My betting would be (a) too much of a coincidence for this to NOT be Laundrie, especially because it’s otherwise hard to explain how he could elude detection for so long, and (b) that cause of death was more likely a mishap in the wilderness than suicide, probably from an animal attack, and perhaps following an accident that left him disabled in some way. Judging only from news reports, he seems to fit the profile of “asshole” more than “potentially suicidal”. But that’s just a WAG, and the two are not mutually exclusive.
Your assessment is similar to mine: narcissists don’t off themselves, but then again, hopeless people do, and he had to know his situation was hopeless. There’s also the possibility he felt guilt. I know that’s hard to believe, but maybe the murder was an impulsive decision, which he regretted. I doubt guilt alone led him to end it, but it could have been a contributing factor to his sense of hopeless.
Or maybe I’m overthinking and he’s some hungry gator’s midnight snack.
I mean Hitler offed himself.
The park had just reopened to the public. It seems to me that Laundrie’s parents had been waiting for an opportunity to check this location. The video indicates they went directly to a specific area.
The father went with investigators last week and apparently looked in other areas.
When I was in the Everglades a few years back, the place where we parked to begin our hike was absolutely infested with carrion-eaters, and there was a large bin of tarps to use to cover your vehicle to protect it from the various bodily fluids they would exude…
Understood. The M. E. needs to conduct an autopsy at first. Perhaps test for his DNA, and other forensic procedures have to be followed.
If they have known where he was all this time, then I hope they face charges for their inaction.
Despite what cops say, inaction or not assisting with the investigation is not illegal.
The Fifth Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the matter under discussion here.
The devil is in the details. Lying to law enforcement and obstruction of justice are not only illegal, but potentially serious crimes.
Sure does. You don’t have to talk to police because of the 5th Amendment. And to your point about lying, that’s not what Sunny Daze said. They said “inaction” and that’s not the same implication as lying.
The parents could have turned Brian in before he disappeared into that park. That’s a decision they’ll have to live with.
This is a tragedy for both families.
I haven’t seen a good explanation of the events leading them to possible body parts. How close was it to where his parents said they used to camp at. The location of the remains is normally under water.
Maybe it’s because of a lack of detail but it just sounds strange.
IANAL, but there seem to be two separate issues here. Saying things like “I don’t know where he is” when in fact they did know, is clearly lying. That’s not silence, that’s a serious criminal offense.
The other issue is that the Supreme Court has ruled (Salinas v. Texas) that if you want to be protected by the Fifth Amendment, you need to explicitly declare that intent. It’s not good enough to just clam up:
Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy concluded that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to defendants who simply decide to remain mute during questioning. Long-standing judicial precedent has held that any witness who desires protection against self-incrimination must explicitly claim that protection.
The family lawyer said on CNN the family did give correct information to authorities. Brian Laundrie update: Human remains found in Florida park likely Laundrie's, family lawyer says
I’ve learned the bag seen in photos is called a dry bag. Kayakers use them because they float. Brian’s notebook and other stuff may have stayed dry. That would help the investigation.
The Fifth Amendment protects us from self-incrimination. If the Laundries destroyed or hid evidence, if they knew of the murder and took actions to prevent his arrest, if they lied to the FBI or withheld information from the FBI, they could (and probably should) be charged with obstruction of justice, and they’d be smart to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.
However, that does NOT give them the right to lie or withhold information from the FBI about Brian or his whereabouts:
(source)
Isabelle Kirshner, a criminal defense attorney and partner at the firm Clayman & Rosenberg, explained to Newsweek more on how the Laundries could have committed obstruction.
“Lying to a federal agent is a federal crime,” Kirshner said. “If for some reason they said, and again this is completely hypothetical, ‘Do you have any weapons in the house?’ ‘No, we don’t have any weapons,’ and they search the house and they find weapons—that could theoretically be a crime.”
“If the FBI asks, ‘Do you know where your son is?’ and they said no, and in fact they did…That is what’s called a 1001 violation, which is lying to a federal officer for obstructing an investigation,” she added.
The idea that the Fifth Amendment means you can remain silent on matters that are NOT self-incriminatory is false.
Should Chris and Roberta Laundrie be covering anything up about what they know, that could constitute obstruction of justice. However, they could also face potential charges of making false statements to additional accessory crimes, such as aiding and abetting or accessories after the fact if they knew or believe that their son killed Petito. Such independent charges could come if authorities feel they intended to assist Brian in hiding from police or concealing evidence.
Wether or not the Laundries are charged with any crimes, their decision to leave Gabby’s parents in an agony of worry and uncertainty before Gabby was even reported missing does not play well in the court of public opinion. Rightly or wrongly, they’ll be ostracized and criticized for the rest of their lives.
Huh. Is Bertolino saying the parents told LE Brian Laundrie would be in this particular area, an area “quite near the entrance” and probably easily accessible, and that LE never looked there? That seems…odd, very odd.
Indeed, it seems that the Laundries may have themselves one of those lying lawyers who lies. Because from what I recall reading on the news, the place where his remains may have been found – if indeed that’s what they are – are on the exact opposite side of this huge wilderness reserve from where they initially told authorities he supposedly went.
True, but in a different context. Salinas had to do with a suspect in custody who sat mute when he was asked questions by the police. So the police kept asking questions and the suspect finally started answering. The question presented in that case was whether the initial silence was an invocation of the Fifth Amendment such that the officers should have stopped their questioning.
In this situation, if the FBI asks the Laundries a question, they are perfectly free to remain silent. They are perfectly free to turn around and walk away. They are perfectly free to tell the feds to fuck off. As others have said, though, they cannot lie or materially assist their son once he was charged. If they are asked, “Do you know where your son is?” and they answer “No” or “I’m not sure” when they actually know where he is, then that could be problematic.
But, there is no requirement to be fully forthcoming. If my wife goes to the store and I expect her back in one hour, and the feds ask me if I know where she is, then I can answer “no” because I really don’t know where she is. She may be on her way to the store, at the store, broken down on the side of the road, on the way home, stopped at the post office, etc. Nothing requires me to be fully forthcoming.
I’m sure the FBI would be well aware of the likelihood of weasel answers like that one and phrase their questions and ask follow-up questions accordingly.
I don’t think anyone has that idea. Absent a subpoena, you have a blanket right to refuse to talk to the police (there are some very minor exceptions in some states like having to identify yourself if asked). If subpoenaed, you can be required to testify on matters that would not tend too incriminate yourself. You would have to assert your right against self-incrimination to avoid answering any or all questions, and a judge would have to determine the validity of the assertion.
That area of the swamp was flooded until fairly recently. Cadaver dogs and infrared cameras cannot detect a corpse underwater (and the water was probably murky literal swampwater). They did send a cadaver dog, but of course the area had dried out by then.
It’s possible the parents knew various camping sites Brian Laundrie knew about and once the flooding died down, started pointing out sites as they dried out.
Of course, I don’t know when that particular area dried out.