Source of the tip? #2

[SoCalSleuth]

Assuming for a second Gardner gave up the location of the body in exchange for not being prosecuted for it-what exactly is police investigating then?
I mean, they are processing the scene, looking for clues, etc. What exactly would be the point? So I don't believe that at all.

It's a crime scene, by law it has to be processed, even if the perp confesses. The evidence may end up stored in a locker but the scene still has to be processed. Take the Gary Hilton/Meredith Emerson murder--he killed her New Year's weekend, led them to the body in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table--they still processed the crime scene, determined the cause of death etc. --although they knew he was entering a guilty plea a couple weeks later. Subsequently, he was indicted for other murders in states which had the death penalty and they sent that evidence to the other states to help them with their cases. If that didn't happen the evidence would have remained stored in a locker.

 

[JBean]

Why would he agree to something like that?

For consideration.

 

[secretsquirrel]

They can also use his mother as a pawn in questioning. They can threaten her with charges related to his housing arrangements or simply use her and the threats she has received as a way to get the information out of him. He may be influenced to disclose to her or LE for her safety as well as leniency. I still maintain the tip came from his Mother or from him. That does not mean it had to be verbal, but could have come from physical evidence found in the home or cars in the form of writing and digital or photographic images or something that belonged to Amber. If he had something that belonged to Amber, that can be highly influential in encouraging a plea. Keep in mind, while he never has admitted a crime, even in the past, he did plead guilty. He was influenced in the past to plead down.

 

[sarx]

Actually this happens all the time when LE and the DA's office believe they have a solid case in one case which will put away the perp and the family's of the other victims agree to it.

Amber's family is so angry with the way this case has been handled I really can't picture them agreeing to it. (Can't say that I blame them either.)

 

[jjenny]

It's a crime scene, by law it has to be processed, even if the perp confesses. The evidence may end up stored in a locker but the scene still has to be processed. Take the Gary Hilton/Meredith Emerson murder--he killed her New Year's weekend, led them to the body in exchange for the death penalty being taken off the table--they still processed the crime scene, determined the cause of death etc. --although they knew he was entering a guilty plea a couple weeks later. Subsequently, he was indicted for other murders in states which had the death penalty and they sent that evidence to the other states to help them with their cases. If that didn't happen the evidence would have remained stored in a locker.

Authorities seized his truck he had at that time in hopes to link him to Amber.
Now, why in the world would they do it if they aren't planning to prosecute him if there did find evidence connecting him to Amber?
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12127421

 

[secretsquirrel]

^^They would still prosecute him for it, but they would not seek the death penalty.

 

[JBean]

Authorities seized his truck he had at that time in hopes to link him to Amber.
Now, why in the world would they do it if they aren't planning to prosecute him if there did find evidence connecting him to Amber?
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12127421

They are going to search everything this guy owns. What if the truck contains evidence of other crimes, girls, women or anything else? I am not even defending a no-prosecution theory, but if it were true, they would still analyze every peices of evidence and all the crime scenes.

 

[concentric]

Why couldn't it be a friend from his past who decided to do a little sleuthing on his/her own, or alerting LE to the area, after knowing Gardner was arrested for Chelsea's murder?

Angel posted this video in the forensic astrology thread for Chelsea. It's a past friend who says Gardner would find remote, secluded areas and take his friends there. http://www.10news.com/video/22828316/index.html

Gardner arrest on March 1, and Amber's body found on March 6, right?

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Gardner was arrested 2/28/10

Chelsea was found 3/2/10

Amber was found 3/6/10

 

[jjenny]

They are going to search everything this guy owns. What if the truck contains evidence of other crimes, girls, women or anything else? I am not even defending a no-prosecution theory, but if it were true, they would still analyze every peices of evidence and all the crime scenes.

Bottom line. According to published reports, Gardner didn't accept any responsibility for molestation of a 13 years old. Yes, he plead guilty, but I am sure his lawyers told him he is facing a lot more time if this goes to the jury. So, I bet my bottom dollar, this guy would not be taking police to any bodies unless they offered him some really good deals. I sincerely doubt he'd take the police to a body if they just told him they will not use that against him but will prosecute him anyway.
No remorse, no responsibility in a case of molesting a 13 years old, but taking police to a body in this case? I don't think so.

 

[JBean]

Bottom line. According to published reports, Gardner didn't accept any responsibility for molestation of a 13 years old. Yes, he plead guilty, but I am sure his lawyers told him he is facing a lot more time if this goes to the jury. So, I bet my bottom dollar, this guy would not be taking police to any bodies unless they offered him some really good deals. I sincerely doubt he'd take the police to a body if they just told him they will not use that against him but will prosecute him anyway.
No remorse, no responsibility in a case of molesting a 13 years old, but taking police to a body in this case? I don't think so.

you are probably right jjenny, but for the sake of discussion he certainly could have done it for consideration.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Authorities seized his truck he had at that time in hopes to link him to Amber.
Now, why in the world would they do it if they aren't planning to prosecute him if there did find evidence connecting him to Amber?
http://www.cbs8.com/Global/story.asp?S=12127421

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'.

 

[Natal]

I'm not sure what you mean by "include everything stemming from that disclosure"? Could you be more specific? If all he gave them in exchange for immunity was the location of the body, they can bring that fact in -that he told them the location of the body-during the sentencing phase of any criminal trial unrelated to that dead body. That's a ruling of our Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals back in 1995. Since that time, I'm not aware of any defense attorney permitting their client to cut such a deal--unless they have a global deal which would include Chelsea's case. It's a very good theory of JBean's though--I can see Amber's family saying we just want Amber home & I can see the police and DA's office going for it. I just can't see a defense attorney going for it. I also don't agree that all of the evidence would be with the body. Now that they know where to look, there's tons of evidence that they could find implicating him in Amber's murder.

I am assuming that it would work the same way as an illegal search as far as evidence would be concerned. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. Simply telling them where the body could be found wouldn't prove guilt, so how would that be relevant in the sentencing phase? They would need to prove his involvement first and unless there was a direct admission in that disclosure they wouldn't have that proof.

As far as other evidence is concerned, after all this time chances are there isn't much to be found, especially if he did not keep anything associated with the crime (assuming he was involved of course).

But I agree that there is not much advantage to him in doing this though, he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut at this point if she was one of his victims.

 

[Natal]

Why couldn't it be a friend from his past who decided to do a little sleuthing on his/her own, or alerting LE to the area, after knowing Gardner was arrested for Chelsea's murder?

Angel posted this video in the forensic astrology thread for Chelsea. It's a past friend who says Gardner would find remote, secluded areas and take his friends there. http://www.10news.com/video/22828316/index.html

Gardner arrest on March 1, and Amber's body found on March 6, right?

There are lots of areas like that, and even if you knew a general area it would still take some effort to find anything. Looking at that video of the location of the body, I would say that whoever called the tip in knew exactly where she would be found. This is no indirect evidence leading them in the right direction IMO, whoever it was is directly involved.

 

[JBean]

Just to clarify, I don't think we have any direct quotes from LE that confirm it is a tip, but rather a lead.So it could be most anything.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I am assuming that it would work the same way as an illegal search as far as evidence would be concerned. Fruit of the poisoned tree and all that. Simply telling them where the body could be found wouldn't prove guilt, so how would that be relevant in the sentencing phase? They would need to prove his involvement first and unless there was a direct admission in that disclosure they wouldn't have that proof.

As far as other evidence is concerned, after all this time chances are there isn't much to be found, especially if he did not keep anything associated with the crime (assuming he was involved of course).

But I agree that there is not much advantage to him in doing this though, he would have been better off keeping his mouth shut at this point if she was one of his victims.

It isn't like the fruit of the poisonous tree. One is involuntary on the part of the perp (an illegal search) and the other is voluntary--disclosure for a deal. Such a deal is admissible in the sentencing phase of a different crime not the crime related to the dead body. That's the law as set forth by the Ninth Circuit--I didn't write it!

 

[JBean]

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.



Also, this friend said that he was always finding new secret locations in secluded areas and taking people to these spots.

So, this to me could be exactly how the location was revealed. perhaps, once he was linked with Chelsea's murder, friends were able to show LE other remote locations that JAG frequented.These secluded spots would not have set off any alarms until he was arrested for Chelsea's murder and that is why no one brought this to LE any time sooner.

 

[jjenny]

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.
Also, this friend said that he was always finding new secret locations in secluded areas and taking people to these spots.

So, this to me could be exactly how the location was revealed. perhaps, once he was linked with Chelsea's murder, friends were able to show LE other remote locations that JAG frequented.These secluded spots would not have set off any alarms until he was arrested for Chelsea's murder and that is why no one brought this to LE any time sooner.

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.

 

[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.
Also, this friend said that he was always finding new secret locations in secluded areas and taking people to these spots.

So, this to me could be exactly how the location was revealed. perhaps, once he was linked with Chelsea's murder, friends were able to show LE other remote locations that JAG frequented.These secluded spots would not have set off any alarms until he was arrested for Chelsea's murder and that is why no one brought this to LE any time sooner.

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.

 

[rd_jfc]

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