Nancy Garrido - thread #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
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.
IT will still be the level of involvement. Whichever way you want to spin it.
Did she grab her, or did she just help imprison her all these years. Nobody said she is not guilty...But the question until it is sorted out is HOW much exactly is her involvement.
She is not getting a slap on the wrist, but there is a huge difference between 15 years an LWOP. I think she should get LWOP but that is just my opinion, which does not even begin to matter. What matters is what they will prove.
 
If ng wanted him as her attorney so badly, why didn't she say something at the hearing?? Bizarre!



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.

I think NG is a slam dunk too....But I also think she may not get what I wish for her which is LWOP...It depends on how she will be portrait, and what they can prove. Is her defence going to say she was brain washed, controlled, afraid??? well then she still gets to go to a mental hospital which is no joy ride at all. living in the cuckoo's nest is a fate no different then a prison, sometimes even worse. She is guilty as sin...
I believe that no jury after hearing what happened to JC will let her off NO way, no how, never.
 
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.


That SOB PG is still trying to control whatever he can. :furious:
I can't belive this SOB almost got to control this too.:furious:
But somehow it does make her look like a moron, and that can't hurt her defense. :furious:
 
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 do not agree with most of this post, while I do enjoy many of your other posts.
NG does have to be investigated for the level of involvement.
but even if nobody will talk in the court room This witch is going away the question is for how long?
there is no picture at all that can be painted of her not knowing that this is a stolen family. even the children are stolen IMHO, because they happened as a result of a violation. SHE is toast. just don't know if it is burned toast.
 
That SOB PG is still trying to control whatever he can. :furious:
I can't belive this SOB almost got to control this too.:furious:
But somehow it does make her look like a moron, and that can't hurt her defense. :furious:
BBM

I don't understand what you mean. According to the article, PG had nothing to do with Maines' being removed as NG's counsel. Maines was removed because it was alleged that he was planning to exploit the case through a movie or book deal. Nothing to do with Phil.
 
Just my two cents worth, but I don't see them offering Nancy any kind of plea deal UNLESS it has to do with "other crimes" PG may have committed. There simply is no reason otherwise to offer her anything. As far as this case goes, PG is done. If however, there is information in regard to any other case that Nancy can offer, then there's a possibility. JMO

I DO believe however, that NG's attorney's may well indeed play the "victim card". Seems the most logical defense they'd use for her. To me, that's why whether or not she participated in the actual physical abduction of Jaycee and/or the planning of it is particularly important for the prosecution to prove. Don't you think that her attorneys will try to use a "Jim Jones", "Manson" type theory that NG was totally under PG's influence? I'm not saying that's the case at all, but I sure see the defense heading that way? What do you think?
 
BBM

I don't understand what you mean. According to the article, PG had nothing to do with Maines' being removed as NG's counsel. Maines was removed because it was alleged that he was planning to exploit the case through a movie or book deal. Nothing to do with Phil.
Problem is Tizzle, I wish I could believe that. :(
IMHO just as PG tried letters to JC, Interviews with a reporter, I think he would try anything to control.
 
I believe the statutory rape charge (which is a slam dunk) alone would put PG behind bars for life with his priors so I see NO benefit in giving NG a plea deal. The prosecution must do whatever they can to make sure that neither **** ever sees the light of day again!
 
Just my two cents worth, but I don't see them offering Nancy any kind of plea deal UNLESS it has to do with "other crimes" PG may have committed. There simply is no reason otherwise to offer her anything. As far as this case goes, PG is done. If however, there is information in regard to any other case that Nancy can offer, then there's a possibility. JMO

I DO believe however, that NG's attorney's may well indeed play the "victim card". Seems the most logical defense they'd use for her. To me, that's why whether or not she participated in the actual physical abduction of Jaycee and/or the planning of it is particularly important for the prosecution to prove. Don't you think that her attorneys will try to use a "Jim Jones", "Manson" type theory that NG was totally under PG's influence? I'm not saying that's the case at all, but I sure see the defense heading that way? What do you think?
I totally think he will go in that direction, if he goes in that direction, it will still get her time, maybe in the cuckoo's nest.
Which is no great accomplishment, it is far worse.

Maybe like Hedda Nussbaum.
[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedda_Nussbaum[/ame]
They did not kidnap anyone but they abused 2 adopted children,
she claimed she was helpless. STILL WENT TO JAIL.
 
I believe the statutory rape charge (which is a slam dunk) alone would put PG behind bars for life with his priors so I see NO benefit in giving NG a plea deal. The prosecution must do whatever they can to make sure that neither **** ever sees the light of day again!

there is just one problem. If she plays victim and she is believed, while she will get jail time, it will be far less then LIFE. :(
I am not sure JC has mean stories to tell about her, but she may have stories to tell of when NG did play Guard and kept her. she may tell that it was indeed NG who pulled her into the car. But most of the abuse stores that JC has to tell would be of PG.
I think NG was afraid of her own shadow, I think she may have been sexually abused too, so she may think that is normal. :sick: IF NG was abused knowing how it felt should have made her do the right thing.
She is subhuman and should not get anything less then a cuckoo's nest.
JMO
 
Just my two cents worth, but I don't see them offering Nancy any kind of plea deal UNLESS it has to do with "other crimes" PG may have committed. There simply is no reason otherwise to offer her anything. As far as this case goes, PG is done. If however, there is information in regard to any other case that Nancy can offer, then there's a possibility. JMO

I DO believe however, that NG's attorney's may well indeed play the "victim card". Seems the most logical defense they'd use for her. To me, that's why whether or not she participated in the actual physical abduction of Jaycee and/or the planning of it is particularly important for the prosecution to prove. Don't you think that her attorneys will try to use a "Jim Jones", "Manson" type theory that NG was totally under PG's influence? I'm not saying that's the case at all, but I sure see the defense heading that way? What do you think?

Great post Billylee. I would hope the prosecution is preparing for just such a scenario. That is the stance I would take as a defense attorney!

Since you asked, if there are other victims/other crimes she has knowledge of, I don't see her as someone who will start to reveal them. I see her more like the Manson "girls", who practiced loyalty to Charles for years!!! Not just throughout the time at the ranch, but through the murders and the court trial as well. The emotional hold was long and devastating. Now they say they were mistaken and are asking for forgiveness, as ng may do down the road, but I doubt (my own opinion only), that it will be anytime soon.

The thing is, that even though in many ways I see ng as a victim, I also believe she never lost sight of right vs wrong and knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that she needed to keep the girls cloistered for her and pg's protection from prosecution. Victim or not, this does not absolve her from guilt.
 
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.

Without testimony or physical evidence they will have problems with PG as well and most of the charges would dismissed for lack of evidence. But...in his case Angel is his daughter (which can be proven by DNA) and while her age cannot be determined accurately, it would still be old enough to charge him with having sex with a minor. On at least that charge the case is pretty solid. For the rest, knowing something probably happened and proving it in court are two different things.

In any event he will be convicted on at least one charge and because he is on lifelong parole anyway, he will go to prison and stay there for the rest of his life.


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.

I don't think that would happen, if the primary criminal was going to kill, they would do it anyway. The point is to give minor participants in the crime an incentive to do something about it if they want an out for their situation. Sending the message that they are going to have the book thrown at them forces them to keep quite and take their chances without co-operating, there would be no reason for them to do so.
 
Just my two cents worth, but I don't see them offering Nancy any kind of plea deal UNLESS it has to do with "other crimes" PG may have committed. There simply is no reason otherwise to offer her anything. As far as this case goes, PG is done. If however, there is information in regard to any other case that Nancy can offer, then there's a possibility. JMO

I DO believe however, that NG's attorney's may well indeed play the "victim card". Seems the most logical defense they'd use for her. To me, that's why whether or not she participated in the actual physical abduction of Jaycee and/or the planning of it is particularly important for the prosecution to prove. Don't you think that her attorneys will try to use a "Jim Jones", "Manson" type theory that NG was totally under PG's influence? I'm not saying that's the case at all, but I sure see the defense heading that way? What do you think?

The Smart case is a comparable situation to this one, and in that case Wanda Barzee was given a plea deal for a 15 year sentence in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution. Her role in the Smart case is very similar to Nancy's role in this case. Keep in mind that Elizabeth is (and has in pretrial hearings) going to testify, so they don't need Wanda's testimony directly other than for corroboration. And since it includes time served, she will be in jail for at most 9 years (possibly less with parole).

Part of the motivation I think in offering these sorts of deals is so that the full story can be told, including the back story that the victim obviously wouldn't know about. In Garrido's case they will want to find out if he was involved in anything else, or if anyone else was involved, and that information isn't coming free. Even if Jaycee was the only victim, and PG and Nancy were the only ones involved, the state still needs to know that.
 
i just dont get how she can skate without life on all the charges she's facing..
kidnapping, being a party to rape, ect. unless they can find her insane i dont get anything less then life.......if garrido had shot jaycee on june 10th 1991 while nancy was driving, she'd be getting life, or maybe the death penalty. why should it be diffrent cause it's kidnapping?
 
i just dont get how she can skate without life on all the charges she's facing..
kidnapping, being a party to rape, ect. unless they can find her insane i dont get anything less then life.......if garrido had shot jaycee on june 10th 1991 while nancy was driving, she'd be getting life, or maybe the death penalty. why should it be diffrent cause it's kidnapping?
She is not going to walk, but if they do play the "Mentally Impaired" card she may not get as much time as you were hoping for.
 
The Smart case is a comparable situation to this one, and in that case Wanda Barzee was given a plea deal for a 15 year sentence in exchange for cooperating with the prosecution. Her role in the Smart case is very similar to Nancy's role in this case. Keep in mind that Elizabeth is (and has in pretrial hearings) going to testify, so they don't need Wanda's testimony directly other than for corroboration. And since it includes time served, she will be in jail for at most 9 years (possibly less with parole).

Part of the motivation I think in offering these sorts of deals is so that the full story can be told,
including the back story that the victim obviously wouldn't know about. In Garrido's case they will want to find out if he was involved in anything else, or if anyone else was involved, and that information isn't coming free. Even if Jaycee was the only victim, and PG and Nancy were the only ones involved, the state still needs to know that.

So what are you suggesting? they both get a slap on the wrist? Not going to happen.:snooty:
Sure ....the reason they want a full story is so that they can send them out in the street???
with a light sentence? :waitasec: that is crazy....

We do not need an effing story...We have a heartbreaking story already.
We just may need more facts in case they have to be hung from the tallest tree.
But you seem to think there is not enough data to get justice in this case.
PG is toast....
NG is toast......not sure how crisp (meaning how many years)
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
296
Total visitors
399

Forum statistics

Threads
609,418
Messages
18,253,801
Members
234,649
Latest member
sharag
Back
Top