Gabby Petito issue

a reply to: TomCollin
This is typical, right?
Perhaps the authorities should have moved quicker?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Hard to say, if they had and found evidence before it became a homicide investigation when he wasn't a suspect yet just a person of interest, wouldn't there be a chance that the the evidence could have been thrown out? Also when the cops where there Friday they were seen carrying what many were calling evidence bags.

a reply to: TomCollin

They had grounds for a search warrant on day one in FL. Local cops blew it by thinking no crime had been committed in their state.

a reply to: shooterbrody

BINGO!!!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And you're assuming guilt based off of zero evidence. Now that Gabby's body has been found and, based on the actions of the FBI, it seems foul play is suspected I'm sure law enforcement will question his parents about how much knowledge they had.

However, until law enforcement can find any evidence that Laundrie's parents knew he was going to run then they are innocent in the eyes of the law.

Well, this is the fbi searching and not the locals?
If those involved lawyered up, it would slow the process significantly, no?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
If these people have all lawyered up, investigators would be directed to submit all questions to the attorneys, correct?
How would directing questions to attorneys be obstruction?
Also, how would assertion of constitutional rights be obstruction?

I understand anger at people not cooperating, but in our nation cooperation is not required, is it?

Not necessarily. If they had been under arrest, and they invoked their attorney privileges, then yes, although questions don't have to be submitted in writing. They can be asked in person with their attorneys advising them on whether they should answer or not.

There are no such restrictions if a person is not under arrest. Law enforcement can ask as many questions as they like. However, their attorney could still advise them to not answer selected questions, but there is no restriction on them asking questions in general.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Well, I guess we're going to find out, huh?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Correct. And if the local agency would have turned the case over to the feds sooner, the feds could easily have gotten a judge to sign off on a search warrant.

Mr. Bungle is living large in this whole case!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: shooterbrody
If these people have all lawyered up, investigators would be directed to submit all questions to the attorneys, correct?
How would directing questions to attorneys be obstruction?
Also, how would assertion of constitutional rights be obstruction?

I understand anger at people not cooperating, but in our nation cooperation is not required, is it?

Not necessarily. If they had been under arrest, and they invoked their attorney privileges, then yes, although questions don't have to be submitted in writing. They can be asked in person with their attorneys advising them on whether they should answer or not.

There are no such restrictions if a person is not under arrest. Law enforcement can ask as many questions as they like. However, their attorney could still advise them to not answer selected questions, but there is no restriction on them asking questions in general.

Those asked questions by law enforcement are under no obligation to answer.
At least at this stage.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: shooterbrody

Correct. And if the local agency would have turned the case over to the feds sooner, the feds could easily have gotten a judge to sign off on a search warrant.

Mr. Bungle is living large in this whole case!

Even with a search warrant, answering questions is not required.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If a person is simply a person of interest in a case and that person has lawyered up, their lawyer is going to advise them not to answer any questions. Which is perfectly within that person's rights.

originally posted by: TomCollin
a reply to: shooterbrody

Hard to say, if they had and found evidence before it became a homicide investigation when he wasn't a suspect yet just a person of interest, wouldn't there be a chance that the the evidence could have been thrown out? Also when the cops where there Friday they were seen carrying what many were calling evidence bags.

Depends on where they found said evidence, and under what circumstances. Generally, I would say, no, it would not be thrown out unless the evidence was illegally obtained. Found during the execution of a search warrant is not illegally obtained.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
What do you think could be found now that would assist leos?
Dude is gone.
They should get his phone records which would give his locations and timeline, but they should have this before even going to the location?

a reply to: shooterbrody

True. Not suggesting otherwise.

The search warrant and the questioning are two separate discussions. One doesn't facilitate the other; never claimed it did.

Regarding the search warrant, if one had been executed earlier they might well have found evidence of a crime sooner. Things like laptops and cell phones, for example, would have been seized. This, before everything got deleted and wiped. (Though some of it still may be recoverable...IF they have the device! If the device was destroyed or ditched somewhere, well, all bets are off).

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: shooterbrody

True. Not suggesting otherwise.

The search warrant and the questioning are two separate discussions. One doesn't facilitate the other; never claimed it did.

Regarding the search warrant, if one had been executed earlier they might well have found evidence of a crime sooner. Things like laptops and cell phones, for example, would have been seized. This, before everything got deleted and wiped. (Though some of it still may be recoverable...IF they have the device! If the device was destroyed or ditched somewhere, well, all bets are off).

They should have seized the data in question prior to moving anywhere physically imo.
The questions will be much different imo with that info.
Searching the parents property is interesting imo, and I doubt that will inspire further cooperation.
Do you think the parents would knowingly help the kid escape?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

The Feds had no jurisdiction. All Florida had was a person of interest in a missing person's case from Wyoming. Until evidence of a crime was uncovered, and that evidence implicated Laundrie was responsible, this case belonged to Wyoming police with local Florida cops helping out with their POI.

Now that Gabby's body has been discovered and it seemingly shows evidence of foul play that implicates Laundrie, it is in the Feds jurisdiction as the primary suspect crossed state lines in the commission of a crime.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Yes, I agree it would be within their rights.

I hate to put it like this, but it's about exerting pressure. Certainly within your rights to not utter a word from the comfort of your living room couch. A little bit different to continue to exercise those rights while staying at Hotel Greybar on Obstruction charges.

Oh, but they'd get bail wouldn't they. Or, would they?

"Why should we believe you're not a flight risk too? Tell us where you son is and maybe we'll reconsider your status."

I have a feeling he told his parents she was dead as soon as he got back but made up story on how she died. Why else did they lawyer up?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Now that they have a body and possible cause of death, the main thing they'll be looking for is the murder weapon. If they can tie Laundrie to the murder weapon they'll have a pretty slam dunk case.