The Story Of Jaycee Lee Dugard

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

This case is unusual as it is predicted only 2% of abductions are by strangers, with 1 in 4 being murdered (Paludi, 2010).

Jaycee was just 11 years-old when, her walk to the bus stop just metres from her home would be the last time anyone would see or hear from her for the next 18 years. Garrido conducted what Burgess and Holmstrom (1974) termed a ‘blitz attack’ whereby he appeared suddenly, hindering Jaycees chances of being able to react to this dangerous situation in time (Tedisco & Paludi, 1996).

Her childhood ended as abruptly as she vanished, dragged into Phillip Garrido’s vehicle, thrust into a dark adult environment.

Unlike other books in the genre, Jaycee doesn’t approach the telling of her story in a self-pitying manner, but instead with a strong sense of dignity and courage, with even the naivety she experienced as a child in this situation, presented in an understated manner. It would appear at times that she didn’t understand the true horror of what was happening to her in Garrido’s backyard, further adding to the shocking and chilling experience detailed in her book.

The book is written through the lens of her memories, peppered with contributions from the present day perspective, reminding us that this isn’t a non-fiction horror, but a horrendous real life experience. She guides us through the worst times of her life, from sexual abuse, confusion and attempt to make sense of what is happening to her, through to child bearing and future domestic set up, in which she was forced to be her daughter’s sister. Although not the reason for Jaycees initial kidnapping, the fact that Nancy, Phillip Garrido’s partner, insisted the children addressed her as mom and Jaycee as their sister, shows signs of childless psychosis whereby due to them not having born children of their own, may abduct infants to fill this void (Paludi, 2010). Nancy however did not have to ‘abduct’ Jaycee’s children as Jaycee was already their prisoner and thus her children became prisoner also, under complete Garrido control.

Her questioning of happiness in her conditions is haunting, highlighting the true effects of this trauma on her psyche. Throughout the book, she shows determination to protect her children from the associative problems of being her daughters, aiming to minimise any future victimisation, beyond that which they had already experienced.

Although no-one but those within the Garrido compound truly knows what horrors occurred in there, there are incidents which can be verified – thus adding validity to Jaycee’s account. For example, we can confirm the circumstances surrounding her disappearance from the vast array of media coverage which followed, confirming the location and type of vehicle. The tent complex where she was kept can be seen from aerial photographs, including the shrubbery which posed as the end of the garden, hiding the sinister activities behind. Neighbours and parole officers can confirm the presence of Jaycee, and later, her two children within the complex. The children she had whilst held captive can be proven to be Phillip Garrido’s through the use of DNA testing (CBS13, 2013). Jaycee’s account differs from a large number of other testimonies in that, external factors can be verified, there is much information outside the backyard where she was held that adds authenticity to her story. Unlike testimonies of inter-familial rape, whereby there may be few external points to verify, which could have offered support for the inner testimony.

Within Jaycee’s testimony, there are primary, secondary and tertiary victims. Jaycee is a primary victim, who has suffered directly from the victimisation perpetrated by the Garrido’s. Her children are also primary victims, although the effects of this experience is not detailed in the book, they had never been to school, never seen by a doctor, lived in squalor with little provisions and witnessed the abuse towards Jaycee from the Garrido’s. Jaycee’s family are secondary victims. With a strong connection to Jaycee; they too suffer the severe emotional pain which came from her disappearance (Dussich, 2006). The neighbours of both Jaycee’s home and the Garrido’s and the communities beyond can be classified as tertiary victims who may have been influenced emotionally, financially or socially. These victims may not have known Jaycee, but have become tertiary victims through receipt of the news via media or social platforms (Dussich, 2006). As Jaycee was very close to being an ‘ideal victim’, the media attention her disappearance received was widespread.

According to Christie, there are six conditions a person should meet to claim complete, legitimate victim status; 1) In comparison to the offender, the victim is considerably weaker. 2) The victim is acting as they would normally, going about their daily activities. 3) The victim is blameless. 4) Victim has no ties to or knowledge of the offender. 5) The offender is ‘big’ and ‘bad’. 6) The victim holds a mix of power, influence and sympathy in equal measures, enhancing their victim status, quashing any risk of opposition from countervailing vested interests (Dignan, 2005). Jaycee fits specification. She was attacked by an adult male, unprovoked, with her in no way at fault. However, it has also been noted that the ideal victim makes a report to the police, free from hesitation, ensures evidence is preserved and recounts everything regardless of how distressing it may be. This is where Jaycee’s ideal victim status may falter; she was seen to have opportunities to inform authorities on numerous occasions, not least in the parole office where it was discovered who she was after the Garrido’s confessed (Shoham et al, 2010). When questioned in the parole office, she stated that Phillip was protecting her from an abusive partner whom she had escaped from, still using the name Alyssa. It was not until she was informed that Phillip had confessed that she broke free from his control and admitted who she was. To many the withholding of who she was when out in public casts doubt on her testimony, spoiling the victim status, however, when you look into the reasons behind her silence, it becomes clear that it was survival instinct rather than an escape instinct which was influencing her actions.

The ideal victim is also a deserving victim – if the ideal victim criteria is not met, the victim may well be termed undeserving, usually having contributed to their victimisation. For example; a youth who is subjected to attack by an adult, would seem to be a deserving victim, however, if the youth was attacked by an adult because he had broken into their home with the intention of stealing, then the status turns to undeserving (Marsh & Melville, 2009). The action of the boy, who broke into a house and was assaulted by the homeowner upon discovery, can be described as victim precipitation, whereby his actions initiated the assault which followed (Siegel, 2009). Jaycee however was the epitome of deserving victim, an innocent child, subjected to horrific victimisation.

The issues surrounding how victim status is allocated led to Carrabine et al (2004) to present the idea of a ‘hierarchy of victimisation’ (Walklate, 2007). Ideal victims awarded the label ‘deserving’ appear at the top of the hierarchy, attracting wide public interest, media coverage and a higher chance of securing a conviction (Walklate, 2007). Those lower in the hierarchy are more likely to be labelled undeserving, involved in their victimisation and from the margins of society, with their victimisation gaining media attention in passing with deserving victims, if at all. This hierarchy is clear when examining the case of missing children. The coverage the disappearance of Jaycee received was phenomenal, she was a pretty, middle class, intelligent young girl who was cruelly taken whilst walking to the school bus stop. However, in 1994, Aleacia Di’Onne Stancil vanished when she was just 9months old and never seen again. Aleacia was a young black child, born to a single, drug addicted, prostitute. Her situation received very little media coverage, a simple ‘Google’ of her name shows results from missing person’s websites, but little more (National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, 2013). A search of Jaycee’s name however returns thousands of results on her disappearance, the progression of the case, her family and her subsequent release. The differing media attention between races has been noted by researchers previously who termed it ‘missing white person syndrome’ (Russell-Brown, 2009). This shows the hierarchy of victimisation in that Jaycee and Aleacia were both abducted, but the media attention they received was as different as their backgrounds and family set up.

There are several perspectives victimology can take which we shall examine below.

Key positivist victimology writers, Hentig (1948) and Mendelsohn (1956) focused on the relationship between offender and victim. The notion that the victim had somehow contributed to their own victimisation was key, with discussions around the ‘causative’ role and culpability levels of the victim (Wolhuter et al, 2009). This theory does not fit with Jaycee’s experience as she was in no way to blame or responsible for the victimisation she encountered. She was not out alone late at night, she did not collude with deviant individuals, she was not in a deprived area, nor was she engaging in any dangerous or high risk activities – the points which Fattah presented to explain positive victimology typologies (Wolhuter et al, 2009).

Radical victimology rejects positivist victimology, instead, seeing victimisation in the light of structural and organisational factors in society. Radical victimology is not solely concerned with victims of crime, but also victims of the state who are oppressed, thus victimised. Jaycee’s experience does not appear to have any links to radical victimology. This theory would seem to be more suitable when examining victims of corporate crime etc, crimes which may be explained through inequality as a result of societal structures (Dignan, 2005).

Critical victimology was formed in response to the shortcomings of positivist and radical victimology. The positivist approach was seen to be too narrow and contributing to the marginalisation of feminists who were concerned with gendered crimes such as domestic violence and sexual abuse – using the idea of victim precipitation in this area was highly controversial (Wolhuter et al, 2009).

Radical victimology was also criticised for its similarity with positivism in its attempt to form universal principles along with its narrow focus on the role of the state within victim creation and an over-reliance on societal conflict. It was also seen to be too much of a critical response to positivism rather than a creation of a new theory (Wolhuter et al, 2009). Critical criminology aimed to assess the lived realities of individuals and societies influence upon these. To understand persons lived reality, there is a need to understand the wider societal context. There was a focus on both the public and private areas of life and victimisation. This linked with the feminist interests of victimisation in the private sphere, opening it up to the wider audience to enable law to be inclusive of these types of crime (Wolhuter et al, 2009). Jaycee’s experience appears to link best with feminist victimology. It was her gender that was the main reason for her abduction, then her age. If she was a young male, she would not have been a target for the Garrido’s – fitting with feminist’s idea of gender being one of the strongest predictors of victimisation. Feminist victimology highlights how the patriarchal societies in which we live, position males above women and often blame them for their own victimisation (Wilson, 2009) which Jaycee has been blamed for on several occasions, with questions of why she did not escape or tell people who she was when out in public with the Garrido’s at the forefront of these accusations.

Jaycee was seen to have many opportunities to escape however she remained there for 18 years. In her book she addresses these issues stating that to begin with she was handcuffed, threatened with a stun gun and locked in a soundproof shed, there was no opportunity to escape. This may have acted as a form of conditioning in that she learnt, over time, that there was no point trying to leave because she couldn’t (Lischick, 2013). Phillip had made the world beyond the backyard seem so terrible she began to think it was best where she was, she didn’t know what to expect out there anymore, nor did she know where she would go. Another reason she states is that of her children. If she was not able to escape with her children, then she wouldn’t.

Jaycee is adamant that she is not a victim, but is in fact a survivor.

A quote from her book shows that; "I did what I had always done . . . tried to survive an impossible situation", she adapted to survive the victimisation encountered.

The term ‘victim’ conjures thoughts of helplessness, weakness and negative imagery along with disempowering connotations. The term ‘survivor’ however, conjures thoughts of strength, determination and positive imagery (Underwood & Edmunds, 2003).

It is my view that Jaycee is both a victim and a survivor. She was a victim in that her childhood was cruelly snatched away from her, she was subjected to prolonged sexual abuse, kept prisoner in a tent complex, but, she survived. Whilst held captive, she made the most of her time in that she helped with a business, taught her children to the best of her ability, remained strong enough to live to the best of her capacity in the environment, which ultimately kept her sane. Upon release, she was a victim of a terrible ordeal, who had survived, along with her two daughters. Jaycee has experienced growth in relation to the victimisation experienced (Underwood & Edmunds, 2009).

The process of attribution in Jaycee’s case was an attempt to make sense of the experience and come to a rational explanation as to why it was happening. Jaycee kept her identity silent when out in public in an attempt to keep her family together; her silence was vital. She also attributed some of the blame to herself, giving herself a small element of control in the situation (Bagley & King, 1990), which according to Hunter et al (1992) has been frequently observed in cases of childhood sexual abuse (Pandey, 2007). A quote from Kathleen Brady helps put this into focus;

"If I was capable of manipulating circumstances so they’d pay off for me, maybe it was all my fault. Or at the very least, how could I blame Dad for everything if I got what I wanted from it? My status as victim was called into question" (Brady, 1979 cited in Bagley & King, 1990 p108).

This view point is echoed by Jaycee when she writes "sometimes I think I’m being too dramatic and complain too much. What do I have to complain about? I have food, I have shelter from the rain, well, unless my tent is leaking" – she felt guilty about wanting to leave (Dugard, 2011). Jaycee displays a degree of locus of control in that she is aware of her actions and how they might alter the situation (Bagley & King, 1990). She learns how to control the adverse environment and states in her book; "I pretend I’m happy a lot, just so Phillip and Nancy don’t feel bad. I’ve learned that having a good attitude around them makes them want to do more for me. So I keep my true feelings to myself" (Dugard, 2011). There is an element of control alongside despair. Jaycee was faced with a very unpredictable man, summarised in her quote; "That was the confusing part— he could be an animal doing disgusting things to me one minute and then the next crying and asking for forgiveness" (Dugard, 2011). The psychological impact of this would have been immense. He showed her both horrific cruelty and abuse, interchanged with acts of kindness and signs of sympathy. It has been shown in studies with dogs that those who were treated with both indulgence and punishment alternatively, showed a higher level of bonding than those who had experienced total kindness or punishment (Bagley & King, 1990). With the clear power imbalance in their relationship, the abuse became an event in-between the periods of kindness/normality such as bringing food, allowing her to wash in private, sharing emotions with her. This traumatic bonding is common between child victims and their abusive caregiver (Nader; cited in Postmus, 2013). Jaycee questions her feelings of guilt feeling bad for Phillip and for hating him at the same time; these conflicting emotions are a classic response of oppressed individuals (Bagley & King, 1990). Overtime Jaycee internalised Phillips perspective and viewed her own agency as non-existent. The choice, as it was seen to be by many, was a survival act to avoid the negative response which would follow an escape attempt. Her focus on his behaviour was to ensure her and her daughters survival, which ultimately made her more vulnerable to his control, her identity becoming fused with his, with separation seeming impossible (Postmus, 2013). The sheer amount of time Jaycee was held furthered these feelings.

Jaycee was failed by numerous agencies such as parole, police and the prison service, along with "the government [who] failed [her] for eighteen years. And that will take time to heal from" (Dugard, 2011). She was failed by the police, whose slow reaction to the abduction saw all leads go cold, allowing Phillip to imprison her. She was failed by the parole service multiple times. Phillip was out on license when he kidnaped Jaycee, released just 10years into a 50year sentence for abducting and raping a girl for 8hours. Phillip received no rehabilitation and little monitoring; failings that led to the suffering inflicted on Jaycee (Hattery & Smith, 2010). He was subjected to random visits by parole, who on multiple occasions saw and spoke with Jaycee and her daughters. As a known sex offender, this should have rung many alarm bells, but it didn’t, they didn’t make further enquiries or even know how big the compound was where Philip lived, allowing Jaycees tent complex to go unnoticed; Jaycee states "I always thought it was so strange that not one of Phillips parole agents knew that the property extended further back" (Dugard, 2011). Phillip even spent time in prison for parole breach – they took note of drugs but not of two young girls in the home of a registered sex offender.

This failure by the CJS served to enhance the Stockholm syndrome experienced by Jaycee. For Stockholm syndrome to occur, the situation must be between strangers, with the victim fearing or resenting the CJS as much, if not more than their captors (De Fabrique et al, 2007).

Freud defines the ‘ego’ as the ‘personality core’, it is responsible for protecting individuals from unpleasant feelings and thoughts, avoiding hurt and confusion; acting as our defence mechanism (De Fabrique et al, 2007). When an individual is held captive, the ego turns to survival. In cases of Stockholm syndrome, the victim is dependent upon the captor for basic survival (De Fabrique et al, 2007). The captor shows acts of kindness in meeting these needs and twists victim’s perception to see them as protection from the outside world. The victims need to survive, triggers dependency, identification with captor and a desire to live which can outweigh the hate towards the captor (De Fabrique et al, 2007). Jaycee was dependent upon Phillip for everything, along with her daughters. As a mother her instinct was to protect her children, with the distorted view of the outside world Phillip forced upon her, she saw the world how Phillip conditioned her to, leading her to think he was their provider and protector. In her book she highlights this struggle perfectly stating she was "Angry at the parole agent for taking him and then not taking him. Angry at Phillip for not doing anything to prevent all of this. We relied on him, and I guess in that instant it became clear how much we relied on him and it didn’t really look like he cared" (Dugard, 2011).

The person who cared most about Jaycee, her mother, was also suffering immense trauma. Greif and Hegar (1991) found parents of abducted children experience feelings of post-traumatic stress disorder, with feelings of rage, self-blame and depression which may not end upon recovery of child. Jaycee’s half-sister may have felt the implication of Jaycee’s disappearance through over-protection and may even experience symptoms of developmental regression and phobias (Paludi, 2010).

Even when Jaycee was at the parole office when Phillip confessed to his crimes, she couldn’t bring herself to say who she was, she couldn’t break down the walls that he had built within her, stating that she "had been so conditioned to protect Phillip and Nancy that telling a stranger [her] story was not easy…and could not do it at first". Once it was clear who she was, she was reunited with her children, mother and half-sister, teams were sent to the complex she was held in to gather evidence and collect the animals for her children, Phillip and Nancy both confessed fully to their atrocious crimes, with Nancy defending Phillip to the end. In a way, Nancy was a victim of Phillip, manipulated to cooperate with his twisted actions. She was conditioned by him and blinded by love, which was ultimately her demise. The testimony doesn’t say much about the court proceedings; however, a statement made by Jaycee outside of court states that she doesn’t hate the Garrido’s as hate doesn’t help anything.

Despite the CJS failings, the FBI agents whom she met after her ordeal were of great benefit to her. They went out of their way to fetch her animals from the backyard, found her somewhere to stay short term, organised therapy and provided her with her own agent who stayed with them for several months, whom they became very attached too. There is mention of victim advocates briefly, but not of what they offered. The national centre for missing and exploited children aided Jaycee in finding somewhere more permanent to stay, where she wanted and away from the glare of the media. This provided her with the first block to build her family environment.

They attended a reunification specialist to help them become a family, with Jaycee as their mother rather than sister. Reunification involved the use of horses, building teamwork with the family, allowing Jaycee to begin problem solving, something which she never had to do in the backyard, even stating to her therapist "even though [she] didn’t want [her] old situation back, the reality was the backyard was less complicated for [her] in many ways". "Up until recently life was about making Phillip and Nancy happy and making sure the girls had everything they needed", Jaycee was utterly dependent upon the Garrido’s, now thrown into the outside world; she was faced with a different sort of adult situation. Whilst her children were learning in the kitchen with the reunification chef, Jaycee was unlearning everything relating to the Garrido’s. Slowly she was beginning to undo the conditioning imposed upon her, seeing that Phillip’s love was not real, unlike his narcissism. Phillip took her childhood away, placed her in an adult situation, yet the process of becoming an adult was blocked from her. This was what reunification and therapy was to teach her – adult skills; confidence, assertiveness, the ability to make decisions etc. She states "the more knowledge I gain, the more like an adult I feel. I never got the chance to become an adult. Thanks to Phillip, I missed out on some parts of normal human development and I feel I am making up for lost time".

The failings endured by Jaycee led to the State of California approving a $20million settlement as compensation (Megale, 2010) funding her and her children’s futures, allowing them to recover as best as possible.

Personal testimony is useful to both criminology and victimology in that it adds a deeper explanation to the concept of harm experienced by victims (McGarry & Keating, 2010).

Testimonies provide us with an insight beyond that which the criminal justice service can provide, offering an inside view of the reality of the crime, not just its legal aspect, but the moral harm and damage done to the victim as a person and the radiating effects. Testimony usually follows a traumatic event and is thus filtered through memory. Memory serves to organise and reconstruct past experiences and impressions in the view of current needs, fears and interests (Haswell, 2005). There is an issue of false memory syndrome in many testimonies; however, I don’t believe Jaycee’s is one of them. Her testimony signifies her enormous effort to tell her story and express her survivor status.

Personal testimony however should be used with caution. It can be said that the publishing and subsequent reading of this trauma material can invariably make readers ‘secondary witnesses’ (Haswell, 2005).

Jaycee’s testimony especially, shows how the concepts discussed within victimology, such as Stockholm syndrome, occur in reality and the consequences of their experiences, providing information on harm beyond the theoretical and legal. It allows us to begin to imagine the experience and think about it in a moral way as opposed to a ridged criminal law format which may disengage people from the sheer damage an experience can do. The rise in personal testimony has brought to the forefront the experiences of the subaltern, presenting in no uncertain terms the effects of traumatic experiences, often in contradiction to the criminal or legalistic view (Maynes, 2008).

The experience of Jaycee has led to an overhaul of policy in America regarding sex offenders and their monitoring. The topic of radio frequency identification for paroled sex offenders has been brought back into the field. A condition of Garrido’s parole was he was not to have contact with children, a parole officer failed to report this breach, prolonging suffering. It is said that the use of implantable and traceable RFID technology, cases such as this could be avoided (Shekhter, 2011). The micro-chipping of sex offenders could identify if any were in the area at the time of an assault or abduction, quickly including or excluding them from the investigation.

The parole management in California is overwhelmed with approximately 40,000 parolees, often with 100 parolees per officer, with 40 being deemed the maximum number for effective practise (Thompson, 2012). Since Jaycee’s case reforms have been discussed including reducing caseloads, allowing officers to; "…provide intensive supervision [and] monitoring" (California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 2012 cited in Thompson, 2012). GPS tagging failed to protect Jaycee – Garrido was fitted with a tag after the introduction of ‘Jessica’s Law’ (Shekhter, 2011). Jessica was a 9 year old girl who was abducted, raped and murdered by a 47 year old man. GPS tagging was supposed to prevent future incidents (Shekhter, 2011). Garrido complied with these GPS requirements. A review following Jaycee’s release found when the GPS tracks were viewed via satellite mapping, showed Garrido frequently at the back of the garden, if an officer had looked into this, they would have seen why. Law enforcement and victims’ rights advocates had hailed the use of GPS as the golden solution to prison overcrowding; Garrido showed how ineffective this can be when not monitored effectively (Shekhter, 2011).