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

[TL4S]

But it doesn't really matter if she was dead re: the accts. If he wasn't an account co-owner, he could not legally access those even with her permission (at least that's the way it is at most banks.)
JMO

I agree, although it did specify activities after her death.

 

[Which_pancake]

But it doesn't really matter if she was dead re: the accts. If he wasn't an account co-owner, he could not legally access those even with her permission (at least that's the way it is at most banks.)
JMO

That is true as I understand it. Although the indictment does not mention the death as I recall, the press release and FBI tweet do refer to events "following the death of Gabrielle Petito." They probably did not have to prove she was dead, but they suspected she was at the time. MOO

https://twitter.com/FBIDenver/statu...e-related-gabby-petito-investigation-n1279986

 

[Which_pancake]

That does not negate the fact that it was said on public television.

"I can tell you conversations were had several weeks ago with the FBI with respect to certain charges."

Criminal Charges for Brian Laundrie’s Parents? Family Lawyer Says FBI Had ‘Conversations’ About It

Was he referring to charges against the parents? Or the bank fraud charge against BL and/or potential murder charge?

 

[Barbie619]

The timeline thread states

SEP 10:: Gabby’s mother texted BL and his mother, RL, trying to get in touch with Gabby, but neither replied. The family alerted the National Park Service

WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton NP, 8/25/21 TIMELINE thread *NO DISCUSSION*

Thank you for this link, it seems like the thread is not keeping up with the accurate timeline. I made a post myself about using the timeline thread to clear up confusions and keep the accuracy of the narrative accurate here. Wish I could like your post 100 times.

 

[Mom24]

That does not negate the fact that it was said on public television.

"I can tell you conversations were had several weeks ago with the FBI with respect to certain charges."

Criminal Charges for Brian Laundrie’s Parents? Family Lawyer Says FBI Had ‘Conversations’ About It

I'm not convinced there won't be further charges. There's so much about this case we just don't know.
Even aside from charges, there's the knowledge that their actions may have contributed to Brian's demise. MOO

 

[CharlestonGal]

It could be that the fraud/theft charges were federal and allowed a nationwide BOLO, more scrutiny at border crossings, etc. I don't know if the stolen van would qualify for federal charges

"A large number of motor theft charges are tried in state court, but there are some circumstances in which vehicle theft is prosecuted in federal court. The types of vehicle theft cases that are tried in federal court most often include organized crime rings that operate in several states or other exceptional circumstances. The definition of exceptional circumstances is not specific but has been found to include when a stolen car is used to commit a separate felony, the stolen vehicle was exported or sold to a foreign country, the car was grossly misused, more than one car has been stolen in a similar pattern, the vehicle is a large commercial truck, or the vehicle is construction or farming equipment. These are just some of the examples of what types of vehicle theft cases are prosecuted in federal court."

Federal Stolen Vehicle Charges | Federal Criminal Law Center

 

[NCWatcher]

I agree, although it did specify activities after her death.

Well, sort of. The indictment doesn't say anything about her being dead. It just lists dates the accts were accessed. The statement from the FBI dated Sept 23rd says it was after her death.

Brian Laundrie arrest warrant cites 'unauthorized' debit card use after Gabby Petito death

JMO

 

[Barbie619]

BBM
Agreed!
Bam!!
And the worst part is they couldn't get BL either. They would have feared an accident to something far worse could have happened to both Gabby and Brian. All of which is natural.

Yet Laundries refused to answer texts, calls. And so too if there was emails and pm's.

It makes it incredibly suspicious!!!

It is and always will be the L's constitutional rights to remain silent and I would like to think that this is a right of all citizens of the United States, and it doesn't mean they are guilty of anything either if they refuse to talk. Do I think it's disgusting that they never returned Petito texts and calls, absolutely, but it doesn't change the L's rights to say nothing to anyone. May none of us ever find ourselves in a similar situation where we need to exercise this right. JMO

 

[TL4S]

Well, sort of. The indictment doesn't say anything about her being dead. It just lists dates the accts were accessed. The statement from the FBI dated Sept 23rd says it was after her death.

Brian Laundrie arrest warrant cites 'unauthorized' debit card use after Gabby Petito death

JMO

Thank you! I've been trying to find the actual indictment. So I guess on the official papers, it does not state after her death.

 

[JudgeJudi]

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 previously posted a lengthier version of the transcript and on that occasion I put the length of the video as it appeared on YT as opposed to the link as it would have taken up so much room on the page. I've just spent an hour looking for it myself and I couldn't find it either. It seems Dr Phil's full videos disappear after a while.

I'm aware of the comments re the insurance etc. and that they worked on the van at the Laundrie's home. I can only repeat my last para of my previous post, "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."

 

[NCWatcher]

Thank you! I've been trying to find the actual indictment. So I guess on the official papers, it does not state after her death.

Not in the indictment. Only in the FBI press release. (See above link.)
JMO

 

[Warwick7]

Was he referring to charges against the parents? Or the bank fraud charge against BL and/or potential murder charge?

The Crimeonline article said it was in regard to charges against the parents.

 

[Chicago54]

I haven't not seen a warrant for the van either, though it is mentioned in the search warrant for the hard drive. I would be curious to read the earlier warrant to see what basis they had for said warrant.

Me too.
Looking at the dates re these two warrants and lining them up with what else was going on at THIS WEEK may be of interest. I’m just trying to keep track of all the activity, in the world of he said/ she said, on which date.

Sept 14. -Date of warrant to search van.
-First date Ls gave of last time they saw BL. ( they later changed it to 9/13)
-Date Mustang is ticketed.


Sept 15. -Date of warrant to search hard
Drive.
-Date RL drove the Mustang back to house, even though Ls initially stated it was 9/16 until BE put up video proving them incorrect.

Sept 17.- Date warrant to search hard drive
filed by clerk (did SB get notice on
this date ?)
-Date Missing person for BL is finally filed.

So was there an additional warrant issued to Seize the van on Sept 11 ?

And has anyone seen anywhere, if the photo taken in the neighborhood of “BL” on 9/17 has been debunked? Has anyone come forward and said, “no, that was me” ? ? ?

 

[Which_pancake]

The Crimeonline article said it was in regard to charges against the parents.

Yes, thanks. It says:

“I have no reason to believe that. I can tell you conversations were had several weeks ago with the FBI with respect to certain charges. When questioned, and when communications were had between myself and the FBI, I think it was realized charges were not appropriate.”

“There was never a threat; there was never a coercion, there was never a deal cut. There are always conversations about how the case may play out. The Laundries have been cooperating with law enforcement – both locally and federally – from day one with respect to Brian.”

Criminal Charges for Brian Laundrie’s Parents? Family Lawyer Says FBI Had ‘Conversations’ About It

 

[Warwick7]

It is and always will be the L's constitutional rights to remain silent and I would like to think that this is a right of all citizens of the United States, and it doesn't mean they are guilty of anything either if they refuse to talk. Do I think it's disgusting that they never returned Petito texts and calls, absolutely, but it doesn't change the L's rights to say nothing to anyone. May none of us ever find ourselves in a similar situation where we need to exercise this right. JMO

BBM
This is the part I'm hung up on. I do feel it is disgusting (which in moo makes it suspicious).

On the same token, I agree that it is right of all citizens of the United States not to speak. (Altho it makes me sick that they had chose to act this way towards Gabby's family).

 

[Barbie619]

Believing that only guilty people need lawyers is one reason innocent people end up in prison according to many legal experts. Example: Should You Still Hire a Lawyer Even if You Are Not Guilty? | Kurtz & Blum

Consulting an attorney certainly wasn't an illegal act for the Laundries nor a "moral failing." Perhaps consulting an attorney without extensive experience in criminal law was a mistake. But what does that have to do with Gabby?
JMO

That is really insane. Thinking someone doesn't need a lawyer if they are innocent, who comes up with this nonsense. In the United States unlike any other country in the world, suspects (innocent or guilty) are presumed innocent and have a great deal of rights to provide that they receive a fair trial.

The court of public opinion is a harsh one, so it is a great advantage to a defendant to have legal representation and to be tried in front of a jury of their peers. The disparity in true innocence and not guilty in a court of law was glaring when Casey Anthony was found not guilty. Did/does the public believe that, no. But that doesn't matter she was found not guilty by a jury of her peers. JMHO

 

[Warwick7]

Yes, thanks. It says:

“I have no reason to believe that. I can tell you conversations were had several weeks ago with the FBI with respect to certain charges. When questioned, and when communications were had between myself and the FBI, I think it was realized charges were not appropriate.”

“There was never a threat; there was never a coercion, there was never a deal cut. There are always conversations about how the case may play out. The Laundries have been cooperating with law enforcement – both locally and federally – from day one with respect to Brian.”

Criminal Charges for Brian Laundrie’s Parents? Family Lawyer Says FBI Had ‘Conversations’ About It

The conversation I was commenting on is the fact that SB was forced to admit that: "conversations were had several weeks ago with the FBI with respect to certain charges."

However SB sees how those charges are going are his personal opinion. But, he was forced to admit there had been conversations (plural) with the FBI regarding charges against Laundries.

 

[Sassafrass]

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

More likely it was simply a) not necessary to have multiple charges, and b) use of unauthorized access device is pretty clean/clear-cut, fewer/weaker defenses than taking the van.
In other words, a matter of keeping it simple, just enough to support a quick Federal warrant. Anything else could come later, if and when needed.

 

[CharlestonGal]

But it doesn't really matter if she was dead re: the accts. If he wasn't an account co-owner, he could not legally access those even with her permission (at least that's the way it is at most banks.)
JMO

There's really two separate issues here.

1. If Gabby was "sharing" the debit card with BL prior to her death, she violated the contract with Capital One, which states:

"You agree to keep your Customer Number, user name, password, and any other security or access information (collectively, "Access Information") confidential to prevent unauthorized access to your account(s) and to prevent unauthorized use of the Services. We recommend that you memorize your Access Information and do not write it down. You agree not to give or make available your Access Information to any unauthorized individual."

Capital One | Official Terms and Conditions

2. BL was charged with a violation of USC 1029. This is different than just using someone's debit card in violation of a particular bank's rules - it requires "knowingly and with intent to defraud". It is the intent to defraud that makes this a federal crime, as stated in the indictment.

Indictment – #1 in United States v. Laundrie (D. Wyo., 0:21-cr-00113) – CourtListener.com

Which raises the question, what information was put forth to the grand jury prior to Sep 22nd, when the indictment was charged, that led them to return a true bill as to "knowingly and with intent to defraud"? imo

 

[Sassafrass]

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.

Oh - I just replied to OP before seeing this, saying basically the same. That lawyer was correct.