Source of the tip? #2

[JBean]

IMO "admitting" = pleading guilty
I haven't read/heard anything in which anyone says he told them directly that he did what he was charged with doing.

That is entirely possible.The reporter says that his friends supported him at first and then he admitted attacking the 13 yo girl. The friend says that they were all hurt that he had lied to them and it was a betrayal to them.
Often when people plea out they tell their friends that they didn't do it and they took a plea for such and such reason. As a matter of fact that is exactly what the relative said that they were told by the family and he believed it. What i am saying is that this is the first time I have ever heard reference to the fact that he may have actually told people he did it. No more no less. This is not to be confused with taking responsibility or anything else LOL.

To be clear, according to the psychiatrist he wouldn't take responsibility for it. It was all a misunderstanding, he was too affectionate, etc.

Pleading to deals is not same as admitting, taking responsibility, showing remorse, etc., all which he did not do, which is why psychiatrist rightly labelled him as continued high risk to young girls.

As for finding Amber's remains, I suspect that as soon as Gardner was arrested, all phone (including any cell tower pings still on hand) and financial records (purchases at convenience stores, etc.) were subpeonaed and areas that he was familiar with could be determined. Police pointedly stated that Gardner was not cooperating and terminology was lead, not tip, IIRC, which is consistent with internally developed evidence.

Also wording I saw was that police found the body. It would be extremely unusual for police to have been given a tip and someone led them to the body and not have any terminology in reports that hinted of it.

rd

I am not confusing taking responsibility for a crime and admitting to a crime. They are different animals entirely.
I toally agree about the lead and have said as much.
The more interesting part of the interview was the fact the Gardner took his friends to secluded spots and was known for finding them. The point there was that perhaps someone remembered a recent spot and mentioned it to the police or any of your scenarios will work too. Any one of these things could have been a lead.

For the record, imo I think the lead came from something that was developed after he was linked to the King murder. perhaps it was something new and perhaps it was something old that had not been followed up on until gardner's name surfaced.

 

[JBean]

We weren't just "under the impression." His probation report said he wouldn't admit to what he did. And it's not clear what his friend means by "he admitted it." Quite likely she means he plead guilty to it.

Well I was under the impression that he had not admitted it to anyone. This had nothing to do with the probation report, but what the relative was told in the john and ken interview. He was told a completely different story. This interview opened the possibility that he had perhaps told someone at some point somewhere that he did it. No more no less.

 

[jjenny]

Well I was under the impression that he had not admitted it to anyone. This had nothing to do with the probation report, but what the relative was told in the john and ken interview. He was told a completely different story. This interview opened the possibility that he had perhaps told someone at some point somewhere that he did it. No more no less.

Admitted to it most likely means plead guilty. I don't think it means anything else.

 

[JBean]

See what you started JBean??? LOL! I do not agree that JAG disclosed the location of the body. I think forensics led them to it. I was merely commenting on JB's post. That said, how do you know they seized the truck in the hopes to link him to Amber? They seized all of his vehicles. LE protocol would be to do so to find evidence linking him to any crime. RE SARX post: I think if Amber's parents were faced with the possibility of never locating Amber, never having closure, never having anyone prosecuted, or having Amber home, I think they would pretty much agree to any deal. Her father stated words to the effect 'at least we have her home which isn't something that alot of people in our position have'.

Gosh I guess! I was just throwing it out there. My bad. crikey.

 

[JBean]

Admitted to it most likely means plead guilty.

why? The relative knew he pled guilty but he also said he did not admit to anything.

ETA: it is actually neither here nor there. I just found it interesting because of what the relative said. No more no less.

 

[jjenny]

why? The relative knew he pled guilty but he also said he did not admit to anything.

Because I doubt he went around telling people he did it, when his probation report said he never accepted responsibility and denied doing it.

 

[JBean]

Because I doubt he went around telling people he did it, when his probation report said he never accepted responsibility and denied doing it.

LOL I didn;t say he went around telling people. JJenny you are hilarious.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

http://www.10news.com/video/22828316/index.html

This linked video is telling and interesting for a couple reasons.
The friend says that he admitted to molesting the girl in 2000.Up until now we have been under the impression that he did not admit to his guilt, but apprenalty he did.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/12/gardnerfriend/

This is how the article reads:

"Gardner first told his friends that the 13-year-old victim he molested and hit in the head in 2000 was blaming him for something a boyfriend did to her, Brandt said.

After he pleaded guilty, these friends stopped supporting him and “were all devastated,” she said."

Here is another of his friends (whom I think most of us know who she is) who was very close to him (then and now) stating he is innocent of the charges in 2000:

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local...-Bernardo-jogging/zTLAKar0XUGyf78trbfHvg.cspx

"She is adamant that Gardner is innocent of sexually assaulting the 13-year-old a decade ago in a case in which Gardner plead guilty for a lighter sentence."

Doesn't sound like he ever told anyone he was guilty of what he was convicted of in 2000. If he has, they haven't come forward to the media yet. IMO I think they realized he was guilty when one day he was acting like it was a big misunderstanding and it was her mother or boyfriend who did it and the next thing they know he is pleading guilty to the charges.

 

[rd_jfc]

Pleading guilty to a lesser sentence (plea deal) which Gardner did is admittig guilt only in a technical sense to the court.

More importantly, he did not admit guilt or show any remorse to the psychiatrist or anyone evaluting him. He in fact did not indicate any guilt at all.

JBean, although the hiding places he showed a friend is interesting (and bizarre?), I don't think all indications of a tip from public and police being led to a spot where they found Amber would be completely worded in a way to disguise that any of that happened, which would be the case if that did happen.

And yes, I was saying as soon as he was arrested for Chelsea's murder, all his existing phone and finance records would have been subpenoeaed, so that any leads developed from that such as identifying areas to search for Amber is all based on linking him to Chelsea's murder.

But basically I agree with everything you've stated, I was responding to the admitting = guilty, or as I would put it, admitting <> guilty.

rd

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

Would the DA be insane enough to put that on the table though? I mean, do you realize how the community would react when it came out that he would not be tried for Amber's murder because he cut a deal? Taking the death penalty off is one thing, not trying the murder is entirely another.

This is only my opinion but I think the King family had a lot to do with Amber's body being found. You can draw your own conclusions to that.

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

To be clear, according to the psychiatrist he wouldn't take responsibility for it. It was all a misunderstanding, he was too affectionate, etc.

Pleading to deals is not same as admitting, taking responsibility, showing remorse, etc., all which he did not do, which is why psychiatrist rightly labelled him as continued high risk to young girls.

As for finding Amber's remains, I suspect that as soon as Gardner was arrested, all phone (including any cell tower pings still on hand) and financial records (purchases at convenience stores, etc.) were subpeonaed and areas that he was familiar with could be determined. Police pointedly stated that Gardner was not cooperating and terminology was lead, not tip, IIRC, which is consistent with internally developed evidence.

Also wording I saw was that police found the body. It would be extremely unusual for police to have been given a tip and someone led them to the body and not have any terminology in reports that hinted of it.

rd

I am right there with you. If he hasn't admitted it himself, I think some sort of records pointed them to that location, either through a map, gps records, something. I think they had information that he was hanging around Kit Carson park, which is another place to find High Schoolers and that he was up in that spot in Rainbow where they found Amber's body. They were looking for something in that park and I think it only had a little bit to do with the supposed 'bag of hair' from those kids. There's much more to the sudden detailed searches than that. If they seized his phone and computer at the time of his arrest then a few days would be enough time to extract the information and get some concrete data and I think that's exactly what they did. Now whether they came back and told his attorney this or not, I don't know but there is surely something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about and why the hearing is being delayed until August.

 

[JBean]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/mar/12/gardnerfriend/

This is how the article reads:

"Gardner first told his friends that the 13-year-old victim he molested and hit in the head in 2000 was blaming him for something a boyfriend did to her, Brandt said.

After he pleaded guilty, these friends stopped supporting him and “were all devastated,” she said."

Here is another of his friends (whom I think most of us know who she is) who was very close to him (then and now) stating he is innocent of the charges in 2000:

http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local...-Bernardo-jogging/zTLAKar0XUGyf78trbfHvg.cspx

"She is adamant that Gardner is innocent of sexually assaulting the 13-year-old a decade ago in a case in which Gardner plead guilty for a lighter sentence."

Doesn't sound like he ever told anyone he was guilty of what he was convicted of in 2000. If he has, they haven't come forward to the media yet. IMO I think they realized he was guilty when one day he was acting like it was a big misunderstanding and it was her mother or boyfriend who did it and the next thing they know he is pleading guilty to the charges.

Very well could be true. Thanks for doing the research. The relative knew he pled guilty but it was all explained away, probably as some miscarriage of justice, IIRC. Sounds like the friends may have had more on the ball LOL.

 

[JBean]

Pleading guilty to a lesser sentence (plea deal) which Gardner did is admittig guilt only in a technical sense to the court.

More importantly, he did not admit guilt or show any remorse to the psychiatrist or anyone evaluting him. He in fact did not indicate any guilt at all.

JBean, although the hiding places he showed a friend is interesting (and bizarre?), I don't think all indications of a tip from public and police being led to a spot where they found Amber would be completely worded in a way to disguise that any of that happened, which would be the case if that did happen.

And yes, I was saying as soon as he was arrested for Chelsea's murder, all his existing phone and finance records would have been subpenoeaed, so that any leads developed from that such as identifying areas to search for Amber is all based on linking him to Chelsea's murder.

But basically I agree with everything you've stated, I was responding to the admitting = guilty, or as I would put it, admitting <> guilty.

rd

No argument from me at all. I thought that perhaps he did tell his friend, but as pointed out,the interview can be interpreted differently. But just to clarify,my post was about perhaps admitting guilt to a close friend, not to be confused with accepting responsibility for the crime. At this time, all indicators show he was not remorseful, including alleged subsequent violence.

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

News today from North County Times:

http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_bacdcc3d-b3a5-52b1-be0e-10c6c6dd2daa.html

Note the line about tainting the jury pool.

 

[concentric]

I think they had information that he was hanging around Kit Carson park, which is another place to find High Schoolers and that he was up in that spot in Rainbow where they found Amber's body.

I think LE was checking into a bunch of locations Gardner took his friends driving around in his earlier days and Kit Carson was one of those places. Then checking a subsequent location, they found Amber's body.

 

[coastal]

I think LE was checking into a bunch of locations Gardner took his friends driving around in his earlier days and Kit Carson was one of those places. Then checking a subsequent location, they found Amber's body.

That makes sense.

 

[primetimemom]

The area is too large for them to have found skeletal remains so quickly and under the cover of darkness IMO.

 

[jjenny]

well he hasn't been charged with Amber's murder and that is seemingly a pretty big benefit,imo. It's not rocket science to work out limited immunity,ie whatever you tell us about Amber's body location will not be used against you. Happens all the time.

I should have been more specific when i referred to Amber's family and said Amber's parents. thanks for pointing that out, my bad.

I think that can be safely ruled out. Her mother says she was not told anything by LE so that certainly rules out her agreeing to some deal.
"Carrie McGonigle, mother of Escondido's Amber Dubois, was also on the show. Amber disappeared in February 2009 and her remains were found near the Pala Casino on March 6. McGonigle said authorities aren't telling her anything about why they believe Gardner may be responsible for her daughter's death."
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_bf032eb1-8155-5219-b75a-dc2334555be0.html

 

[Ghostwheel]

I think that can be safely ruled out. Her mother says she was not told anything by LE so that certainly rules out her agreeing to some deal.
"Carrie McGonigle, mother of Escondido's Amber Dubois, was also on the show. Amber disappeared in February 2009 and her remains were found near the Pala Casino on March 6. McGonigle said authorities aren't telling her anything about why they believe Gardner may be responsible for her daughter's death."
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_bf032eb1-8155-5219-b75a-dc2334555be0.html

"Near the Pala Casino"? Makes it sound like it's in the back yard. It like saying Sea World is near the Zoo. I suppose everything is relative...

 

[lawlady84]

Just to be clear, 2 bodies = 2 acts = 2 crimes. What happens in the AD case does not automatically carry over to the CK case, even if its the same perpetrator, same LE, and same court. There would be 2 cases.

If LE has strong evidence, or they are good liars, they very well could have said to him and his lawyer... "listen, we have you on DNA for CK, we found ADs jewelry at your house... do you really want to try to beat TWO DP cases? maybe you'll get lucky once, but twice? are we going to find another body? how many times do you want to gamble with the DP? if you tell us where ADs body is, we'll take the DP off the table."

Everyone is mentioning how JAG refused to admit guilt and own up to the molestation. In this type of situation, like JBean said, its not at all about actually feeling remorse and taking responsibility - its a defendant thinking in his own self interest, "do I want to roll the dice with TWO DP trials?" Many lawyers would advise the client to take any non-DP plea rather than face more than one DP trial. Because even if you win and are not-guilty in the first trial, odds are you'll have an OJ effect where the 2nd time around the jury is inflamed (even subconsciously) and really weighs in on BOTH murders, instead of one.

If anyone remembers the Jed Duncan circus, he pled guilty in ID w/ LWOP, but then faced a Death Penalty trial with the Feds (and now CA for an unrelated crime).