Smoove wrote:
blunkered wrote:
It took less than 24-hours for the FBI to get a search warrant to go into the boyfriend's home to collect evidence. So much for taking the 5th.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/us/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-update/index.htmlGetting a search warrant requires probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. There is no requirement that the probably cause include incriminating statements. The history of domestic violence, her disappearance, him not telling anyone and leaving and taking her van, all amount to probable cause.
Now, it’s one thing to say that there is probable cause but it is something else altogether to get a conviction. To get a conviction, his guilt will need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has no duty to disprove anything, nor does he have any duty to mount any type of defense. This guy seems to have been smart about this. They will box him in with circumstantial evidence, but it could even be tough to get him too boxed in on that front - his DNA would be expected to be all over him so finding DNA won’t add much (maybe not even if it’s under her nails); their cell phones may not have been pinging towers often enough for the authorities to establish a great timeline (I rarely got cell service within Grand Teton National pPark, and often was unable to get even a GPS signal when I was there in mid July.
If he keeps his mouth shut, a conviction here seems tough based on what little we know right now even though common sense tells us that he did it.
The parents told the police about the trip to the park in Florida. It's possible that there is suspicion that they were lied to by the parents. In other words they covered for him while he escaped....or so is the thought. Thus the house can be the site of a crime scene. That's just one angle of many.
Discusss wrote:
Over the Hills and Far Away wrote:
As somebody else already mentioned, regardless how she died her corpse remained in the Teton area woods/backcountry for 25ish days before discovery. And therefore it is very likely wildlife picked it over - be it coyotes, wolves, bears, cougars, whatever. I don't imagine it was a pretty sight. RIP
Yes, but we want more details. As @ridicula says, they kept everyone hooked on their unreal Insta reality show, and now the whole country is hooked and wants more details. Like was she naked? Broken bones? Strangulation marks? How far from the van? His tissue or someone else’s under her fingernails? Estimated cause of death?
You might want to see a therapist
Smoove wrote:
blunkered wrote:
It took less than 24-hours for the FBI to get a search warrant to go into the boyfriend's home to collect evidence. So much for taking the 5th.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/us/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-update/index.htmlGetting a search warrant requires probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. There is no requirement that the probably cause include incriminating statements. The history of domestic violence, her disappearance, him not telling anyone and leaving and taking her van, all amount to probable cause.
Now, it’s one thing to say that there is probable cause but it is something else altogether to get a conviction. To get a conviction, his guilt will need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has no duty to disprove anything, nor does he have any duty to mount any type of defense. This guy seems to have been smart about this. They will box him in with circumstantial evidence, but it could even be tough to get him too boxed in on that front - his DNA would be expected to be all over him so finding DNA won’t add much (maybe not even if it’s under her nails); their cell phones may not have been pinging towers often enough for the authorities to establish a great timeline (I rarely got cell service within Grand Teton National pPark, and often was unable to get even a GPS signal when I was there in mid July.
If he keeps his mouth shut, a conviction here seems tough based on what little we know right now even though common sense tells us that he did it.
These are good points. But disappearing right after the investigation begins is really going to bring that suspicion for jurors way up. Assuming, someone else didn't go after him.
Smoove wrote:
blunkered wrote:
It took less than 24-hours for the FBI to get a search warrant to go into the boyfriend's home to collect evidence. So much for taking the 5th.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/20/us/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-update/index.htmlGetting a search warrant requires probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. There is no requirement that the probably cause include incriminating statements. The history of domestic violence, her disappearance, him not telling anyone and leaving and taking her van, all amount to probable cause.
Now, it’s one thing to say that there is probable cause but it is something else altogether to get a conviction. To get a conviction, his guilt will need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has no duty to disprove anything, nor does he have any duty to mount any type of defense. This guy seems to have been smart about this. They will box him in with circumstantial evidence, but it could even be tough to get him too boxed in on that front - his DNA would be expected to be all over him so finding DNA won’t add much (maybe not even if it’s under her nails); their cell phones may not have been pinging towers often enough for the authorities to establish a great timeline (I rarely got cell service within Grand Teton National pPark, and often was unable to get even a GPS signal when I was there in mid July.
If he keeps his mouth shut, a conviction here seems tough based on what little we know right now even though common sense tells us that he did it.
There's no reasonable doubt. There's no possible explanation for leaving her in Wyoming and driving home to Florida. It's possible for people to be convicted on circumstancel evidence.
dat rhombus wrote:
Smoove wrote:
Getting a search warrant requires probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. There is no requirement that the probably cause include incriminating statements. The history of domestic violence, her disappearance, him not telling anyone and leaving and taking her van, all amount to probable cause.
Now, it’s one thing to say that there is probable cause but it is something else altogether to get a conviction. To get a conviction, his guilt will need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has no duty to disprove anything, nor does he have any duty to mount any type of defense. This guy seems to have been smart about this. They will box him in with circumstantial evidence, but it could even be tough to get him too boxed in on that front - his DNA would be expected to be all over him so finding DNA won’t add much (maybe not even if it’s under her nails); their cell phones may not have been pinging towers often enough for the authorities to establish a great timeline (I rarely got cell service within Grand Teton National pPark, and often was unable to get even a GPS signal when I was there in mid July.
If he keeps his mouth shut, a conviction here seems tough based on what little we know right now even though common sense tells us that he did it.
These are good points. But disappearing right after the investigation begins is really going to bring that suspicion for jurors way up. Assuming, someone else didn't go after him.
"I left her after a fight. I have no idea how she was killed or who killed her. Maybe it was an animal?"
fada tyme wrote:
"I left her after a fight. I have no idea how she was killed or who killed her. Maybe it was an animal?"
It was her van right? Why not charge him with theft? Let him explain where she is and why she gave it to him in Wyoming.
fada tyme wrote:
dat rhombus wrote:
These are good points. But disappearing right after the investigation begins is really going to bring that suspicion for jurors way up. Assuming, someone else didn't go after him.
"I left her after a fight. I have no idea how she was killed or who killed her. Maybe it was an animal?"
So he drives home to Florida. No way that gets him off the hook.
ReallybroReally wrote:
fada tyme wrote:
"I left her after a fight. I have no idea how she was killed or who killed her. Maybe it was an animal?"
It was her van right? Why not charge him with theft? Let him explain where she is and why she gave it to him in Wyoming.
Ok. Vehicle theft. I'll take that over murder. Proof. Crimes require proof to convict.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
fada tyme wrote:
"I left her after a fight. I have no idea how she was killed or who killed her. Maybe it was an animal?"
So he drives home to Florida. No way that gets him off the hook.
He drove to his parents house. What's odd about that? Right now there is no hook to get off. There has to be a coherent package of evidence put together. With 25 days of a decomposed and possibly partially eaten by animals body lieing around, there may not be all that much physical evidence to be had. Thus the FBI is at the parents house searching for evidence. He's not going to be convicted based on flight alone.
Pretty sure I saw that guy, Brian Laundry, out running on Mags a few days ago.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
800 dude wrote:
Two reasons, both above.
It's super weird/unusual that her boyfriend just shows up without her and utterly refuses to say a word about what happened to her. Doesn't matter that he probably killed her because there's zero evidence, and he can't be compelled to talk. Most people in his situation would talk to the police and eventually get caught in a lie, plus they'd give enough info to at least narrow down the place/time of death, which makes it a lot easier to focus investigative resources.
Also she's young and blonde, which automatically makes her disappearance national news.
So the perfect murder is to drive someone to Wyoming, kill her, dispose of the weapon and drive home? He's in some deep sh*t.
If you kill her in the right part of Wyoming, you don't even have to bother disposing of the weapon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_Death_(Yellowstone)I mean Idaho.
ReallybroReally wrote:
fada tyme wrote:
"I left her after a fight. I have no idea how she was killed or who killed her. Maybe it was an animal?"
It was her van right? Why not charge him with theft? Let him explain where she is and why she gave it to him in Wyoming.
Because the only person who could say that their van was stolen, the owner, isn't able to report the van stolen. Given the history of his use of the van, the circumstantial evidence that he stole the van vs. he had permission to drive the van is worse than the circumstantial evidence that he murdered her.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
So he drives home to Florida. No way that gets him off the hook.
As noted, it is not his obligation to get himself off of the hook. It is the job of the prosecutor to establish his guilt.
Right now, we have no cause of death. Even if we end up with obvious evidence of her being intentionally killed (let's say a broken hyoid bone, which is in indicator of strangulation), they would still have to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that this guy did it. Even then, he may be able to make a reasonable self-defense argument given the history of DV and her admitting to assaulting him just days before this happened.
Our legal system is intentionally structured so that it is easier to get off when you are guilty than it is to be convicted when you are guilty. The guilt may be obvious here, but our legal system requires more than just common sense - it requires a lack of reasonable doubt and it prohibits the accused's silence as being used in establishing that degree of evidence.
I would personally be shocked if this guy didn't do it (and, frankly, I'll be shocked if he doesn't die by suicide before facing any trial that may come), but that's not how guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is established.
Hate to be the family of the two other people who went missing in Grand Tenton this summer. Those two guys have gotten zero media attention before this and the FBI isn't looking for their bodies. Have to think if the same effort was put in to looking for them they would probably have been found by now too.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
Smoove wrote:
Getting a search warrant requires probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. There is no requirement that the probably cause include incriminating statements. The history of domestic violence, her disappearance, him not telling anyone and leaving and taking her van, all amount to probable cause.
Now, it’s one thing to say that there is probable cause but it is something else altogether to get a conviction. To get a conviction, his guilt will need to be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
He has no duty to disprove anything, nor does he have any duty to mount any type of defense. This guy seems to have been smart about this. They will box him in with circumstantial evidence, but it could even be tough to get him too boxed in on that front - his DNA would be expected to be all over him so finding DNA won’t add much (maybe not even if it’s under her nails); their cell phones may not have been pinging towers often enough for the authorities to establish a great timeline (I rarely got cell service within Grand Teton National pPark, and often was unable to get even a GPS signal when I was there in mid July.
If he keeps his mouth shut, a conviction here seems tough based on what little we know right now even though common sense tells us that he did it.
There's no reasonable doubt. There's no possible explanation for leaving her in Wyoming and driving home to Florida. It's possible for people to be convicted on circumstancel evidence.
How is there no reasonable doubt that he killed her? Perhaps they got into another fight that got so nasty she broke up with him and he was so angry he left her. That's not a crime. My gut says he killed her, but there are plenty of reasons someone would bail on a significant other that falls short of murder, and there is no way we can conclusively know that he killed her based on current evidence.
Creepy old man wrote:
Pretty sure I saw that guy, Brian Laundry, out running on Mags a few days ago.
They will never find him. He's with the underground now. He will never be found.
dat rhombus wrote:
SDSU Aztec wrote:
There's no reasonable doubt. There's no possible explanation for leaving her in Wyoming and driving home to Florida. It's possible for people to be convicted on circumstancel evidence.
How is there no reasonable doubt that he killed her? Perhaps they got into another fight that got so nasty she broke up with him and he was so angry he left her. That's not a crime. My gut says he killed her, but there are plenty of reasons someone would bail on a significant other that falls short of murder, and there is no way we can conclusively know that he killed her based on current evidence.
Basically, you're claiming that if someone wants to get away with killing his wife, all he has do is take her camping. If something else happened to her besides him murdering her, he needed to notify the police immediately so the an investigation could begin immediately. By leaving her there, he lost the chance to prove that he wasn't responsible.
It can be proven that they were alone together, they had had a fight and her body was found 900 feet from where they had parked their van. He also drove home by himself, was radio silent for several days and has now disappeared.
If you were a juror would you think there is reasonable doubt? As a juror, your vote is at your discretion.
Funny how so many people are convinced that there is “no reasonable doubt” that he killed her. How everyone magically becomes a self proclaimed body language expert when all they are doing is judging the guy based on his looks. Guy seems to have a stable head between his ears as evidenced by his seeming non-violence in reaction to her violence, his police interview itself, and choosing to lawyer up and staying silent, the best thing for him under the circumstances.
I have no idea whether he killed her and if so, convictably killed her. By “convictable”, I don’t just mean that plaintiff can’t prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but that it may not be murder at all. For example, she could have started hitting him and he could have pushed her to her death (e.g., by banging her head on a rock or impaled by a sharp tree trunk or falling down an abyss); or he could have simply run away with the van in self defense, etc. They may simply have had an argument and she could’ve started running into the woods and run into a wild animal. She may have yelled at him to leave her alone and not text her and maybe he just got tired of her and decided to do just that. So many random possibilities.
Of course, he could’ve indeed murdered her with the intent of murdering her all along by taking her to a national park. Or it could be a second-degree in the heat of an argument. But we know very little, especially by just looking at his face and body language from a couple weeks back at a police stop.
Ingebrigtsen brothers release incredibly catchy Olympic music video (listen here + full lyrics)
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Sometimes it seems like Cooper Teare is not that good BUT…
Per sources, Colorado expected to hire NAU assistant coach Jarred Cornfield as head xc coach