Source of the tip? #2

[marieblasdell]

I don't think that knowing of death and not reporting it is a crime. Private citizens aren't obligated to report crimes as far as I can tell. Of course, the question is, how would someone know of her death and body location?

What would constitute being considered an 'accessory after the fact?'

 

[Ghostwheel]

What would constitute being considered an 'accessory after the fact?'

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a007.htm

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

I suppose that if you knowingly conceal evidence, they could probably come up with a charge for that. It probably wouldn't be accessory after the fact, unless someone could prove that the witness was trying the help the perpetrator escape justice (as opposed to just not saying anything for fear of repercussions) because it appears that unless you are trying to help the perp, just not saying anything doesn't make you guilty of Accessory After the Fact.

 

[sarx]

Too much of a coincidence david.john that Amber's body was found right after JAGIII was arrested for Chelsea's murder.

Unless someone didn't like the fact the JAG was getting "credit" for a murder he didn't commit?

 

[jjenny]

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a007.htm

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

Whoever, knowing that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact; one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another, receives, relieves, comforts, or assists the felon in order to hinder the felon's apprehension, trial, or punishment. U.S.C. 18

I suppose that if you knowingly conceal evidence, they could probably come up with a charge for that. It probably wouldn't be accessory after the fact, unless someone could prove that the witness was trying the help the perpetrator escape justice (as opposed to just not saying anything for fear of repercussions) because it appears that unless you are trying to help the perp, just not saying anything doesn't make you guilty of Accessory After the Fact.

Let's say the killer told someone the location of the body. It clearly doesn't fit "accessory after the fact" if that someone simply sits on the information and doesn't tell anyone anything, unless that someone helps the killer.
Otherwise police could charge priests with "accessory after the fact" if the priest heard where the body was during the confession and did not tell anyone.

 

[Zuckerschnecke]

Maybe Gardner didn't kill Amber. But it wasn't long after Chelsea was found that the police started saying he was a suspect in Amber's disappearance. Before that her disappearance was treated more like a runaway. For this reason I believe that the police found some evidence that linked him to Amber's death. Right now it's looking more like he was involved than not. JMO Besides your idea that the "real" killer recently moved Amber's body seems too risky. She has been gone more than a year. Why take a chance and move her now?

Right, and like I said, the LE is not going to go around and talk about Gardner being a suspect or even a person of interest unless they have something on him. If they do that and there's another perp involved in Amber's murder, and they aren't caught by the time Gardner goes to trial, then they will be accused of tainting the jury pool by putting that out there about him being 'suspected' in Amber's death.

 

[chargers2010]

Let's say the killer told someone the location of the body. It clearly doesn't fit "accessory after the fact" if that someone simply sits on the information and doesn't tell anyone anything, unless that someone helps the killer.
Otherwise police could charge priests with "accessory after the fact" if the priest heard where the body was during the confession and did not tell anyone.

I don't know all of the legal stuff, but if someone knew that JAG killed Amber and knew the EXACT location of her body, then it seems like legally they have to report that information. Otherwise, they are an accessary to the crime IMO. Plus, they could have prevented Chelsea's death if they reported JAG.

 

[JBean]

I wonder if they encouraged him to reveal the location of AD's body and that that infomration would not be used against him, sort of a limited immunity.Perhaps not even charge him at all for the murder of AD. So revealing the location of the body could not be used against him in the AD case if charged.
This would explain why he still has a "not guilty" plea in the CK case, but no charges pending in the AD case.

IOW, the potential exchange had nothing to do with the CK case but everything to do with the AD case. because at this point he has not entered any kind of plea for AD because there have been no charges. So the possible deal being worked out that doesn't make sense in the CK case because he has entered a plea, does make sense in the AD case where he has not been charged as they are working on it behind the scenes.


ETA: The more i think about this, the more sense it makes and I think AD's family is on board because they feel confident he will be convicted one way or another AND they got to bring Amber home.

This is my explanation du jour and am sticking with it LOL.

 

[jjenny]

I don't know all of the legal stuff, but if someone knew that JAG killed Amber and knew the EXACT location of her body, then it seems like legally they have to report that information. Otherwise, they are an accessary to the crime IMO. Plus, they could have prevented Chelsea's death if they reported JAG.

It's usually not a crime not to report a crime. Some states have good Samaritan laws, but that applies to witnessing a crime in progress.
"Jeremy Strohmeyer raped and strangled Iverson in a Nevada casino in 1997 while Cash looked on. Strohmeyer was convicted of the crime and sentenced to life in prison. Cash was criticized for his alleged failure to stop the crime or report it to authorities, but he could not be prosecuted for his actions."
http://www.dailycal.org/article/3248/law_condemns_failure_to_report_crime

 

[jjenny]

I wonder if they encouraged him to reveal the location of AD's body and that that infomration would not be used against him, sort of a limited immunity.Perhaps not even charge him at all for the murder of AD. So revealing the location of the body could not be used against him in the AD case if charged.
This would explain why he still has a "not guilty" plea in the CK case, but no charges pending in the AD case.

IOW, the potential exchange had nothing to do with the CK case but everything to do with the AD case. because at this point he has not entered any kind of plea for AD because there have been no charges. So the possible deal being worked out that doesn't make sense in the CK case because he has entered a plea, does make sense in the AD case where he has not been charged as they are working on it behind the scenes.


ETA: The more i think about this, the more sense it makes and I think AD's family is on board because they feel confident he will be convicted one way or another AND they got to bring Amber home.

This is my explanation du jour and am sticking with it LOL.

I simply don't see any reason for JAG to give up the location of the body simply because he was promised something. The lawyers would have to be involved to make a deal, and these things take time. What would be the rush for him to do it? I bet that before revealing the location he would have gotten all the benefits he could out of it. And it has been reported that Amber's family is conflicted on who they think killed her, which does not support the idea that they are "on board."

 

[JBean]

I simply don't see any reason for JAG to give up the location of the body simply because he was promised something. The lawyers would have to be involved to make a deal, and these things take time. What would be the rush for him to do it? I bet that before revealing the location he would have gotten all the benefits he could out of it. And it has been reported that Amber's family is conflicted on who they think killed her, which does not support the idea that they are "on board."

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.

 

[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.

Him not being charged might not be a benefit. He can't be charged if there is no/not enough evidence to connect him to the crime.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I wonder if they encouraged him to reveal the location of AD's body and that that infomration would not be used against him, sort of a limited immunity.Perhaps not even charge him at all for the murder of AD. So revealing the location of the body could not be used against him in the AD case if charged.
This would explain why he still has a "not guilty" plea in the CK case, but no charges pending in the AD case.

IOW, the potential exchange had nothing to do with the CK case but everything to do with the AD case. because at this point he has not entered any kind of plea for AD because there have been no charges. So the possible deal being worked out that doesn't make sense in the CK case because he has entered a plea, does make sense in the AD case where he has not been charged as they are working on it behind the scenes.


ETA: The more i think about this, the more sense it makes and I think AD's family is on board because they feel confident he will be convicted one way or another AND they got to bring Amber home.

This is my explanation du jour and am sticking with it LOL.

Very good theory JBean. In California they can offer limited immunity for the disclosing of the location of the body. The reason I don't think this happened, however, is it doesn't provide any real benefit to JAG. The prosecution would be legally permitted to disclose this information during the sentencing phase of Chelsea's trial--which would be more fuel for a death penalty sentencing. Unless his attorney was a fool, she would require any deals be "global", that is, that they encompass all pending or soon to be charged offenses.

 

[Natal]

Would that immunity include everything stemming from that disclosure as well? If so, then, though not admitting any wrongdoing, the probability would be that there wouldn't be enough evidence to charge him anyway since most evidence would likely be associated with the body. And if he didn't admit any wrongdoing, then the disclosure wouldn't be useable in the King trial sentencing phase?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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.

 

[sarx]

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.

 

[jjenny]

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.

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.

 

[JBean]

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.

I am not sure she is referring to JAG not being prosecuted at all, but rather immunity as far as revealing the remains location;limited immunity. IOW, disclosing the location could not be used against him in court, but any information gleaned from the body itself or the possible crime scene could be used to prosecute. So, the crime would still be investigated, but not everything would be introduced in court.
But in reality, since we don't know any of the information that LE has, they may have been sitting on a big lead all this time and never connected the dots or realized its potential value until the King case broke.
We are all just kind of throwing ideas out there to chew on.

 

[jjenny]

I am not sure she is referring to JAG not being prosecuted at all, but rather immunity as far as revealing the remains location;limited immunity. IOW, disclosing the location could not be used against him in court, but any information gleaned from the body itself or the possible crime scene could be used to prosecute. So, the crime would still be investigated, but not everything would be introduced in court.
But in reality, since we don't know any of the information that LE has, they may have been sitting on a big lead all this time and never connected the dots or realized its potential value until the King case broke.
We are all just kind of throwing ideas out there to chew on.

Why would he agree to something like that?

 

[passionflower]

IMO, jag is saying he's not guilty of anything......so I can't see him saying a word.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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.

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.