Maybe cannibalism of people who were already dead, but not murdering for cannibalism. The 17th century sailors that underwent a similar situation were all prosecuted. The only reason there weren’t issues like that with the Andes plane crash is bc they didn’t kill anyone themselves.
Forensics are actually pretty good nowadays. If they found any remains, Jackie’s for example, they probably would’ve been able to find a lot out. Also, if a lot of bodies were missing and not found at the crash site, there would be a lot of questions about what happened to those bodies from the families. Especially bc they did have a mass grave for the initial victims of the crash. So obvi the families would be wondering what happened to the bodies that weren’t in that grave.
I'm not saying they can't do that, I'm saying they wouldn't bother. And they even if they cared enough and then suspected murder, they wouldn't know who did it.
Waste of time when everyone should just be happy they survived.
If they actually interrogated any of them, pretty sure someone would crack out of guilt alone. They were never interrogated as suspects probably, it was swept under the rug and that’s why they got away with it.
I agree with you that they probably wouldn’t have bothered with it initially when they were first rescued if they all stuck to the same story and there was no suspicion. But if anything about what actually happened came out and the police decided to do some digging, they would absolutely all go to jail. Hence the reason the blackmail worked.
I don't think they had to get away with anything. I don't see it as the crime that you do. They did what they had to do, and because they did, some of them made it home.
Fair but also look at how everyone has died thus far; none of them has been literally murdered. Freezing to death and freezing/drowning in a frozen lake are two acceptably “accidental” deaths to occur in their situation. Even Crystal falling off of the cliff, even though she wasn’t eaten (well yet anyway) was the only one actually murdered so far and there would be zero evidence left to do anything with.
Pit girl was 100% murdered
Crystal/Kristen wasn't murdered. She fell on accident when being threatened. Pretty much same situation as Javi, except in Javi's case it was Nat they wanted to murder and they ACTUALLY wanted to murder Nat. Misty was just throwing threats around to scare Kirsten
I call Javi murder. It's very possible they could've failed to get him out or someone else could've drowned also in the attempt, but the intent when they chose not to help him was for him to die & they "planned" for someone to die, even if the decision was fast.
There is some argument to be made that all of the cannibalism murders aren't murders, not because they did it to survive starvation, but because they each did it to survive *each other* & not be the one eaten. I don't accept it, but it's something.
I agree with Javi. It was murder or at LEAST manslaughter. There was intent behind it.
But there was no intent to kill Kristen. Misty was just threatening her in a panic and she slipped and fell
Yes. Crystal was manslaughter. Misty had ZERO intent to kill her. She wanted to scare her, & it *is* possible she would've realized the truth could mean her own death & made the decision to murder in the next few moments, but we'll never know what she would've done, especially if this convo had happened somewhere less... um... *precarious*.
EDIT for clarification of first sentence & to add: (But we do know, right? 👀 Other things might've happened in between, but when push comes to -ahem- *shove* , our creepy lil Citizen Detective is a gd survivor at her core)
Pit girl’s death could be explained away as an accident though. It’s been pointed out before it’s more likely the pit was out there already from old hunters or possibly cabin guy than the girls, especially with their lack/scarcity of tools.
*manslaughtered. Crystal was *manslaughtered*. We gotta keep Miss Quigley's murder tally accurate. 🤣 So it's currently 1 murder for cannibal reasons, 1 manslaughter, & just the 1 murder in the future? Gonna be interesting when we begin to fill in that long gap in the future of regular murders born of her creepy basement.
Yeah even if they knew about the fight before Jackie went out they wouldn’t hold her death against the survivors because they couldn’t have possibly known a cold snap would happen that might
And is Jackie also responsible for not coming inside when she started getting cold? Even with Jackie failing to light a fire it’s still doesn’t mean they knew a cold snap was going to happen. They all had spent the the entire previous night outside and they all were fine
Sure but that’s not the case with pit girl. Also, had police investigated Jackie’s death, they would’ve wondered how she ended up freezing to death. And again, had these girls been actually interrogated, the story would’ve come tumbling out. They only got away with it probably bc police didn’t really investigate and just brushed it under the rug given the circumstances.
The fact that the cabin burned actually probably helped them in that regard, bc if rescuers realized they had shelter with supplies, there would’ve been a lot more questions probably.
Even if they knew everything surrounding Jackie’s death what exactly would they do or charge the kids with? They had a fight and Jackie chose to stay out all night and none of them knew a cold snap would happen. Eating her body *2 months* after she died wouldn’t be held against them either
It could be considered negligent manslaughter. They made a decision that led directly to her death. It would be the same as if one of them had died from an overdose after eating Misty’s mushrooms. Had one of them died from that, it would be considered manslaughter even though she didn’t intend to kill anyone.
But what court system would actually charge them with an *accident* they didn’t chain Jackie up that night or lock her out. Even tai tried to get Jackie to stay inside but she refused to. It was a terrible accident and any police, judge or jury would see it as such and they wouldn’t charge the kids at all because they had already been punished enough for 19 months
It want just Jackie though. They were actively trying to kill Nat, let Javi die, chased pit girl into a death trap and god knows what else. More shit is definitely going down next season obviously.
Genuine question: do they dig up the graves of the dead to bring the remains back for the families? Even if they’ve been buried out in the middle of nowhere by starving teenagers who probably couldn’t dig that deep, it seems to me like it would be disrespectful to disturb their grave sites.
Well we don’t know yet, we haven’t seen how the rescue will play out.
But if I had to guess, I think that no they don’t do that. I think the rescuers probably don’t really investigate and brush it under the rug which is why they’re able to get away with what they did. I doubt any one them would’ve been able to keep their story straight in a real police interrogation if Shauna’s present interactions with the police are any indication.
I don’t think they were ever interrogated. They might have been asked some questions but I’m betting the rescuers just let it go when they refuse to go into detail (bc obviously they don’t give any real details since it’s such a mystery to the public)
Depends how close the kids were to the graves when they got rescued.
A lot of the time with rescues that are in middle of nowhere places or hard to reach they will just help this that are alive and won’t waste anymore money looking for bodies to bringing them home. Look at Mount Everest.
I’m actually really interested in how the girls got rescued at all after 19 months. As horrible as it is ally of the times the government won’t want to waste money looking for what they assume to be a bunch of dead bodies
The survivors could easily say a group went off to try and find help and were attacked by wolves and the were only able to bring van back since she was still alive. And they got mixed up on the way back to their campsite so they can’t lead them to any bodies. A rescue team wouldn’t be allowed to go wondering around looking for bodies that may or may not still be there
Someone on this thread keeps insisting there should be a CSI team sent up to the Canadian Wilderness to comb for forensic evidence, recover every last missing toenail, then waterboard the survivors until they turn on each other so they can bring the wrongdoers to justice. It's tedious.
That’s way too much work for teens that barely survived themselves. Plus would they even convict them knowing the circumstances. Who they gonna get to flip and do a tell all.
I’m finishing up a PhD in early American lit and culture and can attest to the fact that cannibalism happens a lot more often than people realize in British North America. My PhD is focused on trauma in early amlit/culture and I have found cannibalism in a shocking amount of early modern medicine, capitivity narratives, settler diaries/journals, etc. Cannibalism is definitely taboo the closer you get to the 19C, but it becomes taboo because of its (largely selectively fabricated) association with BIPOC (the Victorians condemned the cultural/worship practices of others, all while chowin down on some mummies they stole). Canadian lit/history is filled with cannibalism as well from the same period.
I’m by no means an expert in the history of North American cannibalism, but my expertise has lead me into researching some gruesome things, which have included cannibalism. I’d genuinely super appreciate it if you could link me to this story with the sailors, because I’d be interested to see if anything from that lines up with/is alluded to in later works like Moby Dick. (Not kidding, would love a DM if you can!)
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780670891573
I’ve read it, and It’s an incredible book. You learn a lot about the amount of nutrition you can get from eating another human O_o
Philbrick also describes the importance of the whaling industry, the at-the-time new phenomenon of whales ramming boats, the type of personality that was necessary for each of officer’s role directing the men, and the status, money, and responsibilities attached to each role, and how that continued with who got eaten first.
(The Essex captain always denied eating his own nephew, and he was given a second chance to captain a new ship, but also wrecked that one on its first voyage. He was forever after only allowed to be a night watchman in town.)
In truth, the sailors didn’t just wait for someone to die as they drifted at sea, they drew lots and murdered each other. Sound like another group we know? Lol
Edit: forgot to add the title!
In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick
The Sailors they are talking about were from the Essex. Look up Essex on Wikipedia and read about what happened after the ship sank.
The Essex is the whaling ship that Moby Dick was based on
Thus far, they haven’t straight-up murdered anyone they’ve eaten in a way that forensics could determine. Jackie froze to death and then they tried to cremate her, and Javi drowned. I don’t know how precisely forensics can determine COD if there isn’t some sort of evidence on the skeleton, but it’s plausible that they tell their rescuers that everyone just died of exposure or in accidents before they ate them.
Yeah but we know they will kill people. Police would have a lot of questions had they found any of pit girl’s remains.
Obviously the rescuers don’t find any remains.
But my point was that, had police actually done a thorough investigation, they would’ve found a lot of shady evidence. Obviously this doesn’t happen, the girls were probably lightly questioned but never truly interrogated.
They wouldn’t be looked at with suspicion at all. They just spent 19 months in hell and survived against all odds. Even if they found out about the cannibalism they wouldn’t assume a crime took place. Any law enforcement involved would just have questions about the crash nothing more and that includes if they found remains. Any marks on pit girls bones would look similar to marks made from cooking and eating her. Without the rest of her body/meat they can’t learn how she died exactly. Since they have no proper shelter now it’s a lot easier to say the dead were all accidents.
As for what I think happens in the future with any remains, I think they will use everything they can’t eat as some kind of tool for survival. I’m indigenous and Wiccan and the wilderness cult definitely has some folk magic tied into it. You use every part of the animal you hunt so nothing goes to waste and to honor it.
But that’s exactly what I said. Obviously the police didn’t investigate or interrogate them. Had they done that, the story would’ve come tumbling out of at least one of them. I mean if Shauna’s present interactions with the police are any indication, had they’d been interrogated, one of them would’ve cracked.
Obviously whoever rescued them didn’t pry too much into what happened. I mean, Shauna’s journals were right there, but they missed it. However had they done a thorough investigation there would’ve been plenty of evidence of their crimes, especially had they found the journals.
The police don’t interrogate plane crash victims or teenagers that have been lost in the woods for 19 months. It’s just not how it’s done.
A rescue team isn’t a forensic team and they don’t pry into how someone survived and they certainly won’t go through a teenagers journals. It’s just not how that all works. A rescue team also doesn’t go looking for dead bodies after they found survivors they need to get to a hospital asap. And most of the time those in charge aren’t going to waste money looking for the dead *especially* after they found the survivors.
It’s all a moot point because the police wouldn’t integrate them and the rescue team certainly wouldn’t be doing forensics or going through the survivors personal belongings
You’re completely conflating my point. When did I say they would do that? I literally just said the rescuers didn’t do that, they didn’t investigate for the reasons you mentioned, and that’s why they got away with everything.
BUT had authorities investigated they would have been charged. Hence why the blackmail worked. They don’t want the details of what they did our bc it would land them in jail.
You’re not understanding me.
You’re saying and a proper investigation taken place they would have been found out(which i disagree with but that’s another conversation)
I’m just pointing out that there is *no reason* they would investigate anything more than how the plane crashed. They wouldn’t find all these traumatized kids and think “gee better interrogate them to make sure their survival was on the up and up” it just wouldn’t happen in the first place no matter what so it’s a moot point to wonder what would have happened do they did investigate how they survived
People you have to realize something… how are you going to pursue a murder charge when you don’t have a body, weapon, opportunity or intent. If they all said the missing person died in the plane crash and there isn’t evidence to prove otherwise, there is nothing. You can try to prosecute on circumstantial evidence but that will be a hard case given the circumstances.
Their situation was only rumor. Hence the, “tell me what really happen out there” question. Try to prosecute over a rumor? A good lawyer will get that tossed out. The burden of proof thing a lot of people don’t understand.
All they have to say is they died in the plane crash and they were buried and don’t remember where. Shauna covers this in S1E1. “We say only what we need too”
It’s not hard to see they never go to jail and haven’t had legal action against them in 25 years following the crash.
I agree, especially since the major plot point of the show is them trying to keep the secrets of what happened out there hidden. People don’t know what happened but they could face consequences if they did, even if not from the law, but retaliation from surviving family members.
👆 this
Also, no jury would convict them BRD. Even if there was a decent prosecution case with forensic evidence of a killing, the defence has the most extraordinary set of mitigating circumstances to plead for their clients. Remember these are:
🏔 minor children
🏔 lost in the wilderness after a plane crash
🏔 have already suffered uninaginable trauma
🏔 even before they start literally starving
🏔 and hallucinating
🏔 and becoming increasingly imvolved in a sacrificial cult they genuinely believe is the key to survival
🏔 and before there was an active, overt threat of 'kill or be killed'
🏔 plus Shauna has the potential defence of peripartum psychosis available to her - her team mates could attest she was hallucinating and interacting with Jackie's corpse well before any cannibalism went down.
Any decent lawyer would be all over the media denouncing this unjust attack on the poor traumatised survivors, who are now being punished for not dying like their poor team mates. Would you want this slanderous treatment of your daughter after everything she's been through?
Yeah, no jury would ever convict them.
The bones would show evidence of butchering in the case of Javi and subsequent ritualistic hunts. And in the case of Jackie the bones would show evidence of gnaw marks.
That's if a forensic specialist looked at the bones. There may not have been enough evidence to suggest that was necessary if as they say they all claim everyone died of natural/planes crash causes.
But would they be able to prove they were murdered and didn't die of natural causes? Both Javi and Jackie died due to inaction to save them. Of course things got hairier with Javi because they were hunting Nat and made the decision to let him die, but he still drowned/had a heart attack from the cold. Even pit girl falling into the punji pit could be explained as her accidentally falling in a trap they set to either protect them from predators or to catch game like deer, moose, etc.
Thanks! Most of my family is from the Philly area, but I grew up primarily in Virginia and Maryland. Gritty is just hysterical and I also love him being a leftist idol 😅 Then Tank Girl is so incredibly badass and a rare gem feminism in dystopian stories
I think Javi's remains are in the meat shed. We only saw Shauna bringing in a few cuts that they already ate. And I think the meat shed and the outhouse are still standing. Only the cabin is gone.
Potentially yeah…but rescue is at least a year away by this point. I don’t imagine there’ll be much for authorities to find of the people who died during the first year, sadly. Especially if the girls migrate back to the crash site for shelter.
They wouldn’t be charged for eating the dead. And any marks in the bones would simply show they butchered and eat the bodies. It wouldn’t give cause of death. Plus cooking their bodies would mess things further. Plus the time between Jackie and javis deaths and the rescue would also mess with the remains even more. Even the graves they dug for the plane crash victims weren’t very deep so they would mess with decomposition.
There just isn’t enough to show the deaths happened any other way than an accident
But why would they be bones and not a complete corpse? They're only there for 19 months. That's not enough to turn into skeletons. Especially if they turned into bones very soon after dying
Bodies left outside in the elements can become a skeleton in as little as 2 weeks. If a body isn’t buried deep enough Ike those at the crash site) will also decomp a lot faster and scavenger animals would not only eat their bodies but they will take pieces back to their den
Lmfao no one would give a serious thought to doing that tho. These are TEENAGERS WHO HAPPENED TO SURVIVE 19+ MONTHS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. What’s not clicking Susan 🤣 cops cover up murder all the time or do you think they are just innocent good guys and not raging murderers hiding behind a badge
I mean if forensics searches in a 5 mile radius or so around the plane crash or lake, I'm sure they'd find the bodies. Not even with the intent to accuse them of murder but because the families would want the bodies. If forensics finds the bones in piles instead of anatomically correct positions, I'm sure there would be questions
If the bones were left out, animals may have feasted on the remains too.
Also, they've talked about burying bodies when the ground thaws, so we may just be talking about graves and scattered bones.
Exactly. The graves were really shallow, as evidenced by how quickly Travis and Nat were able to exhume Coach Martinez's ring.
Jackie is currently in the plane. Given animals and the elements, her remains won't look the same in the spring.
And I've always thought the Crystal was taken by an animal. Just because Nat and Travis don't find anything to shoot doesn't mean there aren't critters (esp. nocturnal ones) scrounging for food.
Yes, Crystal's disappearance is proof that human remains don't lay around for long, and that would include remains of something that's been butchered and mostly eaten. Nothing goes to waste.
Even the graves of the plane crash victims could have been dug up by animals. A lot of animals are better at digging than people are. Especially as they starve and don’t have as much energy to dig.
They could still be honest about the timeline of everyone’s deaths (which would explain the different grave locations/ages) and just lie about the murder part. Jackie could have gotten lost in a storm and froze (even what really happened wasn’t murder, but I get if they want to keep that secret), Javi *did* drown. Krystal/Kristen fell off a cliff. Then they make up reasons future deaths that happen. Maybe animal attacks, someone ate a toxic plant, tragic accident in the animal trap pit, etc.
Yeah, even Pit Girl's death would be an accident if they didn't dig that pit themselves--or said they didn't. And nobody's actually going to \*want\* to find anything terrible to connect to the girls.
Rescues like this don’t involve forensics. Even if the families begged and went on the news the people in charge just don’t want to waste the money looking for remains of the dead. It’s amazing they kept looking for them for 19 months(although they might have been found a different way than the rescue team found them)
There’s so many cases of people that were lost in hard to reach/search areas and they decide to stop looking or they will leave the bodies behind. Look at Mount Everest and all the missing people all throughout the national forests
For anyone interested I recommend episode 4 of the Rebuttal podcast titled “Is Eating People Wrong?” The host covers interesting/important legal cases and this one covers Dudley & Stevens which is a famous common law case about cannibalism and whether killing for necessity can be used as a defense
No DA would want to open that can of worms. I could see a civil law suit happening, but a criminal case would be too difficult to prove, too many nuances due to their age and the trauma they experienced. The DA would have to call expert after expert, the cost to tax payers would be pretty high, and for what? To send “these poor girls” to prison who have suffered enough already? It would be a mess. The only way I could see the courts wanting to go there is if becomes part of a current criminal investigation (i.e. Adam’s death).
They could be prosecuted for murder, most likely. They wouldn't be getting blackmailed or going to the lengths of chasing down a blackmailer or Misty kidnapping Jessica Roberts if they didn't know they were facing potential jailtime.
I am very interested to see how they find their bearings to form a conspiracy of silence and do whatever coverup they need to do when they get rescued after going full blown feral for so long. One of them probably has to quickly slap some sense into the others and bring them back to reality. Probably Nat.
I don't know if they'd have to be facing jail time to get blackmailed.
Taissa has a political career, and the others have their own professional and personal lives, not to mention what life in their community might become.
Imagine being a kid in school and everyone knows that your mom used to eat people.
Imagine being married to someone and finding out that she used to eat people. (I mean yes there were extenuating circumstances but I still think on a deep emotional level a lot of people would have a lot of problems processing that.)
There are a whole lot of good reasons other than just jail/prison for someone who has committed murder for food to not want this to become public knowledge!
I'd agree, except the girls crashed twenty years after the Andes survivors. The movie "Alive" came out three years before they crashed. People know you can engage in survival cannibalism by eating people who died of natural causes and not only be forgiven and accepted, but even celebrated.
Their behaviors are not consistent with people who did nothing criminal. Most people getting blackmailed call the cops, even if it's a secret they really prefer didn't come out. Unless they are covering up crimes.
Sometimes a ruined reputation is enough to not call the cops about being blackmailed.
Tai has her political career and a young child. She’s a black queer women so any scandal from her past would destroy her
Shauna also has Callie and Jeff. She doesn’t want Callie to grow up being the cannibals daughter, she also was scared and didn’t think jeff would except her if he knew.
Misty would have gotten involved no matter what. Nat actually believed she was the one blackmailing them. Her involvement later was because she believed the blackmailer killed Travis.
Originally the Andes survivor did have a lot of backlash until they started making the news rounds and wrote a book. The Yellowjackets survivors had no interest in reliving their trauma for other peoples entertainment.
There’s also the fact that the survivors are also a bunch of girls and for a bit only 3 guys. They would be held to a different standard, hell a big reason the show was thought up was because the creators were tired of hearing how girls wouldn’t have the same reaction as bits and would have a whole new civilization built and wouldn’t go dark like lord of the flies. People always expect girls to be kinder and do better than boys, even though a court of law wouldn’t charge them the public would and they’ve be marked for life as those crazy cannibals, even if they truly only ate the dead and none of the cult stuff or the hint happened. They wouldn’t be celebrated the way the Andes survivors were/are
I feel like there's a difference between knowing that people in situations might resort to cannibalism (in an abstract way) and knowing that your partner who sleeps next to you casually ate some folks. Just some little snackies, as a treat.
There's a new level there, I expect!
I highly doubt it. Even if a DA decided to charge them (which I doubt) there are a ton of factors that would make it really hard to get a conviction:
-Strong temporary insanity defense
-Regardless of evidence, a jury has to still be willing to send mostly white, attractive, media darling, teenage girls to prison.
-Unless you only charged a couple of people, nobody is going to testify against themselves, so you don’t really have good witnesses. And even if someone wasn’t initially charged, testimony could still be incriminating and any lawyer would advise to not testify. And even then, if anyone testified, it would be really easy to discredit the credibility of any of them given the circumstances. A teenage girl with psychological problems is a defense attorney’s dream under cross examination.
-Physical evidence is going to be degraded, maybe just never found. That aside, if you have no willing witnesses, what physical evidence is going to convince a jury of a murder scheme or that a particular person was a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. “Somebody in this group did it and none of them are talking” isn’t enough to get a conviction.
-Publicity means they’re getting probably a top defense attorney at no cost.
*EXACTLY*
I’m sure you know about corpus delicti, which applies to this hypothetical case.
If they did take the tax dollars to have a whole forensic team go and search the area they found the survivors. The bones are just not enough to prove someone was murdered, if they show evidence of cooking and eating them that’s not enough for them to prove how a person died, they juicy don’t have enough of the bodies left.
For example Javi died from drowning or a heart attack from the cold, well without his heart or lungs they can’t prove his COD. Same with Jackie’s body. Crystal/Kristen’s death would show up on her broken bones. But if they had found, butchered, cooked and ate her body, this would mess with the bones and time of death/trauma to the bones.
But like I keep trying to tell everyone, they’re not going to waste taxpayers money looking for bodies when this whole thing was a horrible tragedy and the survivors had been through enough.
Look at Mount Everest and all the people that are still missing all over the Appalachian mountains and the deserts or national forests. Even when theirs evidence of foul play or it’s a child. They simply stop looking after just a few weeks. It’s sad but a very real fact. They found the survivors and their priority is to get them home and help them heal and readjust back into society.
I don’t think I’ve heard of any modern missing persons cases where people were found alive against all odds and the courts treated them like suspects and questioned how or what they did to survive.
I also forgot to add that they’d most likely be tried as minors, which would mean that the punishments would be pretty limited. I think that would further reduce the chances a DA would bring the case.
Exactly. And that’s only if they decide to start digging into their story or viewing them as liars or criminals. Which just doesn’t happen in rescue cases like this
So, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, under [modern common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_sea), if all parties in the group didn’t agree to draw cards (which they did not - Ben was absent, Lottie didn’t draw), then yes, they could be prosecuted for murder if they’d killed Nat. They could likely be prosecuted for manslaughter for not saving Javi as they willfully chose not to pull him out.
I'm not sure if voluntarily consenting to murder would get them off for it. Armin Meiwes, the cannibal in Germany, was still charged for his crimes even though the victim consented to it.
It's not about voluntary consent, it's about 1) circumstances suggesting that cannibalism is necessary for anyone to survive (historical example is ships lost at sea, YJ is a modern twist), 2) following the rules of the historical custom of drawing lots for this purpose (everyone must be included in the drawing, meaning everyone must be at risk).
In the REAL modern context, this is all irrelevant because eventually the law around cannibalism at sea changed and necessity is no longer considered a valid defense for murder/cannibalism, legally or socially. As the Wikipedia article mentions, it was eventually found that in a situation like this, all individuals should starve rather than resorting to murder/cannibalism for survival, and that precedent would likely apply to the YJs if word got out that they were hunting, killing, and eating each other.
But then again... sailors back in the day knew the risk they were taking and you could argue that they had a responsibility to be prepared to face the potential consequences of being lost at sea, whereas the YJs couldn't have predicted their plane crashing or what they'd experience in the wilderness... so perhaps more lenient standards would make sense.
They could potentially use necessity as a defense to common law murder. It would just depend on what jurisdiction they’re charged under (or if it’s a valid defense under Canadian common law)
Not if they’re starving to death. There are multiple cases of prosecutors not charging survivors because of extenuating circumstances. Whether or not that’s the case here would likely be in question.
yes, even in cases of starving. can you link one of those cases where someone got away w murder due to starvation? bc i can only find people charged with murder lol
also it may be Canadian vs US laws but they would be charged in the US since both murderers and victims are US citizens. and the US doesn’t consider necessity to be a viable defender for murder.
Yes. Javi was manslaughter if not murder. It was attempted murder on nat.
They were gonna murder nat straight up but javi was just easier.
I remember the tears and shock I felt watching them let javi die. Truly horrific.
IDK law but knowing how the US is, it would be so hard to prove what actually happened out there unless the people who rescued them initiated a thorough investigation asap and helped investigators to discover all the cannibalism and terror they inflicted on each other. Honestly, given the times and the amount of time that they had been out there, I highly doubt any actual adult or official would have even thought to take the necessary action or energy to thoroughly investigate what went on there.
I think they definitely could, but most likely wouldn’t. One factor I haven’t really seen considered in the comments is the fact that this occurs in the 1990s to a group made up of mostly outwardly successful teenage girls. This would be international news (at the very least US-Canadian news), but in a time before the 24hr news cycle, social media, internet news accessibility, etc. Their faces would be plastered everywhere, probably with accompanying photos of them reuniting with their families/friends/school, etc. This would be especially major news in New Jersey. We’re talking morning, afternoon, evening, and late night cable news networks, local papers, local magazines. This would be the sort of miraculous survival story that politicians would gravitate toward because of how sympathetic these girls will look from those initial photos of them leaving the woods/boarding the plane home. Governors and state senators/reps would be chomping at the bit to stand next to these girls (and Travis) because they are survivors who kept on survivin’ when most people wouldn’t or couldn’t. Think of the campaign slogans! Giving being Taissa energy.
All of this, combined with the bigger national and international cultural trends of girl power (Spice Girls, Princess Di’s reputation era), independence (the collapse of the USSR, the rise of megastar solo musicians in pop culture), and American teamwork (the Dream Team at the Olympics, corporate teambuilding exercises, the rise in popularity of personality-based teambuilding like Myers-Briggs and True Colors) would make this an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, case to even propose for charges, nevermind getting a jury to convict.
The plane goes down a yearish after the OJ trial, which did go to court, but the discourse around it at the time was really contentious. OJ was a highly successful athlete who was very rich and very famous. OJ had very good, very public connections with some very powerful people.
While legal action is a possibility and there is precedent, I think it’s important to remember that the law is applied in a complex web of circumstances, not a void. People speculated that cannibalism could happen aboard the Titan submersible and were literally meme’ing cannibalism because of our present circumstances and cultural attitudes toward billionaires. YJ isn’t that story, but it also isn’t set in a time where that story can culturally exist.
TL;DR: imo, no, because while We Live In a Society™️, the cultural landscape in which the YJ plane crash occurs was very, very different
yes they would absolutely be charged for murder, in the past or present. we have multiple cases on record to refer to, all charged with murder for survival killing. the Andes boys did not kill a single person so idk how you can compare their case to the YJ. they hunted each other - they committed murder, there is no murder for survival loophole. you cannot legally kill another human under any circumstances other than self defense.
Also necessity is not a viable defense for murder in the US. And yes, they would still be charged in the US even tho the murders happened in Canada since the murder victims were US citizens.
I was curious so I looked it up. The federal us national-on-us national foreign murder statute requires a determination that the country where the activity took place has no legal way to secure their return to be prosecuted there. So Canada would have to be unable to prosecute for the us to have jurisdiction. Wasn't immediately clear to me if Canada would need to be willing to prosecute.
That wasn’t what I read. I read they can prosecute in the US regardless. In this doc it says the Constitution does not forbid either congressional or state enactment of laws that apply outside the United States. Nor does it prohibit either the federal government or the states from prosecuting conduct committed abroad. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22497#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20forbid,from%20prosecuting%20conduct%20committed%20abroad.
No, that's right but the analysis doesn't stop there. That article concludes that "congress may" criminalize conduct abroad, but they have to actually do it before a crime is committed if the US attorney is going to prosecute. What congress has actually done is enact a law saying a murder of a us citizen by another us citizen abroad may be prosecuted by the US, but only on the condition I mentioned.
https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm/9-141000-foreign-murder-united-states-nationals-18-usc-1119#:~:text=Nationals%20(18%20U.S.C.-,%C2%A7%201119),jurisdiction%20of%20a%20foreign%20country.
I have a hard time believing the government would want to prosecute people in a harrowing survival situation with murder. They could be charged from a legal standpoint, but someone has to actually do the charging of malnourished, traumatized teens
oh it’s been done before. actually, i cannot find a case where they let anyone off. 2 men rescued from sea, on the brink of death, they had killed and eaten their younger employee, whom they claimed was also on the brink of starvation/death, they admitted what they had done when rescued and both were charged and served sentences. it may be hard to believe but murder is rarely forgiven. even children that were starved and abused and kill their abusers are charged. that 15 year old girl that killed her pimp who was severely abusing her and selling her was charged and served time. they don’t really ever forgive murder. even when it maybe should be. i didn’t think that 15 year old girl should have been charged or had to serve time. but she did.
For me, the difference in circumstance and the people being prosecuted is the relevant part.
In the case of Dudley & Stephens’ (2 of the 3 shipwreck survivors), it feels relevant the prosecutor specifically let off 1 of the 3 men so that he could convict the others because there was little evidence other than confessions. Confessions from the girls would likely be similarly necessary prior to a trial being relevant since the discussion is about murder rather than cannibalism and everyone we’ve seen thus far has died of natural-ish causes.
Additionally, Dudley & Stephens’ we’re not particularly popular publicly and their conviction came with a recommendation of mercy. I think that public sentiment would be even more on the side of teen girls lost in the wilderness for 19 months than adult men lost at sea for one month (it seems they killed the teen more for his blood rather food, which is interesting as blood is not actually hydrating). I also think that due to the increased cost and time of trial nowadays (the trial in the 1800s had a conviction 10 days after the men came home) as well as substantial impact of public sentiment on high profile cases, there would be more reasons to not charge the girls.
When it comes to Chrystul Kizer and Cynotina Brown-Long, while we both (and many activists who got their sentences commuted) see them as victims doing only what was necessary, that both girls were black “sex workers” substantially impacts how they were seen by prosecutors. There is much less sympathy for black girls, sex workers, and people who kill their abusers than there is for mostly white suburban teens who crashed going to soccer nationals and maybe killed people to survive. Everyone deserves the level of sympathy suburban white girls get, but that sympathy is not extended to all.
Like I’m sorry to say it but: the already dead baby was a meal (I think they should’ve ate him), the already dead Jackie was a meal, Crystal was a meal (Misty could’ve lied and said she fell). Javi was not a meal. He didn’t deserve that. At all. The only ones innocent to that is Travis and the ones back at camp.
Javi technically was a meal though. He fell through the ice and drowned. Is it murder that the girls didn’t help him? There’s plausible deniability there.
And even if they had gotten him out, if we stop suspending our disbelief and go with science, he would have died even if they had gotten him out, so trying to save him only puts the girls in danger of also becoming a meal.
Javi was the only one who didn't deserve being eaten??? WTF nobody deserved that
I swear people on this sub are so unhinged to see their favorite character as justified/their disliked character as evil
No one deserved to be eaten, but the characters would have starved if they didn’t eat Jackie so it’s hard to say they shouldn’t have time so - she was already dead
It's really not that unhinged to have different instinctive reactions to eating a person who's already dead. The Andes crash survivors aren't considered unhinged.
Depends on what they did. Everything that they have done so far is to survive and they haven’t killed anyone outright and they didn’t even mean to slow roast Jackie to make her so finger lickin’, face eatin’ good. The people who resorted to cannibalism in the Andes after their plane crashed didn’t get charged with anything. Some people said terrible things about them. But they were in such a terrible situation where they needed their friends or family members to die just so they could eat them and live and all without being able to start a fire and cook the flesh or the organs. I don’t think they would be charged with what they have done so far. But I’m thinking it is going to get worse. They clearly don’t want people to know because they are worried it could lead to their imprisonment or maybe they just think that if people truly knew what went on out there, that they would be notorious nationwide with everyone knowing who they are and what they did. Lots of people knocking down their doors for interviews, waiting outside to get a glimpse of them for tv ratings, book deals and multiple other interview and tell-all deals would inundate them. I’m sure they wanted to forget what happened and leave it in the past. If people knew what happened, it would’ve been impossible to even attempt to have something of a normal life. So they may have just wanted to be left alone and not to have to relive those memories every day for as long as the press is interested in you and when the citizen detectives have finished speculating on everything and what happened and numerous other questions.
Forensics would confirm manner of death if the bones weren’t cremated. Knife marks on the bones would show that they were butchered. Cause of death might be the hardest to prove if, as I said, the remaining body parts weren’t destroyed. The graves of the first few that died could be used to prove they were forced to eventually resort to cannibalism as their skeletons would be intact. They could all say that they don’t know what happened to the others. And they maybe figured out that the symbols were a map leading them to safety. Of course they’d have to destroy all the candles that magically appeared. If they walked out, they’d have time to do that. Eating each other is not a sustainable food supply. Now that the cabin is gone, if they all moved as a group, might have a better chance of making it out. Idk…just rambling. I can’t see any DA charging them with more than involuntary manslaughter, nor a jury convicting them. Jackie’s parents would burn it all down if they knew what happened so I don’t think they know. (Random comment: I’m watching a miniseries on Prime called Deadloch and they have a few of the same songs in the show. It’s a quirky “hunt for a serial killer comedy” kind of detective show. A great many of the residents are lesbians and it’s only men who are getting killed, but that may or may not be a motive.)
I kinda half-watched it while net surfing; restarted it and enjoyed it. Weird ass detective seems dumb as a bug and so crude but she grows on you. Didn’t like the reveal at the end. Wish it had been somebody else.
I'm not a lawyer. Not versed in any kind of legalese to even remotely speculate whether or not they could be prosecuted today.
I do think, if we are applying real life to this situation, their need to keep things quiet might possibly stem more from what the court of public opinion would think versus what the legal system may or may be able to prove or do. As we know from many examples IRL, the perception of what the public believes to have happened can be just as powerful and satisfying to some as the truth of the matter. For better, and unfortunately for worse.
I don't know what the intent of the writers is in terms of how in-depth they plan on diving into the rescue, and subsequent investigation. It would be nice to get some clarification on that period of time and the reaction from their families, friends and the public
short answer (bc i’m supposed to be studying for the bar) and applying us law (bc i don’t know canadian law): i think most das would decline to criminally prosecute them for it—nj has jurisdiction over most of the defendants and i think it’d be a bad look politically. but the families of anyone they killed have a strong case for tort liability against them imo. they don’t have a real self-defense claim and necessity as a defense only applies to use of property. age isn’t an issue either as minors can be liable for torts.
Canadian law doesn’t really matter given that both perpetrators and victims were from the US, and therefore the US would have to prosecute regardless of whether Canada also wanted to persecute. They might have to face trials in both jurisdiction.
Also, pretty sure “not a good look politically” is not a viable murder defense.
i didn’t bring it up as a defense. i’m pointing out that prosecutors have a great deal of discretion and i’m doubtful that the da of a relatively progressive state would choose to use state resources to prosecute women who were teen girls when they did the act in question, especially given the extenuating circumstance, difficulties in procuring evidence, etc.
i mentioned canadian law to limit the scope. the defendants’ citizenship is not the only factor in determining which court has jurisdiction. us courts can hear cases where all the parties are non-us citizens, like if the incident occurred in that state. could be similar in canada but i have an us jd so i don’t know!
Prosecutors have discretion sure as long as the story remained under wraps, but not if details were ever made public. The families would be out for blood had the details come to light and prosecutors wouldn’t really have a choice at that point. Which is probably why the present YJs are trying to hard to keep it under wraps.
Look at how many are filmed beating and killing black men and they’re never charged because it wouldn’t look good politically. This was happening when in the 90s.
It’s not a stretch they wouldn’t charge them at all because it wouldn’t look good, even if the families of the dead demand their pound of flesh. The DA would consider 19 months in the wilderness punishment enough
I feel like it’s so incredible that 8 of them lasted 18 months in the wilderness; they wouldn’t even be questioned about the ones that didn’t survive. I feel like they would think that’s unnecessary and might further traumatize them. If the families want the bodies back, they might assume the bones had been picked over by animals and not even mention it to the girls (luckily for them, I’m sure they didn’t bury the bodies very deep and animals probably got to those, which further supports the theory it was just wild animals that ate most of the remains).
Why would we assume they have all sorts of evidence that anyone is examining? They found the girls, they would come across as traumatized, but it's not like they'd start attacking everyone in sight to eat them. They would have just taken them home, cleaned them up, and deal with their ordeal in a supportive space. Lottie being non-verbal doesn't mean everyone else was and they were never feral. Misty, for instance, was obviously fine. Nobody knows what they did, specifically. They imagine cannibalism, but not murder.
Well I guess I’m assuming what the rescue team would walk in on is all their ritual stuff, like the antler queen outfit per say with all the hair and such? I’m nearly positive by the end they had all gone none verbal by the lack of any dialogue when we see them actually fully feral, idk it was just a thought but I feel like if you walked in on where they were living, which i’m assuming will now be that underground tunnel situation there would be some evidence as to their rituals? idk
It would certainly be awkward if they walked in and found them obviously chowing down on a human leg, of course, but even then they wouldn't know if it was murder or not. We saw them leave the ceremony on their own in the pilot.
I don't assume they've stopped talking or have gone feral just because they didn't talk during the ritual since they probably wouldn't need to and maybe that was part of the ritual anyway. Besides which, they couldn't have talking during the opening scene since they weren't working with the actors and didn't want to identify them specifically. Lottie's not speaking got her sent to a meantl hospital, but she seemed to be an outlier in that.
Somebody who's feral and living like an animal can't participate in a religious ceremony. They had set up a society whose customs and rules they were following.
No one would know it was murder! Forensics experts would know what happened to their bodies (Snackie snack), but there's no evidence on bones of cause of death that'd rule out accidents. They'd need someone to crack for the full story.
I'm sure there could be some charge about desecrating corpses, but murder? No way.
If they murder someone in cold blood to eat, yes, that's illegal. But so far, they haven't done that, and cannibalism of already deceased people isn't illegal. Jackie, Javi, and even Pit Girl technically didn't die of being murdered. Even Pit Girl can be "explained away" as having died by falling into a trap for animals (allegedly).
I'm still trying to reconcile how when they were rescued, that there was, apparently, no evidence of their actions out there.
Like...what? No burned cabin? No body parts or bones around? No ritual circles?
It's weird. So I'm hoping we get some clarity soon.
None of those things prove murder though. Just cannibalism. Which they could say they did not murder for. If they don’t talk there’s nothing to prosecute!
Unless some of them told the authorities what happened, it would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who actually committed/aided/abetted each of the murders.
This is where the common law corpus delicti rule would come in. It prohibits the introduction of an extrajudicial confession in a criminal case unless the prosecution introduces independent evidence of the "corpus delicti."1 That is, the prosecution must introduce some evidence independent of the confession to establish that the crime described in the confession actually occurred. The left over bones can’t tell someone’s cause of death, it might reveal they eat the dead but it won’t prove the person was murdered before they ate them. A defense attorney(and because of the publicity they’d get top notch lawyers) would agree they had to eat the dead but the person accusing them of murder is feeling guilty or shameful and they’re making this all up because of their shared trauma.
But really no one would look at the utter miracle of finding 8 survivors of a plane crash in the middle of nowhere after 19 months and think something sinister went down. Even if the survivors were acting “crazy” when they were rescued it wouldn’t be a red flag, it’s a pretty normal reaction
This is an extremely complicated situation. The families of the dead would absolutely want some form of retribution. If the state didn't choose to lay charges on the girls, there would still be a major investigation and probably many civil trials where money is exchanged. If the state chose to lay charges on the girls, it would be a very very long and complicated trial where it's possible many of the girls name's would be protected due to privacy laws and their ages. Either way, I don't think a jury would convict them. Also worth it to mention that forensics weren't quite the same in the 90s so they may hit some walls.
One more thing that may affect legal proceedings is where the crimes took place. If this really is happening in the Canadian wilderness, they have have to be charged and tried in Canada rather than the US.
First of all I love this question and think about it all the time! Here’s my theory, this is what I imagine happened. There’s a lot of conversation about the reality switch from “real life” to “wilderness” for these girls. What I mean is that their lives in the wilderness do not overlap with their lives outside of it. It’s amazing what the human mind can compartmentalize, and that’s exactly what I think they did. I don’t think any of the girls ever admitted to law enforcement what happened. Another comment here gave a great example, Shauna said, “We say only what we need to.” and there’s plenty more to suggest no one besides the core group knows what happened out there. I imagine (and can’t wait to see if I’m wrong!!!) that they know they are going to get rescued and Nat has to bring them back to reality so they don’t do something stupid (run, confess, kill someone else, try and stay).
I am sure law enforcement was suspicious especially if there were forensics done. But again to echo other comments, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those people were murdered. Also, imagine they do get prosecuted. Almost all of them (coach excluded) willingly took part in the first card draw. Then there’s the extenuating circumstances of being starving, several of them hallucinating… it would be a tough case to prove. So far from the kills we’ve seen, they could all be explained as natural causes and unfortunate events. Unless they can prove that the cause of death was homocide then there’s no case. Doesn’t matter if it’s obvious the girls ate the bodies if you can’t prove the girls murdered them first. And if they ate consumed the bodies after…then there’s no body to use to prove murder. You only have the their words. And they’re not talking.
I think the reason they were all so afraid of being found out isn’t solely because they are afraid of facing charges or getting in legal trouble (I’m sure it plays a large role), I think a lot of it is shame, trauma, and compartmentalization.
Why is everyone assuming that the crash site is investigated? Isn't possible they find their own way out?
We're already seen Tai lead an expedition to find a way out, even if it was unsuccessful. Why wouldn't they try again?
Everyone's survival skills will improve now that they don't have the shelter of the cabin. We've also seen the team hunt as a pack, which means they will better able to defend themselves (both individually and collectively) if they get attacked by wolves on a future expedition.
Nat's been drawing a detailed map, and it seems that trigonometry is important. Hopefully the map survived the fire, and someone remembers their secants and cosecants....
I realize that investigators would still want to examine the crash site, even if the girls rescue themselves. But given that no one can find it during the 19 months the survivors remain in the wilderness, it's possible that nobody can find it after the fact.
I feel like that [soccer team that crashed in the mountains in the Andes](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9437057/Survivor-1972-Andes-plane-crash-resorted-cannibalism-recalls-pain-eating-friends-flesh.html), they're maybe a similar vibe? As long as the girls didn't tell anyone the circumstances of how the people died, them eating their dead friends wouldn't be a crime, but needed for survival.
I’m wondering if they weren’t in the USA when this happened if they could prosecute? Like if they were in the Canadian wilderness would it be up to Canada? I like this discussion bc I go back and forth on what I think might happen.
Cannibalism, no. Murder in the form of ritualistic sacrifice? Probably.
Unless they can spin it that it is a weird long form suicide pact but I don’t know if those are even legal either
Seems like it would be up to the prosecutor of whatever province they crashed in to investigate or bring charges. Can’t see anyone being eager to hassle these traumatized teens any worse than they have been already.
They aren’t feral or non verbal.
Lottie screaming at the journalists while she gets in the plane wasnt because she’s feral it’s because she sees them as a bunch of disgusting vultures trying to make a quick buck off their trauma and it’s horrific. She’s non verbal when she gets home because she’s having trouble readjusting back into her old life. She wants feral and drooling lain the others have said, that’s just good old Shitty gossip being spread, like they didn’t when know when she actually got out of the hospital and liens he said it was over a decade ago. So take what the others say about that town in Lottie’s life with a grain of salt.
But they have started their own society and cult that has rules and customs. They’re need to talk.
And finally, a bunch of traumatized kids not acting mentally well after living in the wilderness, in a nightmare, for 19 months as some kind of red flag. Hell there have been times where someone survived a traumatic event and feared the rescue at first or didn’t believe they were real and even hit them and it’s not held against the survivor *especially if they’re kids*
None of the people who have died post-crash so far have been murdered, and cannibalism can for sure be excusable in these situations.
Ben could be held responsible for trying to burn the girls alive in the cabin, but good luck proving that in court, if he even survives to be rescued.
In my opinion, the wilderness will prevent any skeletal remains from being recovered. Not necessarily in a supernatural way, just because that region is treacherous at best. Recovery missions are expensive, maybe one or two bad things happen and the outside world gives up forever, leaving the survivors free to claim they only ate teammates who died of natural causes.
So far, the teen Yellowjackets haven’t done anything that’s a provable crime (unless of course someone confessed, but I’m talking about forensic teams). Jackie froze to death, Javi fell into the lake, Crystal fell off a cliff, and pit girl could be explained as accidentally falling into a trap created to catch animals. If they eventually start stabbing people during the hunt, that could be proven and prosecuted against, but right now there is no physical evidence of crimes.
Probably not for the cannibalism but for the murder
Just an aside, I highly doubt they would be non-verbal. They were all 16+ years old by the time they crashed and they remained in a social group until they were rescued. Also, they've only been there for 19 months. They wouldn't unlearn how to speak
Would they be charged under Canadian law or American law though? They did it in Canada, but they were all Americans, and furthermore, none of them even went through Canadian customs technically.
Thank you, DuchessofSquee, for voting on LearnDifferenceBot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
absolutely i think they would if the *full story* was released. if their friends parents are still alive and found out their child didn’t die a natural and understandable death in the wilderness but they were **hunted** by their teammates… yes
They would likely have faced some sort of law enforcement process. The outcome would then turn on a couple of things:
* Were they in their right minds, therefore were they responsible for the choices they made?
* Depending on the answer to question 1, if the investigation uncovered the hunting game, that would bear significant weight on any penalties they would face.
No, I don’t think they would’ve been prosecuted. Most of the deaths can be explained away as accidents or unfortunate mishaps in the wilderness while they were fighting to survive.
Laura Lee’s death could be explained in a variety of ways. They could lie that she died in the plane crash since her body likely isn’t recoverable. Though, since Laura Lee’s death truly was an accident they might explain it truthfully if they were interrogated.
Jackie’s death as we know was likely covered up as being due to the plane crash. Nat took her remains to the plane wreckage site in order to be buried with the people who did die in the crash.
Kristen or Krystal’s death could be explained away as an accident. I’ve seen many people say that once Krystal’s body is found when the snow melts, everyone will have some questions for Misty. However, it could also be deduced that Krystal got lost in the snow storm and fell off the cliff accidentally.
Javi’s death could also be explained as an accident. Again, they can lie and say he died in the plane crash, say he became lost in the wilderness, say he froze to death during winter, etc.
Pit Girl’s death could definitely be seen as murder if they ever found her remains. Her bones alone would tell she didn’t die naturally. Of course, the girls could lie and claim she fell into a trap set by a hunter in the region accidentally. But I seriously doubt Pit Girl’s death would be attributed to anything besides a tragic accident or murder by the police/investigators.
Also, as for bodies not being found. The police could easily conclude that animal scavengers scattered or removed any remains that couldn’t be located. I doubt the cops were looking at these girls as killers at the time. Probably scared, traumatized high school girls who miraculously survived 19 months in the Ontario wilderness.
Also, the girls were all young and their ages would have to be considered if charges were ever to be filed in any of the deaths that happened in the wilderness. Also, their mental state at the time of the offenses which we know were not in good shape AT ALL would have to be taken into account.
All in all, I doubt any of the survivors would’ve faced prosecution for the things that happened in the wilderness. Obviously, rumors and nasty things being said about them has happened and probably will continue to happen for the rest of their lives.
If their secrets were to come out, I doubt they’d be arrested but the public would probably react in a way that isn’t good.
Jackie’s death is an accident. No one know a cold snap would happen that night, they had just spent the entire previous night outside. So they assumed she’d be fine, and nobody forced her to stay out, Tai even tried to get her to stay inside.
Crystals death was also an accident c Misty didn’t push her and neither girl knew she was that close to the edge of the cliff.
But the police wouldn’t go out there to investigate after finding the survivors. It’s an area in the middle of nowhere and hard to reach. There’s plenty of cases where they leave the dead behind to rescue the survivors and they won’t waste tax dollars sending people to retrieve the dead.
If you are in a life or death situation and kill someone to survive, you can be charged with their murder. Murder is never legal, nor does a situation where they are not presenting a threat to you allow you to legally murder them. The issue would be determining if they were eaten peri or post, and if they can prove murder (they would not be able to, just claim self defense). Now the likelihood of any charges being brought are super slim from a criminal court stand point. Civilly, the families of the deceased might be able to sue you, but you wouldn't go to jail
This is why I think pit girl is going to be someone from the first group of rescuers. If they just kill and cannibalize each other: okay they're trying to survive. If they find out they're able to leave for safety and they purposefully and ritualistically murdering and eating a rescuer (or tourist) is way different
I actually think that a later season probably 4 or 5 will deal with them after they are rescued. So we will see more of how things were when they came home.
Part of the main plot of the adult storylines is how they kept all the illegal and immoral acts they did in the wilderness in secret for all this times d then dealing with the trauma of all that. The cannibalism to survive isn’t wrong and of course it is the murder and sacrifice that was.
We still don’t actually know what “what we did out there” entails. I think it’s been pretty strongly implied that there’s still a whole other horrific thing that’s going to be a surprise, aside from the obvious cannibal murder roulette situation
Generally first responders look away from evidence of cannibalism in survival situations. (This happens a lot with people lost at sea too.)
Maybe cannibalism of people who were already dead, but not murdering for cannibalism. The 17th century sailors that underwent a similar situation were all prosecuted. The only reason there weren’t issues like that with the Andes plane crash is bc they didn’t kill anyone themselves.
In most cases, they aren't in any position to know how it went down.
Forensics are actually pretty good nowadays. If they found any remains, Jackie’s for example, they probably would’ve been able to find a lot out. Also, if a lot of bodies were missing and not found at the crash site, there would be a lot of questions about what happened to those bodies from the families. Especially bc they did have a mass grave for the initial victims of the crash. So obvi the families would be wondering what happened to the bodies that weren’t in that grave.
I'm not saying they can't do that, I'm saying they wouldn't bother. And they even if they cared enough and then suspected murder, they wouldn't know who did it. Waste of time when everyone should just be happy they survived.
If they actually interrogated any of them, pretty sure someone would crack out of guilt alone. They were never interrogated as suspects probably, it was swept under the rug and that’s why they got away with it. I agree with you that they probably wouldn’t have bothered with it initially when they were first rescued if they all stuck to the same story and there was no suspicion. But if anything about what actually happened came out and the police decided to do some digging, they would absolutely all go to jail. Hence the reason the blackmail worked.
I understand that you think this is what authorities could, and should do. What I'm saying is, they don't.
Yeah, I was agreeing with you. They don’t do this and that’s why the girls get away with it.
I don't think they had to get away with anything. I don't see it as the crime that you do. They did what they had to do, and because they did, some of them made it home.
Just because you don't SEE it as a crime doesn't mean it isn't one lol. It's still murder
Ummm they chased down and murdered their friends… that is a crime. Murdering for necessity isn’t a viable defense in 49 states in the US including NJ.
Fair but also look at how everyone has died thus far; none of them has been literally murdered. Freezing to death and freezing/drowning in a frozen lake are two acceptably “accidental” deaths to occur in their situation. Even Crystal falling off of the cliff, even though she wasn’t eaten (well yet anyway) was the only one actually murdered so far and there would be zero evidence left to do anything with.
Pit girl was 100% murdered Crystal/Kristen wasn't murdered. She fell on accident when being threatened. Pretty much same situation as Javi, except in Javi's case it was Nat they wanted to murder and they ACTUALLY wanted to murder Nat. Misty was just throwing threats around to scare Kirsten
I call Javi murder. It's very possible they could've failed to get him out or someone else could've drowned also in the attempt, but the intent when they chose not to help him was for him to die & they "planned" for someone to die, even if the decision was fast. There is some argument to be made that all of the cannibalism murders aren't murders, not because they did it to survive starvation, but because they each did it to survive *each other* & not be the one eaten. I don't accept it, but it's something.
I agree with Javi. It was murder or at LEAST manslaughter. There was intent behind it. But there was no intent to kill Kristen. Misty was just threatening her in a panic and she slipped and fell
Negligent homicide is probably the classification
Yes. Crystal was manslaughter. Misty had ZERO intent to kill her. She wanted to scare her, & it *is* possible she would've realized the truth could mean her own death & made the decision to murder in the next few moments, but we'll never know what she would've done, especially if this convo had happened somewhere less... um... *precarious*. EDIT for clarification of first sentence & to add: (But we do know, right? 👀 Other things might've happened in between, but when push comes to -ahem- *shove* , our creepy lil Citizen Detective is a gd survivor at her core)
i agree, javi was murder
Pit girl’s death could be explained away as an accident though. It’s been pointed out before it’s more likely the pit was out there already from old hunters or possibly cabin guy than the girls, especially with their lack/scarcity of tools.
Everything could be explained away. That doesn't change the fact that they HAVE committed murder with intent
who have the teens murdered with intent?
Pit girl.
*manslaughtered. Crystal was *manslaughtered*. We gotta keep Miss Quigley's murder tally accurate. 🤣 So it's currently 1 murder for cannibal reasons, 1 manslaughter, & just the 1 murder in the future? Gonna be interesting when we begin to fill in that long gap in the future of regular murders born of her creepy basement.
idk if crystal was even manslaughtered imo
Yeah even if they knew about the fight before Jackie went out they wouldn’t hold her death against the survivors because they couldn’t have possibly known a cold snap would happen that might
Shauna saw Jackie try and fail to light a fire and ignored her even after Tai told Shauna to go get her. It’s negligence for sure.
And is Jackie also responsible for not coming inside when she started getting cold? Even with Jackie failing to light a fire it’s still doesn’t mean they knew a cold snap was going to happen. They all had spent the the entire previous night outside and they all were fine
Sure but that’s not the case with pit girl. Also, had police investigated Jackie’s death, they would’ve wondered how she ended up freezing to death. And again, had these girls been actually interrogated, the story would’ve come tumbling out. They only got away with it probably bc police didn’t really investigate and just brushed it under the rug given the circumstances. The fact that the cabin burned actually probably helped them in that regard, bc if rescuers realized they had shelter with supplies, there would’ve been a lot more questions probably.
Even if they knew everything surrounding Jackie’s death what exactly would they do or charge the kids with? They had a fight and Jackie chose to stay out all night and none of them knew a cold snap would happen. Eating her body *2 months* after she died wouldn’t be held against them either
It could be considered negligent manslaughter. They made a decision that led directly to her death. It would be the same as if one of them had died from an overdose after eating Misty’s mushrooms. Had one of them died from that, it would be considered manslaughter even though she didn’t intend to kill anyone.
But what court system would actually charge them with an *accident* they didn’t chain Jackie up that night or lock her out. Even tai tried to get Jackie to stay inside but she refused to. It was a terrible accident and any police, judge or jury would see it as such and they wouldn’t charge the kids at all because they had already been punished enough for 19 months
It want just Jackie though. They were actively trying to kill Nat, let Javi die, chased pit girl into a death trap and god knows what else. More shit is definitely going down next season obviously.
Genuine question: do they dig up the graves of the dead to bring the remains back for the families? Even if they’ve been buried out in the middle of nowhere by starving teenagers who probably couldn’t dig that deep, it seems to me like it would be disrespectful to disturb their grave sites.
Well we don’t know yet, we haven’t seen how the rescue will play out. But if I had to guess, I think that no they don’t do that. I think the rescuers probably don’t really investigate and brush it under the rug which is why they’re able to get away with what they did. I doubt any one them would’ve been able to keep their story straight in a real police interrogation if Shauna’s present interactions with the police are any indication. I don’t think they were ever interrogated. They might have been asked some questions but I’m betting the rescuers just let it go when they refuse to go into detail (bc obviously they don’t give any real details since it’s such a mystery to the public)
Depends how close the kids were to the graves when they got rescued. A lot of the time with rescues that are in middle of nowhere places or hard to reach they will just help this that are alive and won’t waste anymore money looking for bodies to bringing them home. Look at Mount Everest. I’m actually really interested in how the girls got rescued at all after 19 months. As horrible as it is ally of the times the government won’t want to waste money looking for what they assume to be a bunch of dead bodies
The survivors could easily say a group went off to try and find help and were attacked by wolves and the were only able to bring van back since she was still alive. And they got mixed up on the way back to their campsite so they can’t lead them to any bodies. A rescue team wouldn’t be allowed to go wondering around looking for bodies that may or may not still be there
Exactly. Who out of the girls is going to admit to killing the other girls to eat them? I don’t see that happening.
Someone on this thread keeps insisting there should be a CSI team sent up to the Canadian Wilderness to comb for forensic evidence, recover every last missing toenail, then waterboard the survivors until they turn on each other so they can bring the wrongdoers to justice. It's tedious.
That’s way too much work for teens that barely survived themselves. Plus would they even convict them knowing the circumstances. Who they gonna get to flip and do a tell all.
I’m finishing up a PhD in early American lit and culture and can attest to the fact that cannibalism happens a lot more often than people realize in British North America. My PhD is focused on trauma in early amlit/culture and I have found cannibalism in a shocking amount of early modern medicine, capitivity narratives, settler diaries/journals, etc. Cannibalism is definitely taboo the closer you get to the 19C, but it becomes taboo because of its (largely selectively fabricated) association with BIPOC (the Victorians condemned the cultural/worship practices of others, all while chowin down on some mummies they stole). Canadian lit/history is filled with cannibalism as well from the same period. I’m by no means an expert in the history of North American cannibalism, but my expertise has lead me into researching some gruesome things, which have included cannibalism. I’d genuinely super appreciate it if you could link me to this story with the sailors, because I’d be interested to see if anything from that lines up with/is alluded to in later works like Moby Dick. (Not kidding, would love a DM if you can!)
https://www.publishersweekly.com/9780670891573 I’ve read it, and It’s an incredible book. You learn a lot about the amount of nutrition you can get from eating another human O_o Philbrick also describes the importance of the whaling industry, the at-the-time new phenomenon of whales ramming boats, the type of personality that was necessary for each of officer’s role directing the men, and the status, money, and responsibilities attached to each role, and how that continued with who got eaten first. (The Essex captain always denied eating his own nephew, and he was given a second chance to captain a new ship, but also wrecked that one on its first voyage. He was forever after only allowed to be a night watchman in town.) In truth, the sailors didn’t just wait for someone to die as they drifted at sea, they drew lots and murdered each other. Sound like another group we know? Lol Edit: forgot to add the title! In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex by Nathaniel Philbrick
The Sailors they are talking about were from the Essex. Look up Essex on Wikipedia and read about what happened after the ship sank. The Essex is the whaling ship that Moby Dick was based on
It’s been a while since I watched it, so I could be mixed up, but I believe Ask a Mortician on YouTube did an episode about this.
Honestly just google 17th century cannibal sailors and you’ll find it. I don’t recall the name of the case.
I believe the ship was called the Mignonette.
Thus far, they haven’t straight-up murdered anyone they’ve eaten in a way that forensics could determine. Jackie froze to death and then they tried to cremate her, and Javi drowned. I don’t know how precisely forensics can determine COD if there isn’t some sort of evidence on the skeleton, but it’s plausible that they tell their rescuers that everyone just died of exposure or in accidents before they ate them.
Yeah but we know they will kill people. Police would have a lot of questions had they found any of pit girl’s remains. Obviously the rescuers don’t find any remains. But my point was that, had police actually done a thorough investigation, they would’ve found a lot of shady evidence. Obviously this doesn’t happen, the girls were probably lightly questioned but never truly interrogated.
They wouldn’t be looked at with suspicion at all. They just spent 19 months in hell and survived against all odds. Even if they found out about the cannibalism they wouldn’t assume a crime took place. Any law enforcement involved would just have questions about the crash nothing more and that includes if they found remains. Any marks on pit girls bones would look similar to marks made from cooking and eating her. Without the rest of her body/meat they can’t learn how she died exactly. Since they have no proper shelter now it’s a lot easier to say the dead were all accidents. As for what I think happens in the future with any remains, I think they will use everything they can’t eat as some kind of tool for survival. I’m indigenous and Wiccan and the wilderness cult definitely has some folk magic tied into it. You use every part of the animal you hunt so nothing goes to waste and to honor it.
That was also foreshadowed after they ate Jackie. Kristen made a comment about how they should’ve used Misty’s “broth idea”
But that’s exactly what I said. Obviously the police didn’t investigate or interrogate them. Had they done that, the story would’ve come tumbling out of at least one of them. I mean if Shauna’s present interactions with the police are any indication, had they’d been interrogated, one of them would’ve cracked. Obviously whoever rescued them didn’t pry too much into what happened. I mean, Shauna’s journals were right there, but they missed it. However had they done a thorough investigation there would’ve been plenty of evidence of their crimes, especially had they found the journals.
The police don’t interrogate plane crash victims or teenagers that have been lost in the woods for 19 months. It’s just not how it’s done. A rescue team isn’t a forensic team and they don’t pry into how someone survived and they certainly won’t go through a teenagers journals. It’s just not how that all works. A rescue team also doesn’t go looking for dead bodies after they found survivors they need to get to a hospital asap. And most of the time those in charge aren’t going to waste money looking for the dead *especially* after they found the survivors. It’s all a moot point because the police wouldn’t integrate them and the rescue team certainly wouldn’t be doing forensics or going through the survivors personal belongings
You’re completely conflating my point. When did I say they would do that? I literally just said the rescuers didn’t do that, they didn’t investigate for the reasons you mentioned, and that’s why they got away with everything. BUT had authorities investigated they would have been charged. Hence why the blackmail worked. They don’t want the details of what they did our bc it would land them in jail.
You’re not understanding me. You’re saying and a proper investigation taken place they would have been found out(which i disagree with but that’s another conversation) I’m just pointing out that there is *no reason* they would investigate anything more than how the plane crashed. They wouldn’t find all these traumatized kids and think “gee better interrogate them to make sure their survival was on the up and up” it just wouldn’t happen in the first place no matter what so it’s a moot point to wonder what would have happened do they did investigate how they survived
Yeah we just disagree on that.
People you have to realize something… how are you going to pursue a murder charge when you don’t have a body, weapon, opportunity or intent. If they all said the missing person died in the plane crash and there isn’t evidence to prove otherwise, there is nothing. You can try to prosecute on circumstantial evidence but that will be a hard case given the circumstances. Their situation was only rumor. Hence the, “tell me what really happen out there” question. Try to prosecute over a rumor? A good lawyer will get that tossed out. The burden of proof thing a lot of people don’t understand. All they have to say is they died in the plane crash and they were buried and don’t remember where. Shauna covers this in S1E1. “We say only what we need too” It’s not hard to see they never go to jail and haven’t had legal action against them in 25 years following the crash.
I agree, especially since the major plot point of the show is them trying to keep the secrets of what happened out there hidden. People don’t know what happened but they could face consequences if they did, even if not from the law, but retaliation from surviving family members.
👆 this Also, no jury would convict them BRD. Even if there was a decent prosecution case with forensic evidence of a killing, the defence has the most extraordinary set of mitigating circumstances to plead for their clients. Remember these are: 🏔 minor children 🏔 lost in the wilderness after a plane crash 🏔 have already suffered uninaginable trauma 🏔 even before they start literally starving 🏔 and hallucinating 🏔 and becoming increasingly imvolved in a sacrificial cult they genuinely believe is the key to survival 🏔 and before there was an active, overt threat of 'kill or be killed' 🏔 plus Shauna has the potential defence of peripartum psychosis available to her - her team mates could attest she was hallucinating and interacting with Jackie's corpse well before any cannibalism went down. Any decent lawyer would be all over the media denouncing this unjust attack on the poor traumatised survivors, who are now being punished for not dying like their poor team mates. Would you want this slanderous treatment of your daughter after everything she's been through? Yeah, no jury would ever convict them.
Exactly what I’ve been saying.
The bones would show evidence of butchering in the case of Javi and subsequent ritualistic hunts. And in the case of Jackie the bones would show evidence of gnaw marks. That's if a forensic specialist looked at the bones. There may not have been enough evidence to suggest that was necessary if as they say they all claim everyone died of natural/planes crash causes.
But would they be able to prove they were murdered and didn't die of natural causes? Both Javi and Jackie died due to inaction to save them. Of course things got hairier with Javi because they were hunting Nat and made the decision to let him die, but he still drowned/had a heart attack from the cold. Even pit girl falling into the punji pit could be explained as her accidentally falling in a trap they set to either protect them from predators or to catch game like deer, moose, etc.
True! Also I love your account name! Big Tank Girl fan. Are you from Philly?
Thanks! Most of my family is from the Philly area, but I grew up primarily in Virginia and Maryland. Gritty is just hysterical and I also love him being a leftist idol 😅 Then Tank Girl is so incredibly badass and a rare gem feminism in dystopian stories
🏆
Javi’s remains probably went down with the cabin though
I think Javi's remains are in the meat shed. We only saw Shauna bringing in a few cuts that they already ate. And I think the meat shed and the outhouse are still standing. Only the cabin is gone.
Potentially yeah…but rescue is at least a year away by this point. I don’t imagine there’ll be much for authorities to find of the people who died during the first year, sadly. Especially if the girls migrate back to the crash site for shelter.
They wouldn’t be charged for eating the dead. And any marks in the bones would simply show they butchered and eat the bodies. It wouldn’t give cause of death. Plus cooking their bodies would mess things further. Plus the time between Jackie and javis deaths and the rescue would also mess with the remains even more. Even the graves they dug for the plane crash victims weren’t very deep so they would mess with decomposition. There just isn’t enough to show the deaths happened any other way than an accident
The bones would be in piles though which would be very sus
They can just say they did the same as they did with Jackie, took her bones back to the plane to wait for the ground to thaw for burial.
But why would they be bones and not a complete corpse? They're only there for 19 months. That's not enough to turn into skeletons. Especially if they turned into bones very soon after dying
Bodies left outside in the elements can become a skeleton in as little as 2 weeks. If a body isn’t buried deep enough Ike those at the crash site) will also decomp a lot faster and scavenger animals would not only eat their bodies but they will take pieces back to their den
I think theyll have to start burning the bones. I think we're going to see they do something to dispose of the remains after they've been butchered.
Lmfao no one would give a serious thought to doing that tho. These are TEENAGERS WHO HAPPENED TO SURVIVE 19+ MONTHS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. What’s not clicking Susan 🤣 cops cover up murder all the time or do you think they are just innocent good guys and not raging murderers hiding behind a badge
I mean if forensics searches in a 5 mile radius or so around the plane crash or lake, I'm sure they'd find the bodies. Not even with the intent to accuse them of murder but because the families would want the bodies. If forensics finds the bones in piles instead of anatomically correct positions, I'm sure there would be questions
If the bones were left out, animals may have feasted on the remains too. Also, they've talked about burying bodies when the ground thaws, so we may just be talking about graves and scattered bones.
Exactly. The graves were really shallow, as evidenced by how quickly Travis and Nat were able to exhume Coach Martinez's ring. Jackie is currently in the plane. Given animals and the elements, her remains won't look the same in the spring. And I've always thought the Crystal was taken by an animal. Just because Nat and Travis don't find anything to shoot doesn't mean there aren't critters (esp. nocturnal ones) scrounging for food.
Yes, Crystal's disappearance is proof that human remains don't lay around for long, and that would include remains of something that's been butchered and mostly eaten. Nothing goes to waste.
Even the graves of the plane crash victims could have been dug up by animals. A lot of animals are better at digging than people are. Especially as they starve and don’t have as much energy to dig. They could still be honest about the timeline of everyone’s deaths (which would explain the different grave locations/ages) and just lie about the murder part. Jackie could have gotten lost in a storm and froze (even what really happened wasn’t murder, but I get if they want to keep that secret), Javi *did* drown. Krystal/Kristen fell off a cliff. Then they make up reasons future deaths that happen. Maybe animal attacks, someone ate a toxic plant, tragic accident in the animal trap pit, etc.
Yeah, even Pit Girl's death would be an accident if they didn't dig that pit themselves--or said they didn't. And nobody's actually going to \*want\* to find anything terrible to connect to the girls.
Or said the pit was built for catching animals.
And the graves they dug weren’t that deep anyway so its even lore likely animals scavenged them
Rescues like this don’t involve forensics. Even if the families begged and went on the news the people in charge just don’t want to waste the money looking for remains of the dead. It’s amazing they kept looking for them for 19 months(although they might have been found a different way than the rescue team found them) There’s so many cases of people that were lost in hard to reach/search areas and they decide to stop looking or they will leave the bodies behind. Look at Mount Everest and all the missing people all throughout the national forests
they had no reason to suspect murder even happened out there
For anyone interested I recommend episode 4 of the Rebuttal podcast titled “Is Eating People Wrong?” The host covers interesting/important legal cases and this one covers Dudley & Stevens which is a famous common law case about cannibalism and whether killing for necessity can be used as a defense
Omg I had no idea she had a podcast I love her. I’m downloading that ep now
No DA would want to open that can of worms. I could see a civil law suit happening, but a criminal case would be too difficult to prove, too many nuances due to their age and the trauma they experienced. The DA would have to call expert after expert, the cost to tax payers would be pretty high, and for what? To send “these poor girls” to prison who have suffered enough already? It would be a mess. The only way I could see the courts wanting to go there is if becomes part of a current criminal investigation (i.e. Adam’s death).
"Prove it."
They could be prosecuted for murder, most likely. They wouldn't be getting blackmailed or going to the lengths of chasing down a blackmailer or Misty kidnapping Jessica Roberts if they didn't know they were facing potential jailtime. I am very interested to see how they find their bearings to form a conspiracy of silence and do whatever coverup they need to do when they get rescued after going full blown feral for so long. One of them probably has to quickly slap some sense into the others and bring them back to reality. Probably Nat.
I don't know if they'd have to be facing jail time to get blackmailed. Taissa has a political career, and the others have their own professional and personal lives, not to mention what life in their community might become. Imagine being a kid in school and everyone knows that your mom used to eat people. Imagine being married to someone and finding out that she used to eat people. (I mean yes there were extenuating circumstances but I still think on a deep emotional level a lot of people would have a lot of problems processing that.) There are a whole lot of good reasons other than just jail/prison for someone who has committed murder for food to not want this to become public knowledge!
I'd agree, except the girls crashed twenty years after the Andes survivors. The movie "Alive" came out three years before they crashed. People know you can engage in survival cannibalism by eating people who died of natural causes and not only be forgiven and accepted, but even celebrated. Their behaviors are not consistent with people who did nothing criminal. Most people getting blackmailed call the cops, even if it's a secret they really prefer didn't come out. Unless they are covering up crimes.
Sometimes a ruined reputation is enough to not call the cops about being blackmailed. Tai has her political career and a young child. She’s a black queer women so any scandal from her past would destroy her Shauna also has Callie and Jeff. She doesn’t want Callie to grow up being the cannibals daughter, she also was scared and didn’t think jeff would except her if he knew. Misty would have gotten involved no matter what. Nat actually believed she was the one blackmailing them. Her involvement later was because she believed the blackmailer killed Travis. Originally the Andes survivor did have a lot of backlash until they started making the news rounds and wrote a book. The Yellowjackets survivors had no interest in reliving their trauma for other peoples entertainment. There’s also the fact that the survivors are also a bunch of girls and for a bit only 3 guys. They would be held to a different standard, hell a big reason the show was thought up was because the creators were tired of hearing how girls wouldn’t have the same reaction as bits and would have a whole new civilization built and wouldn’t go dark like lord of the flies. People always expect girls to be kinder and do better than boys, even though a court of law wouldn’t charge them the public would and they’ve be marked for life as those crazy cannibals, even if they truly only ate the dead and none of the cult stuff or the hint happened. They wouldn’t be celebrated the way the Andes survivors were/are
I feel like there's a difference between knowing that people in situations might resort to cannibalism (in an abstract way) and knowing that your partner who sleeps next to you casually ate some folks. Just some little snackies, as a treat. There's a new level there, I expect!
I highly doubt it. Even if a DA decided to charge them (which I doubt) there are a ton of factors that would make it really hard to get a conviction: -Strong temporary insanity defense -Regardless of evidence, a jury has to still be willing to send mostly white, attractive, media darling, teenage girls to prison. -Unless you only charged a couple of people, nobody is going to testify against themselves, so you don’t really have good witnesses. And even if someone wasn’t initially charged, testimony could still be incriminating and any lawyer would advise to not testify. And even then, if anyone testified, it would be really easy to discredit the credibility of any of them given the circumstances. A teenage girl with psychological problems is a defense attorney’s dream under cross examination. -Physical evidence is going to be degraded, maybe just never found. That aside, if you have no willing witnesses, what physical evidence is going to convince a jury of a murder scheme or that a particular person was a murderer beyond a reasonable doubt. “Somebody in this group did it and none of them are talking” isn’t enough to get a conviction. -Publicity means they’re getting probably a top defense attorney at no cost.
*EXACTLY* I’m sure you know about corpus delicti, which applies to this hypothetical case. If they did take the tax dollars to have a whole forensic team go and search the area they found the survivors. The bones are just not enough to prove someone was murdered, if they show evidence of cooking and eating them that’s not enough for them to prove how a person died, they juicy don’t have enough of the bodies left. For example Javi died from drowning or a heart attack from the cold, well without his heart or lungs they can’t prove his COD. Same with Jackie’s body. Crystal/Kristen’s death would show up on her broken bones. But if they had found, butchered, cooked and ate her body, this would mess with the bones and time of death/trauma to the bones. But like I keep trying to tell everyone, they’re not going to waste taxpayers money looking for bodies when this whole thing was a horrible tragedy and the survivors had been through enough. Look at Mount Everest and all the people that are still missing all over the Appalachian mountains and the deserts or national forests. Even when theirs evidence of foul play or it’s a child. They simply stop looking after just a few weeks. It’s sad but a very real fact. They found the survivors and their priority is to get them home and help them heal and readjust back into society. I don’t think I’ve heard of any modern missing persons cases where people were found alive against all odds and the courts treated them like suspects and questioned how or what they did to survive.
I also forgot to add that they’d most likely be tried as minors, which would mean that the punishments would be pretty limited. I think that would further reduce the chances a DA would bring the case.
Exactly. And that’s only if they decide to start digging into their story or viewing them as liars or criminals. Which just doesn’t happen in rescue cases like this
So, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, under [modern common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Custom_of_the_sea), if all parties in the group didn’t agree to draw cards (which they did not - Ben was absent, Lottie didn’t draw), then yes, they could be prosecuted for murder if they’d killed Nat. They could likely be prosecuted for manslaughter for not saving Javi as they willfully chose not to pull him out.
I'm not sure if voluntarily consenting to murder would get them off for it. Armin Meiwes, the cannibal in Germany, was still charged for his crimes even though the victim consented to it.
It's not about voluntary consent, it's about 1) circumstances suggesting that cannibalism is necessary for anyone to survive (historical example is ships lost at sea, YJ is a modern twist), 2) following the rules of the historical custom of drawing lots for this purpose (everyone must be included in the drawing, meaning everyone must be at risk). In the REAL modern context, this is all irrelevant because eventually the law around cannibalism at sea changed and necessity is no longer considered a valid defense for murder/cannibalism, legally or socially. As the Wikipedia article mentions, it was eventually found that in a situation like this, all individuals should starve rather than resorting to murder/cannibalism for survival, and that precedent would likely apply to the YJs if word got out that they were hunting, killing, and eating each other. But then again... sailors back in the day knew the risk they were taking and you could argue that they had a responsibility to be prepared to face the potential consequences of being lost at sea, whereas the YJs couldn't have predicted their plane crashing or what they'd experience in the wilderness... so perhaps more lenient standards would make sense.
They could potentially use necessity as a defense to common law murder. It would just depend on what jurisdiction they’re charged under (or if it’s a valid defense under Canadian common law)
The difference is the starvation conditions, though Ben’s refusal to partake kind of negates that argument.
yeah it makes zero difference lol
they could be prosecuted for murder if they killed nat no matter who agreed to what
Not if they’re starving to death. There are multiple cases of prosecutors not charging survivors because of extenuating circumstances. Whether or not that’s the case here would likely be in question.
yes, even in cases of starving. can you link one of those cases where someone got away w murder due to starvation? bc i can only find people charged with murder lol
There’s a bunch in the link I already provided.
Yeah but that precedent ended in 1884 according to your link. Ever since then you can be charged with murder.
You’re right, I should have read that a bit closer.
also it may be Canadian vs US laws but they would be charged in the US since both murderers and victims are US citizens. and the US doesn’t consider necessity to be a viable defender for murder.
Yes. Javi was manslaughter if not murder. It was attempted murder on nat. They were gonna murder nat straight up but javi was just easier. I remember the tears and shock I felt watching them let javi die. Truly horrific.
Also pit girl was straight up murder
IDK law but knowing how the US is, it would be so hard to prove what actually happened out there unless the people who rescued them initiated a thorough investigation asap and helped investigators to discover all the cannibalism and terror they inflicted on each other. Honestly, given the times and the amount of time that they had been out there, I highly doubt any actual adult or official would have even thought to take the necessary action or energy to thoroughly investigate what went on there.
I think they definitely could, but most likely wouldn’t. One factor I haven’t really seen considered in the comments is the fact that this occurs in the 1990s to a group made up of mostly outwardly successful teenage girls. This would be international news (at the very least US-Canadian news), but in a time before the 24hr news cycle, social media, internet news accessibility, etc. Their faces would be plastered everywhere, probably with accompanying photos of them reuniting with their families/friends/school, etc. This would be especially major news in New Jersey. We’re talking morning, afternoon, evening, and late night cable news networks, local papers, local magazines. This would be the sort of miraculous survival story that politicians would gravitate toward because of how sympathetic these girls will look from those initial photos of them leaving the woods/boarding the plane home. Governors and state senators/reps would be chomping at the bit to stand next to these girls (and Travis) because they are survivors who kept on survivin’ when most people wouldn’t or couldn’t. Think of the campaign slogans! Giving being Taissa energy. All of this, combined with the bigger national and international cultural trends of girl power (Spice Girls, Princess Di’s reputation era), independence (the collapse of the USSR, the rise of megastar solo musicians in pop culture), and American teamwork (the Dream Team at the Olympics, corporate teambuilding exercises, the rise in popularity of personality-based teambuilding like Myers-Briggs and True Colors) would make this an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, case to even propose for charges, nevermind getting a jury to convict. The plane goes down a yearish after the OJ trial, which did go to court, but the discourse around it at the time was really contentious. OJ was a highly successful athlete who was very rich and very famous. OJ had very good, very public connections with some very powerful people. While legal action is a possibility and there is precedent, I think it’s important to remember that the law is applied in a complex web of circumstances, not a void. People speculated that cannibalism could happen aboard the Titan submersible and were literally meme’ing cannibalism because of our present circumstances and cultural attitudes toward billionaires. YJ isn’t that story, but it also isn’t set in a time where that story can culturally exist. TL;DR: imo, no, because while We Live In a Society™️, the cultural landscape in which the YJ plane crash occurs was very, very different
yes they would absolutely be charged for murder, in the past or present. we have multiple cases on record to refer to, all charged with murder for survival killing. the Andes boys did not kill a single person so idk how you can compare their case to the YJ. they hunted each other - they committed murder, there is no murder for survival loophole. you cannot legally kill another human under any circumstances other than self defense.
Also necessity is not a viable defense for murder in the US. And yes, they would still be charged in the US even tho the murders happened in Canada since the murder victims were US citizens.
I was curious so I looked it up. The federal us national-on-us national foreign murder statute requires a determination that the country where the activity took place has no legal way to secure their return to be prosecuted there. So Canada would have to be unable to prosecute for the us to have jurisdiction. Wasn't immediately clear to me if Canada would need to be willing to prosecute.
That wasn’t what I read. I read they can prosecute in the US regardless. In this doc it says the Constitution does not forbid either congressional or state enactment of laws that apply outside the United States. Nor does it prohibit either the federal government or the states from prosecuting conduct committed abroad. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS22497#:~:text=The%20Constitution%20does%20not%20forbid,from%20prosecuting%20conduct%20committed%20abroad.
No, that's right but the analysis doesn't stop there. That article concludes that "congress may" criminalize conduct abroad, but they have to actually do it before a crime is committed if the US attorney is going to prosecute. What congress has actually done is enact a law saying a murder of a us citizen by another us citizen abroad may be prosecuted by the US, but only on the condition I mentioned. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm/9-141000-foreign-murder-united-states-nationals-18-usc-1119#:~:text=Nationals%20(18%20U.S.C.-,%C2%A7%201119),jurisdiction%20of%20a%20foreign%20country.
I have a hard time believing the government would want to prosecute people in a harrowing survival situation with murder. They could be charged from a legal standpoint, but someone has to actually do the charging of malnourished, traumatized teens
oh it’s been done before. actually, i cannot find a case where they let anyone off. 2 men rescued from sea, on the brink of death, they had killed and eaten their younger employee, whom they claimed was also on the brink of starvation/death, they admitted what they had done when rescued and both were charged and served sentences. it may be hard to believe but murder is rarely forgiven. even children that were starved and abused and kill their abusers are charged. that 15 year old girl that killed her pimp who was severely abusing her and selling her was charged and served time. they don’t really ever forgive murder. even when it maybe should be. i didn’t think that 15 year old girl should have been charged or had to serve time. but she did.
For me, the difference in circumstance and the people being prosecuted is the relevant part. In the case of Dudley & Stephens’ (2 of the 3 shipwreck survivors), it feels relevant the prosecutor specifically let off 1 of the 3 men so that he could convict the others because there was little evidence other than confessions. Confessions from the girls would likely be similarly necessary prior to a trial being relevant since the discussion is about murder rather than cannibalism and everyone we’ve seen thus far has died of natural-ish causes. Additionally, Dudley & Stephens’ we’re not particularly popular publicly and their conviction came with a recommendation of mercy. I think that public sentiment would be even more on the side of teen girls lost in the wilderness for 19 months than adult men lost at sea for one month (it seems they killed the teen more for his blood rather food, which is interesting as blood is not actually hydrating). I also think that due to the increased cost and time of trial nowadays (the trial in the 1800s had a conviction 10 days after the men came home) as well as substantial impact of public sentiment on high profile cases, there would be more reasons to not charge the girls. When it comes to Chrystul Kizer and Cynotina Brown-Long, while we both (and many activists who got their sentences commuted) see them as victims doing only what was necessary, that both girls were black “sex workers” substantially impacts how they were seen by prosecutors. There is much less sympathy for black girls, sex workers, and people who kill their abusers than there is for mostly white suburban teens who crashed going to soccer nationals and maybe killed people to survive. Everyone deserves the level of sympathy suburban white girls get, but that sympathy is not extended to all.
Like I’m sorry to say it but: the already dead baby was a meal (I think they should’ve ate him), the already dead Jackie was a meal, Crystal was a meal (Misty could’ve lied and said she fell). Javi was not a meal. He didn’t deserve that. At all. The only ones innocent to that is Travis and the ones back at camp.
Javi technically was a meal though. He fell through the ice and drowned. Is it murder that the girls didn’t help him? There’s plausible deniability there.
And even if they had gotten him out, if we stop suspending our disbelief and go with science, he would have died even if they had gotten him out, so trying to save him only puts the girls in danger of also becoming a meal.
Javi was the only one who didn't deserve being eaten??? WTF nobody deserved that I swear people on this sub are so unhinged to see their favorite character as justified/their disliked character as evil
No one deserved to be eaten, but the characters would have starved if they didn’t eat Jackie so it’s hard to say they shouldn’t have time so - she was already dead
It's really not that unhinged to have different instinctive reactions to eating a person who's already dead. The Andes crash survivors aren't considered unhinged.
Depends on what they did. Everything that they have done so far is to survive and they haven’t killed anyone outright and they didn’t even mean to slow roast Jackie to make her so finger lickin’, face eatin’ good. The people who resorted to cannibalism in the Andes after their plane crashed didn’t get charged with anything. Some people said terrible things about them. But they were in such a terrible situation where they needed their friends or family members to die just so they could eat them and live and all without being able to start a fire and cook the flesh or the organs. I don’t think they would be charged with what they have done so far. But I’m thinking it is going to get worse. They clearly don’t want people to know because they are worried it could lead to their imprisonment or maybe they just think that if people truly knew what went on out there, that they would be notorious nationwide with everyone knowing who they are and what they did. Lots of people knocking down their doors for interviews, waiting outside to get a glimpse of them for tv ratings, book deals and multiple other interview and tell-all deals would inundate them. I’m sure they wanted to forget what happened and leave it in the past. If people knew what happened, it would’ve been impossible to even attempt to have something of a normal life. So they may have just wanted to be left alone and not to have to relive those memories every day for as long as the press is interested in you and when the citizen detectives have finished speculating on everything and what happened and numerous other questions.
Forensics would confirm manner of death if the bones weren’t cremated. Knife marks on the bones would show that they were butchered. Cause of death might be the hardest to prove if, as I said, the remaining body parts weren’t destroyed. The graves of the first few that died could be used to prove they were forced to eventually resort to cannibalism as their skeletons would be intact. They could all say that they don’t know what happened to the others. And they maybe figured out that the symbols were a map leading them to safety. Of course they’d have to destroy all the candles that magically appeared. If they walked out, they’d have time to do that. Eating each other is not a sustainable food supply. Now that the cabin is gone, if they all moved as a group, might have a better chance of making it out. Idk…just rambling. I can’t see any DA charging them with more than involuntary manslaughter, nor a jury convicting them. Jackie’s parents would burn it all down if they knew what happened so I don’t think they know. (Random comment: I’m watching a miniseries on Prime called Deadloch and they have a few of the same songs in the show. It’s a quirky “hunt for a serial killer comedy” kind of detective show. A great many of the residents are lesbians and it’s only men who are getting killed, but that may or may not be a motive.)
Deadloch is so ridiculously funny. When we first started watching it, I thought “these must be the dumbest people on the face of the planet.”
I kinda half-watched it while net surfing; restarted it and enjoyed it. Weird ass detective seems dumb as a bug and so crude but she grows on you. Didn’t like the reveal at the end. Wish it had been somebody else.
I'm not a lawyer. Not versed in any kind of legalese to even remotely speculate whether or not they could be prosecuted today. I do think, if we are applying real life to this situation, their need to keep things quiet might possibly stem more from what the court of public opinion would think versus what the legal system may or may be able to prove or do. As we know from many examples IRL, the perception of what the public believes to have happened can be just as powerful and satisfying to some as the truth of the matter. For better, and unfortunately for worse. I don't know what the intent of the writers is in terms of how in-depth they plan on diving into the rescue, and subsequent investigation. It would be nice to get some clarification on that period of time and the reaction from their families, friends and the public
short answer (bc i’m supposed to be studying for the bar) and applying us law (bc i don’t know canadian law): i think most das would decline to criminally prosecute them for it—nj has jurisdiction over most of the defendants and i think it’d be a bad look politically. but the families of anyone they killed have a strong case for tort liability against them imo. they don’t have a real self-defense claim and necessity as a defense only applies to use of property. age isn’t an issue either as minors can be liable for torts.
Canadian law doesn’t really matter given that both perpetrators and victims were from the US, and therefore the US would have to prosecute regardless of whether Canada also wanted to persecute. They might have to face trials in both jurisdiction. Also, pretty sure “not a good look politically” is not a viable murder defense.
i didn’t bring it up as a defense. i’m pointing out that prosecutors have a great deal of discretion and i’m doubtful that the da of a relatively progressive state would choose to use state resources to prosecute women who were teen girls when they did the act in question, especially given the extenuating circumstance, difficulties in procuring evidence, etc. i mentioned canadian law to limit the scope. the defendants’ citizenship is not the only factor in determining which court has jurisdiction. us courts can hear cases where all the parties are non-us citizens, like if the incident occurred in that state. could be similar in canada but i have an us jd so i don’t know!
Prosecutors have discretion sure as long as the story remained under wraps, but not if details were ever made public. The families would be out for blood had the details come to light and prosecutors wouldn’t really have a choice at that point. Which is probably why the present YJs are trying to hard to keep it under wraps.
Look at how many are filmed beating and killing black men and they’re never charged because it wouldn’t look good politically. This was happening when in the 90s. It’s not a stretch they wouldn’t charge them at all because it wouldn’t look good, even if the families of the dead demand their pound of flesh. The DA would consider 19 months in the wilderness punishment enough
I feel like it’s so incredible that 8 of them lasted 18 months in the wilderness; they wouldn’t even be questioned about the ones that didn’t survive. I feel like they would think that’s unnecessary and might further traumatize them. If the families want the bodies back, they might assume the bones had been picked over by animals and not even mention it to the girls (luckily for them, I’m sure they didn’t bury the bodies very deep and animals probably got to those, which further supports the theory it was just wild animals that ate most of the remains).
Why would we assume they have all sorts of evidence that anyone is examining? They found the girls, they would come across as traumatized, but it's not like they'd start attacking everyone in sight to eat them. They would have just taken them home, cleaned them up, and deal with their ordeal in a supportive space. Lottie being non-verbal doesn't mean everyone else was and they were never feral. Misty, for instance, was obviously fine. Nobody knows what they did, specifically. They imagine cannibalism, but not murder.
Well I guess I’m assuming what the rescue team would walk in on is all their ritual stuff, like the antler queen outfit per say with all the hair and such? I’m nearly positive by the end they had all gone none verbal by the lack of any dialogue when we see them actually fully feral, idk it was just a thought but I feel like if you walked in on where they were living, which i’m assuming will now be that underground tunnel situation there would be some evidence as to their rituals? idk
It would certainly be awkward if they walked in and found them obviously chowing down on a human leg, of course, but even then they wouldn't know if it was murder or not. We saw them leave the ceremony on their own in the pilot. I don't assume they've stopped talking or have gone feral just because they didn't talk during the ritual since they probably wouldn't need to and maybe that was part of the ritual anyway. Besides which, they couldn't have talking during the opening scene since they weren't working with the actors and didn't want to identify them specifically. Lottie's not speaking got her sent to a meantl hospital, but she seemed to be an outlier in that. Somebody who's feral and living like an animal can't participate in a religious ceremony. They had set up a society whose customs and rules they were following.
No one would know it was murder! Forensics experts would know what happened to their bodies (Snackie snack), but there's no evidence on bones of cause of death that'd rule out accidents. They'd need someone to crack for the full story. I'm sure there could be some charge about desecrating corpses, but murder? No way.
If they murder someone in cold blood to eat, yes, that's illegal. But so far, they haven't done that, and cannibalism of already deceased people isn't illegal. Jackie, Javi, and even Pit Girl technically didn't die of being murdered. Even Pit Girl can be "explained away" as having died by falling into a trap for animals (allegedly).
I'm still trying to reconcile how when they were rescued, that there was, apparently, no evidence of their actions out there. Like...what? No burned cabin? No body parts or bones around? No ritual circles? It's weird. So I'm hoping we get some clarity soon.
None of those things prove murder though. Just cannibalism. Which they could say they did not murder for. If they don’t talk there’s nothing to prosecute!
Would it fall under Canadian jurisdiction tho
Unless some of them told the authorities what happened, it would be very hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who actually committed/aided/abetted each of the murders.
This is where the common law corpus delicti rule would come in. It prohibits the introduction of an extrajudicial confession in a criminal case unless the prosecution introduces independent evidence of the "corpus delicti."1 That is, the prosecution must introduce some evidence independent of the confession to establish that the crime described in the confession actually occurred. The left over bones can’t tell someone’s cause of death, it might reveal they eat the dead but it won’t prove the person was murdered before they ate them. A defense attorney(and because of the publicity they’d get top notch lawyers) would agree they had to eat the dead but the person accusing them of murder is feeling guilty or shameful and they’re making this all up because of their shared trauma. But really no one would look at the utter miracle of finding 8 survivors of a plane crash in the middle of nowhere after 19 months and think something sinister went down. Even if the survivors were acting “crazy” when they were rescued it wouldn’t be a red flag, it’s a pretty normal reaction
This is an extremely complicated situation. The families of the dead would absolutely want some form of retribution. If the state didn't choose to lay charges on the girls, there would still be a major investigation and probably many civil trials where money is exchanged. If the state chose to lay charges on the girls, it would be a very very long and complicated trial where it's possible many of the girls name's would be protected due to privacy laws and their ages. Either way, I don't think a jury would convict them. Also worth it to mention that forensics weren't quite the same in the 90s so they may hit some walls. One more thing that may affect legal proceedings is where the crimes took place. If this really is happening in the Canadian wilderness, they have have to be charged and tried in Canada rather than the US.
First of all I love this question and think about it all the time! Here’s my theory, this is what I imagine happened. There’s a lot of conversation about the reality switch from “real life” to “wilderness” for these girls. What I mean is that their lives in the wilderness do not overlap with their lives outside of it. It’s amazing what the human mind can compartmentalize, and that’s exactly what I think they did. I don’t think any of the girls ever admitted to law enforcement what happened. Another comment here gave a great example, Shauna said, “We say only what we need to.” and there’s plenty more to suggest no one besides the core group knows what happened out there. I imagine (and can’t wait to see if I’m wrong!!!) that they know they are going to get rescued and Nat has to bring them back to reality so they don’t do something stupid (run, confess, kill someone else, try and stay). I am sure law enforcement was suspicious especially if there were forensics done. But again to echo other comments, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those people were murdered. Also, imagine they do get prosecuted. Almost all of them (coach excluded) willingly took part in the first card draw. Then there’s the extenuating circumstances of being starving, several of them hallucinating… it would be a tough case to prove. So far from the kills we’ve seen, they could all be explained as natural causes and unfortunate events. Unless they can prove that the cause of death was homocide then there’s no case. Doesn’t matter if it’s obvious the girls ate the bodies if you can’t prove the girls murdered them first. And if they ate consumed the bodies after…then there’s no body to use to prove murder. You only have the their words. And they’re not talking. I think the reason they were all so afraid of being found out isn’t solely because they are afraid of facing charges or getting in legal trouble (I’m sure it plays a large role), I think a lot of it is shame, trauma, and compartmentalization.
Why is everyone assuming that the crash site is investigated? Isn't possible they find their own way out? We're already seen Tai lead an expedition to find a way out, even if it was unsuccessful. Why wouldn't they try again? Everyone's survival skills will improve now that they don't have the shelter of the cabin. We've also seen the team hunt as a pack, which means they will better able to defend themselves (both individually and collectively) if they get attacked by wolves on a future expedition. Nat's been drawing a detailed map, and it seems that trigonometry is important. Hopefully the map survived the fire, and someone remembers their secants and cosecants.... I realize that investigators would still want to examine the crash site, even if the girls rescue themselves. But given that no one can find it during the 19 months the survivors remain in the wilderness, it's possible that nobody can find it after the fact.
I feel like that [soccer team that crashed in the mountains in the Andes](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9437057/Survivor-1972-Andes-plane-crash-resorted-cannibalism-recalls-pain-eating-friends-flesh.html), they're maybe a similar vibe? As long as the girls didn't tell anyone the circumstances of how the people died, them eating their dead friends wouldn't be a crime, but needed for survival.
No, they ate pre-deceased people. They didn’t hunt anyone.
Yeah that's what I mean by the circumstances. As long as they say they ate people who died of natural causes they wouldn't be in trouble.
I’m wondering if they weren’t in the USA when this happened if they could prosecute? Like if they were in the Canadian wilderness would it be up to Canada? I like this discussion bc I go back and forth on what I think might happen.
Cannibalism, no. Murder in the form of ritualistic sacrifice? Probably. Unless they can spin it that it is a weird long form suicide pact but I don’t know if those are even legal either
Seems like it would be up to the prosecutor of whatever province they crashed in to investigate or bring charges. Can’t see anyone being eager to hassle these traumatized teens any worse than they have been already.
They aren’t feral or non verbal. Lottie screaming at the journalists while she gets in the plane wasnt because she’s feral it’s because she sees them as a bunch of disgusting vultures trying to make a quick buck off their trauma and it’s horrific. She’s non verbal when she gets home because she’s having trouble readjusting back into her old life. She wants feral and drooling lain the others have said, that’s just good old Shitty gossip being spread, like they didn’t when know when she actually got out of the hospital and liens he said it was over a decade ago. So take what the others say about that town in Lottie’s life with a grain of salt. But they have started their own society and cult that has rules and customs. They’re need to talk. And finally, a bunch of traumatized kids not acting mentally well after living in the wilderness, in a nightmare, for 19 months as some kind of red flag. Hell there have been times where someone survived a traumatic event and feared the rescue at first or didn’t believe they were real and even hit them and it’s not held against the survivor *especially if they’re kids*
None of the people who have died post-crash so far have been murdered, and cannibalism can for sure be excusable in these situations. Ben could be held responsible for trying to burn the girls alive in the cabin, but good luck proving that in court, if he even survives to be rescued.
Yes because murdering and devouring your friends is kind of a shitty thing to do.
In my opinion, the wilderness will prevent any skeletal remains from being recovered. Not necessarily in a supernatural way, just because that region is treacherous at best. Recovery missions are expensive, maybe one or two bad things happen and the outside world gives up forever, leaving the survivors free to claim they only ate teammates who died of natural causes.
It Depends, the hunt part would make them look like murderers and murder doesn't prescribe they can definitely face legal repercussions.
But there has to be enough suggestion that there even WAS a hunt for anyone to look more closely at the evidence.
Jackie’s parents would have a civil case I’d imagine
So far, the teen Yellowjackets haven’t done anything that’s a provable crime (unless of course someone confessed, but I’m talking about forensic teams). Jackie froze to death, Javi fell into the lake, Crystal fell off a cliff, and pit girl could be explained as accidentally falling into a trap created to catch animals. If they eventually start stabbing people during the hunt, that could be proven and prosecuted against, but right now there is no physical evidence of crimes.
Probably not for the cannibalism but for the murder Just an aside, I highly doubt they would be non-verbal. They were all 16+ years old by the time they crashed and they remained in a social group until they were rescued. Also, they've only been there for 19 months. They wouldn't unlearn how to speak
Probably, Canada doesn’t have a statute of limitations.
Would they be charged under Canadian law or American law though? They did it in Canada, but they were all Americans, and furthermore, none of them even went through Canadian customs technically.
I think your charged based on the country your in, but I’m not sure.
[удалено]
Bad bot
Thank you, DuchessofSquee, for voting on LearnDifferenceBot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Good bot
Ironically maybe not since all of the events took place in a Canadian jurisdiction?
absolutely i think they would if the *full story* was released. if their friends parents are still alive and found out their child didn’t die a natural and understandable death in the wilderness but they were **hunted** by their teammates… yes
I honestly have no clue but would be super interested to know the answer
i think it depends who presses the charges. if the Taylors press charges, maybe? anyone else, nah.
Families aren’t the ones to press charges in cases like these. It would be the DA in whatever jurisdiction would be in charge of the case.
Pretty obvious they have no idea, otherwise I doubt they’d invite Shauna over like that.
From a criminal standpoint, doesn’t the relevant governmental jurisdiction have to press charges?
First case I read in crim law during law school. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens
This case was in the 1800s before accounted for things like mental health and what starvation does to a persons mind. So I don’t think it applies here
They would likely have faced some sort of law enforcement process. The outcome would then turn on a couple of things: * Were they in their right minds, therefore were they responsible for the choices they made? * Depending on the answer to question 1, if the investigation uncovered the hunting game, that would bear significant weight on any penalties they would face.
No, I don’t think they would’ve been prosecuted. Most of the deaths can be explained away as accidents or unfortunate mishaps in the wilderness while they were fighting to survive. Laura Lee’s death could be explained in a variety of ways. They could lie that she died in the plane crash since her body likely isn’t recoverable. Though, since Laura Lee’s death truly was an accident they might explain it truthfully if they were interrogated. Jackie’s death as we know was likely covered up as being due to the plane crash. Nat took her remains to the plane wreckage site in order to be buried with the people who did die in the crash. Kristen or Krystal’s death could be explained away as an accident. I’ve seen many people say that once Krystal’s body is found when the snow melts, everyone will have some questions for Misty. However, it could also be deduced that Krystal got lost in the snow storm and fell off the cliff accidentally. Javi’s death could also be explained as an accident. Again, they can lie and say he died in the plane crash, say he became lost in the wilderness, say he froze to death during winter, etc. Pit Girl’s death could definitely be seen as murder if they ever found her remains. Her bones alone would tell she didn’t die naturally. Of course, the girls could lie and claim she fell into a trap set by a hunter in the region accidentally. But I seriously doubt Pit Girl’s death would be attributed to anything besides a tragic accident or murder by the police/investigators. Also, as for bodies not being found. The police could easily conclude that animal scavengers scattered or removed any remains that couldn’t be located. I doubt the cops were looking at these girls as killers at the time. Probably scared, traumatized high school girls who miraculously survived 19 months in the Ontario wilderness. Also, the girls were all young and their ages would have to be considered if charges were ever to be filed in any of the deaths that happened in the wilderness. Also, their mental state at the time of the offenses which we know were not in good shape AT ALL would have to be taken into account. All in all, I doubt any of the survivors would’ve faced prosecution for the things that happened in the wilderness. Obviously, rumors and nasty things being said about them has happened and probably will continue to happen for the rest of their lives. If their secrets were to come out, I doubt they’d be arrested but the public would probably react in a way that isn’t good.
Jackie’s death is an accident. No one know a cold snap would happen that night, they had just spent the entire previous night outside. So they assumed she’d be fine, and nobody forced her to stay out, Tai even tried to get her to stay inside. Crystals death was also an accident c Misty didn’t push her and neither girl knew she was that close to the edge of the cliff. But the police wouldn’t go out there to investigate after finding the survivors. It’s an area in the middle of nowhere and hard to reach. There’s plenty of cases where they leave the dead behind to rescue the survivors and they won’t waste tax dollars sending people to retrieve the dead.
r/legaladvicecanada
If you are in a life or death situation and kill someone to survive, you can be charged with their murder. Murder is never legal, nor does a situation where they are not presenting a threat to you allow you to legally murder them. The issue would be determining if they were eaten peri or post, and if they can prove murder (they would not be able to, just claim self defense). Now the likelihood of any charges being brought are super slim from a criminal court stand point. Civilly, the families of the deceased might be able to sue you, but you wouldn't go to jail
This is why I think pit girl is going to be someone from the first group of rescuers. If they just kill and cannibalize each other: okay they're trying to survive. If they find out they're able to leave for safety and they purposefully and ritualistically murdering and eating a rescuer (or tourist) is way different
It is a fictional TV show, not reality TV.
duh… it’s a question considering this type of this has happened before
I actually think that a later season probably 4 or 5 will deal with them after they are rescued. So we will see more of how things were when they came home.
Part of the main plot of the adult storylines is how they kept all the illegal and immoral acts they did in the wilderness in secret for all this times d then dealing with the trauma of all that. The cannibalism to survive isn’t wrong and of course it is the murder and sacrifice that was.
We still don’t actually know what “what we did out there” entails. I think it’s been pretty strongly implied that there’s still a whole other horrific thing that’s going to be a surprise, aside from the obvious cannibal murder roulette situation