The Jaycee Dugard Story tonight 8 pm CST

[time]

To confuse the matter further ... I just viewed a clip from Missing Reward featuring Stacy Keach, filmed in August 1991.

The clip featured Carl Probyn, playing the part of himself, jumping on his bicycle and peddling up the hill, and includes a very quick and poorly filmed scene of Jaycee screaming as she is being pulled into the left side of the car, over the lap of the driver, and onto the passenger side.

Probyn stated that he insisted on doing the filming himself and said "It took us 12 hours to shoot this segment ... We did it three and four times and everything is just the way it happened".
<snip>

I am unable to find a full version of this Missing Reward episode.

I looked everywhere also and couldn't find the full version. I did find this which has a very plausible reenactment (1995)

http://www.veeple.com/link/nAfINsHbC%2BI%3D

 

[my2sisters]

I looked everywhere also and couldn't find the full version. I did find this which has a very plausible reenactment (1995)

http://www.veeple.com/link/nAfINsHbC%2BI%3D

Thanks, time. That was one of the most heart-wrenching videos with Terry and Carl I've seen.

I think it's important that when we post that something is "definite" that we're not spreading misinformation - there's enough of that already. So I appreciate the time both you and CarlK have taken to find these reenactments.

 

[kbl8201]

Thanks, time. That was one of the most heart-wrenching videos with Terry and Carl I've seen.

I think it's important that when we post that something is "definite" that we're not spreading misinformation - there's enough of that already. So I appreciate the time both you and CarlK have taken to find these reenactments.

im guessing carl's memory differs now then it did from 1991? cause there are surely two diffrent versions now.
we're really nitpicking anyways. whatever way he saw it we know he saw what really happened.

 

[my2sisters]

Obviously many of us don't think so or we wouldn't be putting in so much time constantly chasing down facts that dispute what is posted even if it is just to show that we DON'T know definitively what happened! We are trying to get the facts and keep them straight in this forum.

 

[SunnieRN]

The following article indicates that Nancy has admitted to being the one who jumped out and grabbed Jaycee.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/dpgo_Wife_Garrido_Wanted_Cute_Blonde_Girl_mb_09132009_3478500

Quote:

Nancy Garrido has told investigators explicit details of how the couple allegedly abducted Dugard, then 11, from a bus stop near her California home in 1991.

Nancy Garrido said the couple spotted Dugard walking with friends the day before they abducted her. She said they trailed her home and then returned the next morning to grab the girl.

Garrido said she jumped out of the car and abducted Dugard while her husband remained behind the wheel.​

There is a scene in the TLC documentary depicting Phillip and Nancy trailing behind Jaycee and two companions. The information upon which this scene was based is probably obtained from Nancy's admission.

Carl and Time, thank you so much for the links. I remember watching both of these shows in 1992 and 1995 and something hadn't been setting right in my mind with ng's account of the story. Now I can place what it was!!

This proves that any testimony given by ng in regards to this case needs to be questioned and re-questioned as she must be trying to remove culpabiliity from pg and on to herself as pg is trying to do with patricia. Very disturbing as in this case it is a grevous error and LE needs to jump on this is regards to any other information she has come forth with!!

 

[Billylee]

The following article indicates that Nancy has admitted to being the one who jumped out and grabbed Jaycee.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/dpgo_Wife_Garrido_Wanted_Cute_Blonde_Girl_mb_09132009_3478500

Quote:

Nancy Garrido has told investigators explicit details of how the couple allegedly abducted Dugard, then 11, from a bus stop near her California home in 1991.

Nancy Garrido said the couple spotted Dugard walking with friends the day before they abducted her. She said they trailed her home and then returned the next morning to grab the girl.

Garrido said she jumped out of the car and abducted Dugard while her husband remained behind the wheel.​

There is a scene in the TLC documentary depicting Phillip and Nancy trailing behind Jaycee and two companions. The information upon which this scene was based is probably obtained from Nancy's admission.

From the above link:

The chilling tale was told to the Telegraph by Cardoza who said he was briefed on Nancy Garrido's testimony by law enforcement contacts. The Telegraph also reports that another source close to the investigation has confirmed Cardoza's account of the testimony.


Can someone please tell me who the heck is Michael Cardoza and why he would be briefed by anyone about what Nancy said? Was he going to be her attorney, or is he the DA? Curious.

 

[time]

From the above link:

The chilling tale was told to the Telegraph by Cardoza who said he was briefed on Nancy Garrido's testimony by law enforcement contacts. The Telegraph also reports that another source close to the investigation has confirmed Cardoza's account of the testimony.


Can someone please tell me who the heck is Michael Cardoza and why he would be briefed by anyone about what Nancy said? Was he going to be her attorney, or is he the DA? Curious.

Billy ... I wrote more about this in the corruption thread. Cardoza really has no connection to this case. He should not have been 'briefed' by law enforcement contacts, let alone, then go to the media with that. If law enforcement is really doing this then I would call that misconduct and have to question their motives. Cardoza might have had some inside contact (not sure), but he is in no position to have been briefed on it or to be speaking as some authority on what Nancy said - it's basically heresay at this point. There is probably some truth to it and he could have gotten the info form a source who was connected to a source - and so on. That doesn't mean the details are correct. Cardoza is also the one who claims Jaycee was held in isolation for the first 3.4 years - which could help the CCCSO out of responsibility for the 1992 sighting? Maybe he is just babbling to keep himself in the news.

Cardoza is a media legal pundit. That could be all we need to know!!

Cardoza is also co-counsel for Michael Gressett, the Contra Costa County Sex Crimes Prosecutor charged with a heinous rape of a female prosecutor 20 years his junior. There's a link in the Corruption thread (I believe) to a long article about that case where Cardoza is claiming the rape charge is purely political and in the end I think everyone's dirty laundry on both sides will be aired :innocent: I'm not sure if Cardoza would be doing CCCSO any favors, but I don't trust people like him to be taking any firm stance on anything or anyone's side. They seem to just be opportunists and claim they can say and do whatever because they are defense attorneys, so who knows. Anything Cardoza says should be suspect. While he seems to be going after the Republicans on the Gresset case, claiming it's political, he has other ties, like with a judge in CCC, Barabra Zuniga. He is probably more like Daniel Horowitz who blows with the wind (aka representing Michael Savage and trying to claim CAIR is a terrorist organization).

 

[CarlK90245]

... Cardoza is also the one who claims Jaycee was held in isolation for the first 3.4 years - which could help the CCCSO out of responsibility for the 1992 sighting?

Now that you mention it, Cardoza is probably the source for most of the sensational National Enquirer scoops that are supposedly "based on law enforcement sources".

The most recent is that Nancy is claiming to be the person who placed the 9-11 call to report that Jaycee emerged from a yellow Dodge van at a gas station and stared at her own missing persons poster (and that Nancy supposedly made that claim before the 9-11 call became public). This would also take the heat off of CCCSO for the poor follow-up on that incident as well.

Disclaimer: By no means should National Enquirer be considered a reliable source, as we all recall the bogus business card photo (allegedly) of Jaycee that they put on their cover.

 

[LinasK]

From the above link:

The chilling tale was told to the Telegraph by Cardoza who said he was briefed on Nancy Garrido's testimony by law enforcement contacts. The Telegraph also reports that another source close to the investigation has confirmed Cardoza's account of the testimony.


Can someone please tell me who the heck is Michael Cardoza and why he would be briefed by anyone about what Nancy said? Was he going to be her attorney, or is he the DA? Curious.

He is a prominent defense attorney in the Bay Area. He assisted on Scott Peterson's defense team.

 

[time]

Now that you mention it, Cardoza is probably the source for most of the sensational National Enquirer scoops that are supposedly "based on law enforcement sources".

The most recent is that Nancy is claiming to be the person who placed the 9-11 call to report that Jaycee emerged from a yellow Dodge van at a gas station and stared at her own missing persons poster (and that Nancy supposedly made that claim before the 9-11 call became public). This would also take the heat off of CCCSO for the poor follow-up on that incident as well.

Disclaimer: By no means should National Enquirer be considered a reliable source, as we all recall the bogus business card photo (allegedly) of Jaycee that they put on their cover.

You could be correct. When I researched the 1992 incident before, the whole 3 1/2 statement could only be traced back to Cardoza (btw, he made all the rounds on TV with this info also - like a mini media blitz). I really really take anything NE says with a grain of salt as far as taken it as fact (but, then agai, I don't think the regular media usually does a good job - most of the time we wouldn't know if we don't do independent research). Makes you wonder if people use these outlets to put out information sometimes. I honestly don't think journalists should be reporting anything where they claim the inside, anonymous source is law enforcement or judges or something of that nature. It give the public a false sense that the info is authoritative for one and for another, we have no way of checking up on the journalists and it can simply result in sloppy reporting.

 

[Natal]

He is a former prosecutor, that is probably where his LE links come from.

 

[Natal]

Makes you wonder if people use these outlets to put out information sometimes.

You bet they do. Because these news outlets use sources as the basis of their story, someone can place information (true or false) with someone who can then become the source. The target of the story (the prosecutors or the accused) have no way of countering such information prior to trial without compromising their case, so they just have to stay silent.

The tactic works both ways, it can be used by either side to advance their agenda.

The bottom line is that you can trust nothing reported about the case unless it comes from a direct source or their appointed representative.

 

[Billylee]

I didn't think he had a connection to the case, but I wasn't sure. If he doesn't then anythng he says is probably just speculation on his part. That story was reported as told to the "Telegraph" a Brit paper. Were they the ones going around offering to pay for information? If he is not directly related to the case, then I wouldn't believe a word he says about what NG said or did. I think it's pure speculation on his part or like you guys said he's just trying to be in the spotlight. Do any of you recall anyone else saying that NG & PG had been "kid shopping", or was he the only source?

 

[my2sisters]

I didn't think he had a connection to the case, but I wasn't sure. If he doesn't then anythng he says is probably just speculation on his part. That story was reported as told to the "Telegraph" a Brit paper. Were they the ones going around offering to pay for information? If he is not directly related to the case, then I wouldn't believe a word he says about what NG said or did. I think it's pure speculation on his part or like you guys said he's just trying to be in the spotlight. Do any of you recall anyone else saying that NG & PG had been "kid shopping", or was he the only source?

I worry that he's positioning himself to be used as a "spin doctor" to protect the SO.

 

[time]

I worry that he's positioning himself to be used as a "spin doctor" to protect the SO.

The only thing is is that he is also claiming that woman is charging rape against Gessett sheerly for political reasons and wouldn't the SO be part of that old boys club? Course, like I said, he is an opportunist and maybe they don't hold any of his defense strategies against him. Maybe he is trading favors?

 

[my2sisters]

The only thing is is that he is also claiming that woman is charging rape against Gessett sheerly for political reasons and wouldn't the SO be part of that old boys club? Course, like I said, he is an opportunist and maybe they don't hold any of his defense strategies against him. Maybe he is trading favors?

Now that's interesting! We need to keep a close eye on this guy!

 

[SunnieRN]

I worry that he's positioning himself to be used as a "spin doctor" to protect the SO.

I hate to say that I think he has more personal reasons for this, and I think they include mucho dinero!! He seems very greedy and not at all worried about accuracy of information in any way shape or form!!

 

[SunnieRN]

The only thing is is that he is also claiming that woman is charging rape against Gessett sheerly for political reasons and wouldn't the SO be part of that old boys club? Course, like I said, he is an opportunist and maybe they don't hold any of his defense strategies against him. Maybe he is trading favors?

Wish I would have seen this prior to my own post as this is probably more accurate and much more eloquently spoken!!