all agree on.

I hope everyone had a wonder-FULL Thankgiving.

Thank you and I agree 100%. I am truly frightened that the prosecutors will allow a plea bargain deal that diminishes some of the charges against ng. I hope I am incorrect and that your point above will over ride anything pertaining to the actual kidnapping by itself.

I believe that both of these monsters need to be put away from society for the rest of their lives!

 

[SunnieRN]

As for the statement of a poster stating that without testimony from Jaycee ng will not be convicted (my words, not a direct quote), that is in my own opinion, hogwash!! That would mean that a person involved in murdering someone could never be convicted as the victim could not testify against them. Sorry, but in my opinion and I will admit I might be mistaken, ng has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

Whether or not ng grabbed Jaycee, helped subdue her after pg grabbed her, locked her in the shed, raped her, she had to be aware of her presence in their lives illegally! She did NOTHING to prevent or stop the crime from happening or continuing for 18 years! In fact, as stated several times, she is the one who stated they went "child shopping". I truly believe Jaycee WILL testify. If she does not, the evidence speaks for itself!

Someone at work said to me, "You know that nancy lady has to be a victim. She didn't know what was going on. I bet he told her it was her kid, just like he told his Mom. She shouldn't even be in jail".

Ummm, hello, it would still be kidnapping and rape as he surely didn't produce proof of parentage or custody rights. Lets get real here. Guilt is guilt! In this case if prosecution can not gather enough evidence to convict ng, our countries judicial system is in worse shape than everyone can imagine.

 

[songline]

As for the statement of a poster stating that without testimony from Jaycee ng will not be convicted (my words, not a direct quote), that is in my own opinion, hogwash!! That would mean that a person involved in murdering someone could never be convicted as the victim could not testify against them. Sorry, but in my opinion and I will admit I might be mistaken, ng has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

Whether or not ng grabbed Jaycee, helped subdue her after pg grabbed her, locked her in the shed, raped her, she had to be aware of her presence in their lives illegally! She did NOTHING to prevent or stop the crime from happening or continuing for 18 years! In fact, as stated several times, she is the one who stated they went "child shopping". I truly believe Jaycee WILL testify. If she does not, the evidence speaks for itself!

Someone at work said to me, "You know that nancy lady has to be a victim. She didn't know what was going on. I bet he told her it was her kid, just like he told his Mom. She shouldn't even be in jail".

Ummm, hello, it would still be kidnapping and rape as he surely didn't produce proof of parentage or custody rights. Lets get real here. Guilt is guilt! In this case if prosecution can not gather enough evidence to convict ng, our countries judicial system is in worse shape than everyone can imagine.

You can rest assured that NG is not getting a slap on the wrist, she is done. At the very least she will be in a mental hospital with gates.
And if you saw the movie one flew over the cuckoo's nest then you know it is a fate maybe even worse then death.

 

[songline]

Attorney fights to stay on
http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2353408.html

<<Snip>>
El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Douglas Phimister removed Maines from the case on Nov. 5, pending the outcome of Monday's hearing in his court. The judge temporarily appointed veteran Placerville attorney Stephen Tapson to represent Garrido.

Nancy Garrido said in court filings that she wanted Maines to remain as her attorney.

<<SNIP>>

Why would anyone want to defend any of those 2 animals???? Just wondering.:waitasec:

 

[Natal]

All accept one thing...it was Nancy who said that they went "shopping" for a girl. Sounds like a plan to me.
a plan that IMHO she could have sabotaged somehow.

"Sources" said that. It remains to be seen what she actually said and in what context, or if she said anything at all.

 

[songline]

"Sources" said that. It remains to be seen what she actually said and in what context, or if she said anything at all.

Thank you.

 

[Natal]

As for the statement of a poster stating that without testimony from Jaycee ng will not be convicted (my words, not a direct quote), that is in my own opinion, hogwash!! That would mean that a person involved in murdering someone could never be convicted as the victim could not testify against them. Sorry, but in my opinion and I will admit I might be mistaken, ng has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

Whether or not ng grabbed Jaycee, helped subdue her after pg grabbed her, locked her in the shed, raped her, she had to be aware of her presence in their lives illegally! She did NOTHING to prevent or stop the crime from happening or continuing for 18 years! In fact, as stated several times, she is the one who stated they went "child shopping". I truly believe Jaycee WILL testify. If she does not, the evidence speaks for itself!

Someone at work said to me, "You know that nancy lady has to be a victim. She didn't know what was going on. I bet he told her it was her kid, just like he told his Mom. She shouldn't even be in jail".

Ummm, hello, it would still be kidnapping and rape as he surely didn't produce proof of parentage or custody rights. Lets get real here. Guilt is guilt! In this case if prosecution can not gather enough evidence to convict ng, our countries judicial system is in worse shape than everyone can imagine.

In order to convict her, they have to gather evidence to support their allegations, Jaycee simply being on the property wouldn't be enough. If PG, Nancy and Jaycee all remained silent in court the evidence would be limited to Jaycee being on the property (which is not in itself a crime since she was an adult at the time) and the DNA of the girls. Since the girls have no birth certificates recorded when they were born, their ages cannot be proven with a high degree of certainty, which means that in a worst case scenario the only thing that can be proven with certainty is stat rape charge in the case of Angel's conception. So, testimony from at least one of the three is crucial to the states case in general. Knowing that someone did something and proving it are two different things.

From all accounts Jaycee is co-operating with the DA's office, so there is no reason to think she won't testify. But, in the event she would not or could not, the state would need testimony from one of the other two or their case is going to have real issues. And if she testified for the defense, that would be devastating to the prosecution (very unlikely that would happen though).

PG is obviously the bad guy, so there is no way he is getting a deal. He is going to prison for the rest of his life no matter what the outcome of the case is. If he testifies it will be an act of contrition associated with a guilty plea. I don't think there is much chance of that - could happen, but I doubt it.

That leaves Nancy. Again, she could plead guilty and testify as an act of contrition, but it is more likely that she would be offered some sort of deal that would offer significant jail time but still allow her to get out before she dies. That would pretty much seal up the case for the prosecution and would provide the public with a much clearer insight into the facts of the case than would otherwise be possible.

That would be dependent on the role that Nancy played in the last 18 years of course, if she was the dark force then that would make things complicated. On the other hand if she is a more sympathetic figure then they might cut her a break - there is nothing to be gained from subjecting her to extreme punishment. And her role would be clear to the prosecution based on interviews with Jaycee and the two girls, so they wouldn't be going into that blind Karla-style.

The important thing here IMO is to make a public example of the source of the evil (PG). I think showing mercy to peripheral characters sends a different kind of message, one to similar sorts of characters out in the real world right now, that if they turn, co-operate and/or end the situation they are in, that they are not going to be punished to the max. Otherwise they have all the incentive in the world to keep quite, and that is not in society's best interests.

 

[kbl8201]

The extent of involvement can vary; so knowing precisely the extent will guide in the level of punishment she will get.
there is a huge difference between 15 years and LWOP.
No way at all is anyone here debating about "no involvement"

how about the fact that not once in 18 years, 2 months, and 16 days, did nancy try to alert authorities to the situation?
How about the fact she kept jaycee prisoner while garrido was locked up? can her attorneys skate that during sentencing? i doubt that very much.
im as skeptical of our system as the rest of you, and given my experience, maybe more so, but i just dont see nancy walking with a slap on the wrist, or a medium length sentence.

 

[kbl8201]

and no plea bargians for the witch either.

 

[SunnieRN]

Attorney fights to stay on
http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2353408.html

<<Snip>>
El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Douglas Phimister removed Maines from the case on Nov. 5, pending the outcome of Monday's hearing in his court. The judge temporarily appointed veteran Placerville attorney Stephen Tapson to represent Garrido.

Nancy Garrido said in court filings that she wanted Maines to remain as her attorney.

<<SNIP>>

Why would anyone want to defend any of those 2 animals???? Just wondering.:waitasec:

If ng wanted him as her attorney so badly, why didn't she say something at the hearing?? Bizarre!

In order to convict her, they have to gather evidence to support their allegations, Jaycee simply being on the property wouldn't be enough. If PG, Nancy and Jaycee all remained silent in court the evidence would be limited to Jaycee being on the property (which is not in itself a crime since she was an adult at the time) and the DNA of the girls. Since the girls have no birth certificates recorded when they were born, their ages cannot be proven with a high degree of certainty, which means that in a worst case scenario the only thing that can be proven with certainty is stat rape charge in the case of Angel's conception. So, testimony from at least one of the three is crucial to the states case in general. Knowing that someone did something and proving it are two different things.

From all accounts Jaycee is co-operating with the DA's office, so there is no reason to think she won't testify. But, in the event she would not or could not, the state would need testimony from one of the other two or their case is going to have real issues. And if she testified for the defense, that would be devastating to the prosecution (very unlikely that would happen though).

PG is obviously the bad guy, so there is no way he is getting a deal. He is going to prison for the rest of his life no matter what the outcome of the case is. If he testifies it will be an act of contrition associated with a guilty plea. I don't think there is much chance of that - could happen, but I doubt it.

That leaves Nancy. Again, she could plead guilty and testify as an act of contrition, but it is more likely that she would be offered some sort of deal that would offer significant jail time but still allow her to get out before she dies. That would pretty much seal up the case for the prosecution and would provide the public with a much clearer insight into the facts of the case than would otherwise be possible.

That would be dependent on the role that Nancy played in the last 18 years of course, if she was the dark force then that would make things complicated. On the other hand if she is a more sympathetic figure then they might cut her a break - there is nothing to be gained from subjecting her to extreme punishment. And her role would be clear to the prosecution based on interviews with Jaycee and the two girls, so they wouldn't be going into that blind Karla-style.

The important thing here IMO is to make a public example of the source of the evil (PG). I think showing mercy to peripheral characters sends a different kind of message, one to similar sorts of characters out in the real world right now, that if they turn, co-operate and/or end the situation they are in, that they are not going to be punished to the max. Otherwise they have all the incentive in the world to keep quite, and that is not in society's best interests.

I am confused as to why you think pg is a slam dunk, but that ng is not? Maybe you could explain the reasoning as they were BOTH in the car that day.

As for going easy on her, to encourage others to come forward, I am not sure that would help. I guess it could maybe be possible, but I could see a much different scenario happening. People like pg could begin feeling threatened by their partners, if ng starts talking they will possibly feel the need to kill any victims or their partner/spouse. Just thinking here, my own opinion.

 

[Tizzle]

If ng wanted him as her attorney so badly, why didn't she say something at the hearing?? Bizarre!

<snipped>

I think the reason NG didn't protest Maines' removal at the hearing is because she was confused by the whole situation. I think she was caught off guard and she doesn't really come across as the sharpest tool in the shed to begin with....

I think NG depends on guidance/leadership to cope with most situations (especially unexpected situations) and in this instance, her interim attorney provided it. Poor Mr. Tapson, he's probably MORE than happy to turn this case back over to Maines. If I were Tapson, I sure as heck would be doing all I could to convince NG that Maines is her MAN!!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/11/25/BA4L1AQHVS.DTL

Maines said there was "not one shred of reliable evidence that there is either an actual or potential conflict of interest" between him and Garrido. He said his removal would "seriously impair her defense."

Garrido, in a statement dated Nov. 18, said she "did not really understand what was going on" at the Nov. 5 meeting. She said Phimister had told her he was removing Maines and appointing another lawyer and asked her if that was what she wanted, and she replied that she didn't know.

"I have a relationship with Mr. Maines and I know and I trust him," Garrido said. After talking with her interim attorney, Steve Tapson, she said she was satisfied that Maines had no conflict of interest. Even if he does have a conflict, Garrido said, she still wants Maines as her lawyer.