The Parking Lot Story

The Parking Lot Story

In my undergraduate and graduate coursework on criminal justice, a recurring theme is the dangers of confirmation bias. It is human nature to attempt to make connections to make sense of something that is senseless or mysterious. I know that is a reason I am interested in cold cases. What’s dangerous about this aspect of human nature is that it can lead to confirmation bias, in which we develop a theory and work backwards to confirm it, placing significance on leads (and worse, speculation) that support our theory, and disregard the rest. As this is in our nature, it is crucial for investigators, professional and amateur alike, to be aware of it every step of the way in efforts to avoid such thinking. After all, it is a gross logical fallacy that stagnates an investigation. Speculation and confirmation bias are the antithesis of objective, fact-focused, critical thinking. It gives us tunnel vision when seeing clearly is what we, and whomever we are trying to help, need most.

The unexplained disappearance of 17-year-old Brianna Maitland is upsetting and unsettling, so much so that it invokes passion in many people, myself included. Brianna was a young woman that many relate to, one with seemingly endless promise. She was beloved by her family, and it is unthinkably unfair that that they are without her. Kellie Maitland, Brianna’s mother, was once quoted as saying, “inside, I am always screaming in pain at not knowing where Brianna is”. Bruce Maitland, Brianna’s father, recently said that he would either see his daughter’s case solved or he would “die trying”. 

We amateur sleuths want to help. We want to connect dots that no one else has done in hopes of making that crucial connection. Some do it because they want to be the smart one, the hero. Those in the online communities and discussion boards have likely come across the type. But I have to believe that most aren’t looking for the glory, and that most sincerely want to see these cases solved, even if their names are never attached to it. Even if they never get the key to the city. In the end, if Brianna gets justice, I am convinced that no one will care who figured it out. All that will matter is that she got justice, for which she and her loved ones are so deserving.

Wanting to connect these dots can lead to premature formulation of a theory based on rumor and speculation rather than fact, and subsequent confirmation bias.

A lead that has surprisingly become a point of contention is the third party story in which Brianna Maitland was reportedly warned not to go to work the day she went missing. When I first heard this story from Private Investigator Greg Overacker, who was very clear that it was just a story, I was amazed with how well it seemed to fit what with what we’ve also heard about that day. Brianna was shopping with her mother, and as they waited in line to check out, Brianna told her mother, “I’ll be right back”, and walked outside. Later, Kellie Maitland saw Brianna waiting for her by the car after Kellie checked out and exited the store. Brianna’s mood had noticeably changed- she was irritable and seemed “shaken”. I felt dots connecting. Could that be “what happened”? If someone threatened her, someone out there had knowledge of a premeditated plan to harm Brianna Maitland during or after work. Evidence suggests that Brianna was harmed shortly after leaving work that night. 

The information fit so well, it almost became fact in my head. I could see others were experiencing the same thing. On Facebook and Websleuths I saw (and still see) comments about her being warned that night, worded as fact. 

I don’t see it that way anymore, and I want to explain why. Not long after Tim Pilleri, Lance Reenstierna and I began covering Brianna’s case on Crawlspace, we became acquainted with Private Investigator Lou Barry, who is excellent at catching a speculative train of thought. The four of us met in person for the first time, for breakfast, after emailing back and forth. Among many things, the parking lot story came up. Lou’s perspective in the discussion changed the way I view the alleged incident and Brianna’s mood change. 

• The “threat” was unwitnessed. The source of this story is a single third party. The story cannot be corroborated. 

• Kellie Maitland was not immediately concerned about Brianna’s mood change and did not immediately think something was amiss. She did not pry. She only considered the potential significance the incident after Brianna turned up missing, in hindsight. Hindsight can lead one to make subjective attributions they otherwise would not have made in the moment. 

• There are several alternative explanations to the mood change besides of an unwitnessed and uncorroborated potential threat toward Brianna. A more simple explanation which jumps out is that Brianna was known to smoke cigarettes. Her mother did not approve, and Brianna did not smoke in her presence. Brianna spent the morning taking her GED exam, going out for breakfast with her mother, and then going shopping with her mother, without interruption. It is more likely than not that Brianna was craving a cigarette and wanted to fit in a smoke before the drive from St. Albans to Sheldon with her mother. It is speculation that Brianna saw anything or anyone in the parking lot, inspiring her to step outside. It is also speculation that something specific happened which caused her mood change. Bruce Maitland had told Lou that like most 17 year old girls, Brianna could be impatient and moody with her mother. Her mom recalled Brianna saying, “I need to get to work, I need to get to work”. Perhaps she was concerned about punching in late. 

I’m not saying it’s impossible that Brianna was threatened that day. I am saying the story has been wrongfully perpetuated as fact and it requires more critical thinking. I remain open-minded to the possibility of such an event, in a mindful effort to not fall into the depths of confirmation bias. I have engaged (regrettably, but as I mentioned above, I am passionate) in back-and-forths on Facebook about the factual basis of this story and the harm of creating false “facts” in this case, which is already so rooted in rumor. Two threads I can think of grew contentious, with the other person remaining insistent that this story is indeed fact. When framed as such, these non-facts get re-reported as fact, muddying the waters for an investigation so worthy of truth, focus, and objectivity. 

We all make mistakes and are prone to logical fallacies when exploring cases like these. How have you fallen into confirmation bias in the past?