Jaycee Dugard: One Year Later

by Stacy Dittrich

This past Thursday, August 26, 2010, marked the one year anniversary of Jaycee Lee Dugard’s (pictured left) return to her family. As most people know, Jaycee was eleven years old when she was viciously ripped from her family while walking to her bus stop in South Lake Tahoe, California, on June 10, 1991. This occurred as her step-father, Carl Probyn, watched helplessly. For the next 18 years, Dugard’s captors, Philip Craig Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy Garrido, 54, held young Jaycee in a wretched, filthy, compound of tents—well hidden behind their Antioch, California, home. For 18 years, Garrido repeatedly raped Jaycee and she eventually bore two of his children.

On August 26, 2009 the nation came to a virtual standstill when the news of Jaycee’s survival spread like wildfire. Garrido, with Jaycee and their two daughters, ages 12 and 15, was eyed suspiciously by the University of Berkeley police officers when he arrived on campus spewing religious rants. After a highly praised interrogation by the officers, Jaycee’s true identity—and her past—was revealed. The detailed information that followed shocked and sickened humanity. Furthermore, people were angry that such an abomination continued for 18 years without detection. California’s parole system came under intense scrutiny for failing to discover Jaycee in Garrido’s hold. Having been on parole for several decades, Garrido routinely played nice with his parole officers and his home was never searched.

In 1992, a report to the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department revealed a man claiming he saw a young girl matching Jaycee’s description staring at a missing poster of herself at a nearby gas station. The caller claims the girl left with a man matching Garrido’s description in a large yellow van (the same vehicle that was later towed from Garrido’s property in 2009). The tip was never followed-up on. Along with the numerous missed opportunities by parole agents, another tip was phoned into the sheriff’s department by one of Garrido’s neighbors. The neighbor claimed that Garrido, a known sex offender and psychotic, had young children living in his back yard. The deputy that arrived to investigate the complaint never even searched the back yard (pictured right). Thus, the unconscionable lack of justice for Jaycee Dugard resulted in a $20 million  settlement from the state of California. Well deserved, but considering that Jaycee, and her daughters’, lifelong therapy is estimated to cost $7 million I’d say she deserved a hell of a lot more than that.

Now, a year later, Jaycee and her daughters live in seclusion with her mother, Terry Probyn, in Northern California. Many wonder what the last year has been like for the newly reunited family, and what does the future hold. The last year for Jaycee has been an onslaught of new beginnings; she obtained her driver’s license, maintains a journal, baked Christmas cookies with her mother and sister for the first time, and even recently went camping with friends. They live in an undisclosed small neighborhood where it has been reported that their neighbors are “fiercely” protective of Jaycee and her family. Rumors have been floating around for quite some time that Jaycee will be writing a book of her time spent in hell, and her mother’s account of her own nightmare is due to be published in late 2010. Regardless, evil Garrido and his disgusting robot-of-a-wife, Nancy, (pictured right to left) are still incarcerated awaiting trial. Most likely both will die in prison. Hallelujah.

A year later, in the rare moments where Jaycee (now 30) is shown in photographs, she is smiling. Personally, I find that to be an extremely positive sign. Although she and her children have a long road ahead, they are back where they belong. Good luck, Jaycee; you and your family will continuously be in our thoughts and prayers.

Tweet

That Damn Death Penalty - Again

by Katherine Scardino

I have posted many articles on Women in Crime Ink about the death penalty, especially in the State of Texas. There have been several incidences recently which scream out for a revisit of this unpopular and hateful subject.

I read an article yesterday in the local Houston paper that our Supreme Court refused to give Linda Carty a new trial - even though her trial lawyers did not put on any mitigating evidence and only met her two weeks before jury selection. Linda Carty did a terrible thing. She kidnapped a woman and her four-day-old baby, and killed the mother. Do not misunderstand - I, of all people, am well aware of the horrible acts that one person can commit against another. It is sickening and disgusting. That doesn't change the fact that we must have rules and laws that we all obey we're going to take a person’s life in the name of our law.

I admit I don't know all the facts of the Linda Carty case. Thank goodness I wasn't involved in it -- and I hope that if I had been, no one could say she had an incompetent defense. But the two failures in her defense are enough in my mind to give pause to the Supreme Court’s decision.

A defense attorney has a duty to “know” his client -- especially one who may die as a result of the attorney’s laxity or ineptness. It is indefensible for a lawyer to not meet his client until two weeks prior to trial. It is indefensible for a lawyer to know so little about his client that he has no witnesses and records to present to the jury during the punishment phase of a capital case. How can any attorney convince a jury that mercy -- life in prison instead of execution -- is appropriate without a complete picture of the defendant's background? What kind of life did this person live? What negative influences may have changed his life? 

This attorney is not arguing guilt or innocence. If he convinces the jury, it won't mean the defendant will walk out of the courtroom and down the elevator with you.

Then, there is the arson murder case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Willingham was convicted of setting a fire that killed his three children. I don't have the words to express my outrage at how ignorant and uninformed Gov. Rick Perry sounded when he said the there was other evidence besides the state's arson experts to prove the cause of the fire. The State of Texas had to prove arson if the jury were to reach a capital murder verdict. The problem is that fire experts, not just someone the post-conviction lawyers pulled off the streets, but individuals renowned in the field, now condemn the state’s arson testimony as bogus and unscientific. Oh, did I forget to mention - Texas has already executed Cameron Todd Willingham. He was most certainly an innocent person. At least, Perry must be afraid he was. In October, Perry abruptly replaced the chairman and two members of the state's Forensic Science Commission -- two days before they were to hear the evidence of the arson expert. 

Rick Perry doesn't like the idea that while he sat on his ass and refused to look at the reputable fire scientists' evidence, Cameron Todd Willingham died.
Is there one person out there who can state that Cameron Todd Willingham is the only innocent person Texas has executed? I dare you to make that statement. You would have to ignore the evidence related to the cases of Carlos DeLuna and Ruben Cantu, just to name two. There are many more. But, the issue is - even if there is one, just one - that is one too many. Killing another human being, through an act of violence or an act of the supposed legal system of Texas our State, is final. We can't bring that person back to life. We took that away from him or her, and we did it wrongly.

Our capital punishment system in Texas -- and elsewhere -- is flawed. It is not dispensed fairly. It is not certain. Arrogant, self-centered, unqualified politicians decide whether new evidence is sufficient to stop an execution. These same arrogant, self-centered politicians -- so-called judges -- tell us that “actual innocence” is not enough to warrant a new trial, let alone stop an execution.

What in the hell are we doing?

Tweet

Fifteen Years for Twenty-Four: Fritzl Wins

by Pat Brown

Yesterday and today I did hits for CTV Newsnet on the "Dungeon Dad," Joseph Fritzl. Both times, I was asked the traditional questions: "What was going on in the mind of this man? What is wrong with him?" I answered those but I couldn't resist making commentary on what I think is a lot more important. The bigger issue is "What is wrong with us?"

Josef Fritzl committed crime after crime because we, society, have let him. After imprisoning his daughter, Elisabeth, in a bunker for twenty-four years, raping her repeatedly, fathering her children, and killing one of them, the Austrian father-from-hell Fritzl got a slap on the wrist. The only time before this that he saw the inside of a courtroom and got penalized for his behavior (if one can call his sentence much of a penalty) was when he viciously raped a stranger. He spent all of a year in jail (even though he had convictions of indecent exposure and attempted rape on his record).

Apparently, society feels rape isn't such a bad crime and people weren't much concerned that Fritzl, a repeat sexual offender, was a danger to women; they essentially condoned the action. Then the crime was actually expunged and his name cleared. Society seemed to feel the victim should have to suffer the rest of her life, but this man should not have to have his future ruined. And society must have determined that women in Austria, and elsewhere, deserved to live with the threat of this man raping and possibly murdering them.

Think this is a stretch? Fritzl is now being looked at in the sexual homicides of four teenage girls in his country and in other possible crimes outside Austria, including Thailand where he went for sex tourism. And a number of women have come forward to identify Fritzl as the man who raped them.

Fritzl's wife, Roseanne, clearly agreed with society. She went ahead and let her husband return home in spite of the fact that he brutally raped a woman while he was married to her. When her daughter went missing, she didn't alert the authorities to the possibility her husband might have done something to her.

Year after year, Roseanne's husband acted in a manner that could not have failed to raise red flags. Did she not question why there were "no access" areas of the property and why her three grandchildren suddenly showed up from out of the blue with only her husband's word that Elisabeth dumped them on the doorstep? Fritzl's wife undoubtedly looked the other way and, in spite of that, society did not charge her as an accomplice.

Even the lodgers in the house and the neighbors saw suspicious behaviors on the part of Joseph Fritzl. They actually knew, at a point before she disappeared for two decades, that Elizabeth was being sexually abused; they just didn't think it was their duty to report it to the police. Society again gave Fritzl the green light for his hideous and evil actions.

Finally, part of society caught up with Joseph Fritzl and took him to court. The verdict? An unbelievable fifteen-year sentence for 3,000 rapes, kidnapping, imprisonment, and murder of an infant. Society must think all of this isn't much more of an offense than passing bad checks.

Now, in a continuation of this abomination, Fritzl doesn't have to go to prison where other criminals go, but instead he gets to pick the senior citizen home of his choice—a psychiatric facility (pictured right) that has the most desirable amenities—where he can live out his declining years in comfort and safety.

But, wait, society isn't finished with Fritzl yet! They still have the right to free the man before his "sentence" is up! If this sweet old man makes enough nice art projects and finds "recognition of his behaviors through his personal and group therapy," society might decide to let the poor fellow live out his final years in the community.

Looking at this case, I am not sure Joseph Fritzl deserves to be found guilty if society so supported each and every one of his sick behaviors. How can society blame him when society did next to nothing to prevent, stop, or condemn his actions until Fritzl reached age seventy-three and had decades of enabling by his fellow citizens?

Joseph Fritzl has "confessed" and "expressed remorse" at what he has done. When will society do the same?

Tweet

Left for Dead

by Susan Murphy-Milano

Munk Caselow Willis has been incarcerated for approximately 8,047 days. His home for 22 years--the Alabama State Prison.

One person is particular, has counted the total hours and days Willis has been in prison. It is a woman Willis and two others kidnapped, raped, beat, shot, and left for dead in an abandoned quarry.

On May 14, 1986, Susan Waller, 21, was a student at the University of Alabama while holding down a job in a clinical laboratory. That evening, her girlfriend Emily came over to her apartment. Susan answered the door. Three young men burst into the door of the dwelling, knocking both women to the floor. Armed with shot guns and knives, the men tore through the apartment room by room, like a tornado looking for anything of value.

At gunpoint, the men kidnapped Susan and Emily, taking the women across town to another location.

After hours of rape, torture and beatings, the 3 men took the women to an abandoned trash filled quarry. Both Susan and Emily were ordered by the men into the water. The young women swam as quickly as possible.

Little did either realize the next move by the men was to shoot at them like target practice as they swam for their lives.

When the bullets finally stopped and there was silence, Susan and Emily waited in the water, for what seemed like forever before swimming to the other side of the quarry. Once they reached shore, the women ran towards the bright lights up on the hill.

Suddenly, out from the darkness, the 3 men emerged. Susan and Emily begged the men for their lives, “please, please, we won’t tell anyone, just let us go.”

One of the men held a shot gun to Susan’s head. “I don’t care about you bitch.” Bang. The noise was so loud it scared one of the other gunmen and Emily was able to break away and jump back into the water and escape.

The men took Susan’s body, dragging it across the hard gravel. “The bitch aint dead”, said one of the men. "She will be" , remarked another. The men dumped Susan’s body into the water. Susan played dead, remaining conscious enough to keep her mouth out of the water.

The three men responsible have only served twenty-two years of two concurrent life terms for rape and attempted murder. Each man becomes eligible for parole every three to five years. On January 8, 2009 I must stand before the Alabama Board of Paroles and ask them to deny parole to inmate Munk Willis. “It is my belief that this violent sex offender will not be capable of conforming to minimal standards of conduct within a community; and in fact poses a grave risk to society.”

Susan Waller , Stacy Dittrich, Robin Sax and myself are asking readers to sign a petition of protest (you need only be a citizen of the U.S. for your signature to count) supporting this request to the board. As a political machine, they are influenced by public opinion, and every signature will matter. The petition is a confidential document; viewed only by Susan Waller and the acting parole board members. Your signature will never be made public.

We are enclosing a link directly to the petition:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/denyparole_munkcaselowwillis/index.html

On Tuesday, December 16, 2008, Susan Waller will be a guest on Justice Interrupted.

Tweet

Squeezing O.J. - Will Round II Get the Juice?

by Katherine Scardino

I am not sure whether I want to write something about O.J. Simpson. After the criminal trial in 1994, we all probably said something to the effect of "I hope I never hear this man's name again for the rest of my life."

I know there were people who watched every minute of that murder trial in California over a decade ago—you know, the one that lasted almost a year! And with an equally startling verdict.

During that trial, I remember being called by a member of the press in Houston, Texas, where I live, and asked to basically "guess" what the jury was going to do.

This phone call came during jury deliberations and—in all fairness to the newspaper reporter—he was thinking that because I had been practicing criminal law in Houston for a while, and had tried more than a few criminal cases, I might have some insight or clue as to what the jury would do.

Well, in my most J.D.-educated tone, I told him I thought that surely this jury would find Mr. Simpson guilty of murdering his wife and Mr. Goldman.

I had watched enough of the trial to feel that he was guilty. But I also recognized that Barry Scheck, Johnny Cochran, and the other members of his defense team did a fantastic job of "smoke and mirrors" and that the two prosecutors were totally outclassed and outlawyered by that so-called Dream Team. That is not supposed to matter . . . but in the glare of that circus, it was obvious.

All the same, I still felt that the State had put on enough evidence for the jury to legitimately find this man guilty.

Now we are in the midst of criminal trial number two for O.J. Simpson. This one is a crummy sequel to the first case. He is currently on trial in Las Vegas, Nevada for armed robbery and kidnapping. I have been following the newspaper about as much as you probably have—and with about as much interest.

Then I started thinking, which is a dangerous thing for me to do . . . but here are my thoughts. First, don't be mislead by the fact that he is accused of "armed robbery." He is not being charged with robbing these people of the property that he maintains was his.

No, O.J. Simpson is being tried for robbery because when he and his cohorts stormed into that hotel room, he snatched a cell phone, hat, and sunglasses (which probably actually fell off the man's face) from one of the people in the room.

Second, the "kidnapping" charge arose from a statement Simpson made on the eight-minute audiotape of this incident: "No one leaves. Do not let anyone leave this room." So that is the kidnapping part of his felony charge that could mean a life sentence for O.J.

Then, as if this is not enough, in the opening statement by the prosecutor, he told the jury to let this be the "true verdict."

Of course, the judge had instructed the jury that the California criminal trial was not to have any impact on their consideration of the facts in this case. Right! And, the prosecution was not to mention that trial. So, this prosecutor simply implied to the jury that regardless of the verdict in California, this verdict should be the "true verdict."

And he also mentioned in his opening statement that the jury will hear the "true O.J. Simpson" as opposed to O.J.'s public persona.

While not mentioning the murder trial, he alluded to it in the words he chose to use in front of this Las Vegas jury.

So where is this going? I am tending to believe more and more that this is a set up by O. J.'s alleged "friends." Otherwise, why the full audiotape of this entire incident?

And we have to remember, that "rant" of O.J. Simpson may just be that. He is not being charged with using profane language or with losing his temper because he wanted his "s----" back.

There is always the possibility of a jury finding him guilty because of his history, the language he used, the anger he exhibited, the fact that many people around the world, not just the United States, believe that O.J. is guilty of murder and got away with it.

And this trial may be the last chance a wrong can be made right.

O.J. Simpson might get life in prison for knocking a man's sunglasses and cap off his head, and by saying that no one could leave the room. (Lord, I hope we have not resorted to revenge verdicts.)

Let's keep watching. I'll write more as the case progresses. . . .

Tweet