EL DORADO COUNTY DISTRICT ATIORNEY'S OFFICE
FINDINGS RE JAYCEE LEE DUGARD CASE
AUGUS 2, 2011

EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office
Findings Re Jaycee Lee Dugard Case
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 25, 2009 (the day before Jaycee Lee Dugard was discovered), Phillip Garrido was
considered a shining example of a reformed criminal- a man who had not committed a crime since
1976, a man who had performed so well in federal prison that he got paroled almost 40 years early, a
man that had performed so well in Nevada state prison that he was released after only 11 years on a life
sentence, a man that was so reformed he never became as suspect in the 1991 abduction of Jaycee Lee
Dugard, a man that had performed so well under federal parole supervision that he was terminated
successfully in 1999, and a man that had never had his parole revoked by CDCR for 10 years under their
supervision. Thanks to a Berkley Police Officer and UC Berkley Campus Manager, we now know all of
this was a lie. Thanks to those officers we now know the psychologists, parole boards, counselors, and
parole officers did not know the truth - that Phillip Garrido is a dangerous sexual predator.
Law enforcement failed to see Phillip Garrido for what and who he truly is... evil. In part, this
failure was based upon law enforcement's over-reliance upon the psychiatric profession to predict
future dangerousness. Common sense would tell you that the best predictor of future behavior is past
behavior. For some unknown reason, psychiatry in the criminal justice system relies far too little on past
behavior and far too often on the statements from the criminal- who have a vested interest and motive
in presenting themselves in a better light. This problem is exacerbated even more in the prison setting,
where criminals know they are being watched and know that they can get paroled even sooner if they
comply with prison rules. The problem is further compounded by the fact that a prisoner's institutional
adjustment and psychiatric evaluations are given greater weight than the underlying commitment
offense. Thus, the major problem with the use of psychiatry in the prison system is that the prisoners
will act differently in prison - because they don't have the freedom to rape and murder and destroy
lives like they did on the outside of prison walls. Criminals then use psychiatry to manipulate the
criminal justice system.
The fact is that under the current parole system, a criminal like Phillip Garrido would still be
evaluated by a dysfunctional process that could lead to his release. Unfortunately, due to a significant
th

change in the law (In re Lawrence (2008) 44 CalA 1181) occurring only one year prior to Jaycee's
discovery, the law does not even allow the parole board to deny parole solely upon the circumstances of
the commitment offense. The rule is release. If Phillip Garrido faced parole under the California parole
system today, they would evaluate him under a flawed system that: (1) Puts the burden upon the parole
board to prove dangerousness; (2) overvalues institutional adjustment and psychiatric evaluations; and,
(3) gives little real consideration or weight to the circumstances of the offense, the inmate's reliable past
criminal history. He would be evaluated under a system, that even in June of 2011 still rated him a
Static-99R "Moderate-Low" risk category, even after he had kidnaped and imprisoned an 11 year old girl
for 18 years. Modification of the parole review process is the first step of many that needs to be taken

------(

1

) - - - - -

to ensure that our society is protected from sexual predators like Phillip Garrido and other violent
criminals like him.
TOP FIVE MISTAKES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

On June 10, 1991, Phillip and Nancy Garrido abducted Jaycee Lee Dugard in South Lake Tahoe.
On August 26,2009, 18 years later, Jaycee was finally discovered.
As part of the investigation and prosecution of Phillip Garrido, the EI Dorado County District
Attorney's Office conducted an exhaustive review of his extensive criminal history, which included a
review of: All existing criminal police reports regarding Phillip Garrido; the reports and transcripts of his
rape and kidnap of Katie Callaway; his Federal Bureau of Prison records; his Nevada state prison records;
his federal and CDCR parole supervision records; all reports and evidence concerning the 18 year FBI
investigation into the disappearance of Jaycee Lee Dugard; all records, reports, evidence concerning the
2009 discovery of Jaycee Lee Dugard and subsequent investigation of Phillip and Nancy Garrido; his past
and present psychiatric evaluations; his extensive correspondence with Nancy Garrido while in Federal
Prison and while incarcerated in EI Dorado County Jail; and, interviews conducted with Nancy Garrido
and Phillip Garrido.
Upon evaluation of this mountain of evidence concerning Phillip Garrido's criminal history and
the failures of the criminal justice system, the EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office identifies the
top five mistakes made by law enforcement regarding Phillip Garrido.

1.

Philip Garrido's Release from Prison
The number one mistake made by law enforcement regarding Phillip Garrido was his release
from prison in 1988. Had Garrido served his full term, he would not have been released until
2027, and there would not even have been the opportunity for him to abduct Jaycee Lee
Dugard. Phillip Garrido was released from prison after only 11 years of a 50 year federal
sentence and a five-to-Iife Nevada state sentence due to the parole boards' over-reliance on
Phillip Garrido's institutional adjustment and grossly flawed psychiatric evaluations concerning
his likelihood for future dangerousness, while giving little real consideration (or ignoring
entirely) the true nature and extent of Phillip Garrido's crimes and prior criminal history. Phillip
Garrido's committing offense involved the brutal rape and kidnap of Katie Callaway, where he
handcuffed her and sexually assaulted her for hours. Phillip Garrido's reliable documented
criminal history included the kidnapping and rape of a 14 year old girl in Antioch in 1972, the
kidnapping and rape of a 19 year old young woman in South Lake Tahoe in June of 1976, the
attempted kidnapping and rape of a 25 year old woman in South Lake Tahoe in November 1976
(only one hour before his kidnapping of Katie Callaway), and Phillip Garrido's 1976 admissions to
abducting two other women, his 1977 trial admissions to prurient interest in young children
(evidenced by his testimony that he repeatedly masturbated in front of grammar schools and
high schools), and his repeated admission to having rape fantasies. (See map of crimes
Attachment #1 for reference.) An inmate with this type of criminal history should not have been

- - - - - (

2

) - - - - -

released only 11 years into a 50 year sentence, no matter how well he had adjusted in the
prison system. One of the primary reasons for this failure was the ongoing over-reliance of law
enforcement on the psychiatric profession to predict Garrido's future dangerousness. Garrido
tried to obtain a shorter sentence in 1978 with the assistance of a psychiatrist who was willing
to recommend parole. (See court documents Attachment #2 for reference.) Garrido used those
evaluations to assist in getting paroled from federal and Nevada state prison in 1988. The
failures and inadequacies of the psychiatric profession were highlighted by Phillip Garrido and
his manipulation of them to his advantage.
2.

Failure to Identify Phillip Garrido as a Suspect in 1991
The second biggest mistake made by law enforcement regarding Phillip Garrido was their failure
to identify him as a suspect after the June 10, 1991, kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Ougard. Phillip
Garrido did not become a suspect in her South Lake Tahoe abduction, even though he was a
repeat kidnapper and rapist, with a history of kidnapping and raping in South Lake Tahoe, and
was on federal parole at the time. At the time of Jaycee Lee Ougard's kidnapping from South
Lake Tahoe, Phillip Garrido had already kidnaped and raped 3 identified victims, and attempted
th

th

to kidnap and rape another. Jaycee was the 5 known victim of Phillip Garrido and the 4 out of
South Lake Tahoe. (See map of crimes Attachment #1 for reference.)
3.

Failure of Parole Supervision
The third biggest mistake by law enforcement in dealing with Phillip Garrido was the failure of
the federal and state parole agencies to adequately supervise him. Federal parole agents failed
Jaycee Lee Ougard when they did not adequately supervise Phillip Garrido from 1988 to 1999.
COCR parole agents continued that failure in supervision when they did not properly supervise
Phillip Garrido from 1999 to 2009. In total, parole agents visited the Garrido residence 70 times
(10 times by federal parole and 60 times by COCR parole). One of the primary reasons for these
failures was the ongoing over-reliance of law enforcement on the psychiatric profession to
predict Garrido's future dangerousness. He used psychiatric evaluations to hide his actions
while on parole from 1988 to 2009. The failures and inadequacies of the psychiatric profession
were highlighted by Phillip Garrido and his manipulation of them to his advantage.

4.

Failure of Federal Parole Supervision From May 15, 1991 to May 4, 1995
The fourth biggest mistake of law enforcement, and the most notable of all the parole failures, is
that on May 15, 1991 a federal parole agent visited the recording studio of Phillip Garrido. (See
federal parole record Attachment #3 for reference.) Just three weeks later, this recording studio
became Jaycee Lee Ougard's prison, where she was bound and sexually assaulted for years. For
almost four years, between May 15, 1991 until May 4, 1995, the federal parole agent
supervising Garrido only visited the Garrido home one time (briefly). These years from 1991 to
1995 were among the absolute worst years for Jaycee Lee Ougard in her captivity with Phillip

---------1(

3

and Nancy Garrido, and had the federal parole agents searched the Garrido residence they
would have found her.
5.

Failure of Federal Parole to Investigate Phillip Garrido Contact with Katie Callaway

The fifth biggest mistake of law enforcement in its dealing with Phillip Garrido was the
failure to fully investigate the Phillip Garrido's contact with Katie Callaway in 1988. It was a
colossal blunder by the federal parole authorities when they failed to fully investigate the
November 1988 incident where Phillip Garrido contacted his former victim Katie Callaway in
South Lake Tahoe. In November 1988, Katie Callaway thought Garrido was still serving his 50
year federal sentence and his five-to-life Nevada state sentence. In November 1988, Katie did
not even know that Garrido was out of prison, yet alone, had recently been given new
freedoms. The coincidence of Garrido's prior victim reporting contact with him the very same
month he is given more freedoms - all while she is unaware that he is ever out of prison - is so
astronomical that Katie Callaway's concerns should have been addressed and taken more
seriously by the federal parole agent.
Then, on November 19,1988, (the very same day that Michaela Garecht is abducted
only 20 miles from Phillip Garrido's half-way-house) the federal parole agent ends his
investigation of the Katie Callaway incident by stating that "to subject [Phillip Garrido] to
electronic monitoring would be too much of a hassle based on the hysteria, or concerns of the
victim ... " (See federal parole record Attachment #4 for reference.) Garrido never became a
suspect in the Micaela Garecht disappearance, even though there are striking similarities
between Garrido's prison photo and a sketch of the suspect (See comparison of sketch and
photos Attachment #5 for reference.) Katie Callaway-Hall recalls speaking to the parole agent
who ultimately dismissed her allegations without any real investigation. (See letter from Katie
Callaway-Hall Attachment #6 for reference.) Katie Callaway was shown a photo of Garrido
dressed nicely, with a mustache, with hair combed, and taken from a distance, not a photo that
would have shown Garrido how he really looked at the time. In reality, in November 1988,
Garrido looked more like he did in the video released by our office of him playing the guitar in a
park then he did in any of his prison photos. Katie Callaway-Hall says that Garrido "Iooked like
he did in the [DA's Office] video, not how he did in the photo they showed me." (See
comparison photos Attachment # 7 for reference.)
LESSONS LEARNED

Fortunately, since the abduction of Jaycee Lee Dugard in 1991, there have been many significant
and important changes in the law that have provided a major step in the direction necessary to correct
the problems and mistakes that were so evident with the Phillip Garrido case. Further, both federal and
state parole have already stated an interest and commitment to making fundamental changes in the
parole supervision system to correct the problems and mistakes made by their respective agencies.

---------1(

4

) - - - - -

When looking at the Phillip Garrido case, and the enormity of the failure of law enforcement in
so many ways, it is hard to ignore the role that the psychiatric profession played in these failures. Again
and again, Phillip Garrido manipulated the system with the assistance of the psychiatric profession. He
tried to claim incompetence during his 1977 trial for the kidnapping and rape of Katie Callaway. Garrido
tried to obtain a shorter sentence in 1978 with the assistance of a psychiatrist who was willing to
recommend parole. Garrido used that evaluation and others while in prison to assist in getting paroled
from Federal and Nevada State prison in 1988. Then, he used his counselors and psychiatric evaluations
to hide his actions while on parole from 1988 to 2009. And, then ultimately, Phillip Garrido tried to use
the psychiatric professionals once again to claim incompetence during the criminal proceedings in EI
Dorado County. Far too often, the psychiatrist focuses on what the criminal says (rather than their past
actions and conduct) to evaluate their risk for future dangerousness. This runs counter to common
sense.
Astonishingly, even in June 2011 when Phillip Garrido was sentenced for his crimes against
Jaycee Lee Dugard, he only scored at 3 on the Static-99R Assessment (the state authorized psychiatric
assessment tool for sex offenders) which placed Phillip Garrido on the Moderate-Low Risk Category.
Unfortunately, psychiatric evaluations and predictions of future dangerousness playa large part
of current lifer parole hearing in California. One must always be reminded that the lifer parolee has
already been convicted of committing a horrible crime. There is no presumption of innocence. They are
guilty of committing a life crime. Upon review of the current state of the California Parole laws it is
painfully clear that the parole review system is also based upon this flawed basic approach to evaluating
a criminal's danger to society. The rule is release. Instead of putting the burden on the parolee, the
flawed system puts the burden on the parole board to prove dangerousness. And, as part of that flawed
process, parole boards overvalue institutional adjustment and psychiatric evaluations, and give little real
weight to the circumstances of the offense.
OVERVIEW

On June 10, 1991, Phillip and Nancy Garrido abducted Jaycee Lee Dugard in South Lake Tahoe.
On August 26, 2009,18 years later, Jaycee was finally discovered. Both Phillip and Nancy Garrido were
charged with, and ultimately convicted of, kidnapping and rape - sending them both to prison for life.
The EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office's primary responsibility in this case has been to seek
justice for Jaycee and her family through the criminal prosecution of Phillip and Nancy Garrido.
However, despite the time passage since Jaycee's discovery in August of 2009, there remain several
lingering unanswered questions: How did Phillip Garrido get paroled from a 50 year Federal sentence
and a five-to-life Nevada State sentence after only 11 years7 How did Phillip Garrido keep Jaycee hidden
for 11 years on Federal Parole from 1991 to 19997 And, how did Phillip Garrido keep Jaycee hidden for
10 years on California State Parole from 1999 to 20097
Had the Phillip and Nancy Garrido case gone to jury trial some of these questions may have
been answered. Since the criminal case against Phillip and Nancy Garrido is now over, the EI Dorado
County District Attorney's Office has determined that certain facts need to be revealed. It is beyond

----------1(

5

)f-------

dispute that the criminal justice system failed Jaycee Lee Dugard, it failed Katie Calloway-Hall, and
assuredly failed many of the other countless unknown victims of Phillip Garrido. It is hoped that by
revealing some of the glaring oversights in this case, law enforcement as a whole can learn from these
mistakes, and we can begin the process of exploring deficiencies in state law and identifying potential
legislative solutions to assist law enforcement in the supervision and detection of sexual predators like
Phillip Garrido. Often, the best way to improve behavior is to shine the bright light of public scrutiny on
government actions.
There is no simple answer to these questions. However, two things are abundantly clear: First,
Phillip Garrido is a master manipulator who used his interactions with psychiatric professionals in order
to manipulate the system by saying what he needed to say and doing what he needed to do to get
paroled after only 11 years and to repeatedly avoid closer scrutiny by his federal and state parole
agents. Second, it appears that prison officials, law enforcement, and parole officials all failed to fully
evaluate and consider Phillip Garrido's known history, which made most of them unaware that he was a
violent sexual predator who had repeatedly raped and kidnapped women. Thus, the ultimate failure of
the system and its dealings with Phillip Garrido was the result of (1) a complete over-reliance of the
criminal justice system upon the opinions of psychiatric professionals, (2) inefficient and inadequate
sharing of information between law enforcement officials (including, but is not limited to, federal and
state law enforcement investigators, prosecutors, prison officials and parole agents), and (3) a parole
system that gives too much weight to a prisoners institutional adjustment and psychiatric evaluations,
and fails to give little real consideration to or ignores entirely the true nature and extent of a prisoner's
crimes and prior criminal history.
FEDERAL PRISON CUSTODY
(March 1977 to January 1988)

•

On March 11, 1977, Phillip Garrido was sentenced to federal prison for SO years for the
kidnapping of Katie Callaway. Garrido specifically informed the judge at that time that he
wanted to go to Federal Prison because they have more psychological services in federal prison.

•

May 1977, Phillip Garrido initially committed to USP, McNeil Island, Washington.

•

July 1, 1977, Phillip Garrido committed to USP, Leavenworth, Kansas.

•

On March 24,1978, Phillip Garrido makes a motion for reduction in sentence based upon a
variety of factors, including a psychological evaluation by a clinical psychologist from April 17,
1978, who states that Garrido has done so well in his year in prison that he recommends
modification of the current sentence to indeterminate parole eligibility and "a recommendation
that he be paroled" when his treatment and training goals are accomplished. Moreover, the
clinical psychologist notes that Garrido's "[p]rognosis for successful transition to the community
is considered very good. The likelihood of further extralegal behaviors on Mr. Garrido's part is
seen as minimal." Amazingly, this psychologist writes this even though Garrido has three
separate kidnapping and rapes and one attempted kidnapping and rape in the six years prior to
his report.

- - - - - (

6

)1-------

•

In 1980, Phillip Garrido developed a relationship with a young woman, who (with Garrido's
urging) accused her father of sexual assault. During the defense investigation into those rape
allegations (later overturned by the State Supreme Court), defense investigators inquired of
prison officials whether or not Garrido had taken any courses in hypnosis.

•

October 14,1981, Phillip Garrido marries Nancy Bocanegra.

•

September 3D, 1983, Phillip Garrido's psychotherapist notes that he has developed selfcounseling skills and relaxation skills that should allow Garrido to manage his life in a more
appropriate manner.

•

October 30,1985, Phillip Garrido joins a Leavenworth "Psychology Services" 12 week
"Social/Coping Skills" treatment group which he successfully completes on January 29, 1986.

•

February 14, 1986, Phillip Garrido's psychologist notes that Garrido "does not evidence an
ingrained pattern of criminal behavior" and that he may very well be an appropriate candidate
for parole. It was further noted that Garrido's crimes were the result of "poor coping skills"
rather than from "a desire to harm others."

•

March 19, 1986 Phillip Garrido transferred to USP, Lompoc, California.

•

November 5, 1987 federal parole hearing, wherein it is noted that: Garrido "has had an
outstanding institutional adjustment" and that a USP Lompoc Unit Manager stated that "[h]e
believes (Garrido) has accomplished everything that he possibly could within the institution and
he believes subject is now ready to return to the community. (He) has such confidence that he
would not object to subject residing next door to him as a neighbor in the community."

•

Phillip Garrido was paroled from Federal Prison to Nevada State Prison on January 19 1988, after
only 11 years on a 50 year sentence. (See Attachment # 8.)
NEVADA STATE PRISON CUSTODY
(January 1988 to August 1988)

•

April 11, 1977, sentenced by Nevada State five-to-life for the rape of Katie Calloway.

•

On January 22, 1988, (after parole from 50 year federal sentence after less than 11 years)
Garrido was transferred to Nevada state prison.

•

May 7,1984, Nevada State Board of Parole denies parole to Phillip Garrido. In this evaluation,
the Parole Board checked box A.5. for one of the reasons that parole is denied: "The board finds
that you have not reformed to the extent that you can be released without threat to society."

•

July 1,1985, the state of Nevada passed a new law which allowed Garrido to earn good time
credits at a much faster rate (10 days per month rather than 10 days per year).

•

March 31, 1986, Nevada State Board of Parole denies parole to Phillip Garrido. Less than 2 years
since his last parole hearing, the board appears to believe that Garrido has been reformed and
that he can be released without threat to society, because they do not check box A.5. as they
did on May 7, 1984.

•

January 22,1988, Phillip Garrido is paroled by federal authorities and transferred to Nevada
state prison at the Northern Nevada Corrections Center.

- - - - - (

7

) - - - - -

•

During his time in Nevada state prison, Garrido teaches a "Street Readiness" program and
participates in various counseling and group therapy programs.

•

June 29, 1988 Garrido evaluated by psychologist who ultimately finds that Phillip Garrido is an
above average inmate who is likely to benefit society (i.e. raise a family, work, and not return to
criminal behavior). This report becomes part of Garrido's record analyzed by the Board of
Parole Commissioners.

•

July 1988 Nevada Institution Progress Report only references Garrido's prior marijuana
convictions and finds that "Phillip Garrido is a good candidate for parole at this time. He has
participated in numerous psychology and drug abuse programs during his incarceration. He has
continued his programing efforts by teaching a self-image psychology class to the Street
Readiness Program at this institution."

•

July 21,1988, the Nevada state Parole Board (made up of two psychiatric professionals) states
that Phillip Garrido can be "certified as not contributing a menace to health, safety and morals
of society." (See Attachment 11 9.)

•

Phillip Garrido was paroled from Nevada state prison on August 26,1988.
PAROLE BOARD SUPERVISION FAILURES

•

Federal and Nevada state prison officials ultimately paroled Phillip Garrido because they did not
adequately evaluate how dangerous he really was. Federal and Nevada state prison officials did
not properly evaluate how dangerous he was because of their over-reliance upon his
institutional adjustment, his psychiatric evaluations, and because they did not fully evaluate and
consider facts that were known to law enforcement in 1988.

•

At the time of Phillip Garrido's parole from federal and Nevada state prison in 1988, in addition
to his 1976 rape of Katie Callaway, law enforcement officials were aware of the following:
(1) Phillip Garrido was arrested and charged with the rape of a 14 year old in 1972 (In
1976, as part oftheir investigation into the Katie Calloway-Hall rape and kidnap, FBI
officials obtained a copy of the 1972 Antioch rape case, which was dropped because
Phillip Garrido's attorney told the victim that he would make her out to be a "whore"
and "slut" in court in front of her parents.) Phillip Garrido's March 8,1977 PreSentencing Report incorrectly stated the allegation as "possible" rape and also
incorrectly notes that "further investigation by police officers produced no evidence to
continue proceedings on the rape charge.") Phillip Garrido's August 1, 1977,
Classification Study by the US DOJ Bureau of Prisons did not mention this case. Phillip
Garrido's Nevada state parole board (which states that he is a good candidate for
parole) did not reference this crime when they granted parole.
(2) Phillip Garrido was arrested and charged in EI Dorado County with a June 1976
kidnap and rape case out of South Lake Tahoe. (In 1976, as part of their investigation
into the Katie Calloway-Hall rape and kidnap, FBI officials obtained a copy of the June
1976 South Lake Tahoe rape case, which was improperly dismissed by EI Dorado County
District Attorney's Office in September 1977 because of the mistaken belief that Garrido

--------1(

8

) - - - - -

would serve his life sentence in Nevada, along with his fifty year sentence on Federal
charges.) Phillip Garrido's March 8,1977, Pre-Sentencing Report by United States
District Court Probation notes this pending rape and kidnap case. Phillip Garrido's
August 1, 1977, Classification Study by the US DOJ Bureau of Prisons incorrectly listed
this crime as the kidnapping/rape of Katie Callaway. Phillip Garrido's Nevada state
parole board (which states that he is a good candidate for parole) did not reference this
crime when they granted parole.
(3) Phillip Garrido had an attempted rape/kidnap of another woman only 1 hour prior
to the Katie Calloway-Hall kidnapping. (In 1976, as part of their investigation into the
Katie Calloway-Hall rape and kidnap, FBI officials obtained a copy of the November 22,
1976 South Lake Tahoe attempted kidnap/rape case.) Phillip Garrido's March 8,1977,
Pre-Sentencing Report by United States District Court Probation and his August 1, 1977,
Classification Study by the US DOJ Bureau of Prisons did not mention this attempted
kidnap/rape case. Phillip Garrido's Nevada state parole board (which states that he is a
good candidate for parole) did not reference this crime when they granted parole.
(4) Phillip Garrido's admissions at his 1977 jury trial, including: How Garrido
masturbated in public places, masturbated while looking into homes of women,
masturbated in front of grammar school and high schools, exposed himself to school
children, and had rape fantasies. Phillip Garrido's March 8, 1977, Pre-Sentencing Report
by United States District Court Probation and his August 1, 1977, Classification Study by
the US DOJ Bureau of Prisons did not mention this information. Phillip Garrido's Nevada
state parole board (which states that he is a good candidate for parole) did not
reference this information when they granted parole.
(5) Katie Callaway's testimony at Phillip Garrido's 1977 trial and statements in the
police reports, including: That Garrido used handcuffs to restrain her, that Garrido
nearly talked the responding officer into leaving by stating that Callaway was just his
girlfriend and they were having a good time, that Garrido had admitted to her that he
had abducted two other girls, one from the Bay Area and one from Las Vegas. Phillip
Garrido's March 8, 1977 Pre-Sentencing Report by United States District Court Probation
and his August 1, 1977 Classification Study by the US DOJ Bureau of Prisons did not
mention this information. Phillip Garrido's Nevada state parole board (which states that
he is a good candidate for parole) did not reference this information when they granted
parole.
•

Ultimately, both federal and Nevada state parole boards gave too much weight to Phillip
Garrido's institutional adjustment and the psychiatric evaluations concerning his likelihood for
future dangerousness, and gave little real consideration (or ignored entirely) the true nature and
extent of his 1976 rape and kidnap of Katie Callaway and his known prior criminal history. (For a
full analysis of the psychiatric failures in this case, see the "Summary of Failures of the
Psychiatric Professionals and Their Flawed Analysis of Phillip Garrido" herein below.)

- - - - - (

9

)r-----

FEDERAL PAROLE SUPERVISION FAILURES

(August 1988 to May 1999)

On July 7, 2011, United States District Court, Northern District of California, Chief Judge James
Ware released a December 10, 2010, Confidential Report of the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts on the federal parole supervision of parolee Phillip Garrido. (This report is attached hereto
for reference as "Attachment #10.) Given the failures pointed out in the report, it is commendable that
Judge Ware released this information to the public. Upon review of this report, it appears to be a fairly
accurate and complete analysis of the federal parole supervision of Phillip Garrido - other than a couple
of very notable exceptions.
•

Katie Callaway Hall

On November 8,1988 (3 months into Garrido's time at the half-way-house), he is given more
freedom by his federal parole officer to go home after work instead of back to halfway house.
On November 18, 1988, the federal parole agent notes that he was contacted by the victim of
Garrido's 1976 kidnapping/rape (Katie Callaway) who states (according to parole records) that
she saw him "at her office" on November 8, 1988 at 4-5 pm. Ultimately, it appears the federal
parole agent came to the conclusion that it was not Garrido based upon two factors. First, the
federal parole agent says he checked time cards at Garrido's job showing that he worked till
3:30 pm and was back at work by 6 pm. And, second, the federal parole agent said that he
showed Katie a photo of Garrido and she said person in her "office" was not him. (See
Attachment #4 for reference)
However, these conclusions and statements in the federal parole documents ignore a few
important facts, including:

1.

Katie Callaway did not work in an office building. She was a dealer at a casino in Lake
Tahoe.

2.

Katie Callaway thought Garrido was serving a 50 year federal sentence and a five-to-life
Nevada state sentence, it is not possible that she knew Garrido was even out of prison
(let alone, had recently been given new freedoms). The coincidence is so astronomical
that Katie Callaway's concerns should have been addressed and taken more seriously.

3.

Katie Callaway was shown a photo of Garrido dressed nicely, with a mustache, hair
combed nicely, and taken from a distance, not a photo that would have shown Garrido
how he really looked at the time (In reality, in November 1988 Garrido looked more like
he did in the video of him playing the guitar in the park then he did in any of his prison
photos. Katie Callaway-Hall says that Garrido "looked like he did in the video, not how
he did in the photo they showed me.") (See Attachment # 7.)

4.

The federal parole agent does not mention that Katie Callaway said that Garrido walked
up to her at her Casino table and said "Hi Katie, I have not had a drink in 11 years."

------------i(

10

)---------

5.

Katie Callaway disputes that the incident occurred on November 8, 1988. She says that
it occurred on a Friday right before Thanksgiving -which was November 18, 1988.

6.

Further, the federal parole agent failed to conduct any real investigation himself, relying
upon someone else to review time cards (which could be easily altered or punched by
another person - even if the parole agent had accurately identified the incident date).

All of these facts lead to no other conclusion - the federal parole agent handling Phillip
Garrido when he was released from prison was utterly incompetent. It is unbelievable that the
parole agent got information on November 18, 1988, that Phillip Garrido had contacted his prior
rape/kidnap victim Katie Callaway, right after obtaining new freedoms from the half-way-house,
and the very next day on November 19, 1988, nine year old girl Micaela Garecht is abducted and the Parole Agent does not even bother to subject Phillip Garrido to any scrutiny. One only
needs to look at the composite sketch of the suspect in the Micaela Garecht kidnapping and
compare it to Garrido's prison booking photo to see a similarity that should have been explored
by his parole agent (and the investigators the parole agent failed to notify). (See Attachment #
5) The incompetence of the parole agent is clearly evidenced by reviewing the federal parole
records from November 19,1988, where he notes that "to subject [Phillip Garrido] to electronic
monitoring would be too much of a hassle based on the hysteria, or concerns of the victim ... "
This statement conclusively proves that the federal parole agent's judgment and credibility is far
outweighed by Katie Callaway - who should have been believed. Further, the fact that the
parole agent makes these asinine comments on the same day that Michaela Garecht is abducted
is astounding.
•

Federal Parole Should Have Uncovered the Presence of Jaycee Lee Dugard.

On page 2 of the December 10, 2010 report by the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts makes the unbelievable assertion that, "While the level of federal supervision was
clearly substandard, there is no evidence the federal probation officer would have uncovered
the presence of Jaycee Dugard and her children even if the probation officer had conducted a
search of the premises." Based upon our review of the evidence in this case, nothing could be

further from the truth. Had federal probation done their job, then:
1.

On October 14,1988, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when federal parole
agent and halfway-house ECI counselor "agreed that subject is considered to be a time
bomb."

2.

On November 18, 1988, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when he contacted
his former rape/kidnapping victim Katie Calloway.

3.

On November 19,1988, Garrido should have become a suspect in the Micaela Garecht
case - who was abducted from market in Hayward, CA (only 20 miles south of Garrido
halfway house in Oakland).

----------(

11

)---------

4.

On December 13, 1988, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Phillip
Garrido's clinical psychologist states that Garrido is "like a pot boiling with no outlet
valve."

5.

On July 18,1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when the parole officer
noted that Garrido was taking prescription drugs without a prescription and that "This
officer is concerned that subject may be obtaining unprescribed [sic] medications at the
nursing home where he is employed."

6.

On August 1, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when his federal parole
agent noted that Garrido was "[b]elieved to be self-medicating."

7.

On August 25,1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when his federal parole
agent noted that Garrido's urine specimen was "almost water."

8.

On September 5, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when his federal
parole agent noted that Garrido's urine test results indicate that specimen may have
been diluted.

9.

On September 20, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when his federal
parole agent noted that "flushing suspected" regarding Garrido urine samples.

10. On September 22, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido's
urine tested positive for speed.
11. On September 25, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido's
urine tested positive for methamphetamine. (Federal parole records do not even show
this positive test.)
12. On September 26,1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when his federal
parole agent noted that he was advised of "charges of sexual harassment" at Garrido's
workplace.
13. On September 28, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido's
employer informed federal parole agent of three incidents where Garrido approached
female employees about going out with him. All the females stated that they were very
nervous in Garrido's company and all refused his advances.
14. On October 5, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido told
parole agent he has been "using speed for about a month ... and used pot since his
release from ECI. ...admitted flushing."
15. On October 10, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido tested
positive for speed.
16. On October 13,1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido tested
positive for amphetamines. (Federal parole records do not even show this positive test.)
17. On November 9,1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido tested
positive for methamphetamine. (Federal parole records do not even show this positive
test.)
18. On November 13, 1989, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
tested positive for methamphetamine. (Federal parole records do not even show this
positive test.)

---------(

12

)1----------

19. On January 12, 1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when one of Garrido's
co-workers at nursing home quit her job "due to Phillip's attention."
20. On February 5, 1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido missed
appointment with parole agent.
21. On February 20,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido's
counselor informed federal parole agent that Garrido's urine test was "watered down."
22. From February 21 to July 10, 1990, federal parole agents should have made contact with
Garrido during this 5 month period.
23. On February 26,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
24. On July 5,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido submitted a
watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this incident.)
25. On July 20, 1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido submitted a
watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this incident.)
26. On July 26,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido submitted a
watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this incident.)
27. On August 6,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido tested
positive for speed. (Garrido tells his counselor and parole agent that "someone spiked
his drink." Garrido's counselor "feels that subj [sic] was telling the truth in his denial of
knowingly using drugs.")
28. On August 16, 1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
29. On August 20, 1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
30. August 22,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido tells federal
parole agent that Garrido "did take drugs at the party..."
31. On September 6,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
32. On September 10,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
33. On September 20,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
34. On November 2,1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when federal parole
agent was informed that Garrido no longer working at nursing home and that
employees have reported that Garrido has contacted them looking for connections to
purchase drugs.

---------(

13

):------------

35. On October 4, 1990, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido
submitted a watered down urine sample. (Federal parole records do not show this
incident.)
36. On January 30,1991, Garrido's parole agent should have stepped up his supervision of
Garrido when he noted that he met with Garrido and that he "did not seem honest. It
was almost as if he was putting on an act."
37. On February 15,1991, Garrido's parole agent should have stepped up his supervision of
Garrido when he noted that he met with Garrido and his wife stating, "This is a strange
couple. I have an uneasy feeling with this guy. Everything he says seems to be an act."
38. May 15,1991, the Garrido parole agent visited the Garrido's recording studio, noting
"[t]hey took me on a tour of the place, showing his cording [sic] studio which although
small is very well equipped." (Note: this is the same recording studio that Garrido used
to lock up Jaycee Dugard for over a year.)
39. On June lO, 1991, Garrido parole agent should have notified South Lake Tahoe
investigators and the FBI that his parolee Phillip Garrido is a repeat kidnapper and rapist
with several prior victims in South Lake Tahoe.
40. On December 13, 1991, when conducting a very brief home visit of the Garrido
residence, should have conducted a search of the residence including the recording
studio which he had seen back on his May 15, 1991, visit. Further, the federal parole
agent should also have questioned Garrido as to why the kidnap car (parked at the
Garrido residence from June 10, 1991 until August 2009) was not listed as one of
Garrido's vehicles on the "Supervision Report" filled out by Garrido on a monthly basis.
41. On February 10, 1993, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when Garrido failed
to show up for appointment with parole agent.
42. April 1, 1993, Phillip Garrido is arrested for violation of parole.
43. On April 14, 1993, federal parole agent sends recommendation to US District Court that
the parole revocation charges against Mr. Garrido are "basically technical violations"
and that Garrido's recent incarceration has "had a powerful and positive impact" on
him. Moreover, the federal parole agent recommended "that the parolee be released
back to the community at the earliest possible time, and place on electronic monitoring
as an appropriate sanction." (See Attachment #11)
44. On April 30, 1993, Phillip Garrido was released from his one month in custody. Within
less than one week of his release from custody, Phillip and Nancy Garrido videotaped a
young 5 year old girl in the back of their van. Nancy Garrido admitted that the taping
was done for Phillip Garrido's sexual needs and admitted that several other girls had
also been in the back of their van. (See digital media Attachment # 12 re park video, van
video and portions of Nancy Garrido interview.)
45. On July 28, 1993, Garrido's parole should have been revoked when his federal parole
agent notes that Garrido provided a "cold and appeared to be altered sample" for his
drug test. Agent also notes in pertinent part that Garrido "may be using illegal
substance as well. ... Potential danger in the community is high."

------------1(

14

)1----------

46. On August 11, 1993, Garrido's parole should have been violated when his federal parole
agent informed that Garrido had a positive test for methamphetamine from his July
test. The parole agent notes that he needs to "review the subject's drug aftercare
condition and see if the defendant has tested positively previously." (The agent should
have easily noted that here were at least 11 prior instances of either positive tests,
illegal use of prescription drugs, or attempts to alter tests by flushing or watering down.
And, Garrido admitted in 1989 to using marijuana since his release, using speed, and
flushing.)
47. From September 11,1993 to March 10, 1994, Garrido's federal parole agent should
have contacted Garrido during this 6 month period.
48. On March 16, 1994, Garrido's federal parole agent should not have reported that,
"There have been no problems reported since August 1993..." (As it is hard to find
problems with Garrido's conduct if you have had no contact with Garrido for past 6
months.)
49. July 29,1994, the supervisor of Garrido's federal parole agent should have reviewed the
file more closely to see that the parole agent was not doing a good job. If the supervisor
had been doing her job then she would not have noted, "Good job for P.O. in
monitoring Defendant and treatment. Tough case!" (Only one month later, 14 year old
Jaycee Lee Dugard gave birth to first child fathered by Garrido.)
50. May 4, 1995, the parole agent conducted the first home visit of Phillip Garrido in over 3
and a half years. Had the federal parole agents been doing their job and searching the
residence (and the recording studio they were aware of) then they would have found
Jaycee Lee Dugard imprisoned in the back yard.
51. On September 25, 1995, federal parole agent should not have relied upon Garrido
counselor who stated that she does not feel that Garrido is a danger to society and that
he no longer needs her counseling services.
52. From November 13,1996 to May 291996, Garrido federal parole agent should have
contacted Garrido during this 6 month period.
53. On May 30, 1997, federal parole agent conducts the first home visit in over 1 Yz years.
Had the federal parole agents been doing their job and searching the residence (and the
recording studio they were aware of), then they would have found Jaycee Lee Dugard
imprisoned in the back yard, pregnant with her 2nd child.
54. From May 31,1997 to November 15,1998, Garrido federal parole agent should have
contacted Garrido during this 5 month period.
55. On November 16,1997, federal parole agent should not have relied upon Garrido
psychiatrist who stated that he has been treating Garrido since September 1993 and
that Garrido's "prognosis is excellent.... I do not suspect he will ever be at risk for
violence .." (On November 13, 1997, 17 year old Jaycee Lee Dugard gave birth to her
second child fathered by Garrido.)
56. From November 17,1997 to August 26,1998, Garrido federal parole agent should have
contacted Garrido during this 9 month period.

------------i(

15

)r----------

57. On November 17,1998, Garrido federal parole agents should have searched the Garrido
residence to look for the Antioch kidnapping/murder victim, 15 year old Lisa Norrell.
58. From November 19 to May 3, 1999, Garrido federal parole agent should have contacted
Garrido during this 5 month period.
59. On May 3,1999, federal parole agent should not have terminated Garrido's parole
supervision, and federal parole agents should have conducted more than 10 home visits
in 11 years of federal parole supervision.
NEVADA PAROLE

The State of Nevada Division of Parole and Probation never directly supervised Phillip Garrido.
Over the years, they received updates on Garrido's status while in federal prison, status while on federal
parole, and status updates while on CDCR parole supervision. When Phillip Garrido's federal parole
supervision ended in 1999, and prior to CDCR parole supervision (there was about a 3 month lapse), he
tried to convince Nevada State parole to end supervision and parole altogether. Garrido sent them a
letter and included his glowing 1997 evaluation and prognosis from one of his psychiatrists. It is clear
that from Nevada state parole's perspective Garrido had "positive parole performance" and that he "has
managed to change his behavior. (See Attachment #13 for reference.)
CDCR PAROLE SUPERVISION

(May 1999 to August 2009)
In November 2009, the California Office of Inspector General prepared a special report on the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's Supervision of Parolee Phillip Garrido. (This
report is attached hereto for reference as "Attachment #14.) Upon review of this report, it appears to
be a fairly accurate and complete analysis of the CDCR parole supervision of Phillip Garrido. (A video of
a CDCR parole agent conducting a search of the Garrido residence in 2008 was previously released by
the EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office and is attached to this report as Attachment #12)
SUMMARY OF FAILURES OF THE PSYCHIATRICT PROFESSIONALS
AND THEIR FLAWED ANALYSIS OF PHilLIP GARRIDO

•

During Phillip Garrido's 1977 jury trial for the kidnapping and rape of Katie Callaway, psychiatrist
Charles Kuhn testified, on Garrido's behalf, that he thought Garrido "did not have adequate
control to conform his behavior" and that because of a mental disease or defect he lacked the
substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. If the jury had
believed this testimony, it would have meant that Garrido would have been legally insane and
he would not have been sentenced to prison at all. Dr. Kuhn claimed that Garrido suffered from
"impulse neurosis" and a mental disorder of "sexual perversion." Shockingly, Dr. Kuhn stated
that the other bad acts by Garrido, specifically including the attempted kidnap and rape one
hour prior, would have no influence over his opinions whatsoever.

-----------1(

16

)1----------

•

Only one year after being sentenced to 50 years in Federal Court and five-to-Iife in Nevada State
Court, Garrido was evaluated by Dr. J.B. Kiehlbauch who was clearly very impressed by Garrido.
(See Attachment #2 for reference). The report of Dr. Kiehlbauch was part of a 1978 motion by
Garrido to reduce his prison sentence. Garrido included a handwritten letter to the Court,
stating: "In 1969 marijuana was reaching out to the rural area in Calif." (note that it is the drugs
coming to Garrido and not the other way around); "The drugs would bring more asocation [sic]
and in turn more contact with drugs" (once again it is the drugs that made him do more drugs,
not his choice or his fault); "Slowly it began to take me to another style of living and thinking"
(it, the drugs, took him - not his fault... not his choice); "On my own I have been seeing Dr.
Kiehlbauch of Men. Health... In all respects my life has changed ... Drugs have been my down fall.
... But my future is now in control" (This is the classic manipulation by Garrido - say the right
things, blame the drugs, then says that his life has changed.) In Dr. Kiehlbauch's report, he
noted: "Highly significant is Mr. Garrido's record of accomplishment in training, education, and
treatment since his arrival here in September 1977.... The incomplete Sentences Test reflects
Mr. Garrido as a sensitive young man who is deeply committed religiously and goal oriented in
management of life problems and aims .... all indications are that he is conducting his affairs in
accord with the principles implied therein .... [he] appears to have reoriented his life
dramatically from the derogatory pattern which characterized him earlier.... he has been able to
sublimate impulses quit well, and depth of control is sufficient to sustain him here or in the free
societal situation .... All things considered, then, this examiner recommends ... a
recommendation that he be paroled ..." Dr. Kiehbauch's recommended parole for Phillip
Garrido after only one year in prison is the perfect example of why psychiatrist opinions should
be permanently devalued (or eliminated entirely) in the criminal justice system. This report
becomes part of Garrido's record analyzed by the Board of Parole Commissioners.

•

February 14, 1986, psychological evaluation notes that "Mr. Garrido does not evidence
ingrained pattern of criminal behavior nor is he presently displaying signs of serious emotional
disorder. His past criminal activity appears to have derived more from poor coping skills and
associated drug involvement rather than from a desire to harm others." (I am sure all of
Garrido's past victims would strongly disagree that his rape and kidnap of them was due to poor
coping skills.) It was also stated, less than 9 years into prison sentence, that " ... Mr. Garrido may
very well be an appropriate candidate for parole. This report becomes part of Garrido's record
analyzed by the Board of Parole Commissioners.

•

June 29, 1988, Garrido was evaluated by psychologist who ultimately finds that Phillip Garrido is
an above average inmate who is likely to benefit society (i.e. raise a family, work, and not return
to criminal behavior). This report becomes part of Garrido record analyzed the Board of Parole
Commissioners.

•

July 1988, Nevada Institution Progress Report only references Garrido's prior marijuana
convictions and finds that "Phillip Garrido is a good candidate for parole at this time. He has
participated in numerous psychology and drug abuse programs during his incarceration. He has
continued his programing efforts by teaching a self-image psychology class to the Street
Readiness Program at this institution."

----------(

17

),.-------------

•

July 21, 1988, the Nevada Parole Board (made up of two psychiatric professionals) states that
Phillip Garrido can be "certified as not contributing a menace to health, safety and morals of
society."

•

March 1989 until September 1995, Garrido sees the same marriage and family counselor, up to
eight times a month for over six years. Garrido continues to see this counselor, who repeatedly
makes excuses for his drug use and behavior and provides a multitude of ongoing positive
evaluations for years after the June 1991 kidnapping and imprisonment of Jaycee Lee Dugard.

•

October 1989, psychological report notes that Garrido "could easily be mistaken, at first glance,
for a Contra Costa County yuppie."

•

June 7, and June 14,1991, (right before and after the kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard)
counselor notes that Garrido's relationship with his wife is becoming more balanced in a way
that is satisfying to both Garrido and his spouse.

•

July 1991, Garrido has three meetings with his counselor, who states that Garrido's relationship
with his wife "is growing and changing in a healthy manner."

•

September 1991, three meetings with counselor who states that Garrido is doing well and
appears stable.

•

October 1991, three meetings with counselor who states that Garrido appears stable and
general prognosis can be considered good.

•

l'Jovember 1991, two meetings with counselor who states that Garrido continues to do well.

•

December 1991, meeting with counselor who states that Garrido continues to do well.

•

January 1991, meeting with counselor who states that Garrido appears fairly stable at this point
in time.

•

February 1992, two meetings with counselor who states that Garrido's relationship with his wife
seems stable.

•

April 30,1993, meeting with counselor who notes that Garrido's "[p)rognosis for remaining
crime free continues to be good." (Less than one week later, Phillip and Nancy Garrido
videotape a young 5-year-old girl in the back of their van. Nancy Garrido admitted that the
taping was done for Phillip Garrido's sexual needs and admitted that several other girls had also
been in the back of their van on other occasions.) (See Attachment It 12.)

•

September 1993, Garrido begins sessions with another psychologist who he continues to see for
16 years until 2009, who gave a multitude of ongoing positive evaluations for years during the
imprisonment of Jaycee Lee Dugard.

•
•

October 1993, five meetings with counselor who states that Garrido's "prognosis is good."
November 1993, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido's "Relationship and
home environment are stable ... Prognosis is good."

•

December 1993, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido's relationship with his
wife "remains supportive and strong ... Prognosis is good."

•

January 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "appears to be doing
well..."

•

February 1994, three meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "had a fairly stable
month."

-----------1(

18

J---------

•

March 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to do well... No
desire seems evident nor has there been any indication of use for approximately one year." (It
was later learned that Phillip Garrido would wear a fake penis and use warm Mountain Dew to
fool the urine tests conducted with this counselor.)

•

April 1994, five meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "prognosis is good."

•

May 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "[c]ontinues to look good and
appears to be stable at this time ... Prognosis is good."

•

June 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido's "[p]rognosis is good."

•

July 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to make slow steady
improvement...Prognosis is good."

•

August 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "appears to be generally
doing well." (This is the month that 14 year old Jaycee Lee Dugard gave birth to first child
fathered by Garrido.)

•

September 1994, four meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to do
well ... Prognosis remains good."

•

October 1994, three meetings with counselor who states that "c1ient is looking very stable ...
Prognosis is good."

•

November 1994, two meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "appears stable ...c1ients
behavior has changed in a positive and clearly demonstrable way over the past couple of
months... Prognosis is good."

•

December 1994, two meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "was clearly
stable ... Prognosis is good."

•
•

January 1995, three meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "[p]rognosis is good."
February 1995, one meeting with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to appear stable
at this time."

•

March 1995, three meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to do
well ... appears stable ... Prognosis remains good."

•

April 1995, one meeting with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to be functioning in
a stable manner. .. Prognosis is good."

•

March 1995, three meeting with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to do
well... Relationship [with wife] remains strong and stable."

•

June 1995, two meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "continues to do well...
Prognosis is good."

•

July 1995, two meetings with counselor who states that Garrido "c1early appears more stable at
this time ... Recommend decreasing sessions to one time per month."

•

August 1995, one meeting with counselor who states that Garrido "appears
stable ... [r]elationship continues to be strong... [r]ecommend one additional session over the
next month leading to treatment termination. Prognosis can be considered to be good."

•

September 1995, one meeting with counselor who states "[g]iven clients length of time in
treatment, prognosis for long-term progress can be considered good."

--------~(

19

)---------

•

November 13,1997, Garrido psychiatrist (who he saw from 1993 to 2009) states that Garrido's
"response to treatment is excellent. His prognosis is excellent... I do not suspect he will ever be
at risk for violence." (Coincidentally, on November 13,1997,17 year old Jaycee Lee Dugard
gave birth to her second child fathered by Garrido.) This report by the psychiatrist on November
13, 1997, appears to be one of the reasons that Garrido was released off Federal Parole in 1999.
This psychiatrist continued to see Garrido for the next 12 years, giving him positive reports and
never having a clue that Garrido had Jaycee Lee Dugard and her two children imprisoned in the
back yard.

•

On September 25,2010, counsel for Defendant Phillip Garrido declared a doubt as to her client's
competency and EI Dorado County Superior Court, Department 7, suspended proceedings. This
declaration of doubt was based in part upon a psychiatrist evaluation that Phillip Garrido was
incompetent (that he did not understand the nature of the proceedings and could not assist his
counsel in his own defense.) This psychiatric opinion that Garrido was incompetent, showed
that even in 2010 Garrido could still manipulate the system and manipulate (at least some) in
the psychiatric profession. The psychiatrist's opinion asserting Garrido was incompetent did not
change even though he was made aware of the following information which was provided to
him by the EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office:

1.

The psychiatrist was provided information about the fact that when the Garrido home
was searched in August of 2009, they found a 2005 newspaper article detailing the
Elizabeth Smart kidnapper's recent declaration of a doubt. This clearly showed
Garrido's plan to manipulate the legal system. (See Attachment # 15.)

2.

The psychiatrist was provided information about Garrido's 1972 rape and kidnap case,
the June 1976 rape and kidnap case, the November 1976 attempted rape and kidnap
case, and all the details of the November 1976 kidnap and rape of Katie Callaway-Hall.

3.

The psychiatrist was provided information about Garrido's 1977 trial for the rape and
kidnap of Katie Calloway and all the information about his attempted manipulation of
the system in that case.

4.

The psychiatrist was provided all relevant records regarding Phillip Garrido's prior
Federal prison term, federal parole supervision, CDCR parole supervision, and every
psychiatric report available to the prosecution regarding Phillip Garrido.

5.

The psychiatrist was also provided information that while serving his prison term,
Defendant Phillip Garrido learned about the teachings of psycho-cybernetics, (which
appeared oddly similar to Garrido's recent writings), as well as a book on psychocybernetics highlighted by Phillip Garrido.

6.

The psychiatrist was also provided information that the EI Dorado County Jail employees
stated that they all believe that Defendant Garrido is "putting on an act."

7.

The psychiatrist was also provided information about a handwritten note from
Defendant Nancy Garrido that states an apparent four part plan that includes
clarification of "how they rape Allissa" ... and to "[IJay out case of schizophrenia."

-----------1(

20

Jr---------

Nevertheless, even after all of this information was provided to the psychiatrist, Garrido was still
able to fool him and appear incompetent. Again and again and again Phillip Garrido manipulated the
legal system and the psychiatric professionals within that system. Many times, the psychiatric
evaluations are flawed because they are not objective and rely upon the words and conduct of a
prisoner who has a motive to lie. The oversight of the psychiatrist and manipulation by Garrido are just
examples of the limits of psychiatry in the criminal justice system. Far too often, these psychiatric
reports are taken as gospel, and overly relied upon by parole boards (and many others in the criminal
justice system). Phillip Garrido is just one glaring example.
SUGGESTED CHANGES
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE LAW
PAROLE SUITABILITY HEARINGS FOR PRISONERS SENTENCED TO LIFE
TODAY: THE RULE IS RELEASE

Currently, Penal Code section 3041(b) requires that the Board of Parole Hearings "shall set a
release date unless it determines that the gravity of the current convicted offense or offenses, or the

timing and gravity of current or past convicted offense or offenses, is such that consideration of the
public safety requires a more lengthy period of incarceration for this individuaL" [Emphasis added.] The
Board of Parole Hearings [hereinafter "board"] considers factors laid out in Title 15 Cal. Code Reg.
section 2402 in making the determination of the prisoner's suitability for parole. However, the courts
have established that "release on parole is the rule, rather than the exception. (In re Rodriguez (2011)
193 Cal.App.4th 85, 92, citing In re Lawrence (2008) 44 Cal.4th 1181, 1204.)
Section 2402, subdivision (a) of the Cal. Code of Regulations specifically provides that the panel
"shall" first determine whether the prisoner is suitable for parole, but notes that a prisoner shall be
found unsuitable for parole if the panel finds that the prisoner would pose an unreasonable risk of
danger to society if released on parole. Section 2404, subdivision (b) lists information that may be
considered by the board in reaching its decision, including in pertinent part: "shall include the
circumstances of the prisoner's social history; past and present mental state; past criminal history,

including involvement in other criminal misconduct which is reliably documented; the base and other
commitment offenses, including behavior before, during and after the crime; past and present attitude
toward the crime; any conditions of treatment or control, including the use of special conditions under
which the prisoner may safely be released to the community; and any other information which bears on
the prisoner's suitability for release." Subsection (c) of Section 2402 provide in relevant part the
circumstances that the board may consider that would tend to demonstrate that a prisoner was
unsuitable for parole, including the commitment offense.
Although the language in section 2402, subdivisions (b) and (c) lists the commitment offense as
a factor to be considered in the determination of parole suitability, the courts have interpreted how the
board may consider it in reaching its decision on suitability. In August 2008, the California Supreme
Court decided In re Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1181. In the Lawrence case the court restricted the

----------I(

21

)1----------

board's ability to consider the commitment offense by finding that the Board may not base a parole
denial solely upon the circumstances of the offense, or other immutable facts, unless those facts
support the ultimate conclusion that the inmate continues to pose an unreasonable risk of safety if
released on parole. (ld. at p. 1221.)
Notwithstanding this rather detailed statutory and regulatory framework, parole release
decisions are essentially discretionary. The decision is the Board's attempt to predict, by subjective
analysis, the inmate's suitability for release on parole. (In re Criscione (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 1446,
1457, citing In re Rosenkrantz (2002) 29 Cal.4th 616, 655.) Such a prediction requires analysis of

individualized factors on a case-by-case basis and the Board's discretion in that regard is almost
unlimited. (Ibid.)
The discretionary nature of parole hearings, coupled with the Courts' restrictions on the
consideration of the commitment offense, has on numerous occasions resulted in the release of an
inmate who still posed a danger to society and who should have remained incarcerated.
SUGGESTED CHANGES TO THE PAROLE SUITABlILTV REGULATIONS
THE RULE SHOULD NOT BE RELEASE
THE RULE SHOULD BE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC

In an effort to prevent the further release of life prisoners who still pose an unreasonable risk to
the safety of the public, changes must be made to the statutes and regulations governing these parole
suitability hearings. These changes are necessary to protect the public and continue to provide justice
to the victims of the crimes for which these prisoners were given a life sentence. The rule is release and, this rule must change.
Since the Lawrence ruling in 2008, the number of parole grants from 2008 to 2010 is more than
all the parole grants from 1980 to 2004. Astonishingly, over the last 32 years, 42% of all parole grants
have occurred since 2008 (See Attachment #16.)
To begin with, the language in Penal Code section 3041, subdivision (b) currently provides that a
prisoner shall be granted parole, unless it can be shown that public safety requires a lengthier sentence.
This presumption for parole creates the first misstep in the protection of the public. The prisoner has
been sentenced to a life term, but given a possibility for parole. This does not provide a right to parole,
but merely an opportunity. As such, it follows that the presumption would be for a life sentence, unless
the prisoner can demonstrate that public safety will not be affected by his or her early release. This
places the burden on the prisoner to show why release is appropriate, rather than on the victims and
the People of the State of California to once again show why this individual is dangerous to the public.
In addition, the language in the statutes and regulations should once again direct the board to
consider the commitment offense itself in determining the suitability for parole. In the aftermath of In
re Lawrence, supra, 44 Cal.4th 1181, the court has repeatedly held that the "immutable" facts of the

commitment offense are not appropriate to consider unless used in determining current dangerousness.

----------I(

22

)---------

However, what could be a more appropriate consideration for future dangerousness to the public than
looking at what an individual has already done while out in society. Instead, the court directs the board
to look at the prisoner's institutional behavior; behavior which has no bearing on how a prisoner will
behave outside the highly structured and regulated prison walls. To correct this error, the language in
section 2402 should reflect the unequal significance of these two factors. A board should be allowed to
give more weight to the demonstrated behavior in the society to which the prisoner will be returned,
rather than that behavior in prison that has been constantly monitored, regulated and structured.
Further, the board should be directed not to continue to utilize the prisoner's own version of the
commitment offense as the "facts" of what occurred for the life crime. The board must be directed to
utilize a reliable source such as police reports or probation officer reports. Currently it is the inmate's
version that is read and re-read into the record and considered to be a reliable representation of the
commitment offense. These versions are seldom reliable and often self-serving. Moreover, the official
record should consider and reflect the multiple versions that the inmate has given throughout the
parole hearings held.
Finally, the board currently considers the past and present mental state of the prisoner. In most
cases this is received in the form of psychiatric evaluations done periodically with the prisoner. Most
evaluations are approximately an hour in length and assess the potential risk for future dangerousness.
The board often places substantial weight on these evaluations. However, this substantial weight is
misplaced. Much of the evaluation is based on the prisoner's own version of the commitment offense
and upon the prisoner's self-reported history. Again, these are more often than not unreliable. Instead,
the board must be directed to give these evaluations less weight than the commitment offense, because
again the most reliable prediction of the future behavior of the inmate is that which brought them to
prison. Should these psychiatric evaluations continue to be conducted, however, they should be given
less weight in determining parole suitability than more reliable determination of behavior, such as the
commitment offense.
CONCLUSIONS

The Phillip Garrido case exposed many of the problems and failures of law enforcement. It
would be easy to try to ignore these failures and problems as just an example of one bad, unfortunate
situation. But, one must remember that up until August 25, 2009, Phillip Garrido a complete success
story of a reformed criminal. His case has exposed many of the problems in the criminal justice system.
Fortunately, there have been many significant and important changes in the law that have provided a
major step in the direction necessary to correct the mistakes that were so evident with the Phillip
Garrido case. And, as noted above, both federal and state parole have each stated an interest and
commitment to making fundamental changes in their respective parole supervision systems.
The EI Dorado County District Attorney's Office, along with the EI Dorado County Sheriffs Office,
has made every effort to obtain an accurate picture of Phillip Garrido and have found mountains of
evidence to prove that he is a dangerous sexual predator. The crimes committed by Phillip Garrido
against known victims are extensive. But, we have to ask ourselves - what is the likelihood that law

------------l(

23

)r---------

enforcement caught Garrido in the only five kidnap and rape crimes/attempts he has ever committed?
In his interview with EI Dorado County Sheriffs Detectives Phillip Garrido alluded to many additional
crimes that may never be solved. The terrifying reality is that we are only looking at the tip of the
iceberg with Phillip Garrido.
Even though some fundamental reforms have already been instituted, it is clear that more
changes need to be made. The fact is that under the current system, a criminal like Phillip Garrido
would still be evaluated by a dysfunctional process that could lead to his release. If Phillip Garrido faced
parole under the California Parole system today, they would evaluate him under a flawed system that:
(1) Puts the burden upon the parole board to prove dangerousness; (2) overvalues institutional
adjustment and psychiatric evaluations; and, (3) gives little real consideration or weight to the
circumstances of the offense and the inmate's reliable past criminal history. Garrido would be
evaluated under a system that even in 2011 still rated him a "Moderate-low" risk category, even after
he kidnapped and imprisoned an 11 year old girl for 18 years. Today, the rule is release. That rule needs
to be changed. Protection of society should be the rule. Modification of the parole review process is
the first step of many that needs to be taken to ensure that our society is protected from sexual
predators like Phillip Garrido and other violent criminals like him.

---------(

24

)---------

ATTACHMENT # 1

•

ATTACHMENT # 2

Case 3"76-cr-00088

Document 37

Filed 03124/1978

Pilge 3 01 12

Case 3:76-cr-00088

Document 37

FIled 03/24/1978

Page 4 01

!IE

Case 3:76-cr-00088

Document 37

Filed 03/24/1978

Page 5 of 12-

Case.3:76-cr·00088

Document 38

Filed 05/10/1978

Page 7 of 10

PSYCHOLOCICAL EVALUATJON

GARRIDO, Phillip

Reg. No. 36377-136

04-17-78

Mr. Garrido is referred [or psychologicol assessment by Assistant
United Stales Attorney Leland E. Lut(y, in connection with 8 motion for reduction
of sentence currently under consideration. The request Is made in behalf o( United
Stales DIStrict Judge 1'hompson, of the District of Neveda, and no specific refelTll.l
qu£;stion is asked.
REFERRA L:

HISTOR Y i\ NO BEHAVIORAL OOSER VATIONS:

Mr. Garrido presents in the
interview situation os on adcquately nourished and pleasont appeAring 27 yellr oid
Caucasian male who looks his staled lll:'C. He is verbal Crom the outset of contAct,
being known to this cxaminer In a treatment situation since September, 1077. He is
cooperative, candid, Ilnd volunteers Information readily, even if sclf-crltic.al, over
aU the contllcts held in this evaluative process. SomatIc complaints are dcnied, Hod
Mr. GarrIdo foUows a very oelive work and leisure activities schedule and seems
qui te healthy In his interests.
}Iistory is 8S reported elsewhere, so does not bear re~tition here. Significant is
that since his seventeenth year and prior to the Inslant offense, Mr. Garrido was
extcnslvely involved in the use of hallucinogenic and psychotomimetic drugs, and,
10 a lesser extent, the subculture that evolves around persons of that orientation.
The only two arrests in his history which preceeded the instant offense were drug
related and involved J811 time and probtltionary dispositions. Thcrc Is currently an
active detainer trom Nevada for the included offense of Forcible Rape in the
instant matler.
~Ir. Garrido is the product of 8 prosocial middle closs family, now broken, from
which he inculcatcd generally appropriate values, though he describes himself as
over-condoned end pampered by his parents. A high school graduate, he hus had no
mili tary service or work record of consequence, describing himself as a "semiprofessional musician". 1'here Is a cucrent merriage of unknown prospect, nnel no
children have resulted (rorn it. One brother {rom the family has encount.ered no
difficult ies with law enrorcement.

Highly significant is Mr. Garrido's record of accomplishment in troining, education,
end treatment since his arrival here in September, 1977.
He has achieved
conspicuously in educational sclf-dcvclopment, on-the-job training in carpcntry,
and in a d.-aWng vocational tr!lining course which is current. He has become nctive
In the group of inmatCS participating in Jehovah's Witness religious ceremonies, and
impresses 85 very absorbed in their doctrine and behavioral proscriptions. He has
been reguJllr, active, Qnd highly productive in psychological treatment which, in
light of the length of his current sentence, has been addressed toward develOping
basic per50n8.lity strengths, resolving immediate conflict areas, and (amiliariZing
him with the significance of his lifestyle pallerns. Be is lIcutely conscienlious in
the excercise of alll\ctivity areasj his prime concern I\t the instant ~erjes ot te~ljng
contacls was thnt he \Vas taking e very great deal of lime away from his work
detail responsibilities. so inconveniencing his supervisor.

Case.3:76-cr·OO088

Document 38

Filed 05/10/1978

Page 8 of 10

The only CUrrent soqulll to the prolonged and extensive drug use noted is a series of
"f1ashback n experienccs involving feelings of depersonalization and mild hallucinations. These are diminishing both in frequency and severlly over time, and any
argonic effects which r(l~ullcd (rom the drug use seem to be in a posit ive reversal
proce.~s. The instant interviews reveal no indication of a functionally psychotic
statc, pll3t or current, or of dCbilitllting organic syndrome activity.
TI!STS ADMINISTERED: The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Bender Motor Gestall Test, Roller Incomplete
Sentences Blank, Thematic Apperception Test, Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Il1strumenl, and Menlal Status Examination.
TEST RESULTS: Testing reveals an Intelligence Quotient at the upper end of the
average rllnge (numerIcally, 110) (or Mr. Garrido. This impresses as cOIlSistent with
his verbalization6 and mannerisms, though it seems likely thot his funct ianel
intelligence is progressively Improving with his rp.c:overy from drug effecls 8nd wilh
prog'l'e"lon in educational pursuits.
The Minnesota MUltiphasic Personality 1nventory shows all clinical scales within
normal limits (two ~tandard deviations beyond the meDn) for Mr. Garrido. The
validity scftles show an elevalion on L (lie scale), items from Which Viere
specificaUy discussed with him and reconciled satisfactorily for their sil;"llificance
to him. In addition, 12 omissions in the protOCOl were discussed and their
significance resolved In such Ii fashion as to reflect not only a healthy outcome, but
a comparatively healthy approach to the overall testing circumstance.
The Bender Motor Gestalt Test, administered due to presumptive organicity,
produces a non-remarkable outcome from the s1.8ndpoint of the likelihood of
orgonic braIn syndrome actiVity. Considerable dependency was rcnected in this
testing approach with the psychology intern administrator, and direction of Dctjvily
and approval seeking behaviors were D strongly recurrenl phenomena. The protocol
renected careful attention to detail alld manner of presentation without significonl
derogatory indicators.
The Incomplete sentences Test reflects Mr. Garrido as a sensitive young man who
is deeply committed religiously Dnd goal orfented In management of life problems
and aims. Suggested Is a driven Quality to his commItment, that is, when he
commits to a cause or purpose, he tends to approach it with eKtreme zeal and
diligence, so might appear personnlly rigid or evcn compUlsive in many of his
pursuits. Appropriate dCffl'ees of secondary narcisism and considerable conflict
with regard to his current marilal situation ore also clear in the responses to iloms.
The Thematic Apperception Tesl buttresses !hesc observations, reflecting II strong
identification with stimuli, heavy reliance on symbolic aspects of the pictured
situations presented, and an active imagination but tentatIve approach to story
construction. Invitations to hostile interpretation were avoided or dealt with
secondarily by Mr. Garrido, reflecting his characteristic tendency to cxcrcise the
defanses of denial and negation In areas of hostile sensation or e,t;pres.~ion. Even
with those Items that impllctcd him emolionlllly, he showed a good ability to
reconstitille and reconstrue situations ~o 85 to malce them p!llotable in expression

Case·3:76-cr-00088

Document 38

Filed 05! 10;1978

Page 9 of 10

for himself. The depth of his religious cOlnillltment aIId its impact on his life
philosophy al'e clear in the protocol developed, snd his style of dealing wi th thp_~e
phenomena is, on balance, quite healthy.
The Rorsehllch performance produces II 22-response protocol wi th characteristl('slly low Illtencies that I'eneet 0 positive lesl taking approach and per(ormanc(;,
Rp_~ponses are essentially form determined (9796) and follow a cl\arocteristic
progression from whole through large to rare delail in perception and reporting.
Secondary ldentlfiCllltion of percepts is accurate and positive, end a portion of
animal responses less than 30% suggests an Ilctive imllgination and good reality
testing- capabilities. Somewhat less movement than expected is observed; his level
of functional intelligence Is underestimated frnm this protocol. The arousal quality
of color cards is evident for him, 45% of reliponses made being to full color
presentations. Nonetheless, responses even to those cards are essentieslly form
determined snd appropriate In conlent, suggesting Il non-remarkable ability to
handle usual arousal situations.
Content analysis suggests an appropriately
emotional response to the conflict IIreas noted heretofore, with adequate depth of
control and a tendency towBr(l need resolut ion through non-deleterious fDntasy
activities.
Mental Status Examination reveals 8 po.~itivist!c and prosocia) sttitudlnal structure
in 0 man whose manner is dependently cooperative and sincere. Person,;1 style
suggests a measure of personality conslriction snd rigidity for Mr. Garrido, bul is
consonant In all respects with his Slrongly held religIous belief and depth of
commitment to current life pursnits. Mood is concerned but confident of positive
outcomes as a result of his endeavorJl, and affect, while lllbile, is appropriate to
content under discussion. Re18tiol1.~hjps with lhose present are very positive; he is
an IlJreble and likeable young man whose bearing excites the positive regard of
othlN'_~. Self conccpt is verbalized as in a process of correcting recogni7.ed personll.l
faulls and working to redevelop hIs {llnetionll.l menial capacities. lie sees hImself
as one whose life is and will be based on his strongly held religious beliefs, and all
indieRtions are that he is condocting his affairs in acco:-d with the principles
Implied therein. ARpiratlons for ten years hence are positive and generally nonremarkable; he aspires to work in computer science and sees an orderly progression
of skill development to attainment of those capabilities. Recent memory Is intoct,
though some deficIencies in remote memory rencct the long term abuse syndrome
di.c\Jssed earlfer. The sensorium is clear and onentation in the l'pheres of time,
place, and person very adequate. Delusions and hallucinatioF\S ore denied ond
absent frorn evidence, and there is evidence neither of tangentiol thinking nor
loosening of associations in hIs verbal portrayal of himself.
As noted via behaviortll observation, current testing indiCAtions are absent of signs
of PQSI or cllrrent functional psychosis or of serious organic brain syndrome
activity.
SUMMARY, In overview, Mr. Garrido is Ii young man of averege intelligence who
presents!l. well controlled nnd goal oriented pllttern of personality function at this
evnluution. Aspects of apparent personlliity ril;:idilY and constriction ure mediated
by his dEeply held religious and philosophical convictions and by his strongly
dIsciplined orienta lion to gOIl! 9c('omplishment. The~e Are in M sense dp.oilitating,
and appear to contribute to hi!; healthy funclion. He has progressed remarkably

Case 3:76-0-00088

Document 38

Filed 05/10/1978

Page 10 of to

well in trealment and In cduclltional and training pursuits during his period of
service to date, end appClIlrS 10 have reoricnted his life dramatically from the
derogatory pattern which characterized him earlier.
There seems lillle question that Mr. Garrido was 9 "spoiled" chUd, though he
Inculcatejl vahles ond aims approprillte 10 IJ prosocial existence during lite early
formative years.
II is characteristic of him 10 go to extremes in whelever
commitments are made or programs are undertaken; depending' on the character oC
pursuit, Ihis can be contributory to excellence or e>:treme derog-al ion. The current
personality picture sllows some excessive reliance on defenses of denial and
negation, but these are elCpected to diminish over time with continued treutment
and personal growth on his part. Via his religious pursuits, he has been lIble to
sul>limate Impulses quite well, lind depth of control Is sufficient to sustain him here
or in the Cree societal situation.
He continues in a process of remitting (rom long term drug usage and will probably
continue to do 50 for some years to come. At this point In time, only occasIonal
feelings oC depersonlllization, cognitivcly construed haUucina!lons, and nightmares
plague him Crom the earlier tOlCicJty. He is in good management of impulses in the
psychosexual realm, and appropriately oriented toward their prosocial eX'pression
fttroughout his future years. In effect, It does llppear that the instanl offense
evolved from the potentistion by drog use of what were comparative.ly normal
drive3 to abnormal forms of ellpression and intensity. He has gained measurably
wi th respect to these over his period of service to de te, but will, when released,
require psychologicalassislance during his transition to the free societal sitl/ation
to insure continued growth ns he acclimates.
In discussion with Mr. Garrido, this examiner offered to recommend the client's
release from incarccration to a program of psyCh¢Jogieal treatment in the very
near future. Interestingly, Mr. Garrido Asked that he be permitted anotner three
years of Incarceration in lieu oC that. In order thal he could complete his current
program of training and religious development. AU Ihings considered, tKen, this
el(smlner'recommends 1) a modification of the current sentence to indeterminate
perole eligibility, and 2) a recommendation the t he be paroled when treatment and
training goals are accomplished unless there is some dramatic chonge in his
condition in the interim. Also recommended Whenever hc is released, is 3) a
program oC psychological treatment as pnrt of the transition from Institution to
communilYI parole supervision is S6en as a positive motivational vehicle for him,
though not an imperative for his e{(ec!ing a prosocial adjustment.
Prognosis for successful transition to the ec.mmunity is considered very good. 'rhe
likelihood of further el(tralegal behaviors on Mr. Garrido's port is seen as minimal.
It is predicled, however, thal In the unlikely event thnt he 1Y0uld regress toward an
unacceptable behavior pallern, he would signal the regression with reinvo)vement
in subslances or patterns deleterious to his prosocial adjustment, so lha t his
supervising oCficer could be carefuUy nttuned to and intervene hopefUlly, intervene,
any proce~ lhol might lead to negative acting out.
If there are any Curther questions in this case, please do .l\ot

IA3~~~

Psychologist Trainee

,(

, /":-"'L"
,

h~sitale

to contact me.

::·~~:~:~;fflLB~c~l~ Ph.D. ..3
CliniCAl 'p~y

ATTACHMENT # 3

ATTACHMENT # 4

ATTACHMENT # 5

ATTACHMENT # 6

My Name is Katie Callaway Hall. In 1976, I was kidnapped and raped by
Phillip Garrido. In 1977, Garrido was convicted and sentenced to 50
years in the Federal Penitentiary.
Phillip Garrido was able to manipulate the system, beginning in prison,
where he managed to get early consideration for release in front of the
Parole Board. I was told by his Federal Parole Officer, Houston
Antwine, that Garrido had been proclaiming his innocence all
throughout his prison term, claiming that I was a "girlfriend" who lied
and "cried rape," and that he had been wrongly convicted and
incarcerated. This fabricated story, plus his "good behaivior" earned
him an early release from his 50 yr. sentence.
According to P.O. Antwine, everyone in the prison and parole system
believed Garrido's story, because when I met with P.O. Antwine in
person, he seemed very surprised to learn from me that I had not
known Garrido, and that the crime was, in fact, a Stranger Abduction
and Rape.
Though these facts were clearly stated in the Trial Transcripts and the
Parole Files, they chose to believe Garrido and give him the benefit of
the doubt.
Even after I reported to P.O. Antwine that on Nov. 18, 1988, Garrido
walked up to my Roulette Wheel in Caesars Casino, in Lake Tahoe, I
learned years later that, not only had he not believed me, but that
evidently he was not even listening to me, as the basic facts of my claim
(such as where I worked, and the dates in question) were wrongly
recorded in the Parole Files. I find this to be incredible, as I sat in P.O.
Antwine's office and talked to him for over an hour, and I WAS NOT
HYSTERICAL (as implied in the entry).

As a result of my personal experience with the Federal Parole System, I
have lived a life "looking over my shoulder," quitting jobs, relocating for
my own safety, always afraid that Garrido would find me again. Even
though P.O. Antwine assured me that Garrido would be well supervised
and monitored, he also told me that they knew that Garrido was going
to be a "repeat offender," and I knew in my heart that Garrido had
already proven himself to be smarter than "the system" by violating his
Parole and hunting me down and contacting me.
In 1988 I had no choice but to put my trust in the Parole System, a
system that has proven to be a massive failure when it comes to
supervising Sex Offenders.
I believe that we now have the opportunity to make some changes in
laws regarding Sex Offenders, and also the Policy and Procedures
governing the Parole Systems assigned to supervising Sex Offenders,
should they gain release.
We need to recognize the fact that Sex Offenders are PREDATORS.
They hunt Human Beings. And often they prey on the young and
defenseless for their own unnatural sexual deviations.
The rate of recidivism with this type of offender is HIGH.
The percentage of "rehabilitation" is LOW.
Sexual assaults have reached PANDEMIC levels.
Personally, I would like to see that Sex Offenders are never released.
think it is time for a "NO TOLERANCE" stand. But, if they are to be
allowed to be released back into society, the role of the Parole System
in handling these types of offenders needs to be re-thought, re-

vamped, brought up-to-date with new understanding of the type of
criminal that they're dealing with.
I feel that this could be accomplished by establishing a separate
Department within the Parole System for handling only Sex Offenders,
with specially trained personnel, who only handle Sex Offenders.
It's an idea.
In conclusion, I would also like see communication between the victims
and the Parole System be made more "victim friendly." I have never
had a voluntary phone call, letter, email, or any kind of update on
Phillip Garrido since I registered with the Victim/Witness Program in
1987.

To this day, I have not received anything from the Parole Board

informing me that Phillip Garrido was re-arrested for his crimes against
Jaycee Dugard, even though he was on lifetime parole for crimes he
committed against me. It's like I don't exist to the Parole System. This
is why I felt that I had to travel 700 miles, time and time again, and
attend every hearing I possibly could to watch the proceedings. The EI
Dorado County District Attorney's Office were the only State Agency
that voluntarily communicated with me and made it possible for me to
stay informed and be updated with Garrido.

ATTACHMENT # 7

•

Top Photo taken in late 1980s while Garrido incarcerated in prison. Katie Callaway-Hall says that this
photo was similar to that of the one shown to her by Garrido parole officer in 1988, but that in the
photo shown to her, Garrido was even further away from the camera and his face wasn't as clear.

•

Bottom Photo taken from video of Phillip Garrido in park (circa 1989-1993). Katie Callaway-Hall says
this looks like the person who came to her roulette wheel in South Lake Tahoe in 1988.

ATTACHMENT # 8

"

"

l1t.~.

•

iJepartmtnt of 3Juatice

l!lntlw ~tate1i 1}1arnle Qrnmmtasfnn
'QtfTeuu alltOBt. iRarvlanlJ 211815
wtSTERN REGION

Qtertftlcatt nf~arntt
Know all Men
th~f

by lnese PresenlS~

r, hllving been made to appe:tr 10 lh~ Unil4d Stal~.s
• Regisler No.

Phillip Cnig GarridQ

Pnrole Commission
. II prisoner in

1632 7-136

Uniced States Penitentiary

Ihe
Lompoc: I California
i~ ~Iigible to l>e PAROLED. and in lhal uid prisoner
SUbSL4nlilllly obslJrvtd the rules of rhe InSlinuion. and in It\(, opinion of the Commission Inid pnaoncr'S ~J~uo would
not dcprtcilllc the smousneu of this offeOSCl or promote dl$mpec. fOr rhe rllw. and would not jeopardb.c the pUblic
welfare, it ;.s OROERED by the SJlld Uniltd SillieS Pl1rOle Commi~ion that said prisol1er be PAROLED on

_ _ _ _*-=J~aU;in~u~El~D'~.:>.4Qx_

•

19J~JL:

and lhal 5Qid prisoner i:f [0 remain wi/hi" rhe Iimil5 of

unlit _ _....
A.o:.Ql'.:-1""l::.....:1~Qr

•

of

7

Oi v~n under the hands Jlnd /he Sell I of the Uniled StaleJ PlJrolo Commi$$lon lhiJ 14 ch
• mnctetn hundred 3nd ..Lti.gbc:y-eight

)r1D\l/IlI)'

actual physical custody of
detaining auenorit1Q8~ if
datainer is nQt exercised, parola
effective february 20; 1988 to
che community.

~co

.~f

~hQ

l~aT~ P~R~MMl,$SroN.

By

\';"4B8'tltna.Lys t

IniilcaJ..Rls,k C:lI~ _JlI.llo~o::..:d=-. ..J(..:.S:.;t.f.xS-,.!.·;:.6,-)

Advi,or
ProbJJllon

.

_

.....

_

CUSPO. Las Veg~l!I! Nevada

Omcer

cnj t

Th<1vc rud. or had re;JQ to me. the condllwIU 01 n:lense prinled on lht n:vets4l of lhis c~rtHiclla.c :uld recei ... ed l!
copy 'hereof, I fully unde~und 'hem and koow Ihlll if 1 yi4~UUe any. I lMy be rccommitled. I also tmderstilJ1d mat
:\podal coflditiolls INy be added or modifications of My condilion mliY be lI1ade by the Parole Commission upon

:~!Z~W'f\.1:1()h:JG::&
~
J:a,.,l

WrTNESS"ED .........~

3(;3J]-13~
IN,jl"" ""-·'1

~

~?vvV1 (j(}.J.L(

I - I 4' - I t)
,0.",

,,,,/.11

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMJSSION:
7
The above'RaI'ned person wo.s released on <he ..2.O.th.. day of J!lnlJ¥Y. !9~ \\lith

J

r~
tora! ofll4 325 dJys

remaining co be s.ervcd.
h

•

'

...

1(AJ;f~""""
~-I.Jl Ow ""M It.'
,\t"

,,)

ATTACHMENT # 9

(

STATE OF NEVADA

DEPARTMENT OF PRISONS
AD :1INlSTRATIVE OfF~CES

TO=

BOlum OP PA OL

co

aSSIONERS

he proviSLon5 of Sec ion
~.:..::.=~:-..:::..=::.:::.=-,,-..;,,:_1
...2....9=-:5::-4

~ wa s ex m·. ed by a

rden, Northern Nevada correesychiatris.t, and Patricia whi tc,
opinion oe the panel th t
Phi
P Garrido
'ot at ~h'5 time be ce£tified as not contributin
safety and morals of sOci ty.

2954
a menace

on 1 Center

- Ir.ID

C;

Bard of Paro a Co missionQ S

ell

EN
• ()

Al
&J.~

1011

£

1:i. es

OUTIIERN OFFf<:E
M rytar: PM

~ 11

.i7il

L3~ V~'.

'P

f)nO: [

I

'ev,ub
l
,0 2' ~ '. • 6'

1

ATTACHMENT # 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAMES WARE
CHIEF JUDGE

July7,2011
Re:

Release of Report from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Parole Supervision of Phillip Garrido

On February 15,2011, is my capacity as Chief Judge, I received a confidential report from the
Administrative Office of the United States Courts ("AOUSC") regarding the parole supervision
of Phillip Garrido by the Probation Office in the Northern District of California between
December 1988 and June 1999.
The federal Probation Office in the Northern District of California was responsible for the
supervision of Mr. Garrido from December 1988 to June 1999, when his supervision was
assumed by the Parole Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
This time period included June 10,1991, which, based on infonnation that subsequently has
come to light was allegedly when II-year old Jaycee Dugard was kidnapped by Mr. Garrido.
Mr. Garrido's federal parole supervision stemmed from a conviction in United States District
Court for the District of Nevada in 1977, when he was convicted of kidnapping a 25-year-old
woman and confining her in a storage shed, where he repeatedly raped her. For the kidnapping,
Mr. Garrido received a federal sentence of 50-years imprisonment. For the forcible rape, Mr.
Garrido received a Nevada state sentence offive years to life.
In January 1988, after Mr. Garrido had served eleven years in federal prison, the United States
Parole Commission granted him parole and Mr. Garrido was turned over to Nevada prison
authorities to serve his state sentence. In August 1988, Nevada parole authorities released Mr.
Garrido on lifetime parole supervision and transferred him back to federal jurisdiction for his
return to the community.
Mr. Garrido was released to the supervision of the United States Probation Office in the Northern
District of California and lived with his mother at her home in Antioch, California. At the time
of Mr. Garrido's release from prison in 1988, sex offenders represented a very small percentage
of the supervision population in the federal system, and Judicial Conference policy at the time did
not provide specific guidelines for sex offender supervision. Nonetheless, policy guidance in
place during Mr. Garrido's federal supervision required the probation officer to supervise him as
a "high risk" offender.
Although records indicate that Mr. Garrido was correctly categorized as a "high risk" offender,
the AOUSC report finds that the Probation Office failed to supervise him accordingly. Home
contacts were rare. Collateral contacts with neighbors and local law enforcement were never
completed. Records indicate that the probation officer never verified that Mr. Garrido had
registered as a sex offender as required by the state of California.

In September 1989, Mr. Garrido's employer at a nursing home informed the parole officer that
three female coworkers were nervous around Mr. Garrido, however the parole officer did not
meet with Mr. Garrido until more than two months had elapsed. In February 1990, Mr. Garrido
informed his probation officer that he was training as a salesman and would be selling products in
people's homes, however the probation officer did not note any concerns about potential risks to
third parties.
In addition, the report Mr. Garrido tested positive for drugs and was found to have submitted
diluted urine samples on several occasions. However, there is no record that the Probation Office
informed Nevada State Probation and Parole of Mr. Garrido's drug use. Moreover, with one
exception, the Probation Office also failed to inform the United States Parole Commission about
Mr. Garrido's illicit drug use. The single exception resulted in a brief revocation of parole, a
short period of time in custody and a period of home confinement.
The AOUSC report concludes that the supervision of Mr. Garrido was substandard. The report
notes that a California sex offender task force searched the house and grounds in July 2008 and
did not find Jaycee Dugard and her children and the report questions whether greater diligence by
the supervising officer would have uncovered their presence. We do not find comfort in such
speculation. Because, as pointed out in the report, had Mr. Garrido's federal supervision been
conducted properly from the onset, it is possible that he may have been deterred from some of the
acts now attributed to him.
Mr. Garrido's federal parole was terminated in 1999 and his supervision was assumed by the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
In 2000, after Mr. Garrido's federal supervision had ended, the AOUSC conducted a routine
review of the Probation Office in the Northern District of California and found the state of
offender supervision to be poor. The AOUSC made a series of recommendations for
improvement.
In May 2007, after a follow-up review found that none of the recommendations had been
implemented, our Court replaced the chief probation officer with an experienced manager from
ahother district. If there is anything positive that can be derived from the awful circumstances
revealed by this report, it is the report's assessment of the District's current Chief Probation
Officer. The report states that the new chief brought in well-qualified managers ITom other
districts to fill the chief deputy and two assistant deputy positions. The new management team
retrained all officers and supervisors in Judicial Conference policies and procedures for
supervising offenders in the community. The Chief mandated that officers spend more time in
the community. Standards were provided for supervision of high, medium and low activity cases,
and internal audits were shared with the supervisors and officers.
As Chief Judge, I believe that the strength of our public institutions is tied directly to their
openness to public scrutiny. I have decided to release the full AOUSC report. We are using its
candid criticism and the public scrutiny that comes from it as tools to improve the administration
ofjustice in our District.
Attachment: AOUSC Report on the Supervision of Parolee Phillip Gurrido