I absolutely agree that in a court of law one’s decision to invoke his or her Fifth Amendment rights should not be held against them.
I also think that this guy looks guilty as shit.
I’d rather you, an anonymous internet person, think I look guilty than 12 members of a jury.
If anyone has ANY familiarty with police tactics and how the goal is to trick you or lie to you or mislead you and if necessary lie in court about what you said or did, you would agree with the boyfriend and Never Talk to Police. Remember, their goal is to get a conviction, not find the truth.
Police in Moab Utah have released a domestic incident report.
It wasn’t serious enough to arrest anyone. The officer separated the couple for the night. The report is dated Aug 13. The parents think Gabby disappeared Aug 25.
It’s the first confirmation of serious arguments that I’ve seen.
Explain Rene Russo to me. 
I’m expecting that the woman has come to a bad end. Used RV lots are full of rigs that were owned by couples who thought life on the road would be some sort of idyllic existence. It rarely seems to occur to folks that they spent at least a third of their working life interacting with people other than their spouses. A 24/7 relationship in a relatively small box on wheels is a whole other rodeo, even when young.
How would the legal system proceed with this case if he never speaks and they never find any evidence? It doesn’t seem like he could be convicted or even brought to trial just because he was the last person to see her. That opens him up to a lot of investigation as the prime suspect, but it doesn’t seem like that alone is enough to actually charge him.
Brian told the Moab cop that he and Gabby had anxiety disorder. Its blacked out in the incident report. They missed blacking it in the 2nd paragraph.
Living in a van together must have made it worse.
Yeah, I vaguely remember a crime novel (maybe by Dick Francis?) where the cops were told to close a case. They verified that they weren’t supposed to solve it, just close it. The key bit of evidence was a bullet casing sitting on a fireplace mantel. They fired some large number of shots from an automatic until finally one ejected cartridge landed on the mantel, proving some contention that I don’t recall at this point (possibly that it was a suicide).
I mean, that’s exactly how the system is supposed to work. If there’s no evidence then you can’t (or at least shouldn’t) convict anyone. Must likely the result is going to be that somewhere along the line he’s going to slip up.
I wish Laundrie would lawyer up and talk to cops with his attorney present. Petito is almost certainly dead, and he’s the only person who can shed any light on what may have happened. There’s plenty he could say that would not entail self-incrimination but that would help find the woman’s body: What route did they take? About what time of day did they pass, say, Evanston, WY?
I don’t care if he makes up some BS about her demanding to be let out in the middle of nowhere because she was angry with him, as long as he gives some account of where that was so the search area can be reduced. If he’s innocent, let the evidence or lack thereof get him off the hook.
He’s got a legal right to avoid self-incrimination. His family has the moral right to be relieved of the agonizing combination of grief and lingering uncertainty that will otherwise keep them in hell for years.
Convict? There aren’t even any charges yet, are there? Or a body?
IANAL and everything I know about law enforcement comes from TV, but with no evidence, how can there even be a crime?
Cynical me thinks it often comes down to money complications. In this case, do (did?) they both have a stake in the van? Can one afford to buy the other out? What happens to the one who has to leave, can they buy a new van/afford an apartment, whatever? And since they apparently were making at least some of their living by posting youtube videos, who gets to keep ownership of their channel and the income from earlier posts?
So much easier to shoot, shovel, and shut up. If you tend to the psychopathic or just really impulsive orientation.
It could have even been something as dumb as they had a fight and she went for a hike to cool down and he figured fuck it and drove off and left her there. I’d place my money on abandonment before doing harm to her
Oh, you’re adorable!
If he led them (close to) the body, he’s as good as convicted. Even if he didn’t do it. Even if there’s no “it”.
I can easily see him abandoning Gabby after a fight. He may have come back and briefly looked for her.
Going back to Florida alone was really stupid and criminal.
Criminal?
I’m pretty sure leaving someone alone in the wilderness (without supplies) is a criminal offense.
Leaving her behind in a town probably wouldn’t be a crime. Depends on the circumstances. But, Gabby would have called her family for help to get home.
I think you’re agreeing with me. Obviously, if he did murder her, then there is a crime, but with zero evidence then there’s no charge or conviction.
It’s a little bit weird that this couple was murdered a couple of days after the van lifers had the domestic incident near the moonflower Co-op.
One of the murdered couple was a cashier there.
Oh, yes, I adorably know that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution, and that without evidence directly linking him to her murder, the case won’t get to court, let alone result in a conviction. And I adorably know of other murder cases–Casey Anthony, anyone?–where the jury found insufficient evidence to convict.
The 1960 United States case of People v. Scott held that “circumstantial evidence, when sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, may prove the death of a missing person, the existence of a homicide and the guilt of the accused”
[NB: I don’t even have a guess as to what happened here, but I do agree with those who argue: shut up and lawyer up, particularly if you’re innocent]