Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #82

[jjonez]

From the sun, for what that’s worth. Moo.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/3954140/brian-laundries-parents-cops-immunity-death/

 

[jjonez]

And this is odd…

ICYMI: Everything we know about Gabby Petito's murder on ‘dream’ road trip
Gabby Petito, from Blue Point, Long Island, was last seen on 24 August when she checked out of a hotel in Salt Lake City, Utah, with Brian Laundrie, her partner of two and a half years.

She was strangled to death by Mr Laundrie and buried in a shallow grave in a Wyoming national park.

Influencer under fire for sharing Brian Laundrie conspiracy theory - follow live

 

[JudgeJudi]

RSBM

As I recall from past threads it's been proposed by various WS posters
1. JP insured the van through his business
2. CL insured the van through his business
3. The van was never registered to GP at the Laundries address because she never lived there
4. GP didn't own the van, JP did

Given the variety of WS beliefs about the van, my personal opinion is that the L's could have believed it was jointly owned by GP and BL. (I never said they thought it was B's entirely)
JMO

Transcript of Joe Petito’s comments in his 28.46 min. interview with Dr Phil.

“It’s not even his van. … First of all you [BL] came home without her and you had the van 10 days in your driveway. So now I’ve got:

What happened with the van? Did you clean it? Did your parents help you clean it?

Did they help cover up a crime, you know, after the fact? ...

You stole a car over, over – across how many states? You know, can you be arrested for that?
…
The problem with that is, that van was Gabby’s. So he could leave that van right there. I’m jumping on a plane. Tell me where she’s at. I’ll be there in a few hours. If I’ve got to get a private plane, I will do that right this second. I don’t care what it takes. So he better walk his little behind over to somewhere else and figure out how he’s gonna get home to his parents, ‘cause that van is in her name, not the other way around."

If various posters proposed 1-4 in your quote, they're only speculating. The only way the Ls could believe they both owned the van was if either/both told them so, and that is completely contrary to what JP said above.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Who is the person wearing the hat and holding the phone in the last photo of the series? I believe it's the 7th photo.

I don't have access to these photos. Are you able to post a screenshot?

 

[customCF]

It's Gabby.
If you look close you can see the vine tattoo on her finger. It also looks like that picture was inside Jenny Lake Lodge.
Gabby and BL were in GTNP area on 8-25 already so it is possible that she added that picture in with the rest.
MOO

I was wrong. It's not Jenny Lake Lodge gift shop. It seems to be at Colter Bay village

 

[customCF]

I don't have access to these photos. Are you able to post a screenshot?

These are the pictures @JudgeJudi
@Sassafrass posted them

 

[jjonez]

I don't have access to these photos. Are you able to post a screenshot?

Thread 82 post 221. Just a few posts up from yours

 

[blackbeary]

RSBM

Transcript of Joe Petito’s comments in his 28.46 min. interview with Dr Phil.

“It’s not even his van. … First of all you [BL] came home without her and you had the van 10 days in your driveway. So now I’ve got:

What happened with the van? Did you clean it? Did your parents help you clean it?

Did they help cover up a crime, you know, after the fact? ...

You stole a car over, over – across how many states? You know, can you be arrested for that?
…
The problem with that is, that van was Gabby’s. So he could leave that van right there. I’m jumping on a plane. Tell me where she’s at. I’ll be there in a few hours. If I’ve got to get a private plane, I will do that right this second. I don’t care what it takes. So he better walk his little behind over to somewhere else and figure out how he’s gonna get home to his parents, ‘cause that van is in her name, not the other way around."

If various posters proposed 1-4 in your quote, they're only speculating. The only way the Ls could believe they both owned the van was if either/both told them so, and that is completely contrary to what JP said above.

I felt that BL should have been arrested for theft of property, over a certain $ amount, as soon as LE knew that wasn't his van, and the owner was a Missing person! BAM
M00

 

[blackbeary]

Inside Brian Laundrie and Gabby Petito’s life with his parents

 

[JudgeJudi]

Who is the person wearing the hat and holding the phone in the last photo of the series? I believe it's the 7th photo.

I think it's Gabby. I've noticed before that she has very long slender fingers and frequently wears 3 or even 4 rings on her right hand.

I've enlarged and increased the contrast somewhat in this image and I've done the same with the strip at the bottom which appears to show some tattoos. I don't know if it helps at all but it was worth trying.



ETA: The colour isn't the best but when I took it back to the original colour it became more blurred.

 

[LRinCA]

I think it's Gabby. I've noticed before that she has very long slender fingers and frequently wears 3 or even 4 rings on her right hand.

I've enlarged and increased the contrast somewhat in this image and I've done the same with the strip at the bottom which appears to show some tattoos. I don't know if it helps at all but it was worth trying.

View attachment 319878 View attachment 319879

ETA: The colour isn't the best but when I took it back to the original colour it became more blurred.

It is her. At the time I posed the question I had not noticed the clearer area at the bottom where her finger tattoo is seen.

 

[TL4S]

The text of the 27th was from Gabby herself, her mom has said. But her mom has NOT divulged the contents of the text of the 27th. The 30th text, mom says is NOT Gabby sending it, but from Gabby's phone JMO

According to the search warrant, the 27th was the "Stan" text. The warrant is in this link. The 27th text info is on page 4, number 5 of the warrant. Note: The 30th text is not mentioned in the search warrant at all.

Details revealed about search warrant of Laundrie home

 

[Sillybilly]

Thread is closed for the night.

 

[Tiff23fr]

Good Morning WS Friends - This Thread is OPEN

 

[NCWatcher]

RSBM

Transcript of Joe Petito’s comments in his 28.46 min. interview with Dr Phil.

“It’s not even his van. … First of all you [BL] came home without her and you had the van 10 days in your driveway. So now I’ve got:

What happened with the van? Did you clean it? Did your parents help you clean it?

Did they help cover up a crime, you know, after the fact? ...

You stole a car over, over – across how many states? You know, can you be arrested for that?
…
The problem with that is, that van was Gabby’s. So he could leave that van right there. I’m jumping on a plane. Tell me where she’s at. I’ll be there in a few hours. If I’ve got to get a private plane, I will do that right this second. I don’t care what it takes. So he better walk his little behind over to somewhere else and figure out how he’s gonna get home to his parents, ‘cause that van is in her name, not the other way around."

If various posters proposed 1-4 in your quote, they're only speculating. The only way the Ls could believe they both owned the van was if either/both told them so, and that is completely contrary to what JP said above.

You didn't include a link or date for the Dr. Phil material you quoted (that I can find anyway.) But I believe JP's first Dr. Phil appearance aired at the end of the 3rd week of Sept (around the 21st but it was taped earlier.) And the entire family made an appearance in early Oct.

If we assume what you quoted came from the earlier appearance, that's still 3 weeks after BL returned home. The point I was making in my post concerned what the Laundrie parents could have reasonably thought in very early Sept. And while JP spoke about the van as being "hers" on Dr. Phil, there was a great deal of speculation here on WS about who actually paid for the van, who paid for the insurance, and whose name and address was on the registration. Some occurred before the Dr. Phil appearance by JP but most was after. For example, see Threads #67, #65, #60, #48. Not everybody watched Dr. Phil and even after watching Dr. Phil, one could still have questions about who provided monetary contributions.

From pictures posted on BL's IG, it appears the van conversion happened at the Laundrie home. After watching that go on for months with BL doing much of the work, it would be perfectly understandable if the parents thought the van was jointly owned. It surely seemed to be a joint project.

Please note, I'm not saying the van was jointly owned. I'm saying it would have been plausible for the Laundrie parents to believe that it was early on. But the van was impounded on Sept 11, Brian went hiking on Sept 13, and GP's body was found was Sept 19. So by the time JP was on TV talking about ownership of the van, I'm pretty sure that issue wasn't a primary concern of the Laundries.
JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

You didn't include a link or date for the Dr. Phil material you quoted (that I can find anyway.) But I believe JP's first Dr. Phil appearance aired at the end of the 3rd week of Sept (around the 21st but it was taped earlier.) And the entire family made an appearance in early Oct.

If we assume what you quoted came from the earlier appearance, that's still 3 weeks after BL returned home. The point I was making in my post concerned what the Laundrie parents could have reasonably thought in very early Sept. And while JP spoke about the van as being "hers" on Dr. Phil, there was a great deal of speculation here on WS about who actually paid for the van, who paid for the insurance, and whose name and address was on the registration. Some occurred before the Dr. Phil appearance by JP but most was after. For example, see Threads #67, #65, #60, #48. Not everybody watched Dr. Phil and even after watching Dr. Phil, one could still have questions about who provided monetary contributions.

From pictures posted on BL's IG, it appears the van conversion happened at the Laundrie home. After watching that go on for months with BL doing much of the work, it would be perfectly understandable if the parents thought the van was jointly owned. It surely seemed to be a joint project.

Please note, I'm not saying the van was jointly owned. I'm saying it would have been plausible for the Laundrie parents to believe that it was early on. But the van was impounded on Sept 11, Brian went hiking on Sept 13, and GP's body was found was Sept 19. So by the time JP was on TV talking about ownership of the van, I'm pretty sure that issue wasn't a primary concern of the Laundries.
JMO

I have a question in regards to 'ownership'. Here is the UK, if I purchase a car on finance, the finance co is the legal owner of the vehicle and I would be the registered keeper. If I owned a vehicle jointly with my spouse, only one of us could be the registered keeper. So, in the UK, registration does not equate to legal ownership. Is it the same in the US?

Re the van - I think it was jointly owned - if not through equal conributions (there has been mention by JP and SB of G&B 'pooling' their resources), then certainly through materials used and worked done to fit the van out. Much like a joint venture.

ETA - I think this is why a warrant for vehcile theft was not issed against BL.

Also - on what grounds did the police remove the vehicle from the Laundries? I haven't seen a warrant for the removal of the vehicle, has anyone else?

 

[simon magus]

I have a question in regards to 'ownership'. Here is the UK, if I purchase a car on finance, the finance co is the legal owner of the vehicle and I would be the registered keeper. If I owned a vehicle jointly with my spouse, only one of us could be the registered keeper. So, in the UK, registration does not equate to legal ownership. Is it the same in the US?

Re the van - I think it was jointly owned - if not through equal conributions (there has been mention by JP and SB of G&B 'pooling' their resources), then certainly through materials used and worked done to fit the van out. Much like a joint venture.

ETA - I think this is why a warrant for vehcile theft was not issed against BL.

Also - on what grounds did the police remove the vehicle from the Laundries? I haven't seen a warrant for the removal of the vehicle, has anyone else?

in the u.s., when you purchase a car, you are the legal owner, even if it is financed...the lender is listed as a lienholder on the title and on your insurance, to protect their financial interest in the vehicle until it is paid in full...

imo, NPPD was able to remove the van because of the fact that it was registered to gabby and she had been reported missing...for those reasons, i don't believe a warrant was necessary...moo

 

[Newsjunkiejen]

I have a question in regards to 'ownership'. Here is the UK, if I purchase a car on finance, the finance co is the legal owner of the vehicle and I would be the registered keeper. If I owned a vehicle jointly with my spouse, only one of us could be the registered keeper. So, in the UK, registration does not equate to legal ownership. Is it the same in the US?

Re the van - I think it was jointly owned - if not through equal conributions (there has been mention by JP and SB of G&B 'pooling' their resources), then certainly through materials used and worked done to fit the van out. Much like a joint venture.

ETA - I think this is why a warrant for vehcile theft was not issed against BL.

Also - on what grounds did the police remove the vehicle from the Laundries? I haven't seen a warrant for the removal of the vehicle, has anyone else?

BBM

That's an excellent point. You're right! That hadn't crossed my mind until now but you're right: Why would LE issue a warrant for his arrest for the use of unauthorised devices (or WTTE) but not one for theft of a vehicle?

That leads me to believe that LE know he hadn't stolen the vehicle.

MOO

 

[NCWatcher]

I have a question in regards to 'ownership'. Here is the UK, if I purchase a car on finance, the finance co is the legal owner of the vehicle and I would be the registered keeper. If I owned a vehicle jointly with my spouse, only one of us could be the registered keeper. So, in the UK, registration does not equate to legal ownership. Is it the same in the US?

Re the van - I think it was jointly owned - if not through equal conributions (there has been mention by JP and SB of G&B 'pooling' their resources), then certainly through materials used and worked done to fit the van out. Much like a joint venture.

ETA - I think this is why a warrant for vehcile theft was not issed against BL.

Also - on what grounds did the police remove the vehicle from the Laundries? I haven't seen a warrant for the removal of the vehicle, has anyone else?

It depends on the state. Like so many other legal issues there is not one law for the US. In some states the borrower gets the title but the lender is listed as a lienholder. When the loan is paid off, a new title is issued with the lienholder removed.

It appears in Florida the lender actually holds the title for the life of the loan.

Who Holds A Car Title In Florida?.

While GP was a missing person, it surprises me if no warrant was obtained for the van. It might not have been needed since the van was "registered" to her, but I'd still have thought one would have been obtained just in case. But I've not seen a warrant published.
JMO

 

[Which_pancake]

BBM

That's an excellent point. You're right! That hadn't crossed my mind until now but you're right: Why would LE issue a warrant for his arrest for the use of unauthorised devices (or WTTE) but not one for theft of a vehicle?

That leads me to believe that LE know he hadn't stolen the vehicle.

MOO

I asked a similar question in another forum and it was explained by a purported lawyer that it was probably much simpler to indict for the unauthorized use of the bank card because BL was unambiguously unauthorized to use her card after her death (and they must have had good evidence she was dead when it was used.) But it is a grayer area to prove he was unauthorized to use a vehicle that he had up to then been able to use. My understanding is that it was just a surer bet to get the bank fraud indictment so that is probably why they went with that. IANAL - this is just my recollection of the explanation. MOO

EDIT - this is how I thought of it at the time that made sense to me: my father's car is registered in his name alone and he owns it himself. However, he lets my daughter use his car. If he were to die, but my daughter were still driving the car, it would not be considered theft or even necessarily unauthorized use. It would have to be proven that he revoked permission for her to use the car before his death. And this is why it is a gray area.