Clearly a sandal, but I’m not convinced about the rear door closing. Seems more like the camera playing tricks. What I’m now reading online is speculation that Gabby was pregnant, because there appears to be a strip of ultrasound photos laying across a log to the left of the road around 1:32 in the video (along with some other items, possibly a couple notebooks).
I’ve only skimmed through the timelines on various sites and have no idea how accurate they are, but it seems like the homicide probably occurred sometime around the 27th or 28th of August. If I’ve got my facts right (and I may not), the couple that gave him a ride said he became agitated and insisted on being dropped off when he found out they were headed to Jackson Hole (a wider geographical area) and not the town of Jackson. So it seems like some major event took place within the previous 24-48 hours that had the wheeels in Laundrie’s head spinning.
That is plausible. It is highly implausible that upon discovering he was missing, he would not inform the authorities as to when he last saw her.
While a jury must find he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to convict him of murder, I think as adults can can all agree right now he VERY PROBABLY killed her.
If I’m thinking of the correct event, I recall authorities validating the couple’s account. My best WAG is that this was an incident in which he killed her while being in a highly emotionally volatile state. I suspect this was not a planned killing but maybe he chokes her in a fit of rage - that kind of thing. He kills her and then the adrenaline wears off after a few hours and he realizes he’s in deep shit but has no idea what to do next. He can keep the body out of sight for a while but needs to figure ‘a plan.’ He might have initially been trying to use hitchhiking to get an alibi before realizing that this wasn’t going to work out either.
Next move, in a state of panic and emotional chaos, he decides “Shit, I’m outta here. I’ll drive and just figure this out on the lam.”
He comes home. Parents wonder what the fuck he’s doing in Gabby’s van without Gabby. He tells them “There’s been an accident. Gabby’s dead.” Oh, well, uh, what kind of…accident was it, son? “We had a fight. I kinda choked her.” Parents realize their son is looking at jail time and tell him to lawyer up. And now they’re wondering exactly what their next move is. None of their options are good.
I see one sticker that is different - the black triangle. All the others are apparent in both photos. In the Moab police footage, the black triangle is also missing. In earlier photos there are fewer stickers, so they were adding stickers as they went.
The simple conclusion is the black triangle was added after the couple came across the van, not that there is some other identical van from Florida with almost the same stickers but not quite.
Nah, its the same van. It has all the stickers on the back as Gabby’s van. The black triangle sticker they say is missing is also missing in the police cam footage from the Moab stop. And the same straw hat is on the dashboard in the police cam footage.
The FBI said that the story was “plausible” which if I am reading between the lines correctly, it means that it could have happened, there is no other evidence one way or the other, and that we don’t believe that this lady is a complete loon.
But, this and like the story I just posted, memory is a difficult thing and perhaps they are placing Brian and Gabby in their minds when they were dealing with others. I’m not sure.
Yeah this is consistent with my hunch, which is that he killed her in a fit of rage, and Gabby herself could have gotten physical with him as she did in the Moab incident.
In any case, the picture I’m getting is that this was rapidly deteriorating into a road trip from hell. One of them - both of them - should have pulled the plug on this thing and headed back home with their sanity in tact.
There’s a lot of evidence to come in, but mind there’s actually a strong case against him right now.
It is not at all a legal standard, but sort of “Prosecution 101” says that you like to have: motive, means and opportunity with a crime. Why? It tends to align with what juries will strongly intuitively look for when they are considering a charge.
Motive - Relationship fights, as documented by evidence that can be presented at trial
Means - This we need more info on. But assuming she was strangled or bludgeoned to death, this isn’t hard to demonstrate that Brian could have (physically) done that.
Opportunity - Living alone with her in a van provides ample opportunity. Assuming the state of her corpse can give us an indication of when and where she died, if Brian is known to have been around there at the time and place, he has opportunity.
So Brian has the means, motive and opportunity. What about evidence? Well, there is direct evidence–the actual existence of Gabby’s murdered body is actually direct, not circumstantial, evidence that homicide occurred. Note that convictions have been secured when there is no direct evidence–a typical no direct evidence case is a “no body” case, and there are successful murder prosecutions for those. This case has more than that.
Now how about the circumstantial evidence? The fact that they were traveling companions and that Brian was last seen with her alive, and then he abandoned their well advertised trip around the American west and drove his van thousands of miles home. He never reported Gabby missing. Why not?
While laymen often consider circumstantial evidence weak, the legal system does not. Between direct and circumstantial evidence, neither is afforded greater weight, and a combination of lots of circumstantial evidence that prove beyond a reasonable doubt all elements of a crime, can secure a conviction. Not just can, but has secured many many convictions. Our criminal justice system is adversarial, and while the burden of proof rests with the prosecutor, the prosecutors in this case will be able to put forward a very compelling story. The defense likely will need some answer for this story. A jury is basically going to see it as “a fiance goes off with his fiancee, is seen hitting her, police are called, they’re possibly seeing arguing elsewhere, she is found murdered near where the fiance was known to be, the fiance simply drove thousands of miles home without her and never indicated to authorities she was missing or etc.” A jury is going to be disposed toward convicting of murder due to that chain of events, without some sort of explanation. The quality of that explanation will likely need to be significant to instill doubt in the minds of the jurors.
Yes, indeed. A powerfully strong case against him right now. You are spot on when you discuss the internet sleuths.
Many people believe that if they can conceive of a possible theory of the crime, no matter how fanciful, in which the defendant is innocent, then that is reasonable doubt. I would love to find these people on my juries, but I have not found them yet.
If you take what we have, is it possible that he flipped out when she committed suicide, or that she stomped off so he drove 3,000 miles and left her there, or that she had heart failure and died and he panicked? Sure, it’s possible. But given what we know I don’t believe that is reasonable and I don’t think a jury, even at this point, would find it reasonable either.
