Rather than make what you call inferences, I prefer to see what the evidence shows when the civil suit goes to court. For example, will the evidence show the P's phone numbers were ever blocked on the L's cell phone? We can't know one way or the other right now. I'm also not sure what the Laundries' daughter has to do with anything at this point. She has said her parents told her they were advised not to talk to anyone about the situation by their attorney. One can believe that was bad advice but most people would agree taking advice from an attorney is generally a very good idea. And not talking about the situation included not talking with Cassie. Why is that an issue?
Besides not really understanding why Cassie's interactions with her parents would be an issue, I don't really see why Cassie is at all a part of it now. At one point Joe P did tell Dr. Phil he tried to call Cassie in early Sept to see if she knew where GP was but apparently Cassie and her family were at DisneyWorld that day. She told reporters her phone log did not show any calls. Was she supposed to be blocking calls from any Petito phone too? That seems pretty unlikely. Gabby Petito Case: Brian Laundrie's Sister, Cassie, Claims She Didn't Get Phone Calls from Joseph Petito
We don't know why the L's waited 4 days to report BL missing except that he was an adult, not a child. But we do know they reported him missing days before a warrant was issued for his arrest. So to say he was "running from authorities" when he left their house isn't truly accurate. And despite all the published claims from various people saying BK was alive well into Oct, from the final FBI report and autopsy, that wasn't true either-- he didn't run anywhere but the swamp where he died in a day or two from suicide.
So lots of wrong info out there. We'll see what happens in court.
I must admit that this post has me scratching my head.
I mentioned the Laundrie's daughter because it is part of a fact pattern.
Fact - the Laundrie's wouldn't speak about the situation with Cassie.
Fact - the Laundrie's wouldn't speak about the situation with law enforcement.
Fact - the Laundrie's wouldn't speak about the situation with the media.
Fact - the Laundrie's lawyer said 'no comment' when asked about the letter that the Petito's released begging for help.
Based on the fact pattern, IMO the only sensible conclusion is that the Laundrie's wouldn't take the Petito's calls. But in reading the quoted post, the suggestion seems to be that the Petito's are lying about not being able to reach the Laundrie's and the families were in contact. Or maybe the Petito's never even bothered to try calling the Laundrie's despite their public statements. And then in another post, it was suggested that it was Brian who blocked the numbers and the Laundrie's never realized that Petito's wanted to speak with them.
None of that seems to be remotely plausible to me.
And the idea that Brian wasn't evading law enforcement because a warrant had yet to be issued has me quite flummoxed. He knew he had killed Gabby and that an arrest was forthcoming. I believe If he could have gotten away with it, he'd still be alive today. But instead he chose to take his own life rather than face up to the consequences of his actions.
I also don't understand the rebuke about making reasonable inferences. It's the only way to have a conversation in this forum since we can't know all the facts. Otherwise there's nothing to discuss. Even juries must do this. From the ABA website on How Courts Work: 'The jury listens to the evidence during a trial, decides what facts the evidence has established, and draws inferences from those facts to form the basis for their decision. The jury decides whether a defendant is "guilty" or "not guilty" in criminal cases, and "liable" or "not liable" in civil cases.'
Just saying "wait until the trial" doesn't lend itself to a particularly fruitful discussion, so I'm going to bow out of any further responses to this particular line of conversation.