by Robert Scott
Van Hazel may have wished that he had never asked one final question. “Did you gain the impression that the defendant believed you when you resorted to this ruse?” (He was referring to her acting as if she might enjoy being tied up and raped.) “Did he act nice toward you?”
Katie replied, “Oh, yes. I am sure that is what made him act so nicely toward me throughout the whole thing, [it] was because of my attitude for my own protection. He said I was the only one who had ever made him feel bad about what he was doing.”
The words “the only one who had ever made him feel bad” implied there had been more than one. In other words, more than just the girl Phil had taken from the Antioch Library in 1972 to a motel room and raped. How many more—or who they were—got shut off very quickly in questioning.
CHAPTER 11
INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE
After Katie Callaway’s lengthy testimony, there was a string of other witnesses. One of these was her boyfriend at the time, David Wade. Wade said that on the afternoon of November 22, 1976, he had asked Katie to stop by a store and pick up some coffee. She was supposed to have shown up at around seven o’ clock, but did not show up at all that night.
The next witness was Forrest Susan Dougherty. She and two friends were at a tavern called Rojo’s in South Lake Tahoe on November 22. Dougherty testified, “As we were leaving, we were walking toward the car to get in. I saw Katie pulling out of a parking space in front of Ink’s Market. I observed her pulling out and backing up, and I saw her and another person, a man, in the car. I observed the fact that he appeared to have very short hair and I was trying to figure out who he was. I didn’t know any of her friends that had hair that short.” (Phil had tied his long hair back in a ponytail that evening.) “Katie headed toward Stateline after that.”
Van Hazel asked, “Mrs. Dougherty, were you interviewed by an FBI agent by the name of Gerald Adams on or about November 23, 1976?”
She replied, “I guess that was his name. I was interviewed by an FBI agent.”
“Do you have a recollection of making this statement to him, and I quote: ‘Then I saw a white male with very dark short hair, may have had some curl to it, and his ears were visible.’” (Phil had very straight hair.)
Dougherty replied, “I don’t recall saying that his hair had a curl to it.”
After Dougherty,William James Emery testified that he had been living in a storage shed in the warehouse where Phil had taken Katie Callaway. Emery said that he had met Phil before that and knew that he was a musician. Emery related, “He asked if I would watch his shed and make sure that nobody broke in or anything, because he played music. And he gave me specific signs of the vehicles that were allowed in front of his storage shed. He gave me a phone number and I was to call him if some car was there that wasn’t supposed to be there.”
Asked about the night and early-morning hours of the time in question, Emery said, “I was getting off from driving a taxi for Whittlesea. And about twelve-fifteen A.M., I got out of the taxi and looked down the two rows of storage sheds, and there was a vehicle parked in front of the gentleman’s (Phil’s) shed. I didn’t recognize it. I walked up and looked at it, and it had a California license plate. It was a blue Ford Pinto. I went back to my storage unit and lifted up the door about three feet and went in and changed clothes.”
Emery was asked if he knocked on the shed door, and he said that he had done so twice. He added that no one responded, which makes him unlikely as the one Phil had spoken to at some point before the police officers arrived. Emery continued with his testimony, “I sat outside for a while by my shed and I let my dogs play, to see if somebody would come out (of Phil’s shed). And I sat there for quite a while, maybe an hour, and nobody came out and there wasn’t any noise. But the hasp was down, so I knew somebody was in there. I went into my shed, got a piece of paper and pencil, and wrote down the license number and took the phone number that he gave me. I rode my bicycle up to the service station and called his house. I didn’t get any response. So I rode about three more blocks to his house and knocked on the door. But nobody responded.” (Christine might have been working a late shift and dealing cards at a casino at that time.) “So I went back to my shed and then went to bed.”
Both federal prosecutor Leland Lutfy and Willard Van Hazel wanted to get at why Officer Clifford Conrad had acted the way he did at the storage shed area on November 23. Lutfy had Conrad testify basically to the same things he had written in his report. Lutfy also asked, “During the times that you had the conversation with the defendant at the scene, were there any questions that you asked him he did not understand?”
Conrad said there were none. So then Lutfy wanted to know if Phil was able to answer each and every question. Conrad replied, “He was evasive on some. I asked him how long he knew Miss Callaway, and where he had met her. Things like that. And he said, ‘I don’t have an answer to that.’”
On cross, Willard Van Hazel got to a key point in Officer Conrad’s initial report. Van Hazel said, “She (Katie) stated something to the effect, ‘He is trying to rape me’?”
Conrad replied, “Yes, sir. Those were her exact words.”
“Exact words?”
“Yes, sir.”
“And it couldn’t have been, ‘He raped me.’ Past tense?”
“No, sir. When she said it, she said, ‘Trying.’”
As to another key point, Van Hazel asked, “Why did you have her go back in and detain what would have been a suspect at that point?” (In other words, let Katie go back in alone and detain Phil outside.) “You had a suspect in your presence, didn’t you?”
“Not at that time,” Conrad responded.
“Could you observe them when they went back inside?”
“No, sir.”
“Did either the victim or the defendant appear intoxicated or under the influence of anything?”
“No, sir.”
“There was no slurred speech on the part of the defendant, Mr. Garrido, as though he had been drinking?”
“No, sir.”
“Did you smell anything on his breath?”
“I believe I had a cold at the time.”
“At the time you were questioning either one of them, [did you] smell any odors that were suggestive of marijuana or hashish?”
“No, sir. I didn’t.”
“When did you first become aware that there might have been narcotics involved in the crime scene?”
“After Officer Bradshaw got there. I asked Mr. Garrido if there was anyone else inside of the shed, since we couldn’t see the rear area. And he said no. And I asked him if I could go in and look, and he said yes. As soon as I walked in, a small cigarette on the floor and a small vial and roach clip and a few other things became visible. I picked it up (the marijuana cigarette) and I couldn’t smell anything then. So I asked—I can’t remember if it was Officer Bradshaw or Officer Soderblom—to smell it. And they said it smelled like marijuana.”
“What was the demeanor of the defendant when you first met him? Did he appear frightened or appear apprehensive to you?”
“No, sir.”
“When Miss Callaway ran out screaming, ‘Help me!’ what did the defendant do? Did he appear to run?”
“No, sir. He just stood there.”
“When they both came back out again, after getting dressed, did the defendant’s demeanor change at any point?”
“I would say about a couple of minutes before we placed him under arrest and I was asking more specific details about the victim, Miss Callaway, and that is when he said, ‘I don’t have an answer.’ That’s about the only time he got excited. He became more short. Not actually hostile. More defensive.”
A couple of criminalists testified about items found at the crime scene, and these were introduced into evidence. Among the items were a belt, a pair of scissors, a lock, a broken hasp, and a key. There were also hair samples, a pair of handcuffs, a piece of tape with hair on it, a shirt, and a jacket.
; During a break, when the jury was out of the courtroom, Van Hazel brought up an important issue with the judge. Van Hazel said, “Before proceeding with the defense, Mr. Garrido and I have conferred about trial strategy. . . .”
Judge Thomspon stopped Van Hazel right there, and he said, “You listen to this, Mr. Garrido, very carefully.”
Phil replied, “All right.”
Van Hazel continued, “The substance of that advice I gave him has been in the course of presenting the line of defense. And I understand the defendant is raising an issue of insanity or lack of specific intent. I am afraid, or have cautioned my client, that if he takes the stand, which would almost seem necessary to sustain that defense of not knowing that what he did at the time was morally wrong. He exposes himself to incrimination on outstanding charges in the state of Nevada. And also charges, which I believe are pending, in the state of California, carrying major penalties.”
Judge Thompson responded, “Let’s discuss first the possibility of the introduction by the government of other similar acts.”
Leland Lutfy replied, “Well, if he takes the stand, I am sure going to want to go into that, Your Honor.”
Judge Thompson replied, “On what basis, do you think you are entitled to go into it?”
Lutfy answered, “We believe we can show the defense is coming up with an insanity or some kind of defense based on LSD abuse. That this man was in some kind of fantasy and could not differentiate between fantasy and reality. We think by pointing to and questioning the defendant about prior specific acts prior to this incident, we can show he is following a pattern of attempting to kidnap, and raping, other women.”
By bringing this up, it certainly seemed that Lutfy was going to try and get information into trial about Phil’s rape of the young woman in Antioch in 1972. The judge asked, “How does that relate to the proposed defense?”
Lutfy replied, “Because I think that the jury has a right to be able to see that the defendant is claiming that here is one instance he couldn’t differentiate between reality and—”
Judge Thompson jumped in, “How do you know he is claiming it in this one instance?”
Lutfy responded, “I don’t know. I don’t know what he is claiming. I don’t really know at this point anything other than the fact that I have been served with a notice of some kind of a basis like that. And we do have evidence, we do have information of other acts by this defendant.”
This statement was interesting in its own right: “Information of other acts.” It brought up the possibility that there were more acts than just the rape of the young woman in Antioch in 1972, perpetrated by Phil Garrido. Otherwise, if that was the only one, Lutfy most likely would have said, “Information of another act.”
Judge Thompson asked, “On what basis is that type of evidence ever admissible? On the face of it, it is prejudicial. So you have to have some reason to offer it.”
Lutfy responded, “He (Garrido) had the intent prior, and this is a consistent act with prior intent to—”
Judge Thompson interrupted again. “I don’t know how often he used LSD. I don’t know whether or not he used it then. We have no evidence at this point that he used it during the course of this event. Apparently, one of the elements to be considered is whether he should be fearful that you can offer evidence of other similar acts. And it is not admissible just because it is a similar act close in time. There has got to be some basis for it. I don’t know what he is going to testify to. It seems to me that if his only defense is that he didn’t know what he was doing (was wrong), it is equably arguable that he didn’t know what he was doing a month before.”
Lutfy tried again. “We can show a similar pattern of behavior in a prior offense relative to the handcuffs. It goes to intent. I think it can show the jury—the jury has a right to see that and determine whether or not this man was fantasizing one time, or whether or not it was a thought-out plan of kidnapping and raping a woman. I am not stating at this time the government intends to go into that. I just want the opportunity to be able to, if we so desire, on cross-examination.”
Judge Thompson responded, “You can offer it, but you are going to offer it in the absence of the jury and not mention anything like that in the presence of the jury until you obtain a ruling.”
Then Judge Thompson asked Phil if he was going to testify in his own defense. Judge Thompson said, “Mr. Garrido, I want to advise you that it is a decision you have to make. In the final analysis, you can listen to Mr. Van Hazel and consider his advice, but it has to be your decision as to whether you are going to testify. At the moment, the government has rested, and the only thing the jury has to consider is the testimony of Miss Callaway and the corroborating circumstances. You have indicated that you intend to present a defense of drug abuse and that you are not in control of yourself, and that you should not be held legally responsible for your conduct because of it. I don’t know if there is any way that you can prove the extent of your drug abuse without testifying yourself. You might consider that. I don’t know whether these horrible side effects that Mr. Van Hazel envisions would happen or not. I have indicated somewhat that I think that the other evidence (prior bad acts) might be irrelevant, but I haven’t decided. I have to tell you this also, Mr. Garrido, that if you decide to take the stand and testify, any testimony that you give can be used in any criminal prosecution. You are not testifying under any form of immunity whatsoever. Do you understand?”
Phil replied, “Yes, Your Honor.”
In a city known for gambling, Phil Garrido decided to roll the dice and hope that the jury would believe him when he said that drugs had made his mental processes so erratic and flawed that he couldn’t control his own actions when he kidnapped and raped Katie Callaway.
CHAPTER 12
OBSESSION
After short testimony by Gregory Sheppard as to Phil Garrido’s drug use, Phil took the stand on his own behalf. Willard Van Hazel asked Phil, “Are you married?” Phil replied, “Yes, I am.” Van Hazel then asked, “Happily?” Phil answered, “Very happily.”
So Van Hazel wanted to know, “Do you find your wife attractive?” Phil said, “She is beautiful.”
“Mr. Garrido, how long have you been using drugs? And by that, I mean either hallucinogens, like acid, or cocaine or marijuana?”
Phil replied, “When I graduated high school, within that first month after graduation, is when I was first introduced to marijuana. And within a month after that, I was introduced to LSD.”
“You were arrested for that, possession of marijuana, weren’t you?”
“In 1969, and also with LSD.” Phil made no mention of the 1972 drug bust in Oakley, California.
Van Hazel asked if Phil had been using drugs, including LSD, up to his arrest, and Phil said that he had. Asked what other kinds of drugs he used, Phil replied that he sometimes used uppers and downers, but his drugs of choice were marijuana and LSD. Phil said that he would also use hashish whenever he could afford it.
As to the most LSD Phil had taken on one occasion, he said he had taken ten hits of LSD. And by that, he added, “I took it all at once. All ten at once. The only time that I ever had any bad trips was in the younger part of my experience with LSD, as far as a frightening experience.”
Van Hazel asked, “Does LSD act as a sexual stimulant on you?”
Phil replied, “Beyond a doubt, it does.”
“What kind of physical reactions do you have with LSD?”
“Within the first half hour, you start to get off. And then I start to get body temperatures. You get warm and then chills. And I would get dry mouth. I usually always become nervous.”
Asked if he took LSD on the day he kidnapped Katie Callaway, Phil said that he had. “Four hits. I got it in South Lake Tahoe.”
Van Hazel wondered if Phil had sexual fantasies in conjunction with his drug use, clear back to 1969. Phil related, “The effect was—I was able to masturbate myself while I was either watching a movie or looking at magazine
s. The movies were at a drive-in. I would take my automobile and I would put up on the side windows two towels, some type of something to keep anybody from seeing me, and I would sit in the backseat.” As far as magazines went, Phil said he masturbated at home with those.
Asked if he’d purchased pornographic films or videos, Phil said he had done so within the previous two years. And as far as masturbating in public, Phil answered, “I did it in restaurants, bathrooms, different type of amusement places, such as a bar. I did it while looking in windows.”
“Windows of homes?”
“Yes, sir.”
“What were you looking at?”
“Women.”
“What were the women doing?”
“They were either unclothed or partly clothed. I have done it by the side of schools, grammar schools and high schools. In my own car while watching young females.”
“How old were they?”
“From seven to ten.”
“Did you expose yourself on those occasions?”
“A few times.”
“What would you do?”
“Open the car door. The pants were to my knees.”
Van Hazel wanted to know if there were certain types of pornographic photos at home that turned him on. Phil answered, “Well, I always looked at women that were naked. But there have been a type of bondage pictures. Women in handcuffs. Chained.”
“Did this sexual fantasy become increasingly real to you, so that you could visualize it without pictures by just closing your eyes?”
“Yes.”
“Were you increasingly obsessed with it?”
“Yes. From the first time I went to a drive-in and started masturbating myself.”
Van Hazel took Phil back through the events of November 22, and then asked, “Didn’t you know you could be caught and criminally punished for it?”
“Criminally, yes. I did know that.”