Posted on 09/23/2021 3:17:14 AM PDT by conservative98
Walsh broke down how he thinks the "dirty Laundries," as he referred to the Laundrie family, helped their son cover up the incident connected to Petito’s death, including taking a suspicious family weekend trip upon his return home in a small attached camper.
"He scrubbed that van, the parents helped him," he said. "I know they got rid of the evidence… [Brian Laundrie] was in that camper when the father and mother went out, I would guarantee it. And I’ve been doing this 33 years."
"He was in that camper when they went on a little trip before [Petito] was reported missing and they bought him five extra days with that ruse," he continued. "That kid has been throwing red herrings everywhere."
The expert went on to suggest that law enforcement could have saved Petito’s life, especially if the 911 operator had reported the claim that Laundrie was seen putting his hands on Petito in Utah to the police. Instead, the cops' report was written up to target Laundrie as the victim.
"How the hell did the FBI and the North Port police let this kid slip out of the house?" he asked. "What the hell is going on?" Walsh asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
“ Arrest, trial, conviction. THEN he would be guilty, NOT before.”
I agree with most of what you said, but not this last part.
If he killed her, he is guilty. Even if he gets away with it, he is guilty. Even if he disappears and is never tried, he is guilty. Even if he is found dead, he is guilty.
If he killed her, he is guilty, not matter what happens after that.
“I watched a story where the life cycle of bugs told them when the person died and how long they’d been dead.”
More accurately, it tells them how long the bugs had been on the body. Bugs (specifically flies) usually access the body within hours of death, so usually this is near enough how long the person had been dead.
Referring again to the David Westerfield-Danielle van Dam case, which I mentioned a couple of days ago on another Pitito-Laundrie thread, the police’s regular bug expert calculated that Danielle had been dead about 10 days. But Westerfield had already been under 24-hour police surveillance for nearly two weeks at that time! So he couldn’t possibly have killed her.
This put the police in a quandary. Because they had already arrested him - and had convinced the public that he was guilty. It would have been really embarrassing for them to admit they’d got it all wrong.
So they proceeded with the trial. But to obtain a conviction, they had to discredit the bug evidence. And they used every argument they could think of to do so. To give some examples:
They argued that the body had been covered, thereby delaying fly access to it. But no covering was found.
They argued that the body was rapidly mummified, again thereby delaying fly access until it was opened up by probably coyotes. Rapidly mummified in the mild climate of southern California? No way.
They argued that the fly population was greatly reduced at that time (true, because of the drought), delaying flies finding the body. But the body was alongside a river, so thirsty animals would have congregated there, maybe even increasing the normal fly population.
Their tactic worked, and they obtained their desired “guilty” verdict. So even if Brian Laundrie is innocent, and the bug evidence confirms this, the prosecution might still succeed in convicting him.
If the victim had been fat and ugly the MSM wouldn’t care one iota about this story.
Young, attractive woman disappears while on a trip with her fiancé. So the first part of the story almost writes itself. Where is she? It’s a mystery.
Boyfriend comes home without her and says nothing. Of course suspicion falls on him. Then her body is found and boyfriend also mysteriously disappears.
Yes there a dozens of equally tragic stories of death/disappearances every day that barely make the local news. But this story piques the imagination.
“The defense needed their own bug expert.” (the Westerfield-van Dam case)
They used TWO of their own bug experts, one of whom was Neal Haskell, who is very well-known and respected (I’ve seen him in a number of true-crime documentaries), and both of them supported the police’s regular expert that Danielle only died while Westerfield was under constant police surveillance. The police’s regular expert also testified for the defense (I doubt that happens too often, and to me it’s a red flag). The prosecution had to call in someone else, and he ALSO gave dates which excluded Westerfield - but added that it COULD have been earlier.
As I indicated above, there ARE factors which can distort their calculations, there was just no evidence of that having happened in this particular case. Nevertheless, it gave the jury sufficient reason in their eyes to ignore this evidence. So my point was that it COULD happen in the Petito-Laundrie case as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.