July 11, 2011 by staff
Phillip Garrido, Three different authorities were in the middle of a series of terrible mistakes that allowed the hijackers of Jaycee Lee Dugard Phillip Garrido released. The United States Parole Commission, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the local Contra Costa Sheriff should supervise convicted pedophile.
But three missed opportunities to stop or prevent heinous crimes Garrido.
The California state legislature last year approved an agreement and 20 million to compensate Ms. Dugard not adequately supervise Garrido.
Ms. Dugard was rescued from her 18 years in captivity in August 2009, when Garrido brought his daughters to a meeting of parole.
Since then, Ms. Dugard has stayed away from the spotlight.
But on Sunday, finally breaking her silence in her first television interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC.
His memoirs, A Stolen Life, will be released July 12.
Here, as indicated in the report of the Inspector General of California and first reported by ABC News, are some of the worst mistakes surrounding Miss Dugard test.
A release of Garrido: The first big mistake was apparently the U.S. Parole Commission, which released Garrido from prison January 20, 1988. After the kidnapping of Katie Callaway Hall in 1977, Garrido received a federal sentence of 50 years.
In its 2009 report to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation monitoring Garrido, California Inspector General David R. Shaw Garrido called the release of “inexplicable.” His U.S. Parole Commission Garrido never let go, he would never have been able to abduct, rape and having children with Jaycee Dugard.
2 early termination of probation: The U.S. Parole Commission granted early termination Garrido federal probation on March 9, 1999, basing its decision on its clean record.
At that time, a U.S. probation officer Garrido wrote a letter thanking him for his “cooperation”, according to parole documents released to the media last year.
3. 60 home visits in 10 years failed to detect the crime: The California Department of Corrections took over the supervision of Garrido in 1999. The report of the Inspector General of California, said the agents paid CDCR Garrido 60 home visits between June 1999 and August 2009 when he was arrested for kidnapping Miss Dugard.
However, during these visits, probation officers could not detect Miss Miss Dugard, but also failed to take action. It was unclear when the officers contacted her.
4. Probation officer saw one of the daughter of Jaycee, but did nothing: The June 17, 2008, a probation officer noticed a 12-year-old was later determined that one of the daughters sired Garrido Ms. Dugard, for at least one visit, but no action. At that time, Garrido said the girl was the daughter of his brother, the report of the Inspector General of California. Garrido brother does not have a daughter.
“If the probation officer had taken this step basic research (contact Garrido’s brother), would have determined that Garrido had been dishonest and could have investigated further,” said the IG report. The report also cites the following faults of the authorities:
5. Misclassification: The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was unable to properly classify Garrido, given its history as a violent sexual predator, and did not supervise accordingly.
6. Last visit: A probation officer for CDCR does not visit the house of Garrido until 2000, a year after the probation officers were assigned to the case in 1999.
7. Lack of communication: The CDCR was unable to obtain key information from the federal probation Garrido and the CDCR does not talk to local public safety agencies or neighbors Garrido.
8. Track was lost: the CDCR did not investigate utility wires visible from the house of hidden in the compound Garrido where Miss Dugard was imprisoned.
9. Violations of probation: The CDCR does not act on information that Garrido had violated terms of probation.
10. Warning that the children were in the property was fired: The office of Sheriff of Contra Costa had the opportunity to stop Garrido in November 2006 after answering a 911 call, claiming they were children living in Garrido property. A representative of the sheriff’s office visited the house after the call, met with Garrido in your front yard, determined that there was no threat and left.
Please feel free to send if you have any questions regarding this post , you can contact on
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this site are that of the authors and not necessarily that of U.S.S.POST.