The Backyard Prisoner: The Story of Jaycee Dugard

tyra wrote:

jassi wrote:It would have tested the Tapas timeline for one thing, and by having all the group there, they could have corrected any perceived error, which couldn't have been done with a computer simulation.

And this helped find Madeleine how, and this would appeal to parents in what way? Hey we think your child is dead and that you did it why don't you come back here and help us prove it.

Show me the parent of an abducted child who is keen on that theory and I'll show you an idiot.

It would have demonstrated if abductor was a physical possibilty, which would have been helpful, whatever the outcome.

If the McCanns had nothing to hide, then they should not have had a problem. And don't mention planted evidence, because with the spotlight of international media on them, the PJ wouldn't even have considered it (if in fact they ever did)

If their story of abduction was correct, the McCanns had everything to gain by a reconstruction.

tyra wrote:

carlymichelle wrote:moon i just turned 30 im a year older then this girl i couldnt imagine having a 15 year old daughter now not in those circumstances i dont know how the mcanns see this as positive

carly I know that you have made it clear on a few occasions that you think abused children cannot be helped because the damage is too great but not everybody agrees with you.

I am afraid I am with Carly on this one. No one (only people who have been through the same ordeal) can imagine
the psychological damage that this young woman will have to live with. She will never be able to forget. In the best of circumstances she will be strong enough to accept it as part of her and still be able to find hapiness in her life. But easy it will never be.

Nevertheless I am glad that she has been found and will be reunited with her mother.

gypsygal wrote:Yes she is alive. The abductor is the one who committed the crime and is the one who should be punished, the one who should be described as vile, disgusting filth. The same goes for Madeleine's abductor
With help, Jaycee and her family will be able hopefully to move forward. I hope that no one has set up a board to criticise Jaycee's parents in this.

I came here from the Jaycee case, I saw comments refering to Madeleine and thought it would be a supportive site. I cannot believe what I am reading.
I am a mother of three and just assumed that this would give new hope to families such as the Needhams and the Mccanns

This is a supportive site... supportive of Madeleine. What 'abductor' are you talking about, there isn't one, not a trace of an abductor has been found, so why are you posting about an abductor?

vivvy wrote:

This is a supportive site... supportive of Madeleine. What 'abductor' are you talking about, there isn't one, not a trace of an abductor has been found, so why are you posting about an abductor?

I guess it's like ghosts and aliens. Some people do believe in them. ;-)

gypsygal wrote:Yes she is alive. The abductor is the one who committed the crime and is the one who should be punished, the one who should be described as vile, disgusting filth. The same goes for Madeleine's abductor
With help, Jaycee and her family will be able hopefully to move forward. I hope that no one has set up a board to criticise Jaycee's parents in this.

I came here from the Jaycee case, I saw comments refering to Madeleine and thought it would be a supportive site. I cannot believe what I am reading.
I am a mother of three and just assumed that this would give new hope to families such as the Needhams and the Mccanns

Oh dear, you've got a lot of catching up to do haven't you?

Claudia79 wrote:

vivvy wrote:

This is a supportive site... supportive of Madeleine. What 'abductor' are you talking about, there isn't one, not a trace of an abductor has been found, so why are you posting about an abductor?

I guess it's like ghosts and aliens. Some people do believe in them. ;-)

vivvy wrote:

jassi wrote:It would have demonstrated if abductor was a physical possibilty, which would have been helpful, whatever the outcome.

If the McCanns had nothing to hide, then they should not have had a problem. And don't mention planted evidence, because with the spotlight of international media on them, the PJ wouldn't even have considered it (if in fact they ever did)

If their story of abduction was correct, the McCanns had everything to gain by a reconstruction.

Of course they should ALL have gone back for the reconstruction. As you so rightly say, it could have helped show if an abduction was possible and how it might have been carried out. 'Leaving no stone unturned' should mean doing everything, not just doing the things they choose to do, so since the police asked them to return there should have been no hesitation. I hope, if/when the case is reopened, that a full reconstruction will be carried out.

It's also rather odd that in the McCanns' own documentary they engaged an actress to play the part of Kate, yet it seems this part was cut from the programme. Now I wonder why?

gypsygal wrote:

Nellie wrote:

gypsygal wrote:Sorry, I didn't realise that they had referred to Jaycee Dugard as "unharmed"

I don't think they did, actually. They expressed their happiness for the family and hope for themselves.

And as for someone? Jassi? saying that they would rather their child was dead, well, I have no comprehension of any parent who would feel that way.
This board seems to criticise everything that the Mccanns say or do, surely they are doing everything that they can in the circumstances. JMO

Actually I came across a quote from the Macs back in about August 2007 saying that they's rather Madeleine was dead then be with a paedophile, If I can be bothered,I'll see if I can find it.

Indigo wrote:

tyra wrote:

carlymichelle wrote:moon i just turned 30 im a year older then this girl i couldnt imagine having a 15 year old daughter now not in those circumstances i dont know how the mcanns see this as positive

carly I know that you have made it clear on a few occasions that you think abused children cannot be helped because the damage is too great but not everybody agrees with you.

I am afraid I am with Carly on this one. No one (only people who have been through the same ordeal) can imagine
the psychological damage that this young woman will have to live with. She will never be able to forget. In the best of circumstances she will be strong enough to accept it as part of her and still be able to find hapiness in her life. But easy it will never be.

Nevertheless I am glad that she has been found and will be reunited with her mother.

An abused child never recovers, they learn to live with what happened in order to survive but they can never forget.

gypsygal wrote:Yes she is alive. The abductor is the one who committed the crime and is the one who should be punished, the one who should be described as vile, disgusting filth. The same goes for Madeleine's abductor

Some disgusting, vile filth in your very own country don't need to abduct toddlers in order to exploit them gyspgal. Take Donna Hudson for example:-

Woman made child porn

August 7th 2009

A SOUTH Yorkshire, woman has admitted making indecent video images of young children.

Donna Hudson, aged 32, appeared before Doncaster Crown Court yesterday and pleaded guilty to making indecent images of two children under the age of five on dates before May 2007.

http://www.sheffieldtelegraph.co.uk/news2/Woman-made-child-porn.5533275.jp

I guess its acceptable to you for people like Donna Hudson to make child pornography out of children no older the Madeleine McCann herself, because they weren't ABDUCTED by some bogeyman abductor were they? Since the publication of Donna Hudson's vile crimes against young children in the local newspaper she was the subject of a vigilante attack and has since fled the area which just goes to show you the strength of feeling against ANYONE (male or female) who sexually exploit young children whether the children were abducted by a bogeyman or molested in their own homes by people who they know.

vivvy wrote:

gypsygal wrote:Yes she is alive. The abductor is the one who committed the crime and is the one who should be punished, the one who should be described as vile, disgusting filth. The same goes for Madeleine's abductor
With help, Jaycee and her family will be able hopefully to move forward. I hope that no one has set up a board to criticise Jaycee's parents in this.

I came here from the Jaycee case, I saw comments refering to Madeleine and thought it would be a supportive site. I cannot believe what I am reading.
I am a mother of three and just assumed that this would give new hope to families such as the Needhams and the Mccanns

This is a supportive site... supportive of Madeleine. What 'abductor' are you talking about, there isn't one, not a trace of an abductor has been found, so why are you posting about an abductor?

I couldn't say it better! What abductor are we talking about?

To my knowledge and according to what has been said on the Portuguese TV, Jaycee was kidnapped when she was 11 yrs old, while in a bus stop and everything happened in front of one of her relatives who saw the car and the couple involved on her kidnapping. So, the two cases cannot even compare.

Further to my previous post gypsygal:-

Kates message:

"Child sexual exploitation and child pornography in particular, is sadly and shockingly extensive worldwide. It is a multi-billion dollar industry aided by the use of the Internet with the ‘thirst’ for younger victims growing. Once again, my ‘bubble’ of a life burst as I began to discover the facts relating to this now global crisis."

http://www.findmadeleine.com/missing-children/kates-message.html

I, myself, am raising public awareness of females who sexually exploit children and so far, in 2009, I have reported on over 50 worldwide cases of women being involved in the production, distribution and possession of child pornography:-

https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1DAF098A4B3FBA34

Yet some of Kate McCanns so called "supporters" have often despised and criticised me for raising awareness of this issue, an issue that Kate McCann herself raises public awareness of on the Find Madeleine website and one wonders why and why these critics and so called supporters of the McCanns are falsely claiming they support Kate McCann when obviously some of them seem to be AGAINST the raising of awareness of certain forms of child sexual exploitation, namely child sexual exploitation involving or perpetrated by women.

The Guardian

Focus in Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping turns to wife of Garrido

Sunday 30 August 2009


Nancy Garrido is charged in California with 'forcible rape' of abducted girl

Nancy Garrido, the wife of Phillip Garrido, the man charged with the kidnapping and rape of 11-year-old Jaycee Lee Dugard in a case that has stunned America, played an equal role in his alleged crimes, according to a 16-page charge sheet filed in California by US prosecutors.

As Dugard's step-grandmother told how Jaycee Lee, now 29, who had been missing for 18 years, was "doing good", attention switched from Garrido to the role allegedly played by his wife. According to the charge sheet against her, Nancy Garrido is accused along with her husband of kidnapping Dugard "for sexual purposes".

Prosecutors accuse Nancy Garrido of "forcible rape", committing a "forcible lewd act upon a child" and of "false imprisonment by violence". They allege she "did unlawfully have and accomplish an act of sexual intercourse with a person, to wit, Jane Doe (the alleged victim), not his/her spouse, against said person's will, by means of force, violence, duress, menace and fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on said person and another".

In total, Nancy Garrido faces 16 charges dating from 10 June 1991 – the day Dugard was abducted – to 26 August 2009, the day she reappeared in public.

The allegations raise questions about the relationship between the Garridos, who were married while Phillip was serving a prison term for kidnapping and raping a 25-year-old woman in California.

Garrido had admitted to being the father of Dugard's two children, now aged 11 and 15, but on Friday he and his wife denied all charges brought against them in relation to the now notorious kidnapping.

Dugard's step-grandmother, Wilma Probyn, told People magazine in the US that she had spoken to the missing woman's mother, Terry, last night. "She said Jaycee was doing good, that she's got a lot of guilt, that she bonded with this guy. But after I've heard all these things, I think that's the only reason she's alive, because she did bond with him," Probyn said.

Questions have been raised as to why Garrido, who in 1977 was sentenced to 50 years for the kidnap and rape conviction, was granted parole in 1988. Politicians and law enforcement officials expressed surprise at the relatively short length of time Garrido had served considering the severity of his sentence.

Meanwhile police have named Phillip Garrido as a "person of interest" in their investigation into the unsolved murders of several prostitutes in the 1990s. The women's bodies had been dumped near an industrial park where Garrido once worked, according to police investigators.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/30/jaycee-lee-dugard-nancy-garrido

Seneca wrote:@Snuffel
I don't see Kate McCann separating male and female predators in her statement - so why do you?

Kate McCann does not exactly make it clear or go into detail in her statement whom, in her learned opinion, are the actual perpetrators of child sexual exploitation does she Seneca? Therefore, Kate McCann and people reading her statement can only "generalise" and make personal presumptions to whom the actual perpetrators of child sexual exploitation are and the following is just one example why its very short-sighted and possibly misleading to "generalise" the sexual exploitation of children like Kate McCann seems to have done in her statement:-

The Hidden Truth

June 12th 2009

guardian.co.uk
News-Society-Child Protection

Yesterday nursery worker Vanessa George was charged with abusing children in her care. The fact that she is a woman has caused widespread shock - but, reports Sandra Laville, it is an issue that society has long brushed under the carpet.

"We have to get away from believing in the typical image of a paedophile - a middle-aged, balding man wearing a dirty raincoat," says Zoe Hilton, policy adviser for child protection with the NSPCC. "It's important that we don't become fixated with this image. It blurs the real extent of sexual abuse and can make it difficult for children to speak out. Child abuse is very prevalent in society, and it comes from a range of sources, including those people whom society views as maternal and nurturing: women".

Let me ask you a very important question Seneca. Do personally regard the alleged sexual crimes against children committed by Plymouth nursery worker and mother-of-two Vanessa George, as child sexual exploitation as the law does in this case?

lynn wrote:The finding of Jacee must be good news for the McCanns....something to hide behind sorry to say and just see their coffers fill up a bit more now.

Yes I think that too.

carlymichelle wrote:

halfamo wrote:Tyra i get what you are saying and i do see the point,but at the same time how on earth can parents of a child who they have said maybe in the hands of paedophiles make such a careless statement.Children who have been abused by these people are traumatised .Their bodies may heal but do their minds.they're maybe safe once more within their family ,but unharmed absolutely not.

have you ever read torey hayden books i have her whole book set in one of her books called ghost girl it describes what being abducted did for one of her clients and that child was abducted by her own father when she was 5 and was reunited with her mum a few years later it was terrible to read

Yes Carly; I recomend everyone to read that book, very shocking in deed.

yeah dutch i got the name mixed up the abduction one was in twilight children but ghost girl was horrific to read the little girl and her siblings were involved in a pedofile ring and no one helped until torey hayden got involved and got child protection cops etc involved

Seneca wrote:

Schnuffel wrote:

Seneca wrote:@Snuffel
I don't see Kate McCann separating male and female predators in her statement - so why do you?

Kate McCann does not exactly make it clear or go into detail in her statement whom, in her learned opinion, are the actual perpetrators of child sexual exploitation does she Seneca?

Her statement is very clear far as i can see; I don't see any ref to old men or raincoats.
It's very specific - perps are perps. Much as i dislike KMcC i can't disagree with her statement which the stats support. It's increasing, i think because of the internet.

As for the NSPCC - it's a sham organisation as so many so-called charities have become.

You are not assuming those are Kate's own words are you?

That statement was written for her by someone else. The same as all the sound bites the McCanns use now.....

'There is no evidence Madeleine has been seriously harmed'

'We have been assured that our actions last night were well within the bounds of responsible parenting'

Etc....

Seneca wrote:

Schnuffel wrote:

Seneca wrote:@Snuffel
I don't see Kate McCann separating male and female predators in her statement - so why do you?

Kate McCann does not exactly make it clear or go into detail in her statement whom, in her learned opinion, are the actual perpetrators of child sexual exploitation does she Seneca?

Her statement is very clear far as i can see; I don't see any ref to old men or raincoats.
It's very specific - perps are perps. Much as i dislike KMcC i can't disagree with her statement which the stats support. It's increasing, i think because of the internet.

As for the NSPCC - it's a sham organisation as so many so-called charities have become.

Kate McCanns statement is not very clear at all, her statement is a "generalisation" of the issue of child sexual exploitation as a whole and you know it which is why I suspect you failed to answer the following:-

"Let me ask you a very important question Seneca. Do personally regard the alleged sexual crimes against children committed by Plymouth nursery worker and mother-of-two Vanessa George, as child sexual exploitation as the law does in this case?"

A simple YES or NO to the question posed would have sufficed Seneca but you chose to avoid answering the question. Why? What is difficult about the question? You either view the case against Vanessa George as a case of child sexual exploitation or you don't? So what is your answer Seneca?

Seneca wrote:Schnuffel.

'Child sexual exploitation and child pornography in particular, is sadly and shockingly extensive worldwide.'

I said i agree with this statement. So i have answered your question.

Have you indeed Seneca? Here's a demonstration of how most parents would feel if a woman, like Vanessa George, sexually exploited their children for child pornography purposes. More than just saddened and shocked wouldn't you say?



Yet you don't seem to agree or share the same feelings as these parents because unlike them its seems you are very reluctant to accept women like Vanessa George sexually exploit children in our society by again failing to provide a simple yes or no to the question I posed you.

Indigo wrote:

tyra wrote:

carlymichelle wrote:moon i just turned 30 im a year older then this girl i couldnt imagine having a 15 year old daughter now not in those circumstances i dont know how the mcanns see this as positive

carly I know that you have made it clear on a few occasions that you think abused children cannot be helped because the damage is too great but not everybody agrees with you.

I am afraid I am with Carly on this one. No one (only people who have been through the same ordeal) can imagine
the psychological damage that this young woman will have to live with. She will never be able to forget. In the best of circumstances she will be strong enough to accept it as part of her and still be able to find hapiness in her life. But easy it will never be.

Nevertheless I am glad that she has been found and will be reunited with her mother.

I read an article yesterday about two other girls who've emerged from captivity yesterday. The first Elisabeth Fritzl, is doing extremely well, she has never looked back and has fallen in love with one of the guards assigned to look after her following liberation. But the other girl who ran away from her abductor [the Austrian girl] her name escapes me, she isn't doing so well at all. She's finding it hard to break the Stockholm syndrome and returns to the room where she was held captive and stays there all weekend every weekend.

It does make you wonder why O'Brien was missing that day - perhaps he was doing the collective childminding

navyblue wrote:http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Media/Pix/pictures/2008/10/16/tapas460.jpg

No Russell O' Brien, though? Was he worried about "disruption"?

always an interesting exhibition this. only o'brien and tanner were the subject of this out of court settlement not the whole bunch. yet he couldn't be bothered to show. or didn't want to.

Hello navyblue, I just wanted to say thankyou for the links, two very interesting items particuarky the first. I too wondered where Russell O Brian was, perhaps the man has a conscience and some morality still. All my very best wishes from Rose xx