Jump to content

GABBY PETITO MISSING - BOYFRIEND REFUSES TO COOPERATE


thetragichippy

Recommended Posts

I'm surprised no one has posted this. The popular view is the boyfriend murdered her.....To me, driving HER van back and refusing to talk to police does not sound like a guilty person. I would think a guilty person would make up an alibi or NOT come home in HER van......

Also, the only evidence we have is police body cams that show her as the aggressor.......

Thoughts????

 

This is the hidden content, please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, baddog said:

Lots of scenarios without any more info. Just have to wait. I’ll go with my gut and say he shoved her off a cliff. I’ve been wrong before.

If he shoved her off a cliff, why not call police and act like she fell off? He would have a better chance of getting off doing that than driving her van home and not cooperating. That is what is puzzling to me....he's doing things that would all point to him.....he can't be THAT stupid.....

and notice, no one has come forward saying he was ever previously violent......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

If he shoved her off a cliff, why not call police and act like she fell off? He would have a better chance of getting off doing that than driving her van home and not cooperating. That is what is puzzling to me....he's doing things that would all point to him.....he can't be THAT stupid.....

and notice, no one has come forward saying he was ever previously violent......

If he shoved her off a cliff, no one would believe that she fell. You are right though, he is acting peculiar. Do charges have to be filed to question him. I thought a person of interest could be questioned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, baddog said:

If he shoved her off a cliff, no one would believe that she fell. You are right though, he is acting peculiar. Do charges have to be filed to question him. I thought a person of interest could be questioned

That would be a TVC184 question, but my guess is you can bring someone in for questioning but they do not have to answer.....and even after formal charges, they can plead the 5th......

 

I'll tell you this, he is already guilty in the court of public opinion......but for some reason, I'm leaning he is innocent......I think there is way more to the story

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, baddog said:

If he shoved her off a cliff, no one would believe that she fell. You are right though, he is acting peculiar. Do charges have to be filed to question him. I thought a person of interest could be questioned

 A person cannot be questioned without his consent, period.  That is movie gibberish. The old, take him in for questioning.  That is unlawful.

A person cannot be arrested without probable cause that a crime was committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

 A person cannot be questioned without his consent, period.  That is movie gibberish. The old, take him in for questioning.  That is unlawful.

A person cannot be arrested without probable cause that a crime was committed.

I know we have limited information, curious of your thoughts on this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, thetragichippy said:

I know we have limited information, curious of your thoughts on this case.

I think he is acting extremely guilty. As far as not giving an alibi, most sidewalk lawyers and Facebook attorneys are now smart enough to simply not talk to the police. The alibi is what gets you hung. It locks you into a story that you probably cannot prove. Look at Martha Stewart. She went to prison for an insider stock trading scam. But did she go for the scam? No, she went because she gave an alibi and it was like a proven false and they got her for obstructing justice, perjury or whatever the FBI called it. 

Maybe he is not guilty but if your girlfriend was missing for 10 days and you had nothing to do with it, why not at least report her missing? If it’s the truth simply say she left on this day and I have not seen her again. You don’t have to say any more than that.

There are some very sinister people out there. The news article mentioned there was another couple murdered nearby a few days earlier. There is speculation that maybe Gabby  is also a victim of the same person(s). But let’s play what if…..

What is the boyfriend murdered that couple just to set up killing her later? Shoot a couple for no reason with a 9 mm and then come back a couple of weeks later and shoot your girlfriend near the same location, then get rid of the gun. The police recover slugs from all bodies and announce that whoever killed the couple also killed Gabby.

Do we remember while we now have secure packaging on most products and why we often now have caplets instead of capsules? It was the Tylenol murders in the early 1980s. Without the tamper proof packaging that we have today (which came about because of this incident), somebody took Tylenol and put cyanide inside the capsules and put them back on the shelf. Several people were killed and they suspected a man of doing it for extortion from Johnson and Johnson. Then another man using that idea, poisoned his wife and another unrelated man. I believe the unrelated man was killed simply to look like it was a random just like his wife. The man was eventually I believe convicted of killing the unknown man and his wife. That point is that a man was killed just to make it look like his wife’s death but also random.

Could this have been the same?

This is a strange case for sure and no telling where it will go but the guy sure acts of guilty in my police mind.

On a sidenote, the Walmart ice cream licker in Port Arthur was convicted of tampering with evidence after hundreds of such laws were enacted after the Tylenol murders. I wonder how many people today know that all of our tamperproof products and tampering with product laws came from a single incident in the early 1980s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, baddog said:

I did ask if charges had to be filed. 

I thought that’s what I answered. 

The police cannot question you whether you have had charges filed, you have been arrested or they simply want to without your consent. The 5A right to remain silent it’s not dependent on criminal charges.

Under Texas law, you do not have to speak with the police at all including not identifying yourself unless you were actually under arrest. The police can stop you with reasonable suspicion and start asking you questions including your name and you can simply stare at them legally. You are not obligated to even open your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

I think he is acting extremely guilty. As far as not giving an alibi, most sidewalk lawyers and Facebook attorneys are now smart enough to simply not talk to the police. The alibi is what gets you hung. It locks you into a story that you probably cannot prove. Look at Martha Stewart. She went to prison for an insider stock trading scam. But did she go for the scam? No, she went because she gave an alibi and it was like a proven false and they got her for obstructing justice, perjury or whatever the FBI called it. 

Maybe he is not guilty but if your girlfriend was missing for 10 days and you had nothing to do with it, why not at least report her missing? If it’s the truth simply say she left on this day and I have not seen her again. You don’t have to say any more than that.

There are some very sinister people out there. The news article mentioned there was another couple murdered nearby a few days earlier. There is speculation that maybe Gabby  is also a victim of the same person(s). But let’s play what if…..

What is the boyfriend murdered that couple just to set up killing her later? Shoot a couple for no reason with a 9 mm and then come back a couple of weeks later and shoot your girlfriend near the same location, then get rid of the gun. The police recover slugs from all bodies and announce that whoever killed the couple also killed Gabby.

Do we remember while we now have secure packaging on most products and why we often now have caplets instead of capsules? It was the Tylenol murders in the early 1980s. Without the tamper proof packaging that we have today (which came about because of this incident), somebody took Tylenol and put cyanide inside the capsules and put them back on the shelf. Several people were killed and they suspected a man of doing it for extortion from Johnson and Johnson. Then another man using that idea, poisoned his wife and another unrelated man. I believe the unrelated man was killed simply to look like it was a random just like his wife. The man was eventually I believe convicted of killing the unknown man and his wife. That point is that a man was killed just to make it look like his wife’s death but also random.

Could this have been the same?

This is a strange case for sure and no telling where it will go but the guy sure acts of guilty in my police mind.

On a sidenote, the Walmart ice cream licker in Port Arthur was convicted of tampering with evidence after hundreds of such laws were enacted after the Tylenol murders. I wonder how many people today know that all of our tamperproof products and tampering with product laws came from a single incident in the early 1980s.

Thanks for that perspective.  I'm not sure why I'm not certain he is guilty.  I guess because he is acting SO guilty I think he may not be....like who is that stupid.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

just tweeted from North Port Police: 
 

North Port Police are currently speaking with the Laundrie Family at their request. At this time, we are not speaking with Brian. More details when available.

They had a family get together and decided to give the police information (at their request which is the strange part) against Brian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Makes ZERO sense, unless there is something we are missing. This case has never made sense to me

Again, there is no telling where this case is going.

But….. 

If the family called the police and said, “we need to talk”, it makes me think that they are not going to say, we don’t think our son did it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Why you were the cop and I was the Medic.....lol

Obviously we never really know what happened in these news media type cases because we don’t know what the police know. Most of the time even they don’t have all of the facts.

With that there is a lot of guesswork from just reading new stories and it’s easy to be completely wrong. But, almost 40 years of doing it as a profession, certainly helps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tvc184 said:

Obviously we never really know what happened in these news media type cases because we don’t know what the police know. Most of the time even they don’t have all of the facts.

With that there is a lot of guesswork from just reading new stories and it’s easy to be completely wrong. But, almost 40 years of doing it as a profession, certainly helps. 

If he killed her, he makes a horrible criminal.....

He does not seem like a complete moron but sure did not try to act innocent.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Obviously we never really know what happened in these news media type cases because we don’t know what the police know. Most of the time even they don’t have all of the facts.

With that there is a lot of guesswork from just reading new stories and it’s easy to be completely wrong. But, almost 40 years of doing it as a profession, certainly helps. 

The latest statement from North Port Police......After speaking with family the dude has been missing since Tuesday.  North Port specifically stated that he is just a person of interest and not wanted for a crime. They also state they are not currently working a crime investigation, but a multiple missing person investigation.

North Park Police department via twitter is updating pretty often. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,937
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined



  • Posts

    • he'll 1000% abuse this if elected and given the chance.  he's like a petulant little kid.  again, I'm voting for his policy, but he's all about revenge against slights and wrongs, both real and perceived.  
    • 3 yrs ago LCM and Vidor played in Vidor for a play in game.  Game was on a Saturday and started around 1 or 2p.
    • It would shock me beyond belief if he tried to. Now, I hope and pray he appoints people that will investigate, charge, and imprison anyone found guilty of the crimes against him...including treason. I would be all for a special task force charged solely with the task of investigating crimes against Trump. Of course the Democrats will be screaming bloody murder that Trump is weaponizing the government against them. We all know the story. From a cursory standpoint, there seems to be a plethora of evidence to lock up many Democrats for a long time. Unless this is done, I see no end to destruction of our political system...and this country.
    • There is a difference, but I wouldn't at all put it past Trump to do so if he had the infrastructure in place to get away with it like the Dems currently do.  With the amount of effort he's invested in ruining those republicans who've opposed him, it wouldn't surprise me one bit.
    • I think it will be an interesting case and could potentially come up for appeal on a different constitutional point.  The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the government doesn’t have to take possession of property in order to take it under the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.  If they take away the enjoyment or use of the property, it is no different than physically seizing it to build a highway for example. In a lawsuit as opposed to a criminal trial, a person/plaintiff doesn’t have to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt but rather by a preponderance of evidence or “more likely” to have happened. Maybe it could be described as more likely yes than no or 51%-49%.  ”IF” it can be shown at a trial by a preponderance of evidence that Texas more likely yes than no caused the flooding with its engineering of the project, the people suing might have a case. But…. Does that alone win the case under the Fifth Amendment taking clause? I am not so sure. In US v Causby the Supreme Court ruled that the US government took a man’s property by flying airplanes over it. It was a public airport lawfully leased by the US in WWII and used to fly heavy bombers from it. Causby had an egg farm and the extremely loud noise of some airplanes under full power and sometimes at night with a landing lights being so close, it bothered and scared the family and damaged his egg farm production. Some chickens died and some quit laying eggs due to the extreme disturbances and lights at night. The Supreme Court ruled in Causby’s favor saying that the US had taken away the enjoyment and use of his land even though they didn’t physically seize it. The use of the land was hampered and that was enough for the taking clause under the Fifth Amendment. So in the IH-10 case, did Texas take away the use or enjoyment of the property?  A point of Causby was that the military bombers at a public airport was certainly for “public use”. The planes were public/taxpayers’ and the airport and lease were taxpayers’ property so the “public” definitely used it   My question in this lawsuit against Texas, even in they can prove the damage, was the damage (like in Causby) for “public use”? If not would it then not be a Fifth Amendment case but rather a state law case?  If Texas law denies such a lawsuit under state sovereignty and the families can’t prove a Fifth Amendment case of “public use”, could they prove the damages but still lose the case under state law? I haven’t read that anywhere and just thinking out loud. I could be way off base. But I think it could be interesting…..
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...