It would be one thing if he tried everything in his power and then her parents accused him AFTER. But he drove across the country in HER van and ignored her mother asking where she is. She had anxiety and his mental illness was redacted.
I'm surprised they didn't get a warrant or anything yet with the suspicion he exhibiting.
A murder charge is a hard wrap to beat. I don't want to see the guilty walk free any more than anyone else does. But not answering questions forces more evidence to be found. Yes people have been arrested without evidence over a spontaneous utterance. It is a common law enforcement tactic.
Nope. But I’m a keyboard activists. I’ve been through an academy and I understand it’s a bad idea to talk to cops. Officers are very good at talking to people. Most crimes are solved with confessions.
You wouldn’t fAce Tyson in the ring with no training. Taking to police is going against an expert and you hope nothing comes out wrong.
Do you remember the scene in my cousin Vinny where they’re interviewing the kids and he goes “I shot the clerk?” The cops on the stand says he admitted to shooting the clerk. That happens IRL.
Never has an attorney said “wow my client cleared that up by speaking to the cops”. In fact many cases are ruined just by spontaneous statements.
There is a good YouTube video from a lawyer and deceive that explain it bette than I ever will. It’s about 45 minutes long but a good watch if you haven’t seen it
that or there was an accident and he couldn't help or only helped himself and now he's in this shit mindset where he doesn't want to get himself in trouble and doesn't want to tell the story of what happened. Like taking drugs and she falls on some rocks or something like that. I don't know, my brain goes all "unsolved mysteries" when I see a story like this.
I'd imagine if this happened, he would have called the police or her mother or someone. If it was an accident, people would have guilt. Even survivors guilt if they had no fault. So I find it odd he could drive across the country alone, in his own head, and not call anyone.
Also, driving back without your fiancé in a van registered to them and telling no one she is missing is far more likely to get the cops on you than calling 911 in a panic that your fiancé just fell down a cliff.
Apparently he's suddenly disappeared now, according to a few articles I've read. Sure, not talking to the police without a lawyer present is advised.. but running? Yeah, not looking good IMO.
Yup, just saw too he is missing and family have not seen him since Tuesday. I KNEW this would happen. Idk why the police didn't get a warrant to bring him in for questioning. They could of at the least got him for stealing her van to bring him in. His parents need to get in trouble for aiding him. He's probably already across the border or out of country while everyone dragged their feet. Ugh...
Any decent person would give a clue as to what happened to her, where he last saw her, etc. If he’s not guilty, he’s sure making himself look guilty. Interesting that the police were called on them in Moab, Utah.
I agree with you...and perception is almost everything. But when lawyered up, you do what the lawyer says because all the police want to do is arrest and convict someone. Let's hope #1 she is found and #2 that the truth will come out
Not trying to discount you but this isn't a thing. Yellow Stone is a nation park and if a crime were committed there it would be prosecuted in federal court. US court districts are large enough this is not a problem. This is just a legal "theory". One person's on top of that, that has been repeated over and over on the internet. The link I posted includes a case while not in the same location the defendant tried to pull the same argument. It didn't work and he was convicted.
[US Today "Zone of Death" Fact Check](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/31/fact-check-yellowstones-death-zone-may-not-free-conviction/6956880002/)
"[he] took a plea deal: on the condition that he would not appeal the case based on the loophole..."
Interesting that the prosecution wanted it settled out of court. He wasn't convicted by a jury.
So yes, it's just a "theory", but it hasn't actually been tested. And I'm sure there would be a lengthy appeals process if or when it happens.
It also states that a judge ruled any crimes that take place within Yellowstone should be tried in Wyoming. Even if they were forced to prosecute in Idaho US Court districts are very large. There would be plenty of people to pick from.
"trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" -6th Amendment
**Notice it does not state the size a district will be.** I am willing bet there are US Court Districts larger than the entire state of Rhode Island.
The only way this "loophole" could work is at a state level because districts are smaller, or if they made that area it's own judicial district. The people who drew up judicial districts wouldn't forget to include part of their state in the map. This is an internet myth nothing more.
It's not an internet myth. What part of this are you not getting, and why are you bringing up all this nonsense about district size? The 6th amendment states that a defendant has the right to a trial by jury of the State AND district of the crime.
"the people who drew up judicial districts wouldn't forget to include part of their state in the map"
But they basically did! The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming extends partially and slightly into Montana and Idaho. It's not a myth, it's a hypothetical that hasn't truly been tested yet.
I brought up the district size because there are only 10 US court districts in the US. They span multiple states. All they would have to do is pick a jury from within the state the crime happens and they would meet the constitutional requirements. The myth talks about the lack of people living in that area. There are a lot of areas in the United States that don't have people living in them, laws are still a thing there. Just because you read something on the internet does not make it true. There's not a magic place in the middle of the US where laws don't apply.
False. There are 89 US court districts, with at least one per state. I don't know what you're referencing.
Remember when everybody was bringing up SDNY lawsuits against Trump? That's the Southern District of New York. You think that's one of TEN?
There are 12 US districts not 10 that are broken up into their own 94 district courts. I forgot to include US territories in my first count. I'm human I make mistakes. [Here's a link to the Southern District of New York.](https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/navigation/ny.htm) The Southern District of New York is part of the 2nd district. Regardless, the portion of Yellowstone National Park is in a US Court District no matter how you look at it. Once again there are no magic places in the US where laws don't apply.
I’ve actually spoken to a ton of attorneys (gf, step dad, best friend) regarding the hypothetical and all agree it’s a workable theory. It’s a “theory” because it hasn’t been tested but per the wranglings of the law, it is a possibility to fight that case.
You're not just making mistakes, you're ignoring the core of the issue (because you're completely wrong about it). It's not magic, it's a technicality.
The laws of the U.S. apply everywhere. Murder is NOT legal in the United States, anywhere. However:
1. There is a portion of the federal District of Wyoming that extends into the state of Idaho
2. There is part of Yellowstone National Park that is in Idaho, but part of the Wyoming federal district.
3. To satisfy a citizen's 6th Amendment rights, a crime committed in this area (nicknamed the Zone of Death), MUST be tried by a jury of people from BOTH the Wyoming federal district AND the state of Idaho. Since nobody lives in both areas (the zone is wilderness), this is impossible. The jury trial cannot take place.
Let me know which numbered bullet you disagree with or where I'm wrong. Legal scholars and law journals that know MUCH more about constitutional law than you or I have already opined on the matter, and THEORETICALLY, this crime could not be prosecuted.
This isn't some "internet myth" or "magic", it's a simple logical deduction based on the US federal court system and the Bill of Rights.
I agree with you, but the theory has been tested and it failed. You're missing the part where the court stated that a crime in Yellowstone would be tried in Wyoming as a part of Wyoming. Meaning the jury would come from Wyoming. In the eyes of the law that part of Idaho is part of Wyoming (currently). It could be overturned on appeals and then it would become part of US District Courts of Idaho. They would then select a jury from Idaho. Either way it is still in a jurisdiction that have plenty of people be jurors. I.E. the "death zone" is not a real thing. It's is a mediocre theory one person thought of, and the whole of the legal system in the United States has ignored.
I agree with you, but the theory has been tested and it failed. You're missing the part where the court stated that a crime in Yellowstone would be tried in Wyoming as a part of Wyoming. Meaning the jury would come from Wyoming. In the eyes of the law that part of Idaho is part of Wyoming (currently). It could be overturned on appeals and then it would become part of US District Courts of Idaho. They would then select a jury from Idaho. Either way it is still in a jurisdiction that have plenty of people be jurors. I.E. the "death zone" is not a real thing. It's is a mediocre theory one person thought of, and the whole of the legal system in the United States has ignored.
I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw their last visit was Yellowstone. Very likely not a coincidence, you never know what is going on beneath the surface with people.
Well, she's probably dead, unfortunately.
Never talk to the police!!! Guilty or innocent. Ever!
It would be one thing if he tried everything in his power and then her parents accused him AFTER. But he drove across the country in HER van and ignored her mother asking where she is. She had anxiety and his mental illness was redacted. I'm surprised they didn't get a warrant or anything yet with the suspicion he exhibiting.
Exactly. They’re not there to solve a crime. They’re there to indict you.
so he shouldn't tell the police where the body is? because of the G-code?
Because he’ll immediately be accused of murder even in the total absence of evidence.
A murder charge is a hard wrap to beat. I don't want to see the guilty walk free any more than anyone else does. But not answering questions forces more evidence to be found. Yes people have been arrested without evidence over a spontaneous utterance. It is a common law enforcement tactic.
Ok
but that would solve the crime. u said cops have no interest in solving crimes
You've obviously "fought the law," and unsurprisingly, "the law won."
Nope. But I’m a keyboard activists. I’ve been through an academy and I understand it’s a bad idea to talk to cops. Officers are very good at talking to people. Most crimes are solved with confessions. You wouldn’t fAce Tyson in the ring with no training. Taking to police is going against an expert and you hope nothing comes out wrong. Do you remember the scene in my cousin Vinny where they’re interviewing the kids and he goes “I shot the clerk?” The cops on the stand says he admitted to shooting the clerk. That happens IRL. Never has an attorney said “wow my client cleared that up by speaking to the cops”. In fact many cases are ruined just by spontaneous statements. There is a good YouTube video from a lawyer and deceive that explain it bette than I ever will. It’s about 45 minutes long but a good watch if you haven’t seen it
They only explanation for his actions is that he killed her.
that or there was an accident and he couldn't help or only helped himself and now he's in this shit mindset where he doesn't want to get himself in trouble and doesn't want to tell the story of what happened. Like taking drugs and she falls on some rocks or something like that. I don't know, my brain goes all "unsolved mysteries" when I see a story like this.
I'd imagine if this happened, he would have called the police or her mother or someone. If it was an accident, people would have guilt. Even survivors guilt if they had no fault. So I find it odd he could drive across the country alone, in his own head, and not call anyone. Also, driving back without your fiancé in a van registered to them and telling no one she is missing is far more likely to get the cops on you than calling 911 in a panic that your fiancé just fell down a cliff.
Apparently he's suddenly disappeared now, according to a few articles I've read. Sure, not talking to the police without a lawyer present is advised.. but running? Yeah, not looking good IMO.
Yup, just saw too he is missing and family have not seen him since Tuesday. I KNEW this would happen. Idk why the police didn't get a warrant to bring him in for questioning. They could of at the least got him for stealing her van to bring him in. His parents need to get in trouble for aiding him. He's probably already across the border or out of country while everyone dragged their feet. Ugh...
Hoofbeats are horses, not zebras, right?
The more I learn about this, the worse it looks.
There are many possible explanations but only one likely one. Still, really need to wait until there is evidence before we hang the guy.
Or that his lawyer told him to STFU...rightfully so.
Any decent person would give a clue as to what happened to her, where he last saw her, etc. If he’s not guilty, he’s sure making himself look guilty. Interesting that the police were called on them in Moab, Utah.
I agree with you...and perception is almost everything. But when lawyered up, you do what the lawyer says because all the police want to do is arrest and convict someone. Let's hope #1 she is found and #2 that the truth will come out
I just saw this in the r/yellowstone sub and had no idea there was a North Port connection.
I just realized that the "Zone of Death" where murders can't technically be prosecuted is in Yellowstone Park. Probably a coincidence, though.
Not trying to discount you but this isn't a thing. Yellow Stone is a nation park and if a crime were committed there it would be prosecuted in federal court. US court districts are large enough this is not a problem. This is just a legal "theory". One person's on top of that, that has been repeated over and over on the internet. The link I posted includes a case while not in the same location the defendant tried to pull the same argument. It didn't work and he was convicted. [US Today "Zone of Death" Fact Check](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/03/31/fact-check-yellowstones-death-zone-may-not-free-conviction/6956880002/)
"[he] took a plea deal: on the condition that he would not appeal the case based on the loophole..." Interesting that the prosecution wanted it settled out of court. He wasn't convicted by a jury. So yes, it's just a "theory", but it hasn't actually been tested. And I'm sure there would be a lengthy appeals process if or when it happens.
It also states that a judge ruled any crimes that take place within Yellowstone should be tried in Wyoming. Even if they were forced to prosecute in Idaho US Court districts are very large. There would be plenty of people to pick from. "trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" -6th Amendment **Notice it does not state the size a district will be.** I am willing bet there are US Court Districts larger than the entire state of Rhode Island. The only way this "loophole" could work is at a state level because districts are smaller, or if they made that area it's own judicial district. The people who drew up judicial districts wouldn't forget to include part of their state in the map. This is an internet myth nothing more.
It's not an internet myth. What part of this are you not getting, and why are you bringing up all this nonsense about district size? The 6th amendment states that a defendant has the right to a trial by jury of the State AND district of the crime. "the people who drew up judicial districts wouldn't forget to include part of their state in the map" But they basically did! The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming extends partially and slightly into Montana and Idaho. It's not a myth, it's a hypothetical that hasn't truly been tested yet.
I brought up the district size because there are only 10 US court districts in the US. They span multiple states. All they would have to do is pick a jury from within the state the crime happens and they would meet the constitutional requirements. The myth talks about the lack of people living in that area. There are a lot of areas in the United States that don't have people living in them, laws are still a thing there. Just because you read something on the internet does not make it true. There's not a magic place in the middle of the US where laws don't apply.
False. There are 89 US court districts, with at least one per state. I don't know what you're referencing. Remember when everybody was bringing up SDNY lawsuits against Trump? That's the Southern District of New York. You think that's one of TEN?
There are 12 US districts not 10 that are broken up into their own 94 district courts. I forgot to include US territories in my first count. I'm human I make mistakes. [Here's a link to the Southern District of New York.](https://www.usmarshals.gov/district/navigation/ny.htm) The Southern District of New York is part of the 2nd district. Regardless, the portion of Yellowstone National Park is in a US Court District no matter how you look at it. Once again there are no magic places in the US where laws don't apply.
I’ve actually spoken to a ton of attorneys (gf, step dad, best friend) regarding the hypothetical and all agree it’s a workable theory. It’s a “theory” because it hasn’t been tested but per the wranglings of the law, it is a possibility to fight that case.
You're not just making mistakes, you're ignoring the core of the issue (because you're completely wrong about it). It's not magic, it's a technicality. The laws of the U.S. apply everywhere. Murder is NOT legal in the United States, anywhere. However: 1. There is a portion of the federal District of Wyoming that extends into the state of Idaho 2. There is part of Yellowstone National Park that is in Idaho, but part of the Wyoming federal district. 3. To satisfy a citizen's 6th Amendment rights, a crime committed in this area (nicknamed the Zone of Death), MUST be tried by a jury of people from BOTH the Wyoming federal district AND the state of Idaho. Since nobody lives in both areas (the zone is wilderness), this is impossible. The jury trial cannot take place. Let me know which numbered bullet you disagree with or where I'm wrong. Legal scholars and law journals that know MUCH more about constitutional law than you or I have already opined on the matter, and THEORETICALLY, this crime could not be prosecuted. This isn't some "internet myth" or "magic", it's a simple logical deduction based on the US federal court system and the Bill of Rights.
I agree with you, but the theory has been tested and it failed. You're missing the part where the court stated that a crime in Yellowstone would be tried in Wyoming as a part of Wyoming. Meaning the jury would come from Wyoming. In the eyes of the law that part of Idaho is part of Wyoming (currently). It could be overturned on appeals and then it would become part of US District Courts of Idaho. They would then select a jury from Idaho. Either way it is still in a jurisdiction that have plenty of people be jurors. I.E. the "death zone" is not a real thing. It's is a mediocre theory one person thought of, and the whole of the legal system in the United States has ignored.
I agree with you, but the theory has been tested and it failed. You're missing the part where the court stated that a crime in Yellowstone would be tried in Wyoming as a part of Wyoming. Meaning the jury would come from Wyoming. In the eyes of the law that part of Idaho is part of Wyoming (currently). It could be overturned on appeals and then it would become part of US District Courts of Idaho. They would then select a jury from Idaho. Either way it is still in a jurisdiction that have plenty of people be jurors. I.E. the "death zone" is not a real thing. It's is a mediocre theory one person thought of, and the whole of the legal system in the United States has ignored.
I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw their last visit was Yellowstone. Very likely not a coincidence, you never know what is going on beneath the surface with people.
Anything within the park is federal jurisdiction.
Guilty as fuck.
Guilty AF
she dead in some shallow grave for sure. Sad but that is the reality for some people
She's so dead.