July 6, 2011

"I could never shake the feeling that one day someone would say, 'Hey aren't you that missing girl?'"

"... but nobody ever did. I was nobody. Nobody saw me."

50 comments:

Fen said...

"snatched by Phillip Garrido, who had been released on parole in August 1988 after serving 11 years of a 50-year sentence for the kidnap and rape of Katherine Callaway Hall in 1976."

AllenS said...

You dismember Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy, one body part at a time while they are still alive. Then, burn all of the pieces.

Patrick said...

I'm probably going to buy this woman's book. Not because I want to read it (I probably won't), but because this woman deserves something for what she's been through. Seems it would be some sort of validation for her unimaginable suffering.

Fred4Pres said...

Stockholm syndrome. It is a very sad story that fortunately had a somewhat happy ending.

AllenS said...

I want to whack the Garrido's really bad.

Curious George said...

California law enforcement and parole agents need a whack too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Jaycee_Lee_Dugard#Abduction_and_search_effort

andinista said...

Garrido's house was visited multiple times by parole officers. They didn't notice that a young lady and her daughter were living in the backyard. Is California seriously messed up or what?

CA spend $50K/prisoner, Texas spends $15K. CA is releasing 30 thousand prisoners early because they can't afford to incarcerate them, the Fed judges won't allow it due to "overcrowding", the Fed judges won't allow capital punishment no matter what; the NIMBY's and BANANA's prevent prisons to be built, and CA has 3 strikes laws. The city folks can't concealed carry firearms unless they bribe the sheriff and police chief; except in Sacramento County, where the Legislature resides. And cities are laying off police and fire because they are broke, while all the progressive political patronage programs remain untouched (except when the State steals patronage community redevelopment money from the cities).

CA and its good progressive intentions, is about to traverse a rocky road to hell.

Since this is a sometimes law blog. You know what happens, don't you, when you can't build more prisons, and you can't afford the prisoners you convict? Justice, swift, sure, and terrible, at the end of a rope. Do a violent crime, or steal a big bunch of money, and you'll be swinging within a year, all your State and Federal appeals exhausted.

andinista said...

Revolutions come fast, and are often not foreseen until the whirlwind is upon you. A golpe. A dependable sign that a revolution is about to happen is when the old regime is forced to release the prisoners. There will suddenly be a whole lot of Simon Peters who were never progressive.

Shanna said...

Good for her, if she's figured out a way to move on from this insanity. I hope her book makes millions of dollars and she never has to worry about anything again.

In fact, I think everybody who is thinking about how much they want to read Ms. Anthony's story should just shut that feeling down and completely ignore her and buy this book...help this girl.

cokaygne said...

I am against the death penalty. But we seem to have too many "people" (not sure if Garrido is entitled to be called human) like this running around free. When the so-called justice system allows animals like that to roam free, it feeds the desire for fascism. Why do criminals get sentenced to 50 years and then go free after 11?

LarsPorsena said...

".... Why do criminals get sentenced to 50 years and then go free after 11?"

For the same reason as those sentenced to 11 years but go free after two.

edutcher said...

Some of the lines from the article are reminiscent of the experiences of women captured by the Indians.

PS What AllenS said.

Michael K said...

This was a terrible failure of the parole and sex offender surveillance systems of California but what system isn't screwed up here ?

I agree about buying the book.

Michael K said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

The Garrido psycho must have been in total charge. If his wife had any say, then she would have thrown the captive out when Garrido became sexually active with her.

The death penalty for Kidnapping that the SCOTUS threw out looks better and better these days.

AllenS said...

edutcher,

I lost a lot of information that I had gathered when my first computer was hit by lighting, and I lost a lot of info that I had gathered with help from some distant cousins.

Approximately, from memory, about 1650-1675, one of my forefathers, and his whole family were captured by Indians. They immediately killed the infant, then they burned alive, his wife and youngest son, over an open fire. He and his oldest son escaped later that night. It took 10 years before they were able to return to save the two girls that were taken captive. The oldest girl returned, the youngest refused. I guess it was the only life she knew.

Kill the Garrido's. Slowly.

Ann Althouse said...

"The Garrido psycho must have been in total charge. If his wife had any say, then she would have thrown the captive out when Garrido became sexually active with her."

The question is: When does an evil person succeed in paralyzing the will of other human beings who could take action?

The answer can't be: When the other human beings are female.

AllenS said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
andinista said...

cokaygne said "I am against the death penalty."

Well what do you do when you can't afford to build new prisons, and can't afford to house the prisoners you've got.

You've got two choices: let violent offenders back onto the street, to rape and kill again, or suddenly become a fan of capital punishment.

Remember the pioneer days? We whipped 'em or hung 'em because we were not going to throw our hard-earned good money after bad. Our families and our civilization were more important than what happened to a violent barbarian.

bagoh20 said...

I too will buy her book, but I won't be buying anything the baby killing girl is hocking.

I wonder who will sell more to our wonderful culture.

ndspinelli said...

Both myself and my bride were probation officers in our varied careers. We know how tough a job it can be. But..to not check out the back yard and discover this girl was a travesty..for which the State of California paid in damages. May Garrido and his wife rot in prison, may God heal this dear young woman.

Fen said...

If his wife had any say, then she would have thrown the captive out when Garrido became sexually active with her.

Is this the one where the victim and wife read the bible while the perp was away? And the wife slowly acquired a sense of guilt for what was being done and helped her escape?

Fen said...

The answer can't be: When the other human beings are female.

How many centuries have women been oppressed?

edutcher said...

AllenS said...

edutcher,

I lost a lot of information that I had gathered when my first computer was hit by lighting, and I lost a lot of info that I had gathered with help from some distant cousins.

Approximately, from memory, about 1650-1675, one of my forefathers, and his whole family were captured by Indians. They immediately killed the infant, then they burned alive, his wife and youngest son, over an open fire. He and his oldest son escaped later that night. It took 10 years before they were able to return to save the two girls that were taken captive. The oldest girl returned, the youngest refused. I guess it was the only life she knew.

Kill the Garrido's. Slowly.


That was fairly common, especially during the French and Indian Wars. The Iroquois (if your ancestry is French) could only maintain their population level by inducting captives into their tribes.

The experience of Cynthia Ann Parker, on which "The Searchers" was based is very similar.

Older children, like Olive Oatman in Arizona, could go on to lead normal lives in white society, if freed, Hollyweird notwithstanding.

k*thy said...

When does an evil person succeed in paralyzing the will of other human beings who could take action?

Before he/she finds his next victim.

traditionalguy said...

The Professor seeks an answer to," When does an evil person succeed in paralyzing the will of other human beings who could take action?"

The answer may depend upon the will within the paralyzed person's natural born soul.

An evil man's projection of a caring but powerful male personality may result in submission. The Manson family comes to mind. The evil man usually uses rape to enforce submission.

Preteen girls tend to default into obedience mode towards older people. The ones who don't are identified as difficult children.

A Sarah Palin at a preteen age would have fought until she killed him if he didn't kill her first. But a more gentle girl may submit out of a habit fear and a sweet disposition.

Beats me, but I know that all people are born with a personality that develops some later but exists at birth.

I have a 4 year old granddaughter who is ALL female and sweetly fits in with the others in the room, until the point that her red headed heritage kicks in and she shrieks her displeasure.

And I have an 18 month old granddaughter who takes charge of the people in a room with a strong almost male force of will, while smiling a brilliant smile. I would not want to fight the 18 month old when she turns preteen.

I trust God will match up the weak with the strong in families, or in a church family if orphaned.

Michael K said...

You've got two choices: let violent offenders back onto the street, to rape and kill again, or suddenly become a fan of capital punishment.

There is a third. Arm the people.

"God made all men but Samuel Colt made them equal."

It only takes 10% of the population, or less, to be armed to stimulate a sense of alarm in the casual criminal.

Patrick said...

andinista, you omit the middle ground: lock up fewer non-violent offenders. To start: quit locking up, and release all who have been convicted of possession of drugs.

chickenlittle said...

Althouse wrote: The question is: When does an evil person succeed in paralyzing the will of other human beings who could take action?

The diagnosis sounds like abulia. The reasons are psychological and perhaps based in facts for each person. I agreee that the wife is harder to figure out here.

chickenlittle said...

I agreee that the wife is harder to figure out here.

Don't know why but I'm reminded of that early "Sex And The City" episode where Carrie visits the lecherous art professor upstate and the professor's wife asks her "Do you have a nice cunt dearie?"

E.M. Davis said...

The answer can't be: When the other human beings are female.

Ask Charles Manson.

Oh wait, he had one guy in the group, didn't he?

andinista said...

Patrick, in principle I agree, non-violent drug users are better off working to support their families, than rotting in prison. But confounding factors:

1. Possibly apocryphal, but the legal system is addicted to drug possession plea bargains in lieu of convictions for the real crimes.

2. Meth, weed, crack, opiates destroys families. How much of a rising tide of human tragedy can you tolerate until strong social mores develop that keep at-risk kids and adults off junk? It's a tradeoff: kids and adults strung out and starving in the streets, or on public assistance, or removal of the addict and his/her family-destroying behaviors. Those social mores will only develop when everyone (including Paulistas and Progressives) become thoroughly disgusted and appalled at the level of human tragedy that drug use brings. It didn't much matter when it was patent medicine and laudanum. The junk today just nukes people into barbarians.

3. The parole system needs to be completely reformed and re-vitalized. They are a failed bureaucracy, starved by the politicians who siphon vast sums of public revenue to corrupt political patronage and progressive causes. Because poor people, parolees and junkies don't vote.

chickenlittle said...

Oh wait, he had one guy in the group, didn't he?

Tex Watson? He was the muscle in the group. He probably got whatever girly action Manson wasn't into on any given night.

chickenlittle said...

@andinista:
The libertarians will go after you for that one in 4, 3, 2, 1...

bagoh20 said...

"The libertarians will go after you for that one in 4, 3, 2, 1..."

Normally yes, but I'm just tired of arguing the points. If you support the war on drugs with all it's severe costs to our freedoms, and tax dollars, then I really don't think you would be willing to cut costs anywhere or defend basic freedoms here.

The perversions we commit upon ourselves in the name of preventing drug use is clear to anyone who cares to look, as is it's total ineffectiveness, even if that was sufficient excuse, which it isn't.

Freeman Hunt said...

The wife should have gotten the same sentence as the husband.

In my opinion that sentence should have been the death penalty, but I seem to be behind the times when it comes to that sort of thing.

Shanna said...

Meth, weed, crack, opiates destroys families.

Moreso than prison?

The wife should have gotten the same sentence as the husband.

I haven't read enough about the wife to know. She at least didn't rape her (I'm presuming), but should be guilt of all the kidnapping charges.

In my opinion that sentence should have been the death penalty

For 18 years? Absolutely. And how does the parole office not notice TENTS in the backyard?

Mogget said...

I wondered if the wife got less because she agreed to testify against the husband?

I don't suppose they really needed her testimony, but having her testify might have made something easier for the prosecution.

Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, don't play one on TV, didn't stay in a Holiday Inn...

Freeman Hunt said...

If you house a little child in your backyard so that your husband can rape the little child, you deserve to get the same as whatever he gets. Even if you're not doing the raping, you're facilitating the rape. I think there's a point at which partners in crime become full partners and are equally responsible for all the crimes they commit together.

bagoh20 said...

I remember when I was in elementary school, a cop would come in and show a movie that depicted a kid getting abducted. It didn't show any anything really, but it definitely got the message across. I distinctly remember being very affected by it. It changed how I viewed strangers from then on.

The cop instructed us about not going with strangers, but also to scream and fight to get away. I don't think this skumbag could have done this to me just because of that single 1-hour training at around 7 years old.

Skyler said...

The comments about people abducted by Indians are interesting because I'm reading Fehrenbach's "Comanches" right now. Highly recommend it.

He describes numerous instances of people being captured by indians, mostly Comanche in his book of course, and he takes the time to point out that despite the legends, there has never been a captive that saved a bullet for themselves. Without exception, every captive of both sexes did whatever they could to survive and avoid further torture.

I believe in a much more liberal and immediate application of the death penalty. In this age of DNA testing, there are fewer and fewer justifications for avoiding proper punishment.

JAL said...

@ Michael K It only takes 10% of the population, or less, to be armed to stimulate a sense of alarm in the casual criminal.

Heh.

Something like the "herd immunity" found in vaccinated populations. (Only with vaccines, the percentage needs to be much higher.)

JAL said...

Maybe the wife liked not having sex with her husband?

JAL said...

"... but nobody ever did. I was nobody. Nobody saw me."

absolutely heart breaking

I liked that her mother smelled the same. And that comforted her.

andinista said...

Don't get me wrong, my default starting point in the tradeoff is strong liberty. Bring on the human tragedy. Do what you want, knock yourself out, you can tell it to St. Peter at the Pearly Gates.

Or, you can stay off drugs, work hard for and protect your family, live a moral life, support your friends and neighbors, vote for honest people who have rectitude, and defend our civilization against evil.

Darleen said...

Curious George

California law enforcement and parole agents need a whack too.

Not to worry ... 80% of the state parole agents will be fired by 2014. Gov. Brown is "saving money" by shoving all probation supervision to the counties including the 33,000 state prisoner that are to be released by next year (which hasn't been funded yet and while Brown and Dem ilk are literally stealing cash from counties & cities bank accounts)

Joanna said...

I wondered if the wife got less because she agreed to testify against the husband?

I presume she got less for not literally raping her, and perhaps because it was assumed that she was somehow a victim bring forced to do deplorable things.

As for her psychology, she could have gotten off by having control over a human being. Or, in a stand-by-your-man way, felt she was helping prevent him from raping many women. As for her sex-life, who's to say that Garrido didn't have sex with both the girl and the wife?

Bleck. Thinking about this whole thing makes me nauseated.

A Mindful Webworker said...

Valuing what we usually take so much for granted, everyday freedom (from the article):

Two years later, Miss Dugard is living in northern California with her mother, her half-sister and her two daughters.

The two girls are now at school full-time. She writes of her pride at how well her eldest daughter interacted with the other students at her orientation day, and how for the first time she realised they were all going to be OK.

Most of all, she writes, she and her daughters are happy to be free - for the first time in 18 years.

'Now I can walk in the next room and see my mom,' she says in the interview. 'Wow. I can decide to jump in the car and go to the beach with the girls. Wow, it's unbelievable, truly.'

jamboree said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jamboree said...

I've seen women default into this on a lesser scale. They go into "management mode". They are managing their life's problems one of which is their man - think Hillary, the tireless campaigner for global women's rights, with Monica Lewinsky.

It's like good/evil becomes too much of an abstraction when it's just more practical, everyday life problems for them to "manage" in order to keep their head above water.

The above reads rather sympathetic, but there is not one jot of sympathy, just observation.