JOHN GARDNER (Amber Dubois & Chelsea King's killer) TV interview

Gardner, whose crimes have spurred activists, led by Chelsea’s
parents, to lobby for tighter restraints on sex offenders, said his fate
will be to die in prison long before he reaches old age.
“I’m gonna be dead within the next five years,” he said.
When asked what he meant, Gardner replied, “You don’t know how prison
works, do you?”

I hope he lives with that fear every day.

mmmm me too Kay....the hunter becomes the hunted. I know that's not a popular way to think but if you don't follow the golden rule it can come back to bite you.

ziggy wrote:mmmm me too Kay....the hunter becomes the hunted. I know that's not a popular way to think but if you don't follow the golden rule it can come back to bite you.

Just a natural consequence.

The part that stood out to me is that he is talking like any addict would.
I know it is wrong,I want to stop but I can't.I hate myself.
They always say there's no rehabilitaion for sex offenders but they don't do anything to prevent it either.
It always seems to escalate.It's always someone who first gets into kiddie porn or young girl porn,then exposes himself to girls etc,etc.......why aren't there programs that someone could turn to when they realize they might have that problem?...why aren't people tested for signs,like if you're angry do you think of rape?...something like that,early on,when they have not offended yet...don't make them feel like shit about it...teach them how to deal with it so they won't offend in the first place...I think it's kind of like everyone starts of with thinking this is wrong,I don't want to do this but I keep thinking about it...until they think I'm a worthless piece of shit because I think about so I might as well do it....then comes the regret ...and then it starts all over again because it has turned into an addiction.....

Claudi these things are pretty complex and what it would take (and I'm being very serious here) to "reprogram" or keep these guys from offending would never be allowed because it would be considered cruel and unusual.

I don't think that when it comes to how the brain works in these areas that the smartest in the field have a clue how to fix it. My sister who recently passed told me once that you have to be very, very careful about what you let into your conscience because once it is "seared" it can never be undone...like putting toothpaste back in the tube if you will. I believe that. Once the sexual connection has been made it's a force so strong I don't know how it could be curbed with touchy feely "coping skills" type of psych stuff.

The truth is that people only repsond to one of two things: pleasure or pain. That's it. When things become too painful then people will begin to make changes and until then they tolerate it. We seek pleasure and avoid pain. The only way to reverse these minds would be to reverse those effects in them and how could that be done? It would be an interesting study but that's cruel too so it won't happen.

By the way, something has been bothering me for a while and I have not heard anyone talk about it.

Have you seen a Playboy from the 70's, 80's etc. when women were shown with pubic hair? Does anyone think that the Brazilian totally bare look that is pervasive is able to elevate the sexuality of a young girl or child's genitals in men? I mean, the difference used to be that a woman looked like a woman and a child was bare and now they are the same. If a guy is brought up on being aroused by these images of adult women without hair, does he also become aroused by the sight of a girl child's pubic area?

This whole Brazilian thing has bothered me for that reason. Leave a landing strip or a triangle or something. I don't think we should be training men to become aroused by what children look like!

Controversial I know but hey, I said it.

....it's very hard to cure an addiction and there's always a strong urge to go back to it.....that's why I think it's ridiculous that pediphiles live among children and are on a registry so that it's the responsibility of the mother's to figure out where they live and what their actual crime was...if I look at sex offenders in my neighborhood it 's all bunched together....guys barely out of their teens that had girlfriends a little bit too young and violent sex offenders ,it's hard to figure out sometimes....alcoholics have a hard time not to drink when alcohol is in front of them so why should pedophiles live among children?...I think it's hard to cure an addiction but I think it can be prevented if the person is aware and comftorbable to admit that they might have a problem...
i don't think the hair thing matters...I don't think pedophiles are physically attracted to children,I think they are attracted to their weakness and their innocence....

Perhaps true pedophiles (ones who can only remember being attracted to a certain age of child), but a lot of men with no prior history of offending with children are becoming try-sexuals...they try anything to get them to the next level because the milder things don't work anymore.

I don't think people are born pedophiles...it's not a sexual orientation like being gay....it's about power and it's about control,it's not about attraction.....

There are different types Claudi. You should read up on them. Some are truly in love - have fantasies etc. about their "crushes". It's not a one size fits all problem. Some are just depraved and need the most tabu thing to get off. I"m serious there are different classifications.

Years ago on WS I remember linking to a fascinating site that had letters from pedophiles to others where they talked about the little girls they were in love with - spoke of them as though they were allluring women etc. and how they made them feel so happy to be around them. It was pretty weird.

I hate everything being classified as an addiction. It seems like such a cop-out.

ziggy wrote:By the way, something has been bothering me for a while and I have not heard anyone talk about it.

Have you seen a Playboy from the 70's, 80's etc. when women were shown with pubic hair? Does anyone think that the Brazilian totally bare look that is pervasive is able to elevate the sexuality of a young girl or child's genitals in men? I mean, the difference used to be that a woman looked like a woman and a child was bare and now they are the same. If a guy is brought up on being aroused by these images of adult women without hair, does he also become aroused by the sight of a girl child's pubic area?

This whole Brazilian thing has bothered me for that reason. Leave a landing strip or a triangle or something. I don't think we should be training men to become aroused by what children look like!

Controversial I know but hey, I said it.

I think that is a very valid point.

Thanks Scott: that's my brother's name by the way and it's a very good name

I know you and I had a conversation about how Debra Kelly was very opposed the the sexualization of very young women by Calvin Klein - using the stick thin models who are flat chested - a prepubescent girl look and making it sexually alluring. Debra and I would be on opposite sides of many issues but on this one we would AGREE!

People underestimate the power of advertising and television and how it has changed and molded our society. For those who say - well just turn it off, or don't look at the magazines - I say to you "live in the real world already".

Absolutely true. Debra once referred to Calvin Klein as a "sick bastard" specifically for the reason you just described.
Images have power. The twiggy model images not only influence how men view women but influence how women view themselves. How many young women that grew up surrounded by pictures of impossibly thin models developed eating disorders?

Does she look healthy? To me she looks gaunt and undernourished.

She looks hungry. She looks like those ethiopian starving children. I'm starting a thread on this.

John Gardner's sentencing today... Ialso posted this on the death penalty thread but I thought I should duplicate it here as well...

I just don't believe that when you have taken a life, that it is wrong for others to feel that you should not be allowed another breath, another laugh, a delicious piece of chocolate, the sound of music, the laughter of loved ones...

A man owes his life when he has taken one; he must forfeit his right to live when he acts with malice in taking another's life because he does not only take that life, but destroys many lives with that act.

So I don't think the death penalty is barbaric at all. I just call if fair in my book; no need to make anyone suffer or enjoy that someone must die, but to just accept sadly and casually that it is the right thing to do for the victim's family and loved ones. It's simply too much to ask of someone to accept that the person who took a life that they cherished will even have 1% enjoyment in his/her remaining years. It's just not right. It is the balancing act that I support.

I cried reading the victim impact statements by Chelsea King's parents. Here is a snip from her Dad's:

"As I said after the plea agreement hearing, today brings me no satisfaction. I want justice for Chelsea but justice has been stymied. I am not alone in my frustration with a justice system that does not immediately put to death a coward who admits, so that there can be no doubt, to these brutal crimes. I am not alone in my frustration with a justice system that 10 years ago identified this coward as a serious and violent threat to young girls and failed to imprison him and monitor him for the rest of his life. I am angry at the so-called experts who repeatedly tell us that cowards like him, violent sexual predators who target children, can be rehabilitated when all of us with an ounce of common sense know that our children are not safe and that these cowards pose an untenable risk to our kids. I am not alone in questioning the justice in a justice system that gives by right a convicted murderer and rapist unlimited access to a phone. Are we to accept the argument that it is cruel and unusual punishment to limit this freedom after he has so ruthlessly forever taken it from his victims? "


There is much to do in the legal system. It is letting our innocent children down.

And The Kings were not very happy with the media regarding that interview either.

Here are the impact statement links:

http://www.chelseaslight.org/press/Statement_KellyKing.pdf

http://www.chelseaslight.org/press/Statement_BrentKing.pdf

Those confirm what I already knew to be the case. There is no peace for those left behind. Whatever happens to the murderer would not be enough. There is no way to fix this.
I still contend that killing is wrong. It is wrong when he did it. It is wrong if / when the state does it to him. I believe in self defense. I don't believe in revenge killings.

I don't consider it revenge in the least. I consider it fair - take a life and you must forfeit your own. It's decent. It would be super neato if everyone guilty of murder would just kill themselves, but they won't and so the fairness has to be administered.

ziggy wrote:I don't consider it revenge in the least. I consider it fair - take a life and you must forfeit your own. It's decent. It would be super neato if everyone guilty of murder would just kill themselves, but they won't and so the fairness has to be administered.

It is not "neato" when anyone kills themselves.

ziggy wrote:I don't consider it revenge in the least. I consider it fair - take a life and you must forfeit your own. It's decent. It would be super neato if everyone guilty of murder would just kill themselves, but they won't and so the fairness has to be administered.

And it most certainly is revenge. It is the taking of someone's life at a time when they pose no threat because it has been determined that they deserve to die.

Amber's mom wanted to be able to confront Gardner before the sentencing.I feel like she definetely should have had that right.I feel like Gardner should have been made to look into their eyes.His head was down the whole time and yet he could barely take it.He was such a coward.I have cruel thoughts how I would make him listen to these impact statements for the rest of his life.It's human nature to want revenge I guess,but it's not right.He already hates himself.This could have been prevented when they let him go previously.He may have more victims.

John Gardner: In His Own Words: "I was not in control"

Posted:

wnRenderDate('Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:26 PM EST', '', true);

Apr 29, 2010 9:26 PM CDT Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:26 PM ESTUpdated:


SAN DIEGO, Calif. (CBS - Why did John Gardner kill Amber Dubois and Chelsea King, and could the killings have been prevented? Those are questions only he can answer. News 8 spoke exclusively with Gardner about his long history of mental illness and the motivation behind his horrendous crimes. He says he has received many emails in jail, and everybody has the same question -- why?
"There are so many things that caused me to go into a spiral downhill that I went in," Gardner said.
Confessed rapist and murderer John Gardner tried to explain the unexplainable in his two and a half hour interview with News 8.
"You think I don't have guilt and I don't hate myself for what I did? I hate myself. I want to be dead," he said.
We asked Gardner why he killed Amber Dubois and Chelsea King.
"I was not in control," he answered.
The registered sex offender claims the attacks were not about sex, but rather anger and rage stemming from childhood abuse.
"When I was five I was molested, and it wasn't a male, it was a female," he said.
Court records confirm Gardner is diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactive disorder, and that he's bipolar with serious anger management issues.
"I've been on psych medications my whole life," Gardner said.
He claims his downward spiral began after an unnamed female family member started an incestuous relationship with him in late 2007.
"I had another person start raping me, the family member one, and then it's been continuous since then. It's been continuous since then," he said.
Gardner would not answer questions about the events that led up to the killing of Amber in February 2009, but on the one-year anniversary of Amber's murder, Gardner says he tried to commit suicide.
It was February 13th. I tried to kill myself. I did five triple-stack tabs of ecstasy, and I've never done ecstasy before. I was just hoping it would kill me. And I drank an 18-pack of beer," he said.
The alleged suicide attempt came less than two weeks before Chelsea King's murder. That's when Gardner says he tried to admit himself into a Riverside County mental hospital.
"I called all these mental health places saying I'm losing control. I need help and they said too bad, as soon as I said it was a sex offender," he said. "I said, 'I am 5150,' and they said, 'The fact that you say you're 5150, we know you're not,'"
Instead, he was given an antidepressant and medication for bipolar disorder.
"I asked to go into Patton State Hospital, okay? I asked the doctor I saw when I went and saw him for the medication and he said 'I don't even think you're dangerous.' Now, if I'm denied help am I fully to blame for my actions? Hell yeah, but could it have been prevented? Yeah, it could have been," Gardner said.

Interesting. Thanks for posting it Claudi. The whole thing just shocks and saddens me.