by Robert Scott
On the issue of visitation between Phil and Nancy, the prosecution related that the El Dorado County Jail was going to come up with its own document as to why Phil and Nancy Garrido should not be allowed to have contact in the jail. The main reason was because of security. Already there had been numerous threats by other inmates to harm both Phil and Nancy, and the prosecution claimed that moving Phil and Nancy out of their cells would only heighten security risks at the jail.
Phillip and Nancy Garrido had another infamous inmate in their jail while they were incarcerated there. He was 58-year-old Joseph Nissensohn, and Nissensohn was facing the death penalty. In fact, Nissensohn’s case would have been the “big case” that season in El Dorado County, had the Garridos not been arrested. Even ABC’s 20/20 had shot some footage connected to the Nissensohn story.
Joe Nissensohn had murdered Sally Jo Tsaggaris in Washington State in May 1989, and been convicted of that murder in 1992. He received a twenty-five-years to life sentence, and was just about to be released from a Washington prison in 2008, when El Dorado County pressed charges against him for the murder of fifteen-year-old Kathy Graves of South Lake Tahoe in August 1989. And on top of that, Monterey County was adding two counts of first degree murder for the killings of teenagers Tammy Jarschke and Tanya Jones in 1981. In an unusual court move, all three cases would be going to trial in El Dorado County.
Joe Nissensohn had even sat in Judge Douglas Phimister’s courtroom during his arraignment. He was so disruptive that Judge Phimister finally had to enter a plea of not guilty on Nissensohn’s behalf. And then Nissensohn pulled out all the stops. Wanting to represent himself, he claimed that he was now a “corporation” and did not desire to do any business with the El Dorado County court system or State of California. In essence, he was saying that he was a product, not unlike Coca Cola, and would do business only with whom he wished to do business. His premise made up for in originality what it lacked in case law.
Even more incredibly, Joe’s girlfriend at the time, who had witnessed two murders, later became a child protective services officer in Florida. Despite a drugfueled cross-country trek with Joe in the late 1980s that included multiple crimes and murder, she had somehow managed to get hired by the Florida Child Welfare Services. And now, she was spilling the beans on Joe about the murders of Sally Jo Tsaggaris and Kathy Graves, as well as all his other illegal activities.
Yet, even with a case that involved four murders, rape, swingers clubs, prostitutes, heroin, and more, it was the Garridos’ case that drew all the attention in El Dorado County. When Joe Nissensohn had his preliminary hearing in South Lake Tahoe, only two reporters showed up to watch the proceedings. The gallery was empty except for them. The Garridos had completely stolen the spotlight from Joe Nissensohn.
All throughout this period, the media was starved for any scrap of news they could get about what was occurring with Jaycee and her daughters. In early February 2010, East Bay Fellowship senior associate pastor Mari Hanes spoke to a reporter from the Contra Costa Times. Hanes related that her church, located in the East Bay city of Danville, was helping Jaycee and her daughters in their present housing needs. According to the Contra Costa Times, Jaycee and the girls were in a secret location in a rural part of the East Bay, “within driving distance of Antioch.” Hanes’s church had a history of helping victims of human trafficking.
Hanes let it be known that her church was helping with the first year of rent for the family, but they were in dire need of financial support. Hanes related, “People think once your name is out there, you get paid. But unless you have attorneys to broker a deal for you, that’s really not the case. The publicity in the People magazine article gave many the false impression that Jaycee had profited substantially from the story. But that’s not the case.”
Hanes added that the family received some money from the interview, but not nearly enough to pay for the housing or the long-term counseling that was going to be needed.
On February 26, 2010, in a court hearing, the issues of Susan Gellman contacting Jaycee Lee Dugard, and the possibility of Phil and Nancy Garrido contacting each other in jail, were addressed. Steve Tapson, for his part, stated that he didn’t consider Jaycee to be part of the Garrido family, but Phil and Nancy definitely were, since they had been married for twenty-nine years by that point.
Judge Douglas Phimister took California law into account and declared, “Even prisoners have certain rights. I take umbrage with the sheriff’s office that they should have no contact for security reasons. It is a judge who decides that. If Mr. and Mrs. Garrido were in the general population, they would have the right to make a telephone call.” And then Judge Phimister ordered the jail to allow Nancy and Phil to have contact by phone with each other—two times for five minutes, in the next six weeks. And he also ordered that there would be an April 15 hearing to decide if they could have a face-to-face meeting.
On the issue of Susan Gellman contacting Jaycee Dugard—so that Gellman could plan her defense of Phil—Judge Phimister said that was going to be shelved for the time being. And it also came up that Jaycee’s children, Angel and Starlit, should have their own lawyers. To that issue, Judge Phimister noted, “Sometimes teenage daughters become recalcitrant with their mothers because of a different view on dating, lipstick, and issues of importance. All I want is for the children to be able to talk to their lawyers over the evidence that involves them.”
To that end, Phimister appointed a lawyer for each girl, Roger Runkle and Abigail Roseman, and said that should they be willing to talk to their lawyers, the information would be kept confidential and not shared with Phil or Nancy or their lawyers.
Another issue came up about a recent court filing by Susan Gellman that she wanted a psychiatric report on Phil Garrido. In it Gellman wrote, The district attorney is making the very same mistake that parole authorities made concerning Mr. Garrido for many years. He is ignoring the signs of serious mental illness. Gellman also claimed that Phil has been hearing the voices of angels for years, is mentally ill and likely incompetent to stand trial. With that declaration, Gellman left open the fact that somewhere down the line, she might either be using an insanity defense, or there might not be any trial at all, if it could be proven that Phil was not mentally competent to aid in his own defense.
Outside the courtroom after the hearing, Stephen Tapson told reporters, “People can be bonkers and still manipulate people, as in the case of my client. My question is, is he (Phil) crazy like a fox?” And all of this pointed to the route of defense that Tapson might take for Nancy Garrido. He hinted at the prospect that Nancy was also a victim of Phil, even though she never perceived it. Tapson also hinted at the prospect that Phil was still manipulating her. And as to the fact that Phil and Nancy could now contact each other by phone in jail, Tapson related, “Nancy is happier than whatever. She’s excited.”
As to where Susan Gellman now stood, in relation to the prosecutors, she let reporters know that she was offended by certain comments that the prosecution had recently made. In her opinion, the prosecution contended that Phil Garrido was now manipulating her as well. Gellman said that her relationship had deteriorated to the point with the DA’s office where it could hamper her ability to defend her client.
Gellman related, “The district attorney has laudably claimed his right to champion the rights of the victim in this case. But he cannot do so while abandoning the truth for the sake of political grandstanding.”
Gellman added that Phil had written five hundred pages to her while in jail about his “transformation.” As to this transformation, Gellman related, “Mr. Garrido wrongly believes that Jane Doe (Jaycee) is part of his transformation. Mr. Garrido believes that he and Jane Doe had a plan to launch a Web site wherein Mr. Garrido’s ability to speak to angels would be revealed to mankind. He remains confused as to why that has not happened. These are not factors indicating manipulation, but something else entirely. They indicate thinking that is delusional, but very real to
Mr. Garrido.”
The prosecutors, of course, thought just the opposite, and they cited Garrido’s pattern of manipulation with the court system dating clear back to 1972. In that case and in the 1976 rape case of Katie Callaway, Phil had blamed drug use for his impaired reasoning. In effect, he said that because of the drugs, he had little, or no, concept about right and wrong.
Damage from this case spread out in all directions. More news reports cited the confusion and negligence within the parole offices, both in Nevada and in California. It wasn’t until 2008 that any parole agent noted how strange Phil Garrido was becoming. In one report was a comment, He is acting very strange, weird to say the least by ranting about God and loudly singing songs.
And all during this time period, Phil pushed to be removed as a parolee. In April 2008, he wrote his parole agent declaring he should not to have to wear a GPS monitoring device around his ankle. The letter was so odd, it related that Phil would deliver a religious presentation that will gain attention of the world leaders causing the state of Nevada a public and political crisis that will allow the state of California to release me. Even with this very bizarre letter, the parole agent recommended the next day that Phil be discharged from oversight.
And it was related now, as well, that many times when parole agents came over to the house, Nancy Garrido would videotape their visits. Just what she was documenting, or why, did not come to light.
Around the time of these revelations to the press, a federal parole agent, Houston Antwine, apologized for the missed opportunities by his office and those of state offices in Phil Garrido’s case. Antwine told KCRA television of Sacramento: “It’s a crying shame that I couldn’t have, or somebody couldn’t have, identified this guy long before all this took place. I would tell Jaycee that I’m sorry that we did not discover this sooner.”
CHAPTER 35
“IT’S BEEN A LONG HAUL.”
Houston Antwine may have been sorry, but just an apology by that point was not going to be good enough for Jaycee and her family. By February 2010, Jaycee, Terry Probyn, Angel, and Starlit all were being represented in a lawsuit against the state of California. They had sent in forms to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board. No amount of damages was given at the time, but a box stating that the claims exceeded $25,000 was checked. And it came to light that the Dale Kinsella law firm, KWIKA, in Santa Monica would be representing Jaycee and the others. That law firm had clients such as Mike Tyson, Sean Connery, Jennifer Lopez, Julia Roberts, and other Hollywood celebrities.
Up until March 2010, there had only been still photographs of Jaycee and her newly reunited family in People magazine. But in the first week of March, ABC aired a home video of Jaycee, her mom, Terry, and her half sister, Shayna. The footage was shown in segments on several ABC shows, including Good Morning America, 20/20, and Nightline.
In the video, Jaycee and the others were making cookies in the kitchen at their secret location. Jaycee shook sprinkles onto the cookies, and everyone was smiling and joking. At one point, they all laughed as Shayna made a mistake on her cookie, and Shayna said, “I’ve never gotten to decorate a cookie before.”
In another scene, Jaycee, Terry, and Shayna sat next to a fireplace with Christmas stockings hanging nearby. (Obviously, the scene had been shot before Christmas, 2009.) Terry said, “I’m Terry Probyn, and on behalf of my daughters, Jaycee and Shayna, and my two awesome granddaughters, we want to thank you for the love and support that you’ve given us these last few months. It is my desire to share our miracle with the world, but it has to be done on our terms.
“I feel like I need to set the record straight—we did accept financial support from an undisclosed benefactor and have no affiliation with any church. Please give us the time to heal as a family, without the prying eyes of the photographers and press. We released this video so that you can see that we’re happy and well, and when we have more to share, we will. As a mother, I am pleading for our privacy in this very public story.
“It’s a dream come true for me to have both my girls to be here with me. I’m so thankful for the precious moments that we have together. I had to wait an eternity for this reunion. I can hardly believe sometimes it’s really here.”
In yet another scene, Jaycee and Shayna were shown with horses, which was part of Jaycee’s horse therapy. A reporter on the program stated that Jaycee was studying for her GED and hoped to attend college one day. Jaycee had already taken her first steps to reenter society. She had obtained her driver’s license and had obtained birth certificates for Angel and Starlit.
In the final segment, Jaycee sat on a porch in front of the house, wearing a baseball cap. She smiled and said, “Hi, I’m Jaycee. I want to thank you for your support, and I’m doing well. It’s been a long haul, but I’m getting there.”
A few days after the video ran, there was more news concerning the possible cases connected to Phil Garrido. The Reno Police Department had wrapped up its investigation into the kidnapping and murders of Jennifer and Charles Chia, who had been kidnapped one hundred yards from a bus stop near their home in the Lemmon Valley section of Reno. RPD lieutenant Mike Whan told reporters that investigators searched records on microfiche, contacted retired investigators, and sought other physical evidence, such as DNA. Lieutenant Whan related, “We were just looking for facts and everything came to a dead end. There was nothing (related to Phil Garrido).”
And as far as the case of seven-year-old Reno resident Monica DaSilva went, nothing new pointed to Phil Garrido, although there had been no similar case in Reno since the 1990 abduction of DaSilva from her bedroom. Whan said, “You get information where you think, ‘This might be the one,’ and you follow it until it goes nowhere, and then you start looking for another suspect.”
Proceedings on the Garridos’ case did move ahead at a slow pace. By April 20, Judge Douglas Phimister let it be known that he was going to allow Phil and Nancy Garrido another set of phone calls to each other while in jail. There would be one allowed in May and another in June. In another decision, Judge Phimister blocked any contact from Phil and Nancy’s lawyers directly to Jaycee or her children. Susan Gellman and Stephen Tapson, however, could contact Jaycee’s lawyer. Judge Phimister also ordered that the district attorney’s office hand over to the defense a videotape of Jaycee (still claiming to be Alyssa) talking to officers in Concord on August 26, 2009. But the defense attorneys would not receive any videotapes of Angel and Starlit.
By this time, Shawn Chapman Holley, an attorney from KWIKA in Southern California, was representing Jaycee and the girls. It was Holley’s motion that Judge Phimister had granted. In the motion, Holley had stated, Neither Jane Doe, Jane Doe 1 or Jane Doe 2 wishes to be represented by court-appointed counsel and I have advised them not to meet with Mr. Runkle or Ms. Roseman at any time. On each of my client’s behalf, I hereby assert their Proposition 9 rights pursuant to Marsy’s Law.
After the brief court hearing, DA Vern Pierson told reporters, “We have an overwhelming volume of evidence to prove each and every charge against Phillip Garrido.”
In response, Susan Gellman told the same reporters, “That’s his take on the evidence.”
As always, the Jaycee Lee Dugard story spread out in a myriad of directions. One of these directions was that a spokesperson for Jaycee said that Jaycee did not want to be contacted by her biological father, Ken Slayton. The spokesperson related, “Terry Probyn has never denied that Kenneth Slayton was the father. Rather, it was Mr. Slayton who showed no interest for the first twenty-nine years of his daughter’s life. It is now Jaycee Dugard’s turn to express her feelings, and she has no interest. She does not wish to see Mr. Slayton or his family at this time.”
And so it went, with one court hearing or press release following another. After a brief court hearing on June 25, 2010, Nancy’s lawyer, Stephen Tapson, had a few comments for the media outside the courtroom. Tapson stated, “A couple of shrinks I’ve talked to say that it may be beneficial
for Jaycee and the kids to see Nancy before actually seeing her in the courtroom. A lot of people don’t understand that Nancy loves those kids, and she loves Jaycee. This is a relationship born in evil—but at the end, it came down to a family relationship. And she honestly, truly misses her.”
In July, an unprecedented settlement occurred in the lawsuit that Jaycee and her mother had filed against the state of California for all of the lapses in the parole agents’ supervision of Phil Garrido. Retired San Francisco Superior Court judge Daniel Weinstein had acted as a mediator in the case, and in the end, the state of California agreed to pay Jaycee Dugard a $20 million settlement. Weinstein let it be known that the money would be placed into long-term investments. He added, “It was not an effort to make reparations for the years of abuse and incarceration or imprisonment against her will, because those are incalculable. Part of this was a prudent effort by the state to shut off liability from a catastrophic verdict.”
The California State Legislature had to vote on the settlement. In the state senate, every senator voted for the bill except one, Senator Sam Aanestad. He told reporters, “Settlements involve large amounts of taxpayer money that the state legislature has absolutely no control over. These agreements are negotiated by government lawyers and judges, who are not looking out for the best interests of the California taxpayers.”
In the state assembly, the vote was 74 to 2 in favor of the bill. One of those who voted against it was Assemblyman Joel Anderson. He stated if the case had gone to court, the details of the whole situation wouldn’t have been hidden. “I’m more concerned about justice, and I’m more concerned about how we move forward in protecting children,” he said.