Why is everyone so obsessed with Gabby Petito?

Can he be tried in absentia? I think they used to do that to drug guys. Try them in absentia because they had skipped town off the grid in secret hideouts.

I don't think it's fair. He can't communicate with his lawyer in absentia. Un-Constitutional.

While you're making an emotionally compelling appeal for why he probably is guilty, that's not how our legal system works. Given how fragile and unstable she looked in the videos from 8/12 and given that she did draw blood on the guy before, is it possible that they got into a fight at the campsite, he left, and then she shacked up with some with some other strange guy at the camp and wound up dead?

Now if they find physical evidence of some sort, which they will in 99% of cases where someone takes a person camping to murder that person, well then there you go. If not, it's going to be a tough conviction to get.

Our system has the burden of proof on the DA to prove murder, not to prove suspicion, and not for the defendant to prove innocence. Perhaps you'd vote guilty in spite of the guidance the judge gives you, and perhaps it eats you up that a guilty person can go free. But that's how it works in the U.S.

fada tyme wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Basically, you're claiming that if someone wants to get away with killing his wife, all he has do is take her camping. If something else happened to her besides him murdering her, he needed to notify the police immediately so the an investigation could begin immediately. By leaving her there, he lost the chance to prove that he wasn't responsible.

It can be proven that they were alone together, they had had a fight and her body was found 900 feet from where they had parked their van. He also drove home by himself, was radio silent for several days and has now disappeared.

If you were a juror would you think there is reasonable doubt? As a juror, your vote is at your discretion.

You don't quite get the rules of evidence and who the burden is on do you?

There are people that get convicted on circumstancel evidence. There was no direct evidence that the fertilizer salesman from Modesto murdered his wife, but it was obvious he killed her and he was convicted. Again, based on your "rules of evidence", camping trip murders are foolproof.

Based on what is publicly known so far, would you vote not guilty? I wouldn't.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Basically, you're claiming that if someone wants to get away with killing his wife, all he has do is take her camping. If something else happened to her besides him murdering her, he needed to notify the police immediately so the an investigation could begin immediately. By leaving her there, he lost the chance to prove that he wasn't responsible.

It can be proven that they were alone together, they had had a fight and her body was found 900 feet from where they had parked their van. He also drove home by himself, was radio silent for several days and has now disappeared.

If you were a juror would you think there is reasonable doubt? As a juror, your vote is at your discretion.

The problem with your argument is that you are confused about how the burden of proof works. The government has to establish that he killed her. The absence of an explanation is not the same thing as conclusively and affirmatively establishing guilt.

As a general matter, we don't have any duty to other people. He had not duty to call the police to report her missing. He had no duty to call her family. He has no duty to talk to the police now. And his unwillingness to talk to the police or take the stand cannot be referenced in an effort to establish his guilt.

Additional evidence may be out there and known to the authorities right now. Additional evidence may be discovered. But based on what's publicly available right now, I doubt you would find a prosecutor who would even be willing to try this case at all.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

fada tyme wrote:

You don't quite get the rules of evidence and who the burden is on do you?

There are people that get convicted on circumstancel evidence. There was no direct evidence that the fertilizer salesman from Modesto murdered his wife, but it was obvious he killed her and he was convicted. Again, based on your "rules of evidence", camping trip murders are foolproof.

Based on what is publicly known so far, would you vote not guilty? I wouldn't.

As instructed by a judge....I wouldn't convict based on what is known.

Oil embargo wrote:

They will never find him. He's with the underground now. He will never be found.

Oh they’ll find him if he remains alive. It’s very difficult to not be found for an amateur. You need connections with the rest of your criminal gang helping you hide or relocate, plus a lot of money in any case. There’s little evidence that he is anything but just another average young man who got into a tricky mess.

ridicula wrote:

Oil embargo wrote:

They will never find him. He's with the underground now. He will never be found.

Oh they’ll find him if he remains alive. It’s very difficult to not be found for an amateur. You need connections with the rest of your criminal gang helping you hide or relocate, plus a lot of money in any case. There’s little evidence that he is anything but just another average young man who got into a tricky mess.

This is a bit extreme but he could have had someone drive him to someplace he can get out of the country.

fada tyme wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

There are people that get convicted on circumstancel evidence. There was no direct evidence that the fertilizer salesman from Modesto murdered his wife, but it was obvious he killed her and he was convicted. Again, based on your "rules of evidence", camping trip murders are foolproof.

Based on what is publicly known so far, would you vote not guilty? I wouldn't.

As instructed by a judge....I wouldn't convict based on what is known.

A judge is not going to tell you to vote not guilty. He left her in Wyoming, holed up in his home for several days and now he's on the run. How could you possibly think he's not guilty.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Again, based on your "rules of evidence", camping trip murders are foolproof.

You are working backwards from the obviously false premise that all murders must be provable. A murder out in the wilderness is a good example of a murder that is often impossible to prove. That's one of the reasons that people are afraid of strangers in the wilderness.

There are plenty of reasons that there aren't many "camping trip murders." The most obvious is that people don't typically WANT to kill their camping buddies. And even if a camper did have a motive to kill a companion, it's far from the perfect crime because, while it's likely that you'll never be prosecuted, it's also likely that you will be ostracized by society if you refuse to talk about what happened.

fada tyme wrote:

As instructed by a judge....I wouldn't convict based on what is known.

And if you did convict him, a judge may actually overrule you and enter a not guilty judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the state does not meet its burden of proof.

ridicula wrote:

Oil embargo wrote:

They will never find him. He's with the underground now. He will never be found.

Oh they’ll find him if he remains alive. It’s very difficult to not be found for an amateur. You need connections with the rest of your criminal gang helping you hide or relocate, plus a lot of money in any case. There’s little evidence that he is anything but just another average young man who got into a tricky mess.

He had a 4 day head start. He's a man of means. They will never find him. He's with a waitress in Honduras by now. No FBI jurisdiction in Honduras. They have discretion drug cartel guys all over the place down there.

Smoove wrote:

Additional evidence may be out there and known to the authorities right now. Additional evidence may be discovered. But based on what's publicly available right now, I doubt you would find a prosecutor who would even be willing to try this case at all.

True, but I’m pretty sure even law enforcement is working under the assumption that he is the most likely suspect and trying to gather evidence to be able to prove that. They just can’t come out and charge him with anything just yet. The autopsy tomorrow should shed more light on the most likely cause of death and should probably help establish foul play, assuming there was foul play.

Discusss wrote:

Cute white blogger girl disappears and Instagram and TikTok and now MSM is captivated by it.

In a society obsessed with crime podcasts and the newest trendy thing, it shouldn’t be a surprise. Similar to many people’s obsession with that weird lion keeper’s story on Netflix.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

fada tyme wrote:

As instructed by a judge....I wouldn't convict based on what is known.

A judge is not going to tell you to vote not guilty. He left her in Wyoming, holed up in his home for several days and now he's on the run. How could you possibly think he's not guilty.

I believe you have stated you are a father of a girl or girls. So am I. I can tell that is affecting how you are reasoning in this matter. Law enforcement are not going to make an arrest without a warrant in this case. That will mean a prosecutor and judge have all agreed there is enough evidence for an arrest. Until that occurs, we have to slow down labeling someone guilty. What if Laundrie is innocent? There may be lynch mobs after him. No need to get the crowd pumped up. Obviously there are lunatics on social media sites.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

fada tyme wrote:

As instructed by a judge....I wouldn't convict based on what is known.

A judge is not going to tell you to vote not guilty. He left her in Wyoming, holed up in his home for several days and now he's on the run. How could you possibly think he's not guilty.

A judge is going to instruct the jury as to what the appropriate statue is to what the defendant is charged with and what is required to find the accused guilty.

Based on what is out there as evidence, I doubt he could be convicted of any crime let alone a murder.

If you and a collection of 11 other jurors convicted this likely accused based on flight and "who else could have done it", the judge could very well throw out the conviction.

I assume you've never set foot in a courtroom and certainly could not have served on a jury.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

fada tyme wrote:

As instructed by a judge....I wouldn't convict based on what is known.

A judge is not going to tell you to vote not guilty. He left her in Wyoming, holed up in his home for several days and now he's on the run. How could you possibly think he's not guilty.

Not sure what else to say to you. Several people have explained that none of those things is a crime and he was under no obligation to stay with her or report it to the police that he left. A DA is unlikely to take on this case if more evidence doesn't emerge, and while you've made up your mind (your right), a jury following the instructions they were given in how to evaluate the evidence would have a hard time convicting because the state has to PROVE he did it.

For what it's worth, I hope that smoking gun of evidence comes to light, and if this guy did it, that he gets what the law says he deserves.

800 dude wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Again, based on your "rules of evidence", camping trip murders are foolproof.

You are working backwards from the obviously false premise that all murders must be provable. …

Actually, all murders must be provable, beyond a reasonable doubt at least. Otherwise it’s not a murder, a term that has a legal definition. Not all killing is murder. Sometimes the process of proving that a death or homicide is a murder may go hand in hand with proving who committed the murder, but a murder isn’t a murder until proven as such.

Just chiming in another voice that I think it is likely that he is responsible for her death but that SDSU Aztec is looking awfully ignorant in the US judicial system in this thread, as others have pointed out.

fada tyme wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

A judge is not going to tell you to vote not guilty. He left her in Wyoming, holed up in his home for several days and now he's on the run. How could you possibly think he's not guilty.

A judge is going to instruct the jury as to what the appropriate statue is to what the defendant is charged with and what is required to find the accused guilty.

Based on what is out there as evidence, I doubt he could be convicted of any crime let alone a murder.

If you and a collection of 11 other jurors convicted this likely accused based on flight and "who else could have done it", the judge could very well throw out the conviction.

I assume you've never set foot in a courtroom and certainly could not have served on a jury.

You guys are saying that direct evidence is needed for a conviction and that's not true. That some other dude did it or a bear ate her does not create reasonable doubt for me.