Gabby Petito

[JoeA]

I was going to say that. Not only about you, but to a whole bunch of folks that have been commenting. You are honest and I applaud you. Way too much speculation in here from TV sleuths that really have no grasp of how the law works and what a crime actually is. People have way too much emotional investment in a story in which they don't have all the facts. Everybody should sit back and let things develop.
Just my suggestion and simple opinion.

Now what fun would the internet be if we sat back and let things develop and waited on facts?!

 

[JimMIA]

There's another awkward (but fundamental) little detail -- jurisdiction.

The police chief who has been talking to the media WAY too much is Chief of Police for the town of North Port, Florida. The North Port Police Department has jurisdiction only in North Port, FL which is shown outlined in red on the map below. They have no legal jurisdiction outside of their small town, and that's only IF a crime occurred within their city limits.

They have no jurisdiction in Moab, UT, or parks in Wyoming, or anywhere else outside of North Port, FL. Therefore, anything they do without proper legal jurisdiction could actually interfere with prosecutions in other jurisdictions.

And, until someone determines that some crime has occurred somewhere, there is no jurisdiction for anyone. The only agency that obviously has any jurisdiction for anything is the Moab, UT police department, which is investigating the murder of the two women there.

 

[Stratman50th]

Now what fun would the internet be if we sat back and let things develop and waited on facts?!

Indeed. And look, you made me come back and respond. Well played sir.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

charging him with theft, regardless of whether it would stick or not, would be a great precursor to getting him into custody, which would apply pressure on him and his attorney to start answering some questions about what the heck went on and where Gabby possibly is. Probably cause is all that is needed for an arrest which, in a very loose and elementary sense, is a fair probability.

I would think that would be a no no and may make the case harder or if something happened give ammo for an appeal. If they truly don't believe it is theft charging just on the grounds of pushing for a confession or other information opens up things. Although that may be just my opinion

 

[penn19]

His sister was on tv this morning. She hasn’t been allowed to see or talk to her brother.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

the van was registered to her, but they were living in it together. Arresting him for stealing it may not be enough to hold him. And that would be the only reason to arrest him for stealing it, to hold him until they can find something else to charge him with. He would just need to say that she left him and didn't take the van. I also get the impression that these young persons thought they were on this grand adventure, living in a van and traveling full time, but they ran out of money and it wasn't fun anymore. They could have been using substances, nobody will ever know unless the guy talks or the police find something in the van.

It's an interesting case. If she had just left, I don't know why he wouldn't say "she left and I don't know where she is." She's an adult, and that would be all he had to say. at a guess either he caused harm to her, she caused harm to herself, or there was an accident and he couldn't handle it.

Some are going on about his apparent preference for macabre literature and art, but that doesn't make him a suspect.

there's also no indication that Kylen (the murdered woman who worked in the store in Moab), or her wife, knew or ever met Brian or Gabby. There was one indication that Kylen's work hours ended well before the altercation in the parking lot that was called in (by a man, not a woman).

 

[ParklandDISDad]

I would think that would be a no no and may make the case harder or if something happened give ammo for an appeal. If they truly don't believe it is theft charging just on the grounds of pushing for a confession or other information opens up things. Although that may be just my opinion

I guess. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine and all that. But if the primary focus is to locate her as expeditiously as possible does it really matter? + if they did receive a confession that led to her discovery sure they wouldn't be able to use evidence obtained through his being in custody, e.g., statements made, but they would still be able to use physical evidence and other evidence as long as they would have come into possession of it eventually without the information obtained during the false arrest.. which would be the subject of an evidentiary hearing. My criminal law 101 is a little rusty and there is some state-to-state differences but this still is pretty much all dictated by constitutional law/us supreme court decisions which are bindings on all jurisdictions.

 

[ParklandDISDad]

It's an interesting case. If she had just left, I don't know why he wouldn't say "she left and I don't know where she is." She's an adult, and that would be all he had to say. at a guess either he caused harm to her, she caused harm to herself, or there was an accident and he couldn't handle it.

If you watch the body camera footage from August 12th you can see that there may be something not quite all there with Brian. As others have speculated he may have a learning disability, low IQ generally, ADHD, something like that... either way it's clear that his parents feel the need to try and protect him from something for a reason.. maybe its from imprisonment, or maybe its from mental anguish. Time will hopefully tell.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I guess. Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine and all that. But if the primary focus is to locate her as expeditiously as possible does it really matter? + if they did receive a confession that led to her discovery sure they wouldn't be able to use evidence obtained through his being in custody, e.g., statements made, but they would still be able to use physical evidence and other evidence as long as they would have come into possession of it eventually without the information obtained during the false arrest.. which would be the subject of an evidentiary hearing. My criminal law 101 is a little rusty and there is some state-to-state differences but this still is pretty much all dictated by constitutional law/us supreme court decisions which are bindings on all jurisdictions.

Of course it matters..goodness me that's part of the reason people are so jaded against the court system.

From a lot of local stories I read our county DA declines to accept charges in cases where there's not enough legs to stand on or where there's issues with background police work (not saying he does this 100% of the time but it's clear he does this enough).

If the police do think it's theft that's all together different than not thinking it's theft but saying "let's just bring him in so we can force him to talk since he's under arrest". I'm not saying they couldn't obtain an arrest warrant on that, I'm saying it could open them up should something come about or make it easier for a grounds for appeal. For a prosecutor that's not what you want.

 

[DLgal]

Of course it matters..goodness me that's part of the reason people are so jaded against the court system.

From a lot of local stories I read our county DA declines to accept charges in cases where there's not enough legs to stand on or where there's issues with background police work (not saying he does this 100% of the time but it's clear he does this enough).

If the police do think it's theft that's all together different than not thinking it's theft but saying "let's just bring him in so we can force him to talk since he's under arrest". I'm not saying they couldn't obtain an arrest warrant on that, I'm saying it could open them up should something come about or make it easier for a grounds for appeal. For a prosecutor that's not what you want.

Exactly. This would amount to coercion and is NOT the way police investigations should ever be handled.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

If the cops put the guy under arrest now for any old thing they could come up with, they would still not be able to make him talk. He already has a lawyer. They couldn't even ask him any questions.

 

[wenrob]

Police can't "force him to talk since he's under arrest," LOL. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

It's amazing how many of us don't understand our most basic Constitutional rights! Apparently nobody but Stratman and I have ever heard of Miranda v. Arizona!

She was pointing out that you can’t do that not suggesting it be done. The person she quoted suggested it.

As far as knowing rights, I agree. A lot of the things suggested here are really making my hair stand on end. I suggest people familiarize themselves for their own benefit.

 

[Marrila]

.

 

[mom2rtk]

Lots of people talking about jurisdiction and rights and such. I'm talking about what's right. They didn't find a body and someone has now clammed up. There is an ongoing case where the welfare of this girl is still undetermined. I don't care what his legal rights are. It's wrong that he hasn't offered up what he knows about her disappearance.

I'm aghast at the number of people seemingly defending him sitting back saying nothing. (Or maybe I'm misunderstanding. I hope I am.) Sure it might be legal. But that doesn't make it even remotely right. I think a lot of people are putting themselves in the shoes of the guy (or his parents). How about putting yourselves in the shoes of Gabby's parents?

I'd probably feel different if there wasn't an ongoing issue of finding a missing girl. But until she's found, it would be nice if everyone pulled together to help find her. Unless of course you're the only one who knows it's not really an urgent matter any more.

 

[MakiraMarlena]

You may not care what his legal rights are. The police and the courts have to, though. If anyone not subject to the laws has the ability to force him to talk, they could have at it. Unfortunately they would likely be breaking laws as well.

 

[Stratman50th]

One last comment here. You can't "force" someone to come in for questioning. You can ask. If they say yes, fine. This guy is lawyered up so he's acting on advice of counsel. I can promise he won't be in for questioning without his lawyer. Also, if he goes in and they question him, he can just sit there like a speed bump and say nothing. If he isn't in custody, he can get up and leave. If he is in custody, he can play like a clam and say nothing. Back to square one and the lawyer.

Ok, one more time. See above. For you TV cops and lawyers Miranda V Arizona is about the "read him his rights Danno".
In a nutshell, you have two types of interrogations.

Custodial: The suspect is in custody and and can't leave. This is where you need to inform them of their rights. Also, they don't have to talk to you without a lawyer being present. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You are free to stop answering questions at any time you decide. If you have a lawyer they have to go through the lawyer. If you say you want a lawyer present the have to stop asking questions. If you stop talking they take you back to the people zoo until you change your mind or trial or whatever.

Non-Custodial: The investigator (any LEO can be an investigator be it uniformed patrol or a detective in case someone is curious) has the suspect in a place where they are asking questions. If the suspect isn't under arrest he can cooperate but he can also stop at any time and leave. They do not have to inform you of your rights in this situation, and you can run your mouth and hang yourself.

Please note comments in my previous post. Sit like a speed bump or shut up like a clam.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

When did this thread turn into a 'know-it all' gathering?

I was reading it earlier today with fascination planning on commenting when I could and came back only to see rude comments towards people about what they do or don't know.

Can we get back to Gabby's disappearance? I don't mind the speculations about what happened but towards these last page or two it's just a 'I know more than you know' and it's distracting to the thread

 

[mom2rtk]

You may not care what his legal rights are. The police and the courts have to, though. If anyone not subject to the laws has the ability to force him to talk, they could have at it. Unfortunately they would likely be breaking laws as well.

But I'm not talking about what the police and courts doing. Of course they have to follow the rules to the letter. I don't expect them to skirt the rules to get answers. We all know that backfires later.

I'm only talking about what HE should be doing. What any decent person would do. Even if some accident happened and he knows talking won't save her life, then for the sake of her parents, whose child is out there somewhere and they have no idea if she's suffering in the wilderness or if she's dead in a ditch.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I agree with many others that he knows things. I do feel for her family and friends. They do deserve to know at least more information, how besides themselves they must feel for not knowing where she is or even a shred of what may have happened to her

Maybe he didn't kill her, maybe the poor girl is out there wandering around. I don't think getting a lawyer means he's guilty of harming her, but I do think not alerting anyone to her not being seen or heard from since he last saw her is not good not good at all to me.

 

[Sinder]

Even Scott Peterson pretended to care about what happened to his wife, and he's a freaking monster.
What does that make this guy, he's not even pretending to give a **** about what happened to the woman he loves.