Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,625
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    You cany tell me that people don't love their muder porn.
    I'm not suggesting that there aren't people like this, I'm just saying that it's hardly everybody. And just because a person can't turn away from watching a train wreck doesn't mean they wouldn't be out there helping to look for survivors afterwards. Those aren't mutually exclusive phenomena.


    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    Its pretty reasonable to say a lot of people are just investwd because the story was thrown in their face.
    And they could just as easily have been invested in another story just as much. That doesn't automatically make the sympathy not genuine, though.


    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    And why wqs this story thrist into the limelight? Because you an average looking but photogenic woman who reminds a lot of people of someone they know. Her unfortunate disappearance and death unfortunately happens way to much - calling out the media for salivating over cases that tick certain boxes is valid.
    Sure, if there's anyone to point fingers at for this case over others, it would be the media. Generally, I'm not much in favor of the media splashing tragedies on the air, especially if they glorify the villain (which they often do, whether or not they mean to). I do make an exception for cases in which the authorities need the help of the people to ID or locate the suspect (or even victim), which was the case here.

    The attention that this case has garnered has led to breaks in other cases, too, so there's a definite silver lining here.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrospinach View Post
    He went straight home after she disappeared, I doubt he has much of a plan.
    Yeah true. That’s probably why he went camping with his parents when he came back, so they could cook up a plan. I’m starting to doubt his survival skills thinking on it more now. If he was a true survivalist I don’t think he would have gone back home, because if the police didn’t blow it he would have been arrested right then and there. He’s probably hitched up in a cheap motel somewhere or hanging out with a family friend in their basement. I think they’ll go after his sister soon, since they can already pin her for lying when she said she hadn’t spoken to him, but she actually spoke to him several times since he had gotten back to Florida. Her car was at De Soto Campground when he was. She has kids so they can put a reasonable amount of pressure on her, and hopefully get her to fold.
    Last edited by muto; 2021-10-05 at 04:00 AM.

  3. #63
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,625
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    if the police didn’t blow it he would have been arrested right then and there.
    And how exactly would the police have arrested him? He left on 9/14. Her remains weren't found until 9/19. There wasn't even a crime with which he could have been charged by the time he split.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    Yeah true. That’s probably why he went camping with his parents when he came back, so they could cook up a plan. I’m starting to doubt his survival skills thinking on it more now. If he was a true survivalist I don’t think he would have gone back home, because if the police didn’t blow it he would have been arrested right then and there
    And what would they arrest him for? At the time you said they should have arrested him, they had zero evidence of anything they could arrest him for. You can't arrest him on suspicion.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    And what would they arrest him for? At the time you said they should have arrested him, they had zero evidence of anything they could arrest him for. You can't arrest him on suspicion.
    Uh, yeah they absolutely can detain him under suspicion of a crime while they ask him questions. Detention for suspicion of a crime, without much/any evidence, is fairly commonplace in the US.

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Uh, yeah they absolutely can detain him under suspicion of a crime while they ask him questions. Detention for suspicion of a crime, without much/any evidence, is fairly commonplace in the US.
    https://www.goldmanwetzel.com/blog/h...th%20a%20crime.

    If I am not reading this wrong it looks like Florida can hold someone in jail for 30 days without a charge unlike most states that is 72 hours and California that is 48 hours. So you're definitely correct on them being able to hold him.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Deus Mortis View Post
    https://www.goldmanwetzel.com/blog/h...th%20a%20crime.

    If I am not reading this wrong it looks like Florida can hold someone in jail for 30 days without a charge unlike most states that is 72 hours and California that is 48 hours.
    Yeah, I know it varies by state but I believe every state allows PD to hold someone for at least a day or two without charges. There are clearly a very wide range of limits on how long, but the point being that the police can detain (arrest) him under suspicion, without charges, to begin questioning him and can charge him before he needs to be legally released.

    Though 30 days is pretty fuckin batshit crazy to detain someone without charges.

  8. #68
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Uh, yeah they absolutely can detain him under suspicion of a crime while they ask him questions. Detention for suspicion of a crime, without much/any evidence, is fairly commonplace in the US.
    No, actually, they can't.

    They can do that when there's evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence that the person they're detaining had anything to do with it. But they can't do it when there's no evidence that a crime has even occurred.

    Also, we don't really want police to have that kind of power. This is an edge case. And I fully believe that he will be apprehended at some point soon, regardless.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    No, actually, they can't.

    They can do that when there's evidence of a crime, but not necessarily evidence that the person they're detaining had anything to do with it. But they can't do it when there's no evidence that a crime has even occurred.

    Also, we don't really want police to have that kind of power. This is an edge case. And I fully believe that he will be apprehended at some point soon, regardless.
    No evidence of a crime? You know that Gabby Petitos death has been ruled homicide? Plus Brian Laundrie has been charged with debit card fraud.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by XDurionX View Post
    No evidence of a crime? You know that Gabby Petitos death has been ruled homicide? Plus Brian Laundrie has been charged with debit card fraud.
    he was gone before it was ruled homicide and before those charges. so he left before they could legally hold him as no crime had taken place (that they knew of)

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by PhaelixWW View Post
    They can do that when there's evidence of a crime
    And there was, at least easily interpretable as such. Girl goes missing, it is known that there was an altercation with police involved like two weeks ago. It should be enough to hold him, just in case, because he is the most obvious primary suspect imaginable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    And there was, at least easily interpretable as such. Girl goes missing, it is known that there was an altercation with police involved like two weeks ago. It should be enough to hold him, just in case, because he is the most obvious primary suspect imaginable.
    being missing is not a crime. even if you think its obvious foul play, there was 0 evidence any crime had even taken place at the time. no crime exists until you have at least a single thing to show a crime occurred.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by The Oblivion View Post
    being missing is not a crime. even if you think its obvious foul play, there was 0 evidence any crime had even taken place at the time. no crime exists until you have at least a single thing to show a crime occurred.
    You can be held on a suspicion. Common.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadoowpunk View Post
    Take that haters.
    IF IM STUPID, so is Donald Trump.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by The Oblivion View Post
    being missing is not a crime. even if you think its obvious foul play, there was 0 evidence any crime had even taken place at the time. no crime exists until you have at least a single thing to show a crime occurred.
    There was 100% evidence. She called the police, because they had a domestic dispute, and also apparently got into an argument at a restaurant in Jackson Hole. Then he returns to Florida without his fiancé, and racks up gas, and food charges on her card on his way back. If she was actually “missing” he would have contacted the authorities in Wyoming, and called her parents. Knowing that, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know he killed her; probably by strangulation or drowning.

    Knowing they had a domestic dispute would have been enough to hold him on suspicion of her disappearance.
    Last edited by muto; 2021-10-05 at 08:33 PM.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    You can be held on a suspicion. Common.
    there has to be a crime to be of suspicion. there was NO crime known/existing at the time. feelings dont change facts and law.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    There was 100% evidence. She called the police, because they had a domestic dispute, and also apparently got into an argument at a restaurant in Jackson Hole. Then he returns to Florida without his fiancé, and racks up gas, and food charges on her card on his way back. If she was actually “missing” he would have contacted the authorities in Wyoming, and called her parents. Knowing that, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know he killed her; probably by strangulation or drowning.

    Knowing they had a domestic dispute would have been enough to hold him on suspicion of her disappearance.
    1. there was ZERO, NONE, NOTHING, NO EVIDENCE AT ALL
    2. she did not call the police, a random person did
    3. your feelings dont matter, her not being with him, her being missing, her whereabouts being known to nobody, is NOT a crime. believe it or not, you are fully allowed to disappear.
    4. knowing they had a domestic dispute does not change the facts or the law. especially when the dispute was a minor one a random called in, resulting in no charges/legal action. they could not hold him, so they did not hold him.

    he 99.9999% killed her, but facts are facts, and the law is what it is when this occurred.
    Last edited by The Oblivion; 2021-10-05 at 08:42 PM.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    You can be held on a suspicion. Common.
    Not indefinitely.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    Not indefinitely.
    not without a crime to be held for. at the time, there was no crime.

  18. #78
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    23,724
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    And there was, at least easily interpretable as such. Girl goes missing, it is known that there was an altercation with police involved like two weeks ago. It should be enough to hold him, just in case, because he is the most obvious primary suspect imaginable.
    It was suspicious thay she was missing but thars all. Onlu so much the polocr could do. He'lk because she is an adult all that really has to be said was that she jumped out of the vehicle somewhere, so he left. Tgat buys Laundrie a few dats before the policr can escalate, likr it did.

    Thr car wasnt reported stilen, no one saw her beinh harmed, so tgry coulf only do so much initially without evidence that an actual crine took place. Regardless of what he may or may not have done, imagine if partners wrre suspected of murder every time the other ran off without telling them or eomeonr got left somewhere after a dispute?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    There was 100% evidence. She called the police, because they had a domestic dispute, and also apparently got into an argument at a restaurant in Jackson Hole. Then he returns to Florida without his fiancé, and racks up gas, and food charges on her card on his way back. If she was actually “missing” he would have contacted the authorities in Wyoming, and called her parents. Knowing that, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know he killed her; probably by strangulation or drowning.

    Knowing they had a domestic dispute would have been enough to hold him on suspicion of her disappearance.
    At no point in your statement csb you saw anybody killed anyone. You can say he didnt care what happened to her, thats it.

    Youte assuming he killrf hrt (whether hr did or did) thrn creating a narrative to support that. No one knew where she was before he disappeared.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  19. #79
    Legendary! PhaelixWW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Washington (né California)
    Posts
    6,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Easo View Post
    And there was, at least easily interpretable as such. Girl goes missing, it is known that there was an altercation with police involved like two weeks ago. It should be enough to hold him, just in case, because he is the most obvious primary suspect imaginable.
    You can't have a suspect without a crime. And suspicion of a crime is not the same thing as a crime.


    Quote Originally Posted by muto View Post
    There was 100% evidence. She called the police, because they had a domestic dispute, and also apparently got into an argument at a restaurant in Jackson Hole. Then he returns to Florida without his fiancé, and racks up gas, and food charges on her card on his way back. If she was actually “missing” he would have contacted the authorities in Wyoming, and called her parents. Knowing that, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know he killed her; probably by strangulation or drowning.

    Knowing they had a domestic dispute would have been enough to hold him on suspicion of her disappearance.
    The potential domestic dispute was dealt with and no criminal charges were filed. The police helped the parties separate. Honestly, that gives the police even less cause to question him at the time for coming home alone, since the police were the ones who separated the two.

    The argument in Jackson's Hole wasn't reported to the FBI until after Laundrie had disappeared.

    The credit card fraud was not discovered until after Laundrie had disappeared.

    Of course everyone suspected that he had killed her. But there was nothing the police could legally do without evidence of a crime. That's why they started looking for some. They just didn't find the card charges until it was too late.


    "The difference between stupidity
    and genius is that genius has its limits."

    --Alexandre Dumas-fils

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by The Oblivion View Post
    not without a crime to be held for. at the time, there was no crime.
    No, but they could hold him without charges for a limited amount of time. But, in most cases, they'd still have had to let him go or charge him with something before the body was discovered.

    I'm not suggesting that they should have done so though. Obviously in this case, there was a victim, but if she had shown up 2 days later alive and well... that kind of thing realy exposes the PD to all kinds of unfortunate situations.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •