The practical result of this omission was that a body of observational data—the accumulated impressions of people who lived near the property and had varying degrees of contact with Garrido and the people around him—was never gathered, never entered any institutional record, and never reached a form in which it could be acted upon.
The 2006 911 call was the clearest example of this pattern. The neighbor who made that call reported tents and people, including children, in the backyard of the property. A deputy sheriff responded. The response visit was brief. Garrido apparently explained the tents and people in some way that the deputy found sufficient. The report was not relayed to the parole office. The call does not appear to have been reviewed as part of the parole supervision record in the years between 2006 and 2009.
The November 2006 date is significant in another way: it was approximately two and a half years before Garrido walked into Lisa Campbell’s office at UC Berkeley. For two and a half years after a neighbor reported children living in tents in his backyard and a deputy responded without apparent follow-up, Garrido continued to operate the compound. The system had received a specific, actionable piece of information about his address and had not acted on it.
—
## The FBI and the Investigation
The FBI’s involvement in the Dugard case began with the abduction itself. A kidnapping of a child across state lines, or with the use of a vehicle to cross state lines, triggers federal jurisdiction, and Garrido took Dugard from California to his Nevada-adjacent criminal history, even if the captivity itself was within California. The FBI released age-progressed images of Dugard over the years, as it does for long-term missing persons cases, attempting to account for the physical changes that a child undergoes as she ages through childhood and adolescence.