Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #86

bestill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
42,794
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Sometimes the purpose is to know more about what happened especially when you're not privy to everything. Speaking of that what exactly does Gabby's family have access too? Would they have the phone records and text messages that Brian sent that was discovered during the investigation? Since there's no one to prosecute I am curious about how that goes. And I'm assuming they would not have any of the messages from the L parents were sending.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vaderman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2016
Messages
95
Reaction score
801
Ehhh...they could have given him a Benadryl/gotten him drunk/made sure he had no access to weapons around police and would be peacefully arrested. Interesting questions: can people be Merandized while drunk?
As someone who was an idiot and thought it was a good idea to drive to get fast food after way too many whiskeys, I can verify that you absolutely can be read the Miranda rights while drunk.
 
Last edited:

Skigirl

Verified expert in neuroscience
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,902
Reaction score
7,177
IMHO, the Petito/Schmidts are going for evidence of accessory after the fact, and are likely to get it, because that's what happened. I don't think that anything is going to make them sympathetic to the enablers of BL.


Florida Statute 777.03 defines what it means to be an accessory after the fact in Florida. When you violate this law, you assist someone after he or she has committed a felony by helping in his or her evade arrest, trial, conviction or punishment. In so doing, you yourself commit a felony offense.

MOO
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
Here's a great in-depth article from Vanity Fair all about Gabby and Brian's relationship, past to present. A neat feature of the article are the hotlinks to MSM articles. I received permission to post.


Gabby Petito’s Life With—And Death By—Brian Laundrie​

Forensically examining Instagram accounts, interviews, and police reports, author Kathleen Hale reconstructs their relationship, and ultimately Petito’s murder.
BY KATHLEEN HALE
ILLUSTRATION BY HOKYOUNG KIM
JUNE 30, 2022

View attachment 352048
It's an interesting article and I'm glad it was posted here. I probably wouldn't have seen it otherwise.

I do like that links are provided. But the accuracy of information is questionable in multiple places and links are not always provided. For example, I think those of us who have read other articles based on interviews with Rose D and with Brian's anonymous high school "friend" (the one who said BL was fat in middle school) can recognize where some sections of information came from. (Although links are not provided to those interviews, one was the Daily Mail as I recall. The Sun may have published others.) I was also surprised to see the claim repeated that the hanging red, white, and blue bedroom gun was a real gun and that it belonged to BL. As has been discussed in WS, that item appeared in realtor ads before the L's lived in the house.

I also find it hard to believe, as the article appears to suggest, G&B had thought the Transit van could be made into a "tiny house" with a kitchen and maybe a toilet in it. They may have been mistaken about some things that could be done but I doubt they were that mistaken! But the article says "Reality hit hard: They had sunk Gabby’s savings into a van that was essentially the same as Gabby’s Nissan Sentra, only with a bigger trunk. There would be no kitchenette or toilet. They would need to cook and poop outside."

Finally that article is the first time I read even a hint that neurological effects of the smoke from the wildfires might have contributed to the tragic outcome. The article doesn't say that explicitly-- but it does say the smoke was driving BL "insane" and talks about the mental effects of smoke. (A VeryWellMind article is linked explaining the effects.)

JMO
 

GRT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
12,633
But lawsuits do bring answers. Sometimes the purpose is to know more about what happened especially when you're not privy to everything. Speaking of that what exactly does Gabby's family have access too? Would they have the phone records and text messages that Brian sent that was discovered during the investigation? Since there's no one to prosecute I am curious about how that goes. And I'm assuming they would not have any of the messages from the L parents were sending.


I get what you're saying, but in this case, I have to wonder if any further answers will be forthcoming.

The FBI has been over the evidence with a fine-tooth comb, so unless the Laundries admit to something that only they know--I'm guessing it could all be fruitless. Any pertinent records were seized long ago, I would think.

And, the Laundries still have the constitutional right not to say anything that might incriminate them.

I think both parties probably want closure, I'm just not sure it's available.

I see both sets of parents as victims of this tragedy. I understand why the P's are filing the suit, I'm just afraid it could cause more heartache than it alleviates.

I also think it would be impossible to prove, "intentional infliction of emotional distress," which is what the suit alleges, because that suggests the L's wanted and tried to hurt the P's.

For the sake of argument--let's suppose the Ls did know Gabby was dead and where she was located. They would have to weigh an ethical burden to tell the P's against the choice to try and save their son from suicide. I'm guessing most parents who face that impossible decision would choose as the L's chose.

JMOO, of course.
 

GRT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
12,633
IMHO, the Petito/Schmidts are going for evidence of accessory after the fact, and are likely to get it, because that's what happened. I don't think that anything is going to make them sympathetic to the enablers of BL.


Florida Statute 777.03 defines what it means to be an accessory after the fact in Florida. When you violate this law, you assist someone after he or she has committed a felony by helping in his or her evade arrest, trial, conviction or punishment. In so doing, you yourself commit a felony offense.

MOO


Except the very first paragraph in your link says the L's would not be considered as such because they're "parents."

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.
 

wnk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2019
Messages
300
Reaction score
3,475
Except the very first paragraph in your link says the L's would not be considered as such because they're "parents."

That "loophole" only applies IF the crime being committed is a third degree felony.

(1)(a) Any person not standing in the relation of husband or wife, parent or grandparent, child or grandchild, brother or sister, by consanguinity or affinity to the offender, who maintains or assists the principal or an accessory before the fact, or gives the offender any other aid, knowing that the offender had committed a crime and such crime was a third degree felony, or had been an accessory thereto before the fact, with the intent that the offender avoids or escapes detection, arrest, trial, or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.

Third degree felonies in FL:
Felonies of the third degree are the least serious types of felonies in Florida, punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000. Examples include aggravated stalking, theft of a vehicle or firearm, and trespass while armed. (LINK)
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
79,400
Bringing over the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss .pdf from the last thread (thank you @BUF)

The allegation on page 2 is that Gabby was murdered on 8/27. That’s a definitive statement. I know we’ve talked about that being the date BL killed Gabby, as that was the date of the altercation at Merry Piglets. Am curious to know if the other, yet unreleased, digital confession by BL makes the date clear as being 8/27. Just seems very certainly worded.
The other confessions will bring out more information, however small. And more clarity into Brian's thought process.

In my opinion there wasn't much time that passed from the incident at the Merry Piglets and her murder.
Bringing over the Order Denying Motion to Dismiss .pdf from the last thread (thank you @BUF)

The allegation on page 2 is that Gabby was murdered on 8/27. That’s a definitive statement. I know we’ve talked about that being the date BL killed Gabby, as that was the date of the altercation at Merry Piglets. Am curious to know if the other, yet unreleased, digital confession by BL makes the date clear as being 8/27. Just seems very certainly worded.
I noticed yesterday how that paragraph on page 2 was worded. Gabby being murdered on the 27th also includes "texting" that started as soon as she was killed to fake she was alive. Those will reveal much information. This and the "other confessions" will have a lot to tell us, however small the difference is between all confession letters.
 

steeltowngirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Messages
3,557
Reaction score
57,544
I get what you're saying, but in this case, I have to wonder if any further answers will be forthcoming.

The FBI has been over the evidence with a fine-tooth comb, so unless the Laundries admit to something that only they know--I'm guessing it could all be fruitless. Any pertinent records were seized long ago, I would think.

And, the Laundries still have the constitutional right not to say anything that might incriminate them.

I think both parties probably want closure, I'm just not sure it's available.

I see both sets of parents as victims of this tragedy. I understand why the P's are filing the suit, I'm just afraid it could cause more heartache than it alleviates.

I also think it would be impossible to prove, "intentional infliction of emotional distress," which is what the suit alleges, because that suggests the L's wanted and tried to hurt the P's.

For the sake of argument--let's suppose the Ls did know Gabby was dead and where she was located. They would have to weigh an ethical burden to tell the P's against the choice to try and save their son from suicide. I'm guessing most parents who face that impossible decision would choose as the L's chose.

JMOO, of course.
You make valid points. I do question whether the L’s were trying to save their son from suicide. I believe they were really trying to help keep him out of prison. They picked up the Mustang from the very Reserve he took his own life. Had they allowed LE into the house to apprehend BL in the days before he went to the Reserve, he could still be alive, in prison, and awaiting trial. For all I know, a jury may have believed some contrived defense story, and he may have been acquitted.

JMO
 

bestill

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
7,014
Reaction score
42,794
The other confessions will bring out more information, however small. And more clarity into Brian's thought process.

In my opinion there wasn't much time that passed from the incident at the Merry Piglets and her murder.

I noticed yesterday how that paragraph on page 2 was worded. Gabby being murdered on the 27th also includes "texting" that started as soon as she was killed to fake she was alive. Those will reveal much information. This and the "other confessions" will have a lot to tell us, however small the difference is between all confession letters.
I am curious about the communications that happened that day and who they were too. Based on their timeline it looks like he waited a day to tell his parents that she was dead. Hopefully we'll find out more about what he was actualy doing during that time.
 

NCWatcher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
1,575
Reaction score
11,738
You make valid points. I do question whether the L’s were trying to save their son from suicide. I believe they were really trying to help keep him out of prison. They picked up the Mustang from the very Reserve he took his own life. Had they allowed LE into the house to apprehend BL in the days before he went to the Reserve, he could still be alive, in prison, and awaiting trial. For all I know, a jury may have believed some contrived defense story, and he may have been acquitted.

JMO

Of course there are still questions about what happened. But LE had no reason to "apprehend" BL when they came to the house before he went to the Reserve. There is no evidence the L's blocked LE but rather BL exercised his right not to speak to them. Regardless, LE wasn't there to arrest him and haul him away. He wasn't charged with even the bank charge until after GP's body was found on the 19th. That was nearly a week after he went to the Reserve and based on the evidence in his autopsy, he was very likely dead by then.
JMO
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
79,400
I am curious about the communications that happened that day and who they were too. Based on their timeline it looks like he waited a day to tell his parents that she was dead. Hopefully we'll find out more about what he was actualy doing during that time.
Time stamps, texts, which phones were used, where they pinged, time stamp if they were shut off and turned on will deal out a critical time line.

This kind of timeline sunk Patrick Frasee and Tammy & Sydney Morre.
 

Sundog

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 29, 2019
Messages
3,718
Reaction score
26,271
Of course there are still questions about what happened. But LE had no reason to "apprehend" BL when they came to the house before he went to the Reserve. There is no evidence the L's blocked LE but rather BL exercised his right not to speak to them. Regardless, LE wasn't there to arrest him and haul him away. He wasn't charged with even the bank charge until after GP's body was found on the 19th. That was nearly a week after he went to the Reserve and based on the evidence in his autopsy, he was very likely dead by then.
JMO

Thank you for reminding us of the timeline.
 

steeltowngirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2014
Messages
3,557
Reaction score
57,544
Of course there are still questions about what happened. But LE had no reason to "apprehend" BL when they came to the house before he went to the Reserve. There is no evidence the L's blocked LE but rather BL exercised his right not to speak to them. Regardless, LE wasn't there to arrest him and haul him away. He wasn't charged with even the bank charge until after GP's body was found on the 19th. That was nearly a week after he went to the Reserve and based on the evidence in his autopsy, he was very likely dead by then.
JMO
IF the Laundries already knew that BL had killed Gabby, and if they had subsequently provided that information to LE in advance of that knock on the door, BL would certainly have been apprehended. He would have been taken in for questioning, called a lawyer, likely been charged and probably detained without bail - flight risk.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
79,400
You make valid points. I do question whether the L’s were trying to save their son from suicide. I believe they were really trying to help keep him out of prison. They picked up the Mustang from the very Reserve he took his own life. Had they allowed LE into the house to apprehend BL in the days before he went to the Reserve, he could still be alive, in prison, and awaiting trial. For all I know, a jury may have believed some contrived defense story, and he may have been acquitted.

JMO
Very interesting thinking @steeltowngirl

LE wasn't there to arrest him and haul Brian away. But, they were there to question him. Depending "how" their conversations took place an arrest could have been the outcome. Thus probably why BL refused to speak to them.

Coming at this from an angle that a jury may have or could have believed some contrived defense story and he may have been acquitted is real scenario. I love how you think.
 

Skigirl

Verified expert in neuroscience
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,902
Reaction score
7,177
Except the very first paragraph in your link says the L's would not be considered as such because they're "parents."
I'm no lawyer, but there are several parts and 1a) relates to third degree felonies, not first degree ones. There is no such carve-out as the crime becomes more serious. MOO
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,946
Reaction score
79,400
You make valid points. I do question whether the L’s were trying to save their son from suicide. I believe they were really trying to help keep him out of prison. They picked up the Mustang from the very Reserve he took his own life. Had they allowed LE into the house to apprehend BL in the days before he went to the Reserve, he could still be alive, in prison, and awaiting trial. For all I know, a jury may have believed some contrived defense story, and he may have been acquitted.

JMO
Again valid reasoning! LE wasn't there to arrest him and haul Brian away. But, they were there to question him. Depending "how" their conversations took place an arrest could have been the outcome. Thus probably why BL refused to speak to them.

Coming at this from an angle that a jury may have or could have believed some contrived defense story and he may have been acquitted is real scenario. I love how you think.
 
Top