Patricia Garrido

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
oh yeah you are probably right that should be him. I wish I could find that thing. blah!

ETA: Ok I give up. I will try and get another copy if no one can find the right ddate.

It is possible that there were two Franzens who died in Antioch, but the first name would make it even more unusual in a town that size! Dang I forgot the rest of my thought...

I was going to say that it is a small world though and nothing is impossible!!

Good night everyone and sweet dreams!!!!
 
This has been bothering me.

Phillip moved in with his mother Patricia at the Walnut Street address after he was released from the halfway house in Oakland (November/December 1988). Since he married Nancy while in prison, I assume that she also moved in at the same time.

In 1991, he and Nancy take a trip to Lake Tahoe and return with an eleven year old girl. Although the above article does not specific state this, a post above says that Garrido explained to his mother that this girl (Jaycee, who he called Allisa) was his daughter from a previous relationship.

Do you see where I am going with this? 1991 minus eleven years minus nine months of pregnancy means that his so-called daughter would have had to have been conceived in approximately 1979/1980. Garrido was in prison from 1976 until 1988!

This cover story is so patently ridiculous that it raises the question: How much did Patricia Garrido know and how much should she have known? And even if she was so math defecient that she did not recognize the inconsistency of Phillip's story, how did she rationalize away: (1) Why did Garrido's eleven year old "daughter" not attend school?, and (2) If the "daughter" never left the property, how did she become pregnant - once in 1995 and once in 1999?

I know that she currently has dementia and has been so afflicated for approximately the last eight years, but that does not explain her actions between 1991 and 2001. If the above details are correct, then this woman was an accomplaice just like Nancy. And if she quietly sat by when Garrido perpetrated his horrors on Jaycee, what other horrors did she allow on her property before 1991?


I haven't read through the thread, but does anyone know when the stepdad died. The first post link says early 90's;

After his release in the late 1980s, Phillip Garrido moved in with his mother, who lived just outside Antioch in a modest home with a large backyard. His parents had divorced in 1971, and his mother had later married Herschel Franzen, who left the home to his wife when he died in the early 1990s.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/28/MNHQ19EU4O.DTL#ixzz0UB24CyOH

I'm just wondering how he died, and exactly when, and where.....
 
Hershel J. Franzen died January 28, 1986 - before Phillip was paroled.
 
I don't know if this is here already, but here's Patricia Garrido's real estate license info. It expired in 1993. Now does that mean she was still out selling homes in say 1990 - 1993??? That I don't know, but am trying to determine.



License information taken from records of the Department of Real Estate on 10/16/2009 10:18:25 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

License Type:
SALESPERSON


Name:
Garrido, Patricia Lucille


Mailing Address:
RT 1 BOX 397E 1554 WALNUT AVE
ANTIOCH, CA 94509


License ID:
00596372


Expiration Date:
06/27/93


License Status:
EXPIRED


Salesperson License Issued:
05/26/77 (Unofficial -- taken from secondary records)


Former Name(s):
Garrido, Patricia Lucille


Franzen, Patricia Lucille Garrido


Employing Broker:
NO CURRENT EMPLOYING BROKER


Comment:
NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION


NO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS


>>>> Public information request complete <<<<

Isn't that the same year NG's cna expired?

what's up with that?
coincidence?
or conscience effort to start flying under the radar????
 
All child rapistseither were raped as children themselves or witnessed child rape as children. I had assumed a man had raped PG as a boy, hence his obsession with rape early on, but now I'm thinking, maybe it was his own mother (Speculation, I know!). At the very least, the woman knew about the abuse PG experienced as a boy. As I mentioned earlier, no batterer all of a sudden starts that behavior: they learn it as boys. So he, at least, saw his father battering his mother as a boy. That's traumatizing.

But I keep wondering why PG singles out his mother to be a knowing partner in such brutality, while he had hardly any, if at all, contact with his father or the rest of his family. It's quite common for children of abuse to be somewhat dependent on their abuser, even in adulthood. Remember how people described the Dugard girls as "clingy?" That's just one immediate example. I mean, why else would she be so accepting of this evil? More importantly, why would he want her to know about it? PG knew that his mother could be trusted with heinous crimes, but wondering why he wanted her to know is what truly haunts me. I think SunnieRN is right: they were continuing their sick, twisted bond.

His continuing, disturbing relationship with his mother is what he leads me to believe Patricia was an also an abuser. And the fact he chose her to be a co-conspirator in this type of crime--child rape--is what points me to believe she was involved in some sort of sexual abuse of him. I mean, it also makes sense as to why he wanted a woman, Nancy, involved in his crimes, which Nancy called a "family," and why even after her son openly admitted in court that not only exposed himself to young girls, but also strongly desired raping them, Patricia Garrido still stood behind her son. It's because she doesn't care he's a child rapist. In fact, she's so cold-blooded that she didn't mind knowing he was holding a girl captive in the backyard and raping her repeatedly. Hell, she could see the victim regularly and still be OK with it. It's staggering!

I pray that they throw this woman behind bars for the sick crimes she refuse to stop, but I just don't see that happening at all. Dugard deserves to have every crime documented and accounted for, whether it was by an elderly woman or a parole officer who refused to do their job.

This is stated as fact, but I don't believe it is indeed a fact.

PG's mother is obviously an enabler, and that in itself imo, encourages a lack of moral boundaries.
He knew what he was doing was wrong, his wife was not only an enabler, but a co-conspirator.
His mother, according to his brother, believed everything her son said, and didn't question him, since she thought "he could do no wrong."
jmo.
 
The more I keep thinking about Patricia Garrido, the more I wish we could bring more info on Manuel Garrido. To me, he's just as central in understanding Phillip Garrido, especially since a father is an incredible role model for a son, good or bad. But we hardly know anything concrete on the father.

@yosande: And? You said you don't believe it's a fact and yet you don't offer anything else. I said that because whether it's psychologists who study child rapists or the FBI, the same conclusion is made: almost exclusively child rapists, regardless of gender, were raped as children; the few who are not, at least, witness it as children. How else do you think they come to rationalizing raping a child? I'm being genuine here. How do you think they do it, if they weren't raped as children or witnessed it as children? Do they become child rapists as adults all of sudden? And what percentage of the pedophile population do you think that is? Enough to make my initial statement on the background of child rapists somehow void?

Any child abuser learns the behavior when he/she is a child themselves.
 
@Jbean: That is a good question. To me, Patricia Garrido knew exactly what her son was. He was not only a convicted kidnapper and rapist, but he confessed to wanting to rape young children. Still, Patricia Garrido stood by him. To me, that means that she was OK with what he did. But considering what happened there over the course of 18 years (e.g., girls all of a sudden showing up, living in the backyard), it strikes me as unreasonable to assume she didn't know what was going on. She's only been suffering from dementia for the past six years. Now, it's true, one can say, "She knew but was too scared to do anything," meaning that she wanted to help. I don't believe she wanted to help at all because she was so accepting of his disturbing behavior before, no matter how chilling. It would assume that all of a sudden she had a change of heart about her son's behavior and I just don't see that. Also, I doubt Phillip Garrido would invite someone to his home unless he could trust them (Note: obviously, being an invite is far different than a captive). He trusted his mother.

I don't know that he ever confessed to her of his complusions, but I know very little of this case as to me it was too horrific to look at when it first came to light, and I'm only now reading about it.
So, with that in mind, if she thought he could do no wrong as his brother said from link in post #1, then imo, she didn't think he was a rapist, and therefore had no reason, except that he was in jail when Jaycee was conceived, to not believe his explanation. If she never went out in the backyard, and didn't see Jaycee until she was pregnant three years later, she may have thought she was older than she was.

I also read the exhusband was "disgusted" with his exwife, which I find an interesting word to describe her after being divorced for so many years.

I suspect his dad was abusive toward his mother while he was growing up, which is where he learned to be abusive himself, and it is likely he was physically abusive toward his son, one or both. The family is not close.

Family dynamics may have a lot to do with how PG became what he was/is, but imo he knew how to recognize weak/vulnerable women, and children, and took advantage of it at every opportunity.

He is a monster.

fwiw, jmo.
 
The more I keep thinking about Patricia Garrido, the more I wish we could bring more info on Manuel Garrido. To me, he's just as central in understanding Phillip Garrido, especially since a father is an incredible role model for a son, good or bad. But we hardly know anything concrete on the father.

@yosande: And? You said you don't believe it's a fact and yet you don't offer anything else. I said that because whether it's psychologists who study child rapists or the FBI, the same conclusion is made: almost exclusively child rapists, regardless of gender, were raped as children; the few who are not, at least, witness it as children. How else do you think they come to rationalizing raping a child? I'm being genuine here. How do you think they do it, if they weren't raped as children or witnessed it as children? Do they become child rapists as adults all of sudden? And what percentage of the pedophile population do you think that is? Enough to make my initial statement on the background of child rapists somehow void?

Any child abuser learns the behavior when he/she is a child themselves.

Why do you think they have a need to rationalize their behavior?

No, I do not think they become child rapist as adults all of a sudden.

PG's behavior started as a teen, iirc, and imo, people cross over a line, then move their boundaries further and further into depravity until they erase the line, or boundary all together.

It is my opinion that a child who is raped is more likely to become a child advocate, not a child rapist.

Imo, to say that a child rapist was raped as a child means one needs to believe them when they use that excuse for their behavior, and it also leans toward accepting/excusing aka enabling it. jmo fwiw.

I know a young man who was raped as a child several times by a teen, who was a monster, and had no moral compass at all.
This monster of whom I speak was not raped as a child, but he was abandoned by his mother when he was an infant, and to say his father was an enabler would be an understatement.

He did what he did because he could, and he knew their would be no consequence for his actions, and in fact he would profit from it by causing his dad and his new stepmom to seperate, and he was correct, as that is exactly what happened.

PG, imo, because of his crimes, enjoyed the "risk" of getting caught.
I doubt very much that he was raped when he was a child.
I do think that to say his mother was/is an enabler is an understatement and as a child he was probably pushing the limits, and winning from the get go. It is likely he was rarely if ever disciplined, or taught that there was a negative consequence for inappropiate behavior.
jmo, fwiw.
 
Just curious, if herschel died in 1986, what is this document from 1993?

Document Number Reel Image Doc Type
27-SEP-93 026689001 0000 0000 RECONVEYANCE
( E ) FRANZEN PATRICIA 8983 113
( E ) FRANZEN HERSCHEL J 8983 113
 
I haven't read through the thread, but does anyone know when the stepdad died. The first post link says early 90's;

After his release in the late 1980s, Phillip Garrido moved in with his mother, who lived just outside Antioch in a modest home with a large backyard. His parents had divorced in 1971, and his mother had later married Herschel Franzen, who left the home to his wife when he died in the early 1990s.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/28/MNHQ19EU4O.DTL#ixzz0UB24CyOH

I'm just wondering how he died, and exactly when, and where.....

This same article says that Garrido's arrest in Nevada for kidnapping and rape was in 1971 (not the correct 1975) so I would not put too much stock in its accuracy.
 
Just curious, if herschel died in 1986, what is this document from 1993?

Document Number Reel Image Doc Type
27-SEP-93 026689001 0000 0000 RECONVEYANCE
( E ) FRANZEN PATRICIA 8983 113
( E ) FRANZEN HERSCHEL J 8983 113
That is probably the transfer of the property to Patricia. It may not have been done at the time of death. She would only need to show the death certificate and that vesting gave her right of survivorship to have it transferred into her name only.
I just finished closing out an estate for someone that passed away in July 2008. the holdings were significant and passed on to her 2 children. it took me over a year to get everything transferred.
 
Just curious, if herschel died in 1986, what is this document from 1993?

Document Number Reel Image Doc Type
27-SEP-93 026689001 0000 0000 RECONVEYANCE
( E ) FRANZEN PATRICIA 8983 113
( E ) FRANZEN HERSCHEL J 8983 113
Finally I found everything. this document is the Affadavit-Death of Joint tenant. Patricia is just recording the death of her husband as it relates to their property. She just did not record it until 8-13-93. No rush to get it done and perhaps in 1993 she was getting her affairs in order;perhaps due to her dementia? don't know.
ETA: i see we have a date difference and a different document. but I still think whatever you are referencing is just about transferring the property into her name only and getting her deceased dh off title. the affadavit i mentioned was not recorded in sept but in August. duh it says reconveyance right there. Maybe the loan ws paid off and that prompted her to get things in order?
Hershel J. Franzen died January 28, 1986 - before Phillip was paroled.
I 100% concur. I do have a copy of the death cert in my hands and this is the date of death on the cert.
 
Hershel J. Franzen died January 28, 1986 - before Phillip was paroled.

Woo hoo, thank you to you and JBean for a solid answer!!:woohoo:

I like that we cleared this person from having any association to pg and his going ons!!!

This also helps explain why patricia felt accepting of having nancy continue to live with her and pg moving in after his release from prison. It gave her someone that could assist her and keep her company.
 
Finally I found everything. this document is the Affadavit-Death of Joint tenant. Patricia is just recording the death of her husband as it relates to their property. She just did not record it until 8-13-93. No rush to get it done and perhaps in 1993 she was getting her affairs in order;perhaps due to her dementia? don't know.


Would that be the same explanation (per the 1993 records) except this is just a different property?

18-OCT-99 027415602 RECONVEYANCE
( E ) FRANZEN PATRICIA
( E ) FRANZEN HERSCHEL
 
Would that be the same explanation (per the 1993 records) except this is just a different property?

18-OCT-99 027415602 RECONVEYANCE
( E ) FRANZEN PATRICIA
( E ) FRANZEN HERSCHEL
oh let me see what I can find for that in public records.
 
okay it looks like she took a new mortgage with the property in August of 1993 which is probably why she had to formally give notice that Herschel had passed away and she had the ability to encumber the property. I would further assume the reconveyance in 9-1993 is from the original mortgage holder releaseing their interest in the property as they were paid off by the refinance.

I am trying to figure out what happened in 1999 and if it is related to the same house or something else. I am guessing it is a reconveyance byt the refinace company due to perhaps another refi? or maybe the loan was paid off. still looking but I do not see anything happening on this property in 1999.
 
Thanks Jelly for do this!

Do you have any idea how the record of a Herschel Franzen (39) can be researched - that must have come from some document. Also, wondering if anyone verified whether Herschel J Franzen had children or any estate that did not go to Patricia.
 
Oddly, Ancestry.com shows Hershel as having a phone number at the Walnut Street address from 1998 through 2002 - twelve-to-sixteen years after his death. It is not unknown for a widow to keep her husband's name on the phone after he died for security reasons, but Patricia had Phillip living there and could have used his name (or his alias, for that matter). And there is no record of a son named Hershel so this is not a "junior" situation. Something else was going on here.
 
The more I keep thinking about Patricia Garrido, the more I wish we could bring more info on Manuel Garrido. To me, he's just as central in understanding Phillip Garrido, especially since a father is an incredible role model for a son, good or bad. But we hardly know anything concrete on the father.

@yosande: And? You said you don't believe it's a fact and yet you don't offer anything else. I said that because whether it's psychologists who study child rapists or the FBI, the same conclusion is made: almost exclusively child rapists, regardless of gender, were raped as children; the few who are not, at least, witness it as children. How else do you think they come to rationalizing raping a child? I'm being genuine here. How do you think they do it, if they weren't raped as children or witnessed it as children? Do they become child rapists as adults all of sudden? And what percentage of the pedophile population do you think that is? Enough to make my initial statement on the background of child rapists somehow void?

Any child abuser learns the behavior when he/she is a child themselves.

According to The APSAC Handbook on Child Maltreatment. Second Edition., written by Myers, J. E. B., Berliner, L., Briere, J., and Hendrix, C. T., et al., and published in 2002 by Sage Publications, Inc. of Thousand Oaks, CA., "Recent studies about the development of sexually abusive behaviors dispute the common perception that sexual abuse is linked to victimization. In reality, few sexual abuse victims become offenders in adulthood."

missingchildren.com offers a great pdf booklet entitled "Child Molesters: A Behavior Analysis." Its focus is acquaintance molestation, and its audience is law enforcement officials.

The Child Welfare Information Gateway has a lot of information and resources, too, as well as National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. Just google and ye shall find.
 
Oddly, Ancestry.com shows Hershel as having a phone number at the Walnut Street address from 1998 through 2002 - twelve-to-sixteen years after his death. It is not unknown for a widow to keep her husband's name on the phone after he died for security reasons, but Patricia had Phillip living there and could have used his name (or his alias, for that matter). And there is no record of a son named Hershel so this is not a "junior" situation. Something else was going on here.
The phone service was probably already in his name and there was no reason to change it at all. There would be no benefit. I know many women that have lost their husbands but do not make it known to utility companies or anyone if they don't have to. They might even require a deposit if she has never had a utility in her name or if it has been a long time.

If she moved or had to change her number I might agree, but if it is the same number at the same address, then i think this is normal behavior. jmho of course.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
250
Guests online
285
Total visitors
535

Forum statistics

Threads
608,755
Messages
18,245,416
Members
234,440
Latest member
Rice Cake
Back
Top