Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #68

Status
Not open for further replies.

10ofRods

Verified Anthropologist
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
128,517
I know, I tried sorry lol. I took it as A National Park/Forest, from what he said, would still be considered Federal. The state can try to fight for the case, but they usually will hand it over to Federal jurisdiction. I did not know National Forests were split or considered still under State Jurisdiction, I assumed they would still be Fed related. Also, I thought it was just Grand National Park she was found in, not National Forest. Thank you for all the information and your experience. It sure will be a wild one, when and if he is caught.

Exactly. And a lot of WSers are very interested in the legalities, once the perp is caught. We may never get there, in this one - although Teton County could still file charges, which could then be used in various ways across the nation to try and bump up interest (in LE especially) in Mr. Brian Laundrie.

Come to think of it, one of my main hypotheses is that he is actually on public land - somewhere. If he's alive. If he's not alive, did he die on purpose? Throw himself into an alligator pond? Shoot himself? If anything could make this situation more horrible, it would be if BL offed himself, IMO.

National Park cases are different because it's against Federal law to shoot a fire arm inside one. However, murder cases in NP's are tried in Federal Court (apparently):

Murderer who shoved<br>wife into GC admits guilt<br>

So there is apparently no similar Federal Code that reverts jurisdiction to the State, as there is with National Forests. However, as some are saying, I do think there are mechanisms by which the Federal Court can hand the case over to local jurisdiction (but not vice versa). Or at least, parts of a case. In the following case, the murder occurred in a nearby county but part of the crime (hiding the body) occurred in a National Park. The whole thing was tried in Riverside County Superior Court in California (burial was in Joshua Tree NP):

Murder trial of Marine who buried body in Joshua tree National Park comes to close.

I think the eventual Coroner's Report will conclude that Gabby was killed near that creek (the autopsy should give them ample evidence). Once she was dead, I don't think anyone moved her at all and from what we can see from the helicopter video on the day she was found, they didn't spend a lot of time looking around for dispersed remains.
 

Warwick7

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2018
Messages
6,300
Reaction score
72,719
Ita.
If they had brought B. in for questioning about why his girlfriend and former fiance' never returned and her parent's could not get in touch ; and if they had cooperated with LE from the beginning when they asked to speak with Brian (& if B. wasn't at home, why not tell LE he wasn't there ?) -- they would not have any protester's outside on the street.
It's that simple.
Even now they could take mitigating steps.

We don't know what Brian told the parents.
What if he confessed to them ?
1.) All the parents have to do is to make a public statement saying they are aware that Gabby was murdered and make an apology to her family for the actions of their son.
2.) Or at the very least -- if they know where Brian is -- produce him, and say that he needs to answer LE truthfully and go from there.
Again it's not rocket science, and would go a long way towards mending the public view of them.
Which at the moment is doing poorly.
The Laundries' can steps towards changing the public perception of them by cooperating with LE.
Imo.
@LietKynes Bam!!! I like how you think!!!
 

BellaVita

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
2,121
Reaction score
15,407
Well, the L parents told LE that neither GP nor BL was there. The link seems to only give examples pertaining to when nobody answers the door at all.
No court order is required for the police to conduct a welfare check. Essentially, as long as they have reasonable grounds to believe that an inhabitant in a residence in endangered, they can legally enter the premises. They typically knock on the door and await a response before announcing their law enforcement affiliation. If they still receive no response, they may enter the property. This is particularly useful when someone inside the house is unconscious or otherwise unable to respond. The ability to enter the property without permission means that emergency aid can be rendered. In some cases, this is a life-saving intervention.
 

cass523

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
27,059
Gabby Petito's heartbroken family make desperate plea in search for justice | 60 Minutes Australia

20 minutes

In an interview with 60 Minutes Australia, Ms Petito’s stepfather, Jim Schmidt, said: “We want vengeance and justice, and for him to pay for his crimes.”

 
Last edited:

SandSage

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
2,791
But a good mask he could tuck that beard in or one of the neck warmer things. I think he has several options to look different.

LOTS of options for looking different but if people are looking for long hair (sans a wig), it's not gonna happen in a month. Who knows how long this will go on, not much longer I hope, but he may in fact end up looking like this by the time he is (hopefully) found. MOO
 

BellaVita

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
2,121
Reaction score
15,407
The protestors are no better than vigilantes. Stop harassing the parents.

Walk a mile in their shoes.

Is all big talk about turning in your kid for a capital offense to face LWOP or DP, but it is by people who have never faced this situation.

I couldn't do it. I would help my child avoid capture until my last breath - not because I wouldn't be horrified and heartbroken, but because I could not live with my child in a cage being beaten and raped for the rest of his life or in a coffin compliments of the state.

Just the truth.

If the parents helped him, it is completely understandable.
I can assure you, I would never be walking in the Laundries' shoes. Sometimes, people really DO know what they would do in a given situation.
 

MistyWaters

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
10,109
Reaction score
52,253
Any idea where "The. Sun" (a tabloid news rag) is getting its information, as opposed to what the police report says? See the report, posted once again, below. The Sun is, as usually, WRONG and just clickbait. I, for one, will appreciate knowing in advance if it's a Sun article, because I intend to ignore them, as they are entirely unreliable.






Nothing in that says that police can go inside the house unless there is probable cause. So if someone answers the door on a welfare check, and says, "Nope, everything is good here," that's the end of it. If the police say, "Well, is John Doe usually living here?" and the answer can be, "Everything is fine here, no further comment" then the welfare check was in error. You can't call in a welfare check for your neighbor's house and inquire about someone who doesn't live there. Even if the residents have a dead body in a bedroom, if they come to the door and say all is well, that's the end of the welfare check.

LE now needs to do something else to get inside - and that's called probable cause. A warrant isn't strictly needed if probable cause is strong (strong odor of decomp, house is on fire).

Police do not get to come in and look for said person. If there's no answer, they'll go round the windows most places - and in many places, they'll then get a locksmith if they have reason to believe the person is injured or dead. If. they need to break down a door, they need more authority than just a neighbor's phone call. Where I live, LE will go to nearby houses while they wait for the watch commander to weigh in and, if necessary, for a warrant (judges are on call 24/7 in my county, but that's not true everywhere).

If police were to knock doors down without warrants on the pretext of a "welfare check" (an extra-legal exercise), they can find themselves unable to use. anything they find as evidence if in fact, there is foul play. Further, people would use welfare checks to harass others (would be less illegal than Swatting, which is a misuse of 911).

Thing is, the Laundries answered the door. Welfare check over.

Seems to me the Pepitos had no reason to believe Gabby was at the Laundrie residence. However their texts and/or msgs had went unanswered and it’s yet to be confirmed they even had correct contact info. So they called LE on that basis, who went to the residence to inquire if the whereabouts of G was known. That’s not the same as a welfare check.
 

Shellinaya

Former Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
579
Reaction score
5,668
Phew! I thought it was me that was losing the plot a little bit. Glad you spotted this too.

The V on their Dyrt account could maybe be explained away as 'V for vanlife' as in Gabby and Brian Vanlife, but to see that letter again on a mug is perplexing, to me at least!

MOO

Could just be as simple as it was her middle initial, V for Verona. Or maybe they just liked the way V looked. Or maybe they liked "V for Vendetta", a counter-culture type movie from several years ago. Could be any number of things.
 

LinneaE

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2021
Messages
122
Reaction score
863
But that's not what happened. The NPPD was asked only for a check on GP.

I don't believe it's standard to ask to see everybody but in many situations police can ask for many things. (Mind if we look around? Mind opening your car trunk? Can I see your phone? Mind unlocking it?) And if people give them what they ask, fine. Those folks may well regret it but they did it. If people say no, the police can't force it without something else-- a search warrant, arrest warrant, whatever.
JMO

The Petito/Schmidt families thought BOTH Gabby and Brian were missing until Sept 11 when the police informed them that Brian was at his parents residence in Florida with Gabby's van but not Gabby.
 

10ofRods

Verified Anthropologist
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
128,517
I agree. I also presume, although this case does not specifically address it, that if the lands were always Federal (if that's even a thing), the Feds would be able to exercise jurisdiction. I have a feeling these are questions we won't even know the answers to for a VERY long time. If ever.

For murder? I'm not so sure - since the statute I keep quoting is quite specific about not infringing on states' rights. And I wouldn't be surprised if murder charges are already under way. Whether BL is found or not, I believe those charges are coming sooner, rather than later.

But probably not this month. Maybe, though.
I admit I am confused on this National Park v. National Forest issue.

If I look at this map of the Spread Creek Dispersed Camping Area, it is my understanding that GP's van was parked near where campsite #5 is located and the Bethune's first spotted that van after they progressed down the road past campsite #3 and into the turn near campsite #4.

So, if GP's body was located roughly 2oo-300 yards north of approximately campsite #5 and in the dry creek area of Spread Creek, wouldn't it have been left in Grand Teton National Park, even if the van itself were parked just inside the northern boundary of Bridger-Teton National Forest?

So, if GP was killed where her body was left, she was killed in the National Park?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd629693.pdf

I posted a map earlier, don't have time to go find it again - but no, it was not near campsite #5 or any other numbered campsite. It was in a pullout, on a little trunk road parallel to the road that goes into the main campground. I can post the coordinates when I get a chance - but Gabby was not found near any other campsites nor was their van parked in a place where camping is legal. (Thank you once again @RickshawFan for being right, it took me a while to find the regulations, but it was absolutely not a legal campsite).

Grand Teton National Park boundary is quite a distance from where Gabby was found. There are so many intersecting boundaries right there, that it is hard to see on google maps, this may help:

Bridger-Teton National Forest - Camping & Cabins

It's also confusing because Spread Creek used to be dispersed camping, but due to overuse, has gone to a numbered system:

Bridger-Teton National Forest - Dispersed Camping Areas (Undeveloped Campground)

Toppings Lake and Spread Creek is the area you'd be looking for - you'll see it's well outside the park boundaries and administered as shown by the US Department of Agriculture, not the US Department of the Interior.
 

Angels Advocate

Former Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2018
Messages
752
Reaction score
5,176

tiara1972

On Time Out
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
328
Reaction score
1,345
With all due respect, do you honestly not think we have tried to understand? Most of us have have put ourselves in their place as parents. It just feels as if anything that is not completely supportive of the L"s gets attacked here lately. We do not have to agree and that should be acceptable to us all no matter our opinion. Jmo
I actually agree with you completely!

I think both sides often feel the tension here. For instance, from my lens, trying to put forth theories that presume innocence is often met with resistance, and I have gotten frustrated and I think you are feeling the same way when you share thoughts against the Laundries.

I think what you shared is important.

It lays bare what we each tend to notice and respond to from our own perspectives and life experiences.

Maybe, just maybe, we, together, have a healthy balance of tension in this space that, while maybe it doesn't always change minds, it helps to inform.

At the very least, I believe we are all hanging in here together with a goal and mission to seek justice for Gabby. Whether or not we agree on how to determine or decide who that might be, who ultimately MUST be held to account, just yet is okay....I think we all hope to see justice served for Gabby, we just come at this in different ways and that is a good thing, too, at least I think so. MOO!
 

ClottedCream

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
75
Reaction score
447
Wel
I don't think so. By the time that check was done wasn't it known to JP the van was there? So I don't think GP's parents asked for a check on anyone but GP.

JMO
IIRC - Welfare check requested 9/10. Petito/Schmidt’s advised van was at L’s evening of 9/11. The welfare check was for BOTH GP/BL. The L’s refused to let LE see BL and advised them that GP was not there. (And presumably forgot to mention her van was parked out front). This was covered on 60 minutes AUSTRALIA last night so link in geo blocked.

edited to correct date again, keep forgetting to put month first (which by the way is so weird in it unfamiliarity )
 

Shellinaya

Former Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
579
Reaction score
5,668
I'm going to throw this out there and it may have been discussed, if so, forgive me please. We are all basing the idea that Brian flew from SLC to FL on three things: A note scribbled at the top of a sheet of paper (by uncle allegedly), CaL's admission (which is now in question for some), SB's tweet (which is also questionable, by some). So what are the chances BL drove the van to FL on the 17th? He could definitely do it and drive back in 7 days. Maybe they used the van to move contents of the storage "locker"? That would explain where the van was and why Gabby was in a hotel room for a week. MOO

EDITED to add: That could be when the "Venice" bumper sticker became relevant enough to place on the back of the van.

I was under the impression that we already knew about the plane ticket he used for that trip?

Also Gabby would not have liked that... she had decorated the van, it was literally full of their camping things and the things they had installed into it for their trip - it would have been pretty full to use for moving things. Not impossible to imagine but not the best use of their van. He could have rented one in FL for moving things pretty cheaply.
 

MyBelle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2011
Messages
15,205
Reaction score
27,887
Thank you, CG. I didn't even think to check the docket - but I think it's time we think about checking Teton County's court website regularly, now that the autopsy report is semi-final (keeping in mind that the Coroner's full report should also be completed at some time).



And I think the feds have the "lead" right now due to the bank fraud charges, and that this will be tried in the Superior Court of Teton County, Wyoming.

I don't believe there are federal murder statutes, unless related to terrorism or treason. I do hope a lawyer will weigh in. I'll be very surprised if this goes to Wyoming Federal Court, given what US Statutes say about this. If there are exceptions or counter-examples to, say, the Gary Hilton case - please post!

I don't believe BL is a serial killer who has killed in multiple states. Yes, there is a federal murder statue that includes murders in US territory. The Sixth Amendment applies and there is a Federal Courthouse in Cheyenne. The FBI has made it very clear they have taken jurisdiction of this case. I think that jurisdictional decision is up to the State and DOJ. There won't be two separate trials of BL in Wyoming. jmo

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
(b)
Within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,

Whoever is guilty of murder in the first degree shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for life;

Whoever is guilty of murder in the second degree, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder
 

10ofRods

Verified Anthropologist
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
9,907
Reaction score
128,517
I personally don't read The Sun for the reasons you've stated, but links have been shared here and some include exclusive interviews that provide further details related to this case. I therefore try to ferret out the pertinent information that's backed up by links or quoted statements that support what they've printed. It can be tedious, but at times useful.

Just my two cents.

It's okay - not a big deal either way. I'm just going to go, as is usual for me, with the actual police report and prefer such documentation (imstilla.grandma has posted it a few times, I just posted it too). I'll trust you (and other WSers to glean the interview material for me - I find I get confused and start promulgating the wrong things if I read The Sun - either of them).

Once I realized where the Mustang was actually park per police records, I knew that the media's constant use of "Carlton Preserve". was in area and that BL (if he in fact drove the car there and got out and went onto a nearby trail) was much closer to the Creek Park and the State Park than to the swampier areas of Carlton Preserve.

Myakkahatchee Creek Environmental Park (which is closed due to the search) is where the car actually was.

I think I may even be able to pronounce it at this point...thanks to WFLA starting to use that place name instead of Carlton Preserve.
 

imstilla.grandma

Believer of Miracles
Joined
Jul 7, 2018
Messages
16,867
Reaction score
126,326
Any idea where "The. Sun" (a tabloid news rag) is getting its information, as opposed to what the police report says? See the report, posted once again, below. The Sun is, as usually, WRONG and just clickbait. I, for one, will appreciate knowing in advance if it's a Sun article, because I intend to ignore them, as they are entirely unreliable.






Nothing in that says that police can go inside the house unless there is probable cause. So if someone answers the door on a welfare check, and says, "Nope, everything is good here," that's the end of it. If the police say, "Well, is John Doe usually living here?" and the answer can be, "Everything is fine here, no further comment" then the welfare check was in error. You can't call in a welfare check for your neighbor's house and inquire about someone who doesn't live there. Even if the residents have a dead body in a bedroom, if they come to the door and say all is well, that's the end of the welfare check.

LE now needs to do something else to get inside - and that's called probable cause. A warrant isn't strictly needed if probable cause is strong (strong odor of decomp, house is on fire).

Police do not get to come in and look for said person. If there's no answer, they'll go round the windows most places - and in many places, they'll then get a locksmith if they have reason to believe the person is injured or dead. If. they need to break down a door, they need more authority than just a neighbor's phone call. Where I live, LE will go to nearby houses while they wait for the watch commander to weigh in and, if necessary, for a warrant (judges are on call 24/7 in my county, but that's not true everywhere).

If police were to knock doors down without warrants on the pretext of a "welfare check" (an extra-legal exercise), they can find themselves unable to use. anything they find as evidence if in fact, there is foul play. Further, people would use welfare checks to harass others (would be less illegal than Swatting, which is a misuse of 911).

Thing is, the Laundries answered the door. Welfare check over.
Noted: Sun articles - I understand. I agree it is clickbait.
Talk of welfare checks send me to Atatiana Jefferson. I realize it’s a totally different scope of events but it’s scary if people start suggesting the NPPD should have just entered improperly - or do whatever it took to demand to see Brian.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top