Nancy Garrido - thread #2

[jazerelle]

Is there any information on Nancy Garrido's work history? Or was she a stay at home kidnapper until 1994? I am just curious if she was working at the time Phillip went to Jail in April 1993. And if so if she changed jobs to perhaps to closer to her charge. The job we know about said she had good references.

*looks for smiley list which seems to have vanished*

 

[SunnieRN]

I am not assuming Jaycee won't testify, in fact I would be really surprised if she doesn't. However, the prosecution can't afford to take the chance that she might not, or that some other circumstance might happen that either prevented her from testifying or changed what she said in court at trial. The case is too important. That is why IMO they will probably do a deal with Nancy, record a guilty plea from her ASAP in exchange for a reasonable sentence from both parties point of view. That way they have the state's version of events locked in. All that is dependent on what exactly Nancy's role in all of this was of course, if it turns out that she was a major malevolent force they won't be able to do that, but most likely they will find that she is some weak willed pathetic personality. If she is that sort of person it is pretty unlikely that she would pose any sort of risk to society if she were to eventually be released. In any case, even with a deal she would still be looking at 10-15 years. By the time she got out she would be old, alone with no friends or family, with no money or assets, and would eventually die of old age homeless, dirty, cold and alone in some back alley. Her future is grim and her life basically over no matter what they do, the only glimmer of hope she would have is if Angel and Starlet have some affection for her. She will NOT be getting an easy out.

I'm all for punishing the guilty, but at some point insisting on continueing whipping the horse when it is beaten down just becomes sadism, and I would like to think that society in general is better than that.

As for all the other emotive stuff (which makes for poor debate style btw), sure, if Jaycee and/or Nancy testifies to that. But, if they don't, the jury will never hear of that. How can a jury reasonably return a guilty verdict on (for example) charge XIII if no evidence is presented that PG and JD had intercourse of any description sometime during that period, or that JD was even on the property at that time?

Well, I am sorry you feel I have a poor debate style, as I was not trying to debate with you, but to ask your feelings/emotions concerning this case. It would help me understand whether you are truly being analytical about the case or if you are sympathetic to the plight of the people accused.

Your statement about sadism is telling to me. Certainly our society is better than that. We live in a country that ensures the criminals their day in court and for the most part fair treatment. The system of course has failures, it is administered by human beings, but for the most part it does try to be just. Any punishment ng will be sentanced to will not be unfair to her. Think of what Jaycee underwent for 18 years. Any less sentence than that would imho only be a travesty of justice. Am I right? Is that what she will receive? I have no clue, but the punishment should at least fit the crime. Nancy knew and knows right from wrong.


As for the jury having to hear details about the sexual acts themselves, I am sure that Jaycee is being prepared to know that she will have to give enough details to prove the charges. What will speak the loudest is the birthdates of her daughters. Fortunately kidnapping and rape are still illegal in this country.

One other thought. Why would prosecuting attorneys have charged ng and pg alike if they didn't feel they had enough evidence to prosecute the case?
It hasn't seemed to me that they are taking this case or the charges lightly.

As for ng's outcome if she gets out of jail/prison, where ever after 10 years, I see a much better scenario than her being destitute and homeless. She does have family, that seem to care and I don't think it would be left to Angel and Starlit to care for or support her. My own opinion, of course.

 

[jazerelle]

:waitasec: I was just thinking after looking once again at the deplorable conditions that Jaycee was forced to live in at that house and yard. The California Penal code has a longer, aka up to a life sentence, if the kidnapper takes their victim and places them in a dangerous condition that is more than the intended act (in this case rape). Well I believe, now don't shoot me, that forcing a child to live in a dangerous area where they could be harmed or killed by their environment would qualify. I also think, but this might be stretching it, the pregnancies, without proper medical supervision, would also qualify as putting the person's life at risk. If either of these scenarios is accurate, then PG and NG could actually be looking at a life sentence. Now wouldn't that be nice. I think I will review that code section again.

 

[kbl8201]

:waitasec: I was just thinking after looking once again at the deplorable conditions that Jaycee was forced to live in at that house and yard. The California Penal code has a longer, aka up to a life sentence, if the kidnapper takes their victim and places them in a dangerous condition that is more than the intended act (in this case rape). Well I believe, now don't shoot me, that forcing a child to live in a dangerous area where they could be harmed or killed by their environment would qualify. I also think, but this might be stretching it, the pregnancies, without proper medical supervision, would also qualify as putting the person's life at risk. If either of these scenarios is accurate, then PG and NG could actually be looking at a life sentence. Now wouldn't that be nice. I think I will review that code section again.

garrido's getting life no matter what due to the parle violations.
i've mentioned her previously, though, why no child endangerment charges? not just for jaycee but for her daughters.

 

[Natal]

They have the car- it was in Garrido's back yard. We don't know that they didn't show Carl a photo line-up, his composite sketch of Nancy was a dead ringer.

They have A car, not the same thing. Unless they can prove that it was the same car, it would be treated as coincidental. I'm sure there are (or were) lots like it around at the time. Remember, PG is a "dead ringer" for Michaela's composite, and the car was reportedly similar, yet he hasn't been arrested for that, simply because that doesn't prove his involvement.

There has to be something directly linking it to the crime, and in this case it would be testimony from one the principal characters.

As for a photo line-up, it would be useless once Nancy's face was splashed all over TV. So, if they did it, it would have to have been done before that happened.

 

[Natal]

So true! What Natal is forgetting is that even if Jaycee eventually decided she liked sex-as does happen sometimes with sexual assault victims, she was still not old enough to give consent until she turned 18, and therefore it was statutory rape.

Statutory rape and rape are not the same thing, the penalty for the former is much lighter. I think the charge in California (if I'm reading the penal code correctly) would be something like "Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Which is a misdemeanor if the age difference is less than three years, and a felony if more. It is punishable by a maximum of one year in prison if the minor is under 18, or up to four years if the minor is under 16. There are also civil penalties (ie fines) that could be levied, a max of 25k, depending on the ages of those involved.

Without testimony they would only be able to prove one charge (in the case of Angel's conception) based on 261.5(d), and perhaps one charge (in the case of Starlet's conception) based on 261.5(c) based on DNA, for a total of 5 years at most. And in Starlet's case, since she was born around when Jaycee was 18, and since proving her birthdate is entirely dependent on that missing testimony, they would have a hard time proving that charge at all. Plus, this would only apply to PG, not Nancy. This is the worst case scenario, but it could happen.

It becomes rape when done under duress (kidnapping or confinement would qualify), by force, or the victim is incapable of consenting due to physical or developmental reasons. There are a host of other things which qualify as well. These are the charges made against PG and Nancy. If the state can prove kidnapping and/or confinement, it would not matter if she co-operated at some point, it would still be rape. But, if for some reason testimony does not materialize at trial, they would not be able to prove that, and would have to fall back on the unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor charges.

This is why the testimony is so important, it could have a huge impact on the case. In my opinion it would be irresponsible for the prosecution to take those sorts of chances.

 

[Natal]

I doubt ANY jury will believe that both of Jaycee's children were born after she turned 18. There's just NO way those kids can be only 10 and 6, which is what they would have to be for JC to have ever consented.

PG for sure will spend the rest of his life behind bars, NG probably will too but it will take several years to know for sure so a troll can string us (those that demand justice) along for awhile. PG or NG will not walk on a technicality, that's why the prosecution is taking their time to make sure none of these BS defense arguments will work against the overwhelming evidence!

One of those kids is 11 actually, not too far from 10.

PG will be behind bars forever no matter what because he is on lifetime parole, which will be revoked and you can be pretty sure it would never be given again. So he will not be walking, period.

And this is not a defense argument, it is a reasoning of why Nancy would be offered a plea deal by the prosecution, assuming she was a relatively neutral actor in the story. If for some reason Jaycee walked away from the process, the entire case would collapse unless they had backup. It is not like this is the first time such a thing has happened, remember that PG raped a 14 year old girl a long time ago, and that case was dropped for that precise reason. Their witness was gone and consequently they couldn't prove anything.

 

[Natal]

Beyond Jaycee's recollection, her lawyer was in the process of obtaining birth certificates and social security numbers for the girls. In order to do that, they'd need exact dates. Also, a doctor or forensic anthropologist may be able to tell how old the girls are by physical examination.

Since they were issued 10-15 years after the actual births, they would give a nominal age for administrative purposes only, the certificates couldn't be used to prove date of birth. They certainly wouldn't be able to enter them into trial if they were issued by the state after the state laid charges.

Physiological develpment gives an approximate age only, it couldn't be used to date the girls conclusively.

Only three people know the exact ages of the girls for sure, Jaycee, Nancy and PG.

Maybe Patricia. Unless she has too much "dementia"

Perhaps Jack(?), he might know enough to set lower bounds, but he has dementia too.

Some of the neighbors could set some lower bounds, depending on when they first became aware of the girls (allthough they seem to be largely unaware of their presence). But I think they would be of limited use in that regard, the girls would have been relatively old when the neighbors found out about them.

 

[kbl8201]

on the cbs early show this morning, they were saying nancy is going to use a 'diminished capacity' defense, blaming an addiction to meth.
frankly i didnt see this one coming. It's almost as if her lawyer saw all the stories about the meth lab and drug parties and thought "well they wont buy innocence, or insanity, so how about drug addiction?"
pretty lame if you ask me.
did the drugs make her mind completly incapacited for 18 years? i'm praying there isnt a jury dumb enough to fall for this.

 

[songline]

on the cbs early show this morning, they were saying nancy is going to use a 'diminished capacity' defense, blaming an addiction to meth.
frankly i didnt see this one coming. It's almost as if her lawyer saw all the stories about the meth lab and drug parties and thought "well they wont buy innocence, or insanity, so how about drug addiction?"
pretty lame if you ask me.
did the drugs make her mind completly incapacited for 18 years? i'm praying there isnt a jury dumb enough to fall for this.

Drugs are definitely known to alter your mind. DEFINITLY.
I don't think we should set all the prisoners free who selected to do bad things under the influence .:crazy:
AND - I am not so sure she has been on any Meth for 18 years .
I think (no drug expert - lol) there was no such thing as Meth 18 years ago....MAYBE 10 years that I hear that term....
But please feel free to jump in here, because I personally prefer a glass of wine, no drugs .:crazy:

 

[kbl8201]

Drugs are definitely known to alter your mind. DEFINITLY.
I don't think we should set all the prisoners free who selected to do bad things under the influence .:crazy:
AND - I am not so sure she has been on any Meth for 18 years .
I think (no drug expert - lol) there was no such thing as Meth 18 years ago....MAYBE 10 years that I hear that term....
But please feel free to jump in here, because I personally prefer a glass of wine, no drugs .:crazy:

i'll admit im not an expert on drugs least of all meth. but obviously during those 18 years, she had many times she wasnt on it......
to me this is just the defense lawyers running down a list of possible defenses and finding the only one they could possibly pull off. (not guilty insanity, battered woman are not likely to work).
would be intresed in others opinions about this.

 

[SunnieRN]

:waitasec: I was just thinking after looking once again at the deplorable conditions that Jaycee was forced to live in at that house and yard. The California Penal code has a longer, aka up to a life sentence, if the kidnapper takes their victim and places them in a dangerous condition that is more than the intended act (in this case rape). Well I believe, now don't shoot me, that forcing a child to live in a dangerous area where they could be harmed or killed by their environment would qualify. I also think, but this might be stretching it, the pregnancies, without proper medical supervision, would also qualify as putting the person's life at risk. If either of these scenarios is accurate, then PG and NG could actually be looking at a life sentence. Now wouldn't that be nice. I think I will review that code section again.

I think you raised an excellent point. Also, exposing Jaycee and the girls to unknown elements in the form of neighbors or strangers that could easily access the back yard is another danger. Unfortunately they were not in the best neighborhood.

One of those kids is 11 actually, not too far from 10.

PG will be behind bars forever no matter what because he is on lifetime parole, which will be revoked and you can be pretty sure it would never be given again. So he will not be walking, period.

And this is not a defense argument, it is a reasoning of why Nancy would be offered a plea deal by the prosecution, assuming she was a relatively neutral actor in the story. If for some reason Jaycee walked away from the process, the entire case would collapse unless they had backup. It is not like this is the first time such a thing has happened, remember that PG raped a 14 year old girl a long time ago, and that case was dropped for that precise reason. Their witness was gone and consequently they couldn't prove anything.

You are right, ONE of the kids is 11 years old. If you can take their word or Jaycees word for it. She however is the younger daughter. Not sure what point you were making in response to the post.

Also, when the 14 year old dropped the charges of rape, the circumstances were different (a matter of days, not 18 years) and times were VERY different then, with girls/women having to prove their innocence against the men who raped them. Different case, during a different era. Apples to oranges.

on the cbs early show this morning, they were saying nancy is going to use a 'diminished capacity' defense, blaming an addiction to meth.
frankly i didnt see this one coming. It's almost as if her lawyer saw all the stories about the meth lab and drug parties and thought "well they wont buy innocence, or insanity, so how about drug addiction?"
pretty lame if you ask me.
did the drugs make her mind completly incapacited for 18 years? i'm praying there isnt a jury dumb enough to fall for this.

Grrr, that is like alcoholics stating it isn't their fault they drove drunk and killed someone. Puh-lese!!!!!!! Take responsibility for your choices! Drug adiction and alcoholism are diseases of CHOICE! It's not like there isn't help out there!

 

[Dr. Doogie]

I think (no drug expert - lol) there was no such thing as Meth 18 years ago....MAYBE 10 years that I hear that term....:crazy:

I have been aware of meth for longer than that. Here in Northern California, I first heard about it in the late 1970's when it emerged as a cheap alternative to cocaine. It was often called "crank" at the time.

 

[kbl8201]

just to add further........
manson's girls were hooked on drugs and brainwashed.
they still all got the death penalty anyways. (till the supreme court temp outlawed it)

 

[jazerelle]

One of those kids is 11 actually, not too far from 10.

Actually you do not know what side of 11 she is, whether closer to 10 or closer to 12. On one UK site they stated her age as 12. And remember it is not the date of birth that is the deciding factor, it is the date of conception which can be as much as 10 months earlier than the date of birth.

 

[Tizzle]

Looking at the 2 of them, it doesn't really surprise me that they are/were meth addicts. Faces all gaunt, eyes deep-set, especially PG. I'm willing to bet they have oral issues, as well, though I don't know, as I haven't seen them smiling (nor do I want to). At first, I thought he might have cancer and NG I thought perhaps Parkinson's or Huntington's, but she's much too old to be in the early stages of either. Meth addiction makes sense. I hope he spared JC from this same monkey on her back. It doesn't seem promising, though, since he liked to force so many other things on her...{{shudder}}:nerves:

Regardless of the choices they made to participate in heavy drug use, I doubt it's going to get her exonerated or a lighter sentence. I would actually think it would look worse for her defense because, as Sunnie stated, drunk drivers don't get away with smearing families across our highways because they were drunk! DUH! It actually seems like an extremely dumb move on the part of her defense team. So, I think I like it! And it certainly does seem that she is ready to roll over on dear pervert hubby! :winkaway:

Watching the video, I just now noticed how much JC resembles her Aunt. Wow.

P.S. Wine is good, too! :toastred:

 

[songline]

i'll admit im not an expert on drugs least of all meth. but obviously during those 18 years, she had many times she wasnt on it......
to me this is just the defense lawyers running down a list of possible defenses and finding the only one they could possibly pull off. (not guilty insanity, battered woman are not likely to work).
would be intresed in others opinions about this.

Her attorney's Jobs are to use whatever they can to defend her.
THAT is their job. Like it or not.

If she was on Meth they can use it. seems she was functional at work and not incapacitated.
Drugs are not a get out of jail ticket, they can only be a ticket to plead sick.
Sick is not a get out of jail ticket either.
However I did read that workers did say she was strange never spoke and hurried home to her husband.
WELL that is a sign of a scared person. In my minds eye she is scum....But her lawyers job is
to do the best they can to defend her.

So what is your problem? That is what we DO want because if we get a slob for a lawyer who does a
lousy job and she get off on a technicality, that is far worse.
She is not going to go home....At best she will go to some mental hospital.
the case is very far away and they will be coming up with all sorts of things that YOU will not control.
IMO as low as she may be, she IS STILL a Sick woman. Mental Hospital does not offend me "Freedom" would.

 

[songline]

Did Phillip Garrido Ply Wife With Meth?

<<SNIP>>
Numerous sources tell CBS News her was heavily into methamphetamines, supplied by her husband, Phillip Garrido, reports "Early Show" National Corresondent Hattie Kauffman.

"If her lawyers could establish that, not only did he have this sort of Svengali-like control over her, but he also increased that mind control over her with this heavy supply of drugs, this heavy supply of drug use, then maybe that cuts in her favor," says CBS News legal analyst Trent Copeland.
<<<SNIP>>>
Meanwhile, Jaycee is about to celebrate the first Christmas with her family in 18 years.


<<More at link>>


http://cbs13.com/jayceelee/garrido.wife.meth.2.1340492.html

Nancy is getting family visits.
PG has no visitors at all....

 

[songline]

Statutory rape and rape are not the same thing, the penalty for the former is much lighter. I think the charge in California (if I'm reading the penal code correctly) would be something like "Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor". Which is a misdemeanor if the age difference is less than three years, and a felony if more. It is punishable by a maximum of one year in prison if the minor is under 18, or up to four years if the minor is under 16. There are also civil penalties (ie fines) that could be levied, a max of 25k, depending on the ages of those involved.

Without testimony they would only be able to prove one charge (in the case of Angel's conception) based on 261.5(d), and perhaps one charge (in the case of Starlet's conception) based on 261.5(c) based on DNA, for a total of 5 years at most. And in Starlet's case, since she was born around when Jaycee was 18, and since proving her birthdate is entirely dependent on that missing testimony, they would have a hard time proving that charge at all. Plus, this would only apply to PG, not Nancy. This is the worst case scenario, but it could happen.

It becomes rape when done under duress (kidnapping or confinement would qualify), by force, or the victim is incapable of consenting due to physical or developmental reasons. There are a host of other things which qualify as well. These are the charges made against PG and Nancy. If the state can prove kidnapping and/or confinement, it would not matter if she co-operated at some point, it would still be rape. But, if for some reason testimony does not materialize at trial, they would not be able to prove that, and would have to fall back on the unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor charges.

This is why the testimony is so important, it could have a huge impact on the case. In my opinion it would be irresponsible for the prosecution to take those sorts of chances.

kidnapping is "Federal" which changes the entire picture.
Kidnapping and Statutory rape based on how I have read it is a "Felony" charge
(SR = Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty.)
there are 18 years of being a sex slave and I have no idea if that too would not fall under "federal"
I believe it would be.
He is toast it does not matter which side of 11 years JC was.
I know you agree that he is toast...But Nancy helped him do all of it. so accomplice would be toast too.

 

[songline]

Garridos Set To Appear In Court
http://www.ksbw.com/news/21932640/detail.html