Comments by "Paul Frederick" (@1pcfred) on "Gabby Petito’s fiancé’s silence ‘not a good sign,’ says private investigator" video.

Everyone looks guilty. That's why we demand evidence be presented to prove guilt.
5
How do you know that he knows?
4
Why? Maybe because he does not want to do time for a crime he did not commit. You talk and words can be twisted.
3
It is also not illegal to invoke your 5th amendment rights either.
3
You do not know what happened. He may very well be guilty. But until there is proof he is assumed to be innocent.
3
@cswafford1987 maybe she offed herself to spite him? People can be pretty vindictive. I'm sure he knows something but what he knows I can only speculate. I can imagine scenarios where nothing he can say would help him any while he was still innocent.
2
@achepolis8898 so? He was with her in the van. Something could have happened to her while they were in the van. Something likely did. There are scenarios where he is not guilty of anything. Until we see evidence to the contrary we have to believe that is what happened too.
2
@feintcantu8194 I hear ya.
2
@emoli2157 I am afraid I do not have the answers to your questions. Maybe he just left for a pack of smokes?
2
You cannot blame him for the incompetence of the authorities to solve the case.
1
Not if a case cannot be made against him he isn't.
1
@neoanderson726 I wish him luck in his struggle to remain silent. Not everyone that has a fight ends up killing the other party.
1
No you do not speak because you do not want to spend the rest of your life in jail.
1
@hankscorpio6111 there is nothing he can say that will do anything for him. Saying anything can and will be used against him in a court of law. You need to understand that. It is his butt that will spend the time in the can, not yours. Any lawyer worth spit would tell him to clam up. In fact they have to work in their client's best interests.
1
@emoli2157 maybe he smokes a very exclusive brand?
1
@rickw3243 circumstantial evidence is no evidence at all.
1
@rickw3243 how can you reasonably prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt with no tangible evidence? I know it is done in court but that just proves our system is far from perfect.
1
@rickw3243 DNA is physical evidence. There is nothing circumstantial about it. Beyond the circumstances it was acquired. If you can touch it then it is physical.
1
@rickw3243 why would it be? How is DNA any weaker than a fingerprint or a footprint? If anything I'd say it is stronger.
1
@rickw3243 testimony is not evidence. Testimony does not get entered as evidence. It is not exhibit A, B or C. It is what the name suggests, it is testimony. No one keeps any testimony in the evidence room either.
1
@rickw3243 then why is it called testimony? Testimony is sworn statements made by witnesses. Which is just words said by people. People who can make false statements. I do not put a lot of stock into what people say. I've seen too many people lie through their teeth even after putting their hand on a book.
1
@rickw3243 apparently we have not. Just because things share some similarities does not make them identical.
1
@MultiChubby1 there are different kinds of trouble. Some trouble gets fixed differently than other troubles do too.
1
Has anyone checked Hunter's house for the missing girl yet?
1
More like Constitution: He does not have to talk.
1
He is not being questioned because we have rights in this country. Specifically, "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself" as stated in the 5th Amendment to the Constitution.
1
@JACKnJESUS I'd rather look guilty than be convicted.
1
What part of, Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law don't you understand? Guilty or innocent there is no benefit to talking to law enforcement. That is just the system that we live in. They're out to get all of us. Which is why we have the 5th Amendment right to not incriminate ourselves.
1
It is not a bad sign either. In fact it is not a sign at all. What could he say? He very well may know nothing himself.
1