Posted on Thursday, 9/03/2009 - 12:40 a.m. PDT — by justsaymaybe
1) Unless they can produce a diagnosis from a doctor around the time of the kidnapping or other solid evidence of mental incapacity, it is unlikely that such an argument will fly 20 years after the fact. 2) Last ditch? Brain-washing is a last ditch defense because it's not a cult? You've got to be joking. Sexual and emotional abuse from childhood - I don't even need brain-washing as a phrase, those six words cover it. 3) Nancy's state then vs. now aside, I could see her behavior as almost a reverse-Munchausen's - wanting a patient, wanting someone to care for - thus permitting one (and then two more) vulnerable beings into a tragic situation, because she can be the source of comfort. Not that that is a justification or legal defense in any way, but it's the closest I can come up with to explain a bewildering thought process. There's no question in my mind that she aided and abetted. The only question is how crazy she is.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 1
The first line of this article is offensive states: "If she helped strip a young girl of her innocence and perpetrated a heinous, 18-year-long crime that has shocked the world..." IF? IF? WHAT DO YOU MEAN IF????? She has already been identified by a witness to the kidnapping as an accomplice, and she kept Dugard imprisoned while her husband was in jail. There is no IF here.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Again - having very little info myself on this - I only recall a TV interview of a woman who married Mr. G. Her story was enough for me to take a break from this story.
Either way - the "if" part? If she drove the getaway car, was brainwashed by the Hari Kari's or whatever.....
As a woman and these are children and a young lady?
She is _______________________________ - I cannot find words - there are no words.
Best I don't go there.
Let's see what the Neuro and Psych people have to say about Mr G.
Joined: Dec 2005
Current Posts: 1243
@cckitty,
Let's see what the Neuro and Psych people have to say about Mr G.
they will say...this guy did not get his red bicycle at the age of 5, that why he is , the way he is...
I will keep my GUNS, my FREEDOM, my MONEY, you can keep the CHANGE
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
is what I am waiting for - there is a reason he was sent to neuro next.
I see one of two reasons for this - (I will not comment more). I think I know where this is going and hope it is door #1.
The red bicycle ... pretty good and probably about right. - LOL
Joined: Nov 2009
Current Posts: 5
You're damn right, there is no IF about it! His wife is just as guilty!! She is as sick as he is, if not worse!!!!!!!!
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 180
...And so is his mother who they lived with for over 20 years! Who did she think Phillip and Nancy brought home in 1991 and locked up in the backyard shed? She wasn't bedridden then. There's proof she was an active Real Estate agent doing contracts at the time! Why hasn't she been arrested?! Do we need to have the Grand Jury investigate this, too? I'm so angry that she is allowed to be in a private nursing home instead of an orange jumpsuit!
Joined: Aug 2008
Current Posts: 20
Do you honestly think that this woman will be arrested?? There is such a thing as competency and being able to partcipate in ones own defense. No doubt she knew what was going on back then but today she is a drooling old woman who can't even recognize or remember herself much less what Phillip and Nancy were doing 18 years ago. We'll just wheel her into the courtroom and she can sit in the corner drooling all over herself if that will make you feel better.
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 226
You are correct on the compentent part...but she is a little more alert than a "drooler" though. She knows what's going on..but because she is old and ill..no jail is going to want to care for her..it would cost to much..and your right..if we did try to prosecute her..she would play the "Drool" card..I just wish there would be some more public info about her..I think everyone agree's she should stand trial..but can't. But that doesn't mean we can't dig into her past and expose her.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 180
Several of us are researching her and have quite a bit of info posted in the thread named, Garrido - Is our system broken". The fact that she can go on with her life and die without facing her horrific part in Jaycee's captivity and torture enrages me!!! She shouldn't leave this world without paying a price for allowing this house of horrors!!!
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
I agree with the comment about the title - tacky and unnecessary
Also inferring that she cared for others as a CNA and PT aide - AND?
For those that do not know this
Background checks and fingerprints are required for these types of positions - not sure what the point was
Brainwashing is a good word for it - at least for now
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 13
Where in the world did Nancy get all of these certifications and resumes?
Was she even checked out before the county gave her this job? Just who is taking care of our children and elderly? This is real scary!
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 226
And what role did his "Bed ridden" mother play before she became ill?? She was there the day he was arrested..why is there no talk about her?? Who owned that house??
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 13
I' ve been wondering the same thing!!
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 13
The 90 year old mother owned the house. The day of the arrests, she was taken to the Antioch Hospital for the night, and the next day transferred to County Hospital. Now in a nursing home I assume.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Although we do not know all the details - keep in mind...it is a LAW that for caregivers working in a capacity where the Dept of Social Services or Dept of Health is involved and have approved licensure for a place of care (not the person or individual).
Background checks and fingerprints are required for these types of positions. Without them, they cannot work or the license of the place will be pulled and the place shut down. The State also comes in yearly (minimum) and interviews patients and family members. (BTW - This type of intake is a co$tly process. Unless things have changed, the cost for this screening is absorbed by the facility or home)
Has nothing to do with resumes, certificates or references -
If she worked under the table or for someone that was not licensed and monitored, different.
From what I read - she had a county postiion at one time? (maybe I am wrong) So she had a clean enough health care record to stay on the payroll. (no violent crimes)
Joined: Mar 2008
Current Posts: 226
You also have to remember..fingerprinting and such was not routine nor policy in the 80's. Just think of the time when they started taking your fingerprints when you re-applied for your drivers license.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Sorry - not sure what you are referring to? I could be off on time periods
Or are you saying she started working there in the 80's and has been since, so no fingerprints or background check?
Either way, all I know is - in the 90's - for every hired and currently employed person, if the person took care of another or touched another in caregiving - they had to be fingerprinted and have a backgground check in every instance. The results were to be turned into the State. It was not a one time deal as I recall.
Keep in mind they were only screening for any type of violent crimes. If the record came up with drug offenses or prostitution and they were clean and rehabilitated we had to go through a process (similar to an appeal) to hire and give them a chance (these are CNA's and PT aides).
I cannot recall how theft related crimes were viewed. Does not pop up as in much - ironic, as theft and conning were more prevelant ---harder to prove too.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 1
It always amazes me how many people who get caught now have a pyso problem trying to declare insanity.They were not crazy when they abducted a child or each and every day they new to hide her. Where is this bed ridden mother. How could a woman become part of kidnapping and rape totally not having a clue to why
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 21
Why is it assumed that Philip was the instigator? It has been mentioned that Nancy was not able to have kids so what about the scenario where Nancy thought kidnapping a girl was an easy way to get a family. He was not going to say no to an offer like that, was he? He gets his thrills, she gets hers. This scenario would fit well with Jaycee gradually bonding with them overtime as they became more and more like a 'family'.
We all assume that Nancy was a follower - but that is only because we live in a world where woman are still seen as being that. I am sure Nancy will make it out she was a follower but given the length of this crime...I will need much more convincing. She was either the leader or a co-leader.
Joined: Aug 2009
Current Posts: 28
She met him while he was in prison for raping a woman. That conviction happened after he had already raped another little girl and attempted to kidnap and rape yet another one. I am sure that I should probably be saying 'allegedly' in there somewhere so anyone can stick that word whereever they see it fits best. When a woman marries a man who is in prison for the reasons he was, there is a list of problems that accompany such a union. Those problems do not include that she was a leader. Not to mention that in order for things to have happened the way you purport would mean that Phillip had been 'reformed' during his incarceration and that Nancy coerced him and encouraged him to return to his old ways. I don't think it happened that way...I think he preyed on Nancy just like he has preyed on females for almost 40 years that we know of.
Also, if you have not spent much time developing a lot of knowledge about what abused women go through and what they are willing to do to please their abuser(s), be careful about how you speculate. I have seen many women do many things that they would not have done if left to their own devices. It is amazing. Does that mean they should not stand to answer for what they have done? Sometimes - but this is not one of those times...she stands accused and rightfully so. She should also stand to answer for her part in this horrific crime.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
TWBD - wise words....good to read
Also, if you have not spent much time developing a lot of knowledge about what abused women go through and what they are willing to do to please their abuser(s), be careful about how you speculate. I have seen many women do many things that they would not have done if left to their own devices. It is amazing.
This is so true - and might I add...it is also more than just pleasing the abuser - as these types of relationships feed themselves and some abusers (man or woman) can be very good at slowly breaking the other person down to where he or she may not even realize it is happening until the door is closed and when they do realize it, they can't see any way out (even if there is a way) .... then he or she does whatever they can to keep the peace and not tip the apple cart so to speak.
Does that mean they should not stand to answer for what they have done? Sometimes - but this is not one of those times...she stands accused and rightfully so. She should also stand to answer for her part in this horrific crime.
So true. Despite my added comment - there are lines you just do not cross. Although we do not know the whole situation and we may never really know, the only thing we know is the damage that has been done as a result..... I do agree she needs to answer for crossing those lines.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 3
People wil be and are more likely to believe that Nancy was the victim here. I suppose it's just too much for people to accept that a woman can harbor such depraved tendencies as seen perpetrated in this case towards an innocent 11-year-old child. Those tendencies are always associated with men.
There was an interesting case in Canada a few years back with Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka who abducted some teenage girls and raped them. She got off with a much lighter sense because it was claimed he was the leader and the true mastermind of the case. But after the sentencing, the videos were shown and in those videos Karla was observed to be enjoying the acts every bit as much as her husband. Shocking for people to accept that women can be this way.
How many times do we read about mothers killing their children? Are they all just crazy and mentally unfit or do they also have such intense hateful feelings that spur them to evil acts towards children just as much as men do? And therefore equally guilty.
Let's not fall for her tears. Jacyee was the one crying that day at the bus stop when she was pulled into the car by Nancy.
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
Personally - The moment she crossed that line (depending on what happened) is the moment .. she is no longer a victim "of Mr G." - but more of part of the sickness (for lack of better words) and an uber enabler abuser. Appears she did a very good job compartmentalizing her life to keep things together. She was abusive and delusional at best.
And JayCee is not her child. One comment here about what mothers and fathers have done to their own children is even harder to grasp. So what about mother's that turn an eye to what another person is doing (father, brother, uncle, aunt) to their own blood child? Or even deny or shun them when the child goes to them for help?
Have spoken and known many people that have been victims of sexual abuse - predominantly the ones of sexual nature have been male though. But this has not caused me to believe the woman is completly innocent and in all instances the victim.
Putting sexual abuse aside - and only on the general topic of abuse itself? Women have abused men and have made things "look" like the man is the abuser - by abusing the system.
BUT - I also know of a case where a man tried to do this to a woman. Most manipulative person I think I had ever met that is not incarcerated - YET. Ironically, he planned the whole thing out before he even engaged in the relationship - for something specific he wanted. But she went for help when she realized something was not quite right and although a very bad situation indeed, she was able to get out of it (with much damage - even in a short time) before he got what he wanted. One of those things was to create an environment where it looked like she was the abuser. His personality was similar or worse to Mr G's as described in his younger years BTW. I hope they catch that guy quickly - he would put Mr G to shame. He also abused the system.
Protection for victims of domestic violence should not be abused for a man or woman - shameful
Nor should some individuals that are trying to prove some point that men can be victims of abuse too - by meddling in other's lives through the internet and telephone and causing a reverse damaging effect (the case I described above).
Joined: Jul 2009
Current Posts: 361
The moment she crossed that line (depending on what happened) is the moment .. she is no longer a victim "of Mr G." - but more of part of the sickness (for lack of better words)
"The Line" I mention? In my personal dictionary:
The differentiated line an individual crosses where they are aware their actions are harmful to someone other than themselves and do this with intent to harm - either against the other person's will or without their knowledge or consent.
It is one thing to ruin your own life. But when you make a conscious choice to destroy another? This is the line.
Another reason it is important to get the whole story from the individuals involved - face to face and in person, their personal dynamics with each other, the intent behind the actions made AND their baseline experience and knowledge of resources before and after the line was crossed.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 133
So I am bumping this thread
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 3
Why do people ask why didn't Jaycee run away? Why do they not ask why didn't Nancy Garrido run away? It seems they can believe that sad-faced Nancy Garrido was under her husband's control all along and a victim, etc and that explains why she did all these things and why she stayed there.
And this is what her defence is saying as well. So what about a girl of 11, who was forcibly abducted and threatened and raped repeatedly, can we not say she became under his control as well and a victim and therefore not able to leave? She because of her tender age and the circumstances would all the more not be likely to ever leave the situation. Yet more excuses are made for poor Nancy Garrido than for Jaycee in this whole case. Why? Because Nancy Garrido knows how to cry? She is crying for herself now and for no one else.
She always knew what she was doing was very wrong and now that they are caught -- reality has sunk in.
Nancy Garrido appeared "normal" in her working environment to those around her. She knew how to keep secrets and how to act appropriately when necessary so she knew right from wrong behavior. At home she had another life. She knew not to abuse those she cared for at work and make sure they were properly attended to. At home she saw other things happening (if not even taking part in them) and went along with them. Even if she were totally 200% under some sort of mind control by her husband, she "knew" it was wrong and she participated nonetheless and -- this is the hard part for most people to still accept in today's society -- maybe she, a woman, got satisfaction from it just as much as he, the man, did and that was the thrill of it all.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 8
She didn't love those girls. She let them live in filth with no friends and little contact with the outside world.
She knew what she was doing when she kidnapped Jaycee. They scouted the area, found their mark, planned their actions and took Jaycee by force. Not a very motherly thing to do. She then allowed her awful husband to rape and torment the girl. Philip has no respect for females and was and is not above fulfilling his fantasies at the pain and humiliation of his victims. What did Nancy get out of this, the results of any pregnancies, in this case Starlet and Angel. She literally kidnapped, stole the girls from someone she says she loved.
If she loved Jaycee like she claims, then she should have helped Jaycee to escape when she had the chance instead of locking her up all day while Nancy worked. Then later she should have helped her escape with her daughters instead of denying Jaycee the right to tell the girls the truth about who the REAL mother was.
I doubt she is feeling any real pain right now because she is HEARTLESS. But hopefully, somewhere in that evil soul she is feeling what it feels like to have something you care for taken away. Except in this case she has absolutely no claims on any of those girls.
And Nancy, that Bible reading is NOT fooling anyone. Your only god would be Satan. As they say about actions. Your actions show what you are
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 133
If you look at those photos where it is Garrido, Nancy, and the girls (and maybe the elderly neighbor) on an outing, it will break your heart because you immediately think about how Nancy took away the role of mother from Jaycee. What a selfish, cruel thing to do after having kidnapped her, having taken her childhood away from her, having let your husband rape and abuse her, and having made her help take care of the old lady and clean the house.
Joined: Sep 2009
Current Posts: 21
Good post,Jazerelle. Nancy is equally an offender. Period. She was in on it from the start. I totally agree with your last pargagraph. As a Christian, I agree with Elizabeth Smart's father when he said: “It makes you angry that anyone would use God as an excuse to rationalize their predatory behavior.” That applies to Nancy as much as to Philip.
Joined: Apr 2008
Current Posts: 13
The last I heard, the 90 year old mother was in the county hospital, and that she owned the home.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 133
Kattie said on a radio interview yesterday that a woman kept calling the Real Estate Office she worked at, I think she said trying to get information about her - after Garrido got out of prison and after he had paid a visit to her at the Casino. Anyway, she thinks the woman who kept calling was probably Nancy Garrido. She said the alls stopped in 1991. Here interview was on the John and Ken Show, kfiam 640. You can listen to it there.
Joined: Mar 2009
Current Posts: 133
Kattie said on a radio interview yesterday that a woman kept calling the Real Estate Office she worked at, I think she said trying to get information about her - after Garrido got out of prison and after he had paid a visit to her at the Casino. Anyway, she thinks the woman who kept calling was probably Nancy Garrido. She said the calls stopped in 1991. Her interview was on the John and Ken Show, kfiam 640. You can listen to it there.