Why is everyone so obsessed with Gabby Petito?

marginal at best wrote:

fada tyme wrote:

Ok. Vehicle theft. I'll take that over murder. Proof. Crimes require proof to convict.

Bruh, you can be convicted on circumstance evidence. It happens every single day. It's a thing.

Bruh, the understanding of direct and circumstantial evidence is baffling to you and the crying protector of Gabby on this thread. At this point, the evidence revealed to the public is that he ran. That's not getting a conviction. That's why the warrant is not for murder.

The followup will undoubtedly be that the FBI knows more than we do which may be true, but that evidence isn't known at this point publicly.

Bruh.

I didn't think there was an emotional reaction at all by the FBI guy.

marginal at best wrote:

[quote]blunkered wrote:

You are overthinking this. The dude murdered his girlfriend. There are like 15,000 murders every year. This is one of them. I can't imagine any murder scene being very pleasant [OBVIOUSLY]. As far as his reaction, it could be a million reasons [OVERTHINKING]. Maybe this is his first murder scene {NOPE]. Maybe his daughter looks like the victim [OVERTHINKING]. Maybe animals were eating at the corpse (which is normal in nature) and he's never seen that [OVERTHINKING]. Who knows [YOU CERTAINLY DON'T].

You are overthinking my post. And worse, you are doing a lot of overthinking for the some reason.

This murder is different than other ones. I called him a killer many days ago on this thread. The guy who broke up is a crime scene expert. He is Charles Jones, a supervisory senior resident agent at Wyoming for the FBI. This is not his first rodeo.

Let me repeat: There is something very unusual about the case and the condition of her remains. Something that caused an FBI crime scene expert to not be able to keep his voice from breaking up.

fada tyme wrote:

marginal at best wrote:

Bruh, you can be convicted on circumstance evidence. It happens every single day. It's a thing.

Bruh, the understanding of direct and circumstantial evidence is baffling to you and the crying protector of Gabby on this thread. At this point, the evidence revealed to the public is that he ran. That's not getting a conviction. That's why the warrant is not for murder.

The followup will undoubtedly be that the FBI knows more than we do which may be true, but that evidence isn't known at this point publicly.

Bruh.

You seem to have very little understanding of how this all works. The FBI will collect evidence. The prosecutors will put together their case and lay out all of the primary evidence / undisputable facts (proven times, dates, locations, etc.) and circumstantial evidence, etc. They will make their case and present it to the jury. The law does not say that you need video evidence or 20 eyewitnesses of the crime being committed to convict. People are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time in murder cases and all types of other culminal cases including white collar type crimes.

Protector of Gabby? WTF? First, she's dead. Second, I'm telling you what I think happened and what will happen.

Yeah, the unusual aspect is likely one of the things I said. The FBI typically deals with murders that happen in urban environments and this dude might not have ever seen a body that has been out in the elements with wild animals and insects eating at it. That would be out of the norm in terms of the typical murder where the body is found in a home, car, floor of a convenience store, etc., only hours after the incident took place.

marginal at best wrote:

AsbelKiprop wrote:

Again, Casey Anthony says hello.

Right, OJ didn't get convicted either. Lots of guilty people are let free for a million reasons. Our courts are set up so that it's heavily weighted in favor on the criminal. We have decided, for some reason, that it's better to err on the side of guilty people being wrongly let free to continue their criminal activities vs. innocent people being wrongly convicted.

Are you saying that people aren't convicted on circumstantial evidence in the USA.

There was far more than circumstantial evidence against O.J. The jurors either believed he was framed or they just hated the L.A.P.D.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

marginal at best wrote:

Right, OJ didn't get convicted either. Lots of guilty people are let free for a million reasons. Our courts are set up so that it's heavily weighted in favor on the criminal. We have decided, for some reason, that it's better to err on the side of guilty people being wrongly let free to continue their criminal activities vs. innocent people being wrongly convicted.

Are you saying that people aren't convicted on circumstantial evidence in the USA.

There was far more than circumstantial evidence against O.J. The jurors either believed he was framed or they just hated the L.A.P.D.

Yeah, they got it 100% wrong. Like I said, criminals are wrongfully let free all the time. But that doesn't mean that other criminals aren't convicted with circumstantial evidence.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

marginal at best wrote:

Right, OJ didn't get convicted either. Lots of guilty people are let free for a million reasons. Our courts are set up so that it's heavily weighted in favor on the criminal. We have decided, for some reason, that it's better to err on the side of guilty people being wrongly let free to continue their criminal activities vs. innocent people being wrongly convicted.

Are you saying that people aren't convicted on circumstantial evidence in the USA.

There was far more than circumstantial evidence against O.J. The jurors either believed he was framed or they just hated the L.A.P.D.

Liberals overwhelmingly believed Simpson was innocent. Liberals also dislike law enforcement. We know that now. The Simpson situation was a perfect storm for liberals.

I’m guessing they went with debit card theft instead of auto theft because the latter would be difficult to show proof of crime to get a warrant. He clearly had access to her van with her permission, and if something did happen to her, he’d be i reasonably expected to bring the van back as he did instead of abandoning it.

If they could get an autopsy forensic report limiting the time range of death, and he used her card after that date, she couldn’t have provided consent, hence crime.

Oil embargo wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

There was far more than circumstantial evidence against O.J. The jurors either believed he was framed or they just hated the L.A.P.D.

Liberals overwhelmingly believed Simpson was innocent. Liberals also dislike law enforcement. We know that now. The Simpson situation was a perfect storm for liberals.

Can you put aside your psychotic hatred of liberals aside for this thread? The divide between opinions of Simpson's guilt was white vs black and not conservative vs liberal.

At least by LR standards, I'm liberal and the blood evidence was game, set and match as to Simpson's guilt.

marginal at best wrote:

The law does not say that you need video evidence or 20 eyewitnesses of the crime being committed to convict. People are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time in murder cases and all types of other culminal cases including white collar type crimes.

I admit that I might be missing something I the 20 pages of posts so far, but I don’t really recall many, if any, people saying that you cannot convict someone with only circumstantial evidence.

Something is wrong with you. I have suggested the MOST obvious and most likely explanation of what has happened and what probably will happen.

Maybe you have some ideas about a UFO landing and killing her with an anal probe. Maybe you're the kind of guy who doesn't understand basic concepts of statistics and probabilities and is shocked and surprised that he didn't with the $200,000,000 million lottery. Maybe you are some kind of whacked out conspiracy nut. I don't know.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Oil embargo wrote:

Liberals overwhelmingly believed Simpson was innocent. Liberals also dislike law enforcement. We know that now. The Simpson situation was a perfect storm for liberals.

Can you put aside your psychotic hatred of liberals aside for this thread? The divide between opinions of Simpson's guilt was white vs black and not conservative vs liberal.

At least by LR standards, I'm liberal and the blood evidence was game, set and match as to Simpson's guilt.

It all ended up as the "gloves did not fit." They did fit. And they were his. But putting on tight fitting leather gloves over latex gloved hands made them not fit. Hands can also be caused to swell by exercise, such as swinging arms back and forth ... if you ever experience swollen hands and fingers during a long hike or run the solution is to raise you hands up to get the blood to flow down. But the Simpson prosecutors simply accepted the "gloves did not fit." With the defense crying out, "The gloves didn't fit. Remember these words, 'If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.'" This preprepared simple rhyme easy for the jury remember and repeat to themselves.

marginal at best wrote:

Blah blah blah. [Whining].

+1

Smoove wrote:

marginal at best wrote:

The law ....

I admit that I might be missing something I the 20 pages of posts so far, but I don’t really recall many, if any, people saying that you cannot convict someone with only circumstantial evidence.

He is trolling.

blunkered wrote:

Smoove wrote:

I admit that I might be missing something I the 20 pages of posts so far, but I don’t really recall many, if any, people saying that you cannot convict someone with only circumstantial evidence.

He is trolling.

Ok, I'll bite. Take me inside your small brain for a second. Explain to me how you would characterize this as "trolling".

I have stated that this dude killed his girlfriend. I have stated that he can be convicted on circumstantial evidence. I have stated that there could be many possibilities for the FBI to be a little shaken up (i.e., having a daughter her age, etc.). It is not unheard of to see law enforcement types show emotion.

What I have said is entirely bland, vanilla, and non-controversial. What on earth about it is "trolling" in your fuc$kd up view?

Smoove wrote:

marginal at best wrote:

The law does not say that you need video evidence or 20 eyewitnesses of the crime being committed to convict. People are convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time in murder cases and all types of other culminal cases including white collar type crimes.

I admit that I might be missing something I the 20 pages of posts so far, but I don’t really recall many, if any, people saying that you cannot convict someone with only circumstantial evidence.

We're on the same page then

So you were just going full straw man then?