I disagree, and as Exhibit A, she did share her PIN with him which is what got him in trouble. I think I’ve known the PIN of almost everyone I’ve been close to.
But you see my point? I agree with this statement. But to get there, you must make the assumption that he was involved in her disappearance and/or murder. And if you have PC for that, then charge him with that. If you don’t, then you don’t have enough for the car theft/bank theft.
I would have to re-read case law, but I would hope so. Are we free people only if the police don’t decide that they want to arrest us next week and then our actions are retroactively judged? I think it perfectly reasonable to say that I am a law abiding citizen and although normally I might run hither and yon, if there is a warrant out for me, then I will stay put and take care of it. To assume otherwise makes freedom itself grounds for suspicion.
I’m not real familiar with the federal bail system, but from my understanding, a person may only be denied bail if he is a danger to the community and no set of conditions can alleviate that. The risk of flight can be handled by pretrial measures like GPS monitoring or home confinement.
If he is charged with murder, then dangerousness is a good grounds for a denial of bail. If he is charged with using her PIN, then that is probably the most minor of crimes that one can be charged with. You can’t say that someone is an extreme danger to the public because they used their fiancée’s PIN, likely with permission.
Further as a defense to the flight argument, the FBI has almost tripped over itself for the past week stressing that he is not a suspect. What would require him to remain close to home when he is not a suspect?
I mean, I’m no attorney, but 18 U.S. Code § 3142 seems to have a whole section on when there is a presumption of when someone might be detained, even cases where there is a presumption that they should be detained pre-trial unless they can show otherwise.
I guess I just find it odd that you’d think a court can (or even should) only consider criminal acts in assessing whether someone might pose a risk of flight.
If someone has already fled, legal or not, I’d say that’s a pretty good signal they pose a risk of flight. That their flight beat the arrest warrant or other elements of the judicial process is not in and of itself of greater reassurance to me. Quite the opposite, actually.
I’m familiar with that code. Bank card PIN fraud is not a crime of violence and not one of the listed crimes.
You are the government are basing it only on “fled” or “flight.” The definition of these words mean travel away from something. There was nothing legally keeping him in Florida or even in the United States. He had every right to go anywhere in the world, just like you or me.
To assume otherwise means that he must know that he is guilty of a murder, which we haven’t even charged him with, so he ran to not be arrested on that charge. I have serious problems with making such assumptions, not just pre-conviction or pre-trial, but pre-any process at all. What if he is off the grid camping in the swamps and doesn’t even know that anyone is looking for him? Would you consider that “flight”?
I need to clarify: are you arguing a position of the government “should” or the government “does”? Because if it’s about what the government should do, I’m happy with the idea of having a much higher bar than already in place for the government to confine people pre-trial (not just by outright denial of bail, but through effective denial such as imposing monetary bail requirements on indigent defendants). If it’s about what the government does do, then I have a hard time imagining that this is the first time that the government has used, let’s call it “departure in anticipation of arrest” as a basis to assess risk of future “flight” so as not to participate in proceedings.
No, I know what the government does. They are doing so in this very case with the detention motion. I don’t understand why the courts go along with it.
I’m all for civil liberties; in fact, much more so than most, especially self-styled “law’n’order” conservatives. And I also believe that the American bail system is fundamentally broken. But I would suggest that the courts are “going along with” the detention motion because this guy has been literally fleeing for about the past 3½ weeks, and is now by definition a fugitive hiding from the law, and the subject of a massive and very expensive manhunt.
“Fleeing” from what for 3 1/2 weeks? From his unlawful bank card usage? He and the rest of the public have been told ad nauseum that he is “not a suspect.” How is that flight? Should he have known that the FBI was lying?
Pure speculation. We don’t know where he is. He hasn’t been served with the warrant and there is no evidence that he has been informed of its existence.
ETA: He may very well be dead which is a strong possibility and good evidence (very good evidence) that he is not fleeing.
I agree that at this point everything except Gabby’s actual death is speculation. But there are enough facts in evidence to speculate on the basis of likely probabilities. And on that basis I would say that a highly probable answer to “fleeing from what?” is: fleeing from the consequences of something that only he knew about, and that he also knew law enforcement would eventually discover. Especially after the body was found.
Sure. And it would also be very good evidence that he was terrified of the eventual consequences if he was found.
I agree. So get an indictment for something based on PC that can support a finding of dangerousness. This is just bootstrapping. He fled because he knew he murdered her, but you haven’t shown enough PC to indict him for the murder.
“Your Honor, the fact that he committed suicide is evidence of his guilt, so lock him up!”
I would think the nature of her disappearance in proximity to him in an ongoing business venture would be along those lines. It wasn’t like they crossed paths at a tea house. they were specifically on a documented trip that ends mysteriously. He is documented as acting strangely in the days leading up to his unannounced trip to his parents.
I don’t agree that only whether or not someone is dangerous is a factor for granting bail, lots of wealthy high-profile defendants have been denied bail after the prosecution argued they were flight risks due to their vast wealth and overseas connections. Sometimes they will allow them to undergo special monitoring (fully paid for by the defendant) in lieu of pre-trial confinement, but I doubt Laundrie could afford that. I remember when Dominique Strauss-Kahn was on trial in the U.S., due to the fact he was a French national and France never extradites, and he basically had unlimited access, wealth etc, he was granted bail but it was under crazy conditions. He basically paid for like a whole team of armed guards to keep an eye on him while he lived in the high end, high-rise apartment he had been living in to that point for his job as IMF head. If he had not been able to afford the expensive surveillance I’m not convinced the court would have just allowed him out on his own recognizance.
In the UK at least, there is nothing to stop me giving my debit or credit cards, complete with PINs to anyone I choose. Of course, if they drain my account, the bank is not going to reimburse me.
CBS 48 Hours has scheduled a Gabby Petito special. Sept 25.
It seems very premature. There’s so little hard evidence that’s been officially released. The entire show will be speculation. I’m disappointed in CBS. 48 Hours used to cover cases with broad information and did a great job explaining what occurred.
Yeah, the American courts learned a lesson about wealthy French nationals with Roman Polanski.
“Flight risk” is about whether or not a person is liable to disappear before trial. Given Laundrie’s behavior in the past, I wouldn’t trust him to show up on his own recognizance.
It’s not new - I first heard the term back in the 1990’s when (names escape me at 3:30 am before sufficient caffeine) when a White college student went missing and it got national coverage but two black girls from Chicago who went missing at more or less the name time (I recall one of the sisters was named Diamond and I think the other was Tawanda but I don’t recollect the last name right now) barely got local coverage. The White girl’s body was eventually found and someone went to jail for her murder. The two black girls are still missing.
It’s not just White women - it’s young White women. Old ladies go missing, too, and don’t get nearly the coverage a teen or a young mom would.
Given the authorities have ruled Gabby’s death a homicide they know it, but they aren’t making it public. They might be hoping to get a suspect to slip up in a future interogation and reveal he knows something the general public doesn’t.
Or yeah, there could be test results involved, but you won’t need toxicology tests to diagnose “murder” from soft tissue damage around the neck in a finger pattern and a broken hyoid bone. As an example. I, personally, have no idea if strangulation was the cause. It could have been stab wounds from an unusual weapon, or a rock to the back of the head, or … I don’t know. That’s the point - the public doesn’t know, so if a suspect slips with something then that’s evidence.
