Petito is Dead! Cause...Homicide!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Once again, there is no evidence the parents are guilty of anything. At the time Laundrie was staying with them this was still a missing person's case and the was no warrant for his arrest. Even now I don't think there's one as law enforcement are still building their case.

When Laundrie left for the reserve he was free to do so. He wasn't under house arrest.

In order for Laundrie's parents to be guilty, first law enforcement would need to prove that Laundrie is guilty, then they would to prove that Laundrie's parents knew he was guilty and that they knowingly aided in his flight. At that point they would be charged as accessories.

Well, to those who say he bears no responsibility, I will add this...

In the opening few seconds of their only video on the 'Nomadik Statik' YT channel, the very first words out of Petito say something very telling. She says...

"Gabby never goes outside!"...(and then she flashes a peace sign).

To me, this is a pretty telling statement. Clearly, it's a message to all who know her that she is a known introvert who doesn't get out much, and this is the beginning of her coming out 'adventure' into the world. She has likely talked about doing something like this (the van life thing) for years.

So, what does this have to do with Laundrie? Petito had virtually zero experience outdoors, camping and/or surviving in remote situations. Therefore, Laundrie was responsible for her safety and well being. The murder notwithstanding, minimally his returning home to FL without her would make him guilty of reckless abandonment.

How do we know she didn't run away from him? Well, we don't. However, his returning home with the van makes that point irrelevant. Did he have title to the van? No, it was in her name. He may have had some 'sweat-equity' in the van, but he did not have title to it, bottom line. How else could the authorities have seized the van as evidence on day #1, when they couldn't even talk to Laundrie or the parents? Answer: Because neither he, nor his parents, had any legal right to the van.

When you look at this case from this perspective it really changes the complexion of his apparent guilt.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

If the circumstances were different, I might agree with you (somewhat). For example, if Laundrie would have just shown up somewhere in Wyoming and appealed to his parents to fly / bus him home to FL, and all the other events played out the same way, then I might agree. However, that's not what happened. Laundrie returned home to FL in a van he didn't even have title to...her van.

At a bare minimum, he has a legal (and certainly moral) obligation to explain how this happened. His immediate lawyering up and refusal to talk is grounds for GTA. If you borrow someone's car, are you guilty of GTA? No, not necessarily, but you can be arrested for GTA unless you can prove the person you borrowed the car from willingly allowed you to use it. How would Laundrie be able to do this? He wasn't, hence the impounding of the vehicle immediately after his return.

Again, you can dance around some of these minor legalese issues all you want, but the reality is...there's probably ten different crimes Laundrie could be charged with right now (murder not being one of them). The reason Laundrie hasn't been charged is simply because the authorities are trying to get enough evidence to pin a Murder-1 rap on him, and they don't want to risk not being able to do this by charging him with a bunch of other stuff first and having to defend harassment allegations.

His parents willfully allowing him to slip away complicates this effort significantly.

originally posted by: Brotherman
Do they actually know that it happened there on federal land or was her body just dumped there or don’t they know what and where things went down exactly?

I suspect we'll know more once the full corners report comes up but he was fairly deep into the park.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Agreed.

Wouldn't make a lot of sense to bring her into the park after she was dead.

What's really weird is, he must have left the park and then returned later for the van. I wonder if she was dead before, or after, he did this? Would have been a long, long, walk to get from where he was to the road where he was picked up hitchhiking. And, and even longer walk back.

originally posted by: vonclod
I think the dude probably gets found dead, and that will be that. No one will definitively know what happened.

Not sure about that. I think he threw out a red herring direction, and is NOT in the Carlton Reserve. Or anywhere northward at all.

I'm very, very familiar with the parks on the Suncoast (never been to CR itself, though) seeing as how that stretch of FL is where I grew up.

When we were teenagers, we used to ask each other, "If you had to leave the state without anyone seeing you, how would you do it?" Me and one friend always thought more outside the box -- not going northward. It's a peninsula, surrounded by water, EVERYONE would keep an eye peeled for you heading north out of FL.

Therefore, our teenage butts theorized that one could probably make their way southward through the inland rural areas & parks, sight unseen, easily enough. Get into the Everglades, and if you know what you're doing well enough, you can make like the Natives used to, and traverse across it south to Florida Bay, and if you're half as good as that as you think, you'd aim for the campground area around Flamingo, hope there's a boat close enough to hop in & boost, and be gone. Cuba ain't that far from the Keys, it's a possibility at least.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Now what?



Monetization of YT, Instagram and every other social media platform should be OUTLAWED!!

I guess Im not keeping up with this case. Why should they be demonetized?

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Now what?



Monetization of YT, Instagram and every other social media platform should be OUTLAWED!!

I guess Im not keeping up with this case. Why should they be demonetized?

Not them, but the companies allowing monetization in general. This whole concept of going out and doing crazy stuff so you can live for "free" off the money you make from your videos, IGs, Tik toks, tweets and whatever is wrong! How many more stories do we have to see now were people are injured, or killed...or murdered...because of this stupid phenomenon. It's senseless, and it should be illegal for companies to offer this option! Videos are fine, but monetized videos are not fine.

a reply to: Nyiah

The alleged sighting of Laundrie was 200 miles from Carlton reserve. And that was at 6am yesterday I believe.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Not them, but the companies allowing monetization in general. This whole concept of going out and doing crazy stuff so you can live for "free" off the money you make from your videos, IGs, Tik toks, tweets and whatever is wrong! How many more stories do we have to see now were people are injured, or killed...or murdered...because of this stupid phenomenon. It's senseless, and it should be illegal for companies to offer this option! Videos are fine, but monetized videos are not fine.

That isn't for the government to decide and the majority of people earning a living from being an influencer aren't doing s*** that gets them killed or injured.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know / understand your stance on issues like this, so I won't argue my point further. I differ strongly on this particular point, and we'll just leave it at that, and agree to disagree.

Generally, I agree with your posture on government involvement, but this is one area over which there should be some oversight.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Generally, I agree with your posture on government involvement, but this is one area over which there should be some oversight.

Then we'll agree to disagree, the government should stay TF out of legislating morality and pretty much everything else while we're at it.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Okay, but just FTR, I don't see this particular issue as a moral issue. I see it as a Public Safety issue.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: coop039

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Now what?



Monetization of YT, Instagram and every other social media platform should be OUTLAWED!!

I guess Im not keeping up with this case. Why should they be demonetized?

Not them, but the companies allowing monetization in general. This whole concept of going out and doing crazy stuff so you can live for "free" off the money you make from your videos, IGs, Tik toks, tweets and whatever is wrong! How many more stories do we have to see now were people are injured, or killed...or murdered...because of this stupid phenomenon. It's senseless, and it should be illegal for companies to offer this option! Videos are fine, but monetized videos are not fine.

Gotcha. Yeah, I kind of agree with ya. I see so many videos where these asshats screw with people just to get views. Sooner or later one of the idiots will get their ass beat. I dont have an issue with actual creative people, doing comedy skits, car reviews, or science stuff, etc. But the ones that can only annoy people need to go. Ive seen video where guys do stuff to women that would be considered sexual harassment, but yet its all good to get views.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Okay, but just FTR, I don't see this particular issue as a moral issue. I see it as a Public Safety issue.

I know plenty of people that are successful social media influencers who are not a hazard to themselves or others, they shouldn't be punished for the occasional clown who wants to win a Darwin.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

And explain to me why any of this is of any real importance and why so much attention is focused on this woman?

I found the answer, its called "missing white woman" syndrome. If she had been black the media would have paid no attention whatsoever and the meida audience could care less.

www.dailywire.com...

ut the way this story has captivated the nation has many wondering, why not the same media attention when people of color go missing?” Reid asked. “Well, the answer actually has a name, ‘missing white woman syndrome,’ the term coined by the late and great Gwen Ifill, to describe the media and public fascination with missing white women like Laci Peterson or Natalee Holloway, while ignoring cases involving missing people of color.”

So really, all the interest and concern is actually all about RACISM! Implicit bias.

a reply to: TonyS

Okay, Joy, move along now. You were irrelevant before this case began, you're irrelevant now, and you will be irrelevant tomorrow, next year and forever.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I don't see what that has anything to do with this case. Her vlogging didn't make him an abusive POS. Sadly, this was most likely going to happen no matter what.

a reply to: nolabel

If she had been a black/hispanic/chinese etc. there wouldn't have been this much interest in the case.

That is a load of horse snip. You're COMPLETELY IGNORING the last 12 years where race was thrown in our face every single God Damn day.

And here you are doing it as well.

A young woman is dead. IT doesn't matter what her skin color was.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: visitedbythem
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


I look down on men that hit women. I can proudly say that I have never ever hit a woman. Even when being Assaulted.

and do YOU look down on Women that hit men??????? I get attacked by my misses about once of every month coming up to her period it about four days of constant punches before she is on , fingers in the eyes, trying to scalp me by pulling out my hair, DO YPU look DOWN ON THAT because it' s scary and she is scary and it h

You may restrain them, without hitting them. My exwife went for the butcher knife. I just restrained her.

In a abusive relationship? Get another wife. Be a man. Dont hit women. Period.

In the famous words of Bill Burr, there are a million reasons to hit a woman.. You just don't do it!