Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #38

[Katerz]

I

https://twitter.com/WFLAJB/status/1442491957406748672

Looks like WFLA's got the 'copter overhead, too.

wish they’d show it live on tv

 

[Simply Southern]

Circumstantial evidence is anything that needs an assumption or explanation to prove what is alleged. So for DNA evidence, you need to compare the DNA found to an offender's DNA. That requires a step and someone to testify to explain the step.

Direct evidence is something that speaks for itself. Like a video recording of a crime being committed or eye witness testimony. You can watch the tape and see what was recorded. The witness can testify as to what they saw with their own eyes.

The issue with even eye witness testimony is even though it is "direct," the value depends heavily on the trustworthiness of the witness. Juries are instructed to come to their own conclusions on if they believe the witnesses. So if your eye witness is a criminal, will juries discount their testimony? What about explicit or implicit bias? It also depends on the memory of the witness. There are lots of studies using line-ups that show eye witness testimony is not always reliable, particularly when the witness is not familiar with the defendant.

There are books written about these topics. I don't think many people actually understand the difference when they claim there's "only" circumstantial evidence when the actual problem in many cases is jurors are expecting CSI style scientific evidence (which is circumstantial by definition).

Thanks for explaining the difference. I've learned so much from your expertise on this forum.

Mho

 

[Skigirl]

This article is from Friday but I don't recall seeing these quotes by Gabby's friend Rose discussed here.y


Gabby Petito's Best Friend Says Brian Laundrie Had 'Jealousy Issues': 'Toxic Relationship'

"I tried not to judge their relationship, but I knew something was off," Davis explains. "I just, I didn't expect this, obviously. I just thought he was just controlling. And bit by bit, she was almost... The more we were hanging out, and the more she was away from [the relationship], the more she got comfortable and was getting into her own skin and then, she started working."

... Petito had been working 50 hours a week at a local Taco Bell prior to the couple's trek, which began in early July. She says Laundrie did not want Petito working, after the two had quit their jobs at a nearby Publix with the pandemic's onset.

"He could keep an eye on her at Publix," Davis says. "He didn't want her to work, and she did. And he was mad about it. And he always tried to get what he wanted and he did, because he wanted the van life and he rushed to that so that she wasn't going to be able to work anymore."​

Far be it from me to defend BL, but isn't it possible that he didn't want either of them to be front line workers during a raging pandemic in a state where the act of wearing a mask can make people angry?

 

[OtisC]

DNA on the body is circumstantial since it requires an inference.

As you point out both eyewitness accounts and confessions can be extremely unreliable.

The idea that circumstantial evidence is somehow second class is a canard. I'm amazed to see it constantly trotted out in this forum.

Don't confuse most used as best. That is my point.

 

[dtowndetective411]

This. There have been cases where I was personally convinced the defendant was guilty but the evidence just wasn’t there when it went to trial. And not all of them resulted in convictions. Like I think Casey Anthony and Scott Peterson were both guilty but IMO there was more evidence for Casey killing Caylee than Scott killing Laci, if not a lack of evidence for both and yet their outcomes were totally different. Same goes for cases with evidence. It’s a hit or miss. /JMO

I think that if he still hadn’t been charged with anything, and just had left and later we find out the evidence of homicide isn’t enough to point to him (or points to a third party) then we could change our perspectives to explain his running as fear-based or strategic silence/running waiting until the evidence revealed it wasn’t him.

BUT— now that he is charged with the bank fraud and there is a warrant for his arrest, there is no possible excuse for the hiding and not turning himself in. That changes the whole disappearing scenario in a big way. Because now he is officially evading the law, evading arrest, rather than waiting for things to blow over or evidence to come out that will clear him. And it’ll be really hard to change perspectives after that. MOO

 

[Sassafrass]

Circumstantial evidence is anything that needs an assumption or explanation to prove what is alleged. So for DNA evidence, you need to compare the DNA found to an offender's DNA. That requires a step and someone to testify to explain the step.

Direct evidence is something that speaks for itself. Like a video recording of a crime being committed or eye witness testimony. You can watch the tape and see what was recorded. The witness can testify as to what they saw with their own eyes.

The issue with even eye witness testimony is even though it is "direct," the value depends heavily on the trustworthiness of the witness. Juries are instructed to come to their own conclusions on if they believe the witnesses. So if your eye witness is a criminal, will juries discount their testimony? What about explicit or implicit bias? It also depends on the memory of the witness. There are lots of studies using line-ups that show eye witness testimony is not always reliable, particularly when the witness is not familiar with the defendant.

There are books written about these topics. I don't think many people actually understand the difference when they claim there's "only" circumstantial evidence when the actual problem in many cases is jurors are expecting CSI style scientific evidence (which is circumstantial by definition).

(And let’s not even talk about the disaster that is public discussion about evidence in acquaintance sexual violence cases, especially victim testimony. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that there is "no" evidence because no one filmed the event prefaced with a statement or sign stating, "this is not play-acting or role-playing; this is a rape.")

 

[Cecelia]

There is no way to prove he did not have her permission to use the van and card.

This was gone over extensively in the previous threads when the warrant came out regarding the card: It doesn't matter if he had "permission" to use the card. Not his card, whether she was alive or dead, whether she said it was okay, whether he hurt her or not, it wasn't his card, hence the federal charge. Permission doesn't make it legal, not in the case of financial accounts.

 

[Selah84]

I

wish they’d show it live on tv

They won't be up until noon. They aren't in the air yet based on their post.

 

[SMK777]

Cause of death was homicide. Does anyone know if manner of death has been released or if it will be?

I actually thought it was the opposite:
Manner of death ruled homicide.
Cause of death not released.

 

[dtowndetective411]

It’s going to be hard to find an unbiased jury in this case.

 

[deadfoot13]

They have long passed the point where they could make a statement to garner public sympathy. At this point, with all the questions in the media swirling around them, and any attempt to answer would only lead to more questions and scrutiny. The ONLY way the public would ever feel sympathetic to BL's parents is if it somehow turned out he wasn't the killer and they went through all of this for nothing (pretty sure this will never happen). So, with so little chance to save face, the next best thing to do is just shut up.

Better to be thought a guilty party than to open your mouth and remove all all doubt.

Sometimes a post needs more than just a "like", you just can't see me bouncing up and down in my chair pointing madly at my nose...

 

[sjinnj]

Yes- totally hidden 30-50 yards off trail. Easy peasy on the busiest of trails.

The thing I keep wondering about though, is his access to media & communication. He left his phone at home, so unless he had a replacement (which someone somewhere is paying for), he’d have no access to news & thus no knowledge of how big this story grew or what’s currently happening. He wouldn’t know how deep to lay low or for how long. Does he know about the bullhorns outside his parents’ house? Or GP’s memorial yesterday? Very curious about what he knows & how. Most MP cases/ homicide cases are not this big- not even close.

BTW, welcome to WS!

Thanks for the welcome.

You are right, if he is hiding out he really is going to need access to the current news. Perhaps he has a burner phone.

 

[JMI]

Right? At the risk of beating a dead horse, I blame TV for this. Decades of lawyer and cop shows giving people totally fictional ideas of how criminal investigations and prosecutions work, right down to "Oh it's all circumstantial evidence therefore you are not guilty!" I hate to think of what this (along with the CSI effect) is doing to juries.

TV media is def to blame...

However, with circumstantial evidence, it's important to be able to spin and sell a story to make the circumstances of this evidence to a jury. If the circumstances around said evidence are vague enough, it allows the defense to plant seeds of doubt. It's how Anthony walked. It's gotta be pretty strong CE.

With this case, I have to imagine that because they lived together, and evidence outside of the murder event are easily written off. The pieces that are most damning in my mind will be the D/T/C of death, his solo trip back, and the digital data on phones and computers. Depending on what's found here, it could be hard to explain.

It'll also be important that the prosecutor NOT over charge here simply because of the public pressure. If this dude is caught, if the evidence isn't damning enough for him, it'll likely be spun into "it was an accident, my client panicked (given his anxiety and all...)" there fore, this is only a manslaughter case."

 

[Love Never Fails]

Thanks for explaining the difference. I've learned so much from your expertise on this forum.

Mho

Agree with you Simply Southern. @Alethea is extremely helpful with all the cases!

 

[cady]

https://twitter.com/WFLAJB/status/1442491957406748672

Looks like WFLA's got the 'copter overhead, too.

Please post the live stream ty

 

[Bertha96]

I agree with your points. I do see how a defense attorney will see the other side.

There is no way to prove he did not have her permission to use the van and card.


In the extensive interview, LE found no evidence to charge him with abuse but they did question her intent to harm him.

Unless he states that he has never been to that sight, his DNA there just means he has been there and not that he was there at her death.

The best evidence, outside of a confession, is linking him to the manner of death. If it was by strangulation, I am not sure what the link could be. There could be one, I just don't know what it is. If by an instrument of force, then a DNA link to that instrument (that otherwise should not host his DNA) would be strong evidence.

I don't think that type of evidence currently exists or he would be listed as a suspect in her death. They need to find him alive and let him convict himself through interrogation.

Or they are waiting until he is in custody to announce any charges connected to her homicide. I would assume they have a reason to pursue the fraud charge which would mean he did not have permission to access the account(s). How they came to that conclusion remains to be seen. IMO.

 

[Jettson]

YES. I was saying this earlier to another person - if I was a neighbor, I'd be LIVID. First we've got media around all day and then we've got people on bullhorns early in the morning yelling at the Laundries, Dog the Bounty Hunter showing his mug, etc.

When I saw that Dog got involved, it infuriated me so much. I know I can't be alone in that.

It's all about entertainment & money. That's the world we live in now. It has a dirty feel to it. IMO.

 

[Skigirl]

Problem being once she is deceased, it can't be proven if he ever had permission to use the card on the trip home. His disappearance, aggressive behavior at the restaurant, the 911 call reporting him slapping her and BL taking the van and driving home leaving her alone all adds up and not in his favor. If they have any evidence, such as DNA at the scene, he is screwed. IMO.

Once someone has passed away, the laws about what you can do with their assets are very, very strict. Even if there is a will, it has to go through probate. Any permission you had when they were alive no longer applies. So, he would have to say that he didn't know she was dead and had permission to use her ATM card to drive across the country in her van without her. This is a major stretch for a jury to believe, IMHO.

 

[Cecelia]

The pieces that are most damning in my mind will be the D/T/C of death, his solo trip back, and the digital data on phones and computers. Depending on what's found here, it could be hard to explain.

Aaaaaaaand using her card/account after she was dead. That on top of everything else is going to require quite the spin doctor.

 

[Thinker22]

Regarding the media circus and protests at the L home:

Does anyone know if the news orgs typically pay the neighbors to camp out on their lawns? If it were me, I wouldn't mind the protests as long as the news orgs were paying well enough to compensate for the interruption/inconvenience.