It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How a sex offender managed to walk out of prison so soon after his conviction and allegedly perpetrate a similar crime right under the noses of authorities is an outrage that has left federal, state and local officials grasping for explanations.
"This guy's a dinosaur," said Mike Reynolds, who after his daughter's murder pushed for passage of California's "three strikes you're out" law, which took effect in 1994. "This guy Phil got in before the wire."
Under federal laws in place in the 1970s, a convicted kidnapper such as Garrido, facing a sentence of 30 years or more, would be automatically considered for parole after just 10 years, said Tom Hutchison, chief of staff to the U.S. Parole Commission. That changed in 1987, when the government switched to a new system aimed at eliminating widespread sentencing disparities that effectively ended parole for federal crimes.
California parole agents checked on Garrido in both announced and surprise visits, Hinkle said, but they never saw anything that would violate his parole. Hinkle added that it's unreasonable to expect agents to turn parolees' homes upside down with "shovels and sniffing dogs" looking for violations with each visit.
"Our parole agents do have search and seizure rights, but you have to keep in mind in a typical parole visit, they're checking to see that there are no drugs or alcohol, nobody around the house who doesn't belong there," Hinkle said. "None of those things were evident."
Federal authorities were equally at a loss to explain their oversight.
Asked to explain how the officers could have missed the presence of Dugard or her two young daughters, Dick Carelli, spokesman for the agency that oversees the federal parole service, paused, then said: "It's a very hard question, for which no answer will be satisfactory."
Obviously, the possibility that Garrido might offend again was crucial. To measure it, the parole examiner relied on a questionnaire which produced a Salient Factor Score (SFS). The SFS is an “empirically tested risk prediction instrument,” designed by the commission’s staff to calculate the likelihood that prisoners would revert to crime if released, according to Tom Hutchinson, the commission’s current chief of staff. The SFS, which is still in use, has an excellent forecasting record, Hutchinson says.
In hindsight, though, it clearly wasn’t created for a man like Phillip Garrido. The SFS focuses largely on the prisoner’s age (the older, the less likely to reoffend) and past behavior, as demonstrated by prior convictions. Since Garrido was in his late 30s and had no prior offenses, his SFS score would have been promising: nine points out of a possible 11.
Off his file went to Washington, where members of the parole commission concluded that he had done the right amount of time. None had a chance to look into Garrido’s face, which Leland Lutfy, the former assistant U.S. Attorney who prosecuted the case, will never forget. “His eyes were dead,” Lutfy recalls. “It was clear in my mind he would do it again. He had no remorse. He was scary.” But Lutfy did not weigh in on the parole decision. Neither Lutfy nor Garrido’s victim received any notice of his parole eligibility; that, too, was normal at the time.
In 1972, Antioch police allege, he met a 14-year-old girl at the city library, gave her barbiturates and took her to a motel, where she passed out. Garrido raped her while she was unconscious, police said, and when she awoke, he did it again.
Garrido was arrested on April 17, 1972. But the girl did not want to press charges, so he was free to go.
Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by poet1b
i don't know if you remember that horrible case in idaho a few years ago. someone came to a household and killed the two adults and several kids, then abducted the two youngest children, a boy and a girl. The boy was eventually killed but the little girl was kept for sex. eventually someone recognized the little girl and the guy was caught.
seems like it was a similar situation with that predator. he had been convicted ad paroled in another state, then they "lost track" of him, leaving him free to do his horrible deeds. I can't really remember the outcome. he plead guilty to a bunch of stuff and so there was no trial. we never learned why he murdered that whole family etc. the purpose was to "protect the little girl" from having to testify but i wonder if there were people involved who protected that predator. if i could remember some of the names, I'd look it up. the point is, these things keep happening ad they are inexplicable.
for that matter i read a book about the son of sam case that was written years after it happened and exposed a number of things that never came to light because they involved coverups. that wasn't about children (that we know of) but it is about coverup. I just don't understand the desire to protect these vile activities.
Originally posted by earlywatcher
reply to post by Jessicamsa
outside of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. that's where the murders took place. I'm from Oregon so close by, which is probably why we heard more about it. i just searched for it and found that a lot has happened since. read this to see that garrido is not the only serial predator out there:
how many more are out there? and WHY?
Court and police records paint a picture of Joseph Edward Duncan III's life as one without roots and a criminal record that started early.
In January 1980, a month before he turned 17, Duncan broke into a neighbor's home in Tacoma, Wash., and stole four semi-automatic pistols, according to Pierce County (Wash.) Sheriff's Department investigators' reports.
Notifying the public about Duncan Later that day, Duncan pulled a gun on a 14-year-old boy walking home from school. Deputies said Duncan took the 14-year-old to a wooded area and raped him.
Duncan also beat the boy with a branch and burned him with a cigarette lighter, deputies said.
Duncan pleaded guilty to a charge of first-degree rape while armed with a firearm and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
On the recommendations of a Pierce County probation officer, a judge suspended the sentence and ordered Duncan to enter the sexual offender program at Western State Hospital in Steilacoom, Wash.
While there, Duncan told doctors he had his first homosexual and heterosexual experiences when he was 12.
He said when he was 15 he forced a 9-year-old to have sexual contact with him at gunpoint.
Duncan told doctors that when he was 16 he tied up six boys, ages 6 through 10, and forced them to have sexual contact with him.
Duncan later said he made up those stories to be accepted into the hospital and avoid prison.
In March 1982, state hospital officials said Duncan was no longer amenable to treatment after he left the hospital grounds and peeped in the windows of nearby homes.
A judge revoked his suspended sentence and Duncan began serving his time in a state penitentiary.
Duncan was paroled several times and returned to prison for parole violations, including failing to register as a sex offender in Kansas City, Mo., where the FBI arrested him in August 1997.
A number of paedophiles at a psychiatric prison in Groningen were found with cd-r discs containing child porn during an inspection, reports Wednesday's Telegraaf. Soft drugs were also found
Currently used methods to treat paedophiles are largely useless, reports YLE's investigative journalism programme Silminnäkijä. Treatment must be voluntary, and few convicted child molesters chose this option.
Paedophiles may have reduced concentrations of nerve cells in key areas of the brain compared to normal people, according to a study published by German researchers.
First up we have Australian Judge Sarah Bradley. Her case involved a 10 year old girl who was gang raped by 9 men. The prosecuting attorney described the rape as "a form of childish experimentation, rather than one child being prevailed upon by another" and said the males including a 17, 18 and 26-year-old, were "naughty".
And Her Honor based her judgment on her own opinion that the girl
"probably agreed to have sex with all of the offenders"
This ten year old child had previously been molested multiple times AND she contracted a venereal disease during this encounter. She was subsequently removed from her foster family and returned to the community where all her victimizations had occured and in which her victimizers lived within their prestigious and now obviously influental families.
With this decision, Judge Bradley told this girl she was unimportant. That what these men did to her was just something she would have to accept. Every single one of the rapists pleaded guilty. Every single one of them received a slap on the wrist except for 6 of them who received........nothing.
Originally posted by Jessicamsa
I do not think those in power care about the children at all. They do nothing to protect the victims.
i don't know what is really going on with this situation. it is so terrible to put all children and women at risk because some men have uncontrollable sexual urges to pair sex and violence. i don't accept that you can call it an illness and make it not an intentional crime. people do have a choice.
that doesn't explain the serial parole for pedophiles