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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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” ? ? ?
See BE Tweet - https://twitter.com/BrianEntin/status/1440096514789965828?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1440096514789965828|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://outsider.com/news/trending/gabby-petito-case-full-copy-search-warrant-brian-laundrie-home-released/

Page 5, para 11 . Search warrant for van itself issued 14 September at approx 7pm.

There is interesting info on this page (see paras 9 and 10), but I suspect this has been discussed on the forum already.
 

Attachments

  • Gabby van.jpeg
    Gabby van.jpeg
    174.2 KB · Views: 51
This is just my twisted opinion. The bank fraud charges seemed to be merely an excuse to pursue BL and eventually charge him with Gabby's murder. I thought that perhaps the fraud charges allowed the FBI to become involved and investigate more easily because those transactions happened in several states. LE also had the car in custody at the time the warrant was filed, so that might have been a bit of a dead-end for them.
Not exactly an “excuse” - those charges are real, serious, and supported. But yes, a legitimate and expedient way to justify expending the resources they did with the situation in flux.
 
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
BBM for emphasis. He has repeatedly made comments that CL & RL have cooperated with LE with respect to BL. Clearly the same can't be said with regards to GP. Charges related to the Laundries potentially hiding information regarding BL's whereabouts or status may have been ruled out, but I don't know that it clears them of any possible charges that could stem from GP's investigation results.
 
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 personally do not find the sun to be particularly credible, moo. However this quote did appear on MSM television, moo. It was the product of SB’s ‘media tour’, he did 5 or more interviews in the space of a few days. Iirc, banfield, fox, nbc… I watched them all and I can’t recall which this exact quote is from. The interviews, and this topic specifically, we’re heavily discussed in threads 76, 77 and part of 78. All moo
 
BBM for emphasis. He has repeatedly made comments that CL & RL have cooperated with LE with respect to BL. Clearly the same can't be said with regards to GP. Charges related to the Laundries potentially hiding information regarding BL's whereabouts or status may have been ruled out, but I don't know that it clears them of any possible charges that could stem from GP's investigation results.
But surely, it would depend on whether they could help the investigation re Gabby? If they had no information, what help could they give? As far as I can see, the only thing that the L's did do was direct LE to SB.
 
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” ? ? ?
See BE Tweet - https://twitter.com/BrianEntin/status/1440096514789965828?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1440096514789965828|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://outsider.com/news/trending/gabby-petito-case-full-copy-search-warrant-brian-laundrie-home-released/

Page 5, para 11 . Search warrant for van itself issued 14 September at approx 7pm.

There is interesting info on this page (see paras 9 and 10), but I suspect this has been discussed on the forum already.
Thank you for posting the exact locations of the info. This is what I was referencing. We have seen this warrant for the hard drive search. It does state the warrant to search the van was issued on 9/14, but is there a separate warrant to allow LE to seize the van on 9/11?
Do you have a link to the 9/14 warrant ? It may say something about van location and under what authority it was there?
 
BBM for emphasis. He has repeatedly made comments that CL & RL have cooperated with LE with respect to BL. Clearly the same can't be said with regards to GP. Charges related to the Laundries potentially hiding information regarding BL's whereabouts or status may have been ruled out, but I don't know that it clears them of any possible charges that could stem from GP's investigation results.

SB is relentless in separating the matters to do with BL from those to do with GP. Technically, yes, there's a thread there that makes sense. However, imo he is personally vested (and thus compromised by a conflict, which could impact/have impacted the quality of his legal counsel) in this separation for his own professional concerns.
 
But surely, it would depend on whether they could help the investigation re Gabby? If they had no information, what help could they give? As far as I can see, the only thing that the L's did do was direct LE to SB.

I agree. I have trouble seeing any possible charges for the Ls related to GP. I would think it would have to be legally proven that BL killed GP before his parents, who at best found out about everything after the fact, would have any criminal liability. As it stands, legally speaking BL is suspected of having killed GP but it will most likely never be proven because he is dead and cannot be tried. MOO
 
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” ? ? ?
Love this post!
Perhaps you could add this to the time line thread? And maybe @oviedo could include the warrant dates in their next timeline update?

I dug into this sighting again last week, I was sure it must have been debunked and i hadn’t seen it stated anywhere. Eventually I found, from a source I found credible enough, that it still had neither been confirmed nor debunked. No link, sorry, so moo
 
Last edited:
Gabrielle’s vehicle was recovered here in North Port at her home on September 11th," police said in the news release. "A home shared with her boyfriend Brian Laundrie and his parents. That vehicle was fully processed for evidence along with FBI agents Tuesday evening."

https://kutv.com/amp/news/local/boy...by-petito-was-reported-missing-police.com-say
This lines up with the warrant for the search of the van issued on 9/14 (Tuesday) @Nikynoo also posted it was issued at 7pm, but LE had possession of van since 9/11. Was there a warrant for them to remove the van from the house?
 
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

But the first scenario would involve wrong-doing by GP. She would be the guilty party in the eyes of her bank if she had made that arrangement. But isn't it almost the other side of the coin when looking at BL?

Wouldn't using say, her phone, to use the card be "intent to defraud" in the sense that the phone is an access device? And it's saying "hey I'm GP authorizing this charge?" Just like it would be fraudulent if using the actual card and signing G Petito as the signature? (fraud but no access device issue)

Or was BL the proverbial ham sandwich grand juries are always out to get? (so far as the existence of likely provable fraud at the time of the indictment)

JMO
 
Sorry to all, I was the one who asked about DNA identification of his remains this morning. The reason I asked is simple. I am known amongst my friends for being the true crime obsessed one.. and the number one question I have been getting from my friends is, “are they running DNA to confirm that the remains are all his?”. I tell everyone that there is no doubt and no need for DNA but… many in the general public perceive this as necessary because of all the twists and turns.. so that is why I asked.
Of course, I am more interested in the COD and the evidence.


That is interesting. The first time I can remember DNA being used and not accepted was during the OJ trial. What on earth was done for identification prior to it's accepted form of use for identification? We've come a long way and it should be noted too, DNA is not the only tool in identifying human remains, finger prints, dental records are also acceptable proof of identification absent DNA. JMO
 
I agree. I have trouble seeing any possible charges for the Ls related to GP. I would think it would have to be legally proven that BL killed GP before his parents, who at best found out about everything after the fact, would have any criminal liability. As it stands, legally speaking BL is suspected of having killed GP but it will most likely never be proven because he is dead and cannot be tried. MOO

The plain language of USC 3 (accessory after the fact) does not require that the principal be tried /convicted for the underlying crime.

"Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact."

Common defenses raised include the defendant showing that he/she did not know that the principal committed a crime/was going to commit a crime, the principal did not actually commit the crime, and/or the accused acted under duress.

Not sure off-hand how the burdens of proof line up, but it appears that if a defendant merely knew that the principal committed the crime (proved in court or not), they can be prosecuted and potentially convicted of accessory after the fact.

Pragmatically and depending on circumstances, prosecutors might not pursue an accessory charge, but they don't appear to be barred from doing so.
 
Last edited:
But the first scenario would involve wrong-doing by GP. She would be the guilty party in the eyes of her bank if she had made that arrangement. But isn't it almost the other side of the coin when looking at BL?

Wouldn't using say, her phone, to use the card be "intent to defraud" in the sense that the phone is an access device? And it's saying "hey I'm GP authorizing this charge?" Just like it would be fraudulent if using the actual card and signing G Petito as the signature? (fraud but no access device issue)

Or was BL the proverbial ham sandwich grand juries are always out to get? (so far as the existence of likely provable fraud at the time of the indictment)

JMO

according to the indictment, the debit card and pin ARE the unauthorized access devices...in this link, you have to scroll down a bit and swipe past the news release and warrant to see it...moo

"one or more unauthorized access devices, NAMELY a capital one bank debit card...and a personal identification number..."

Read the documents: Brian Laundrie arrest warrant
 
But the first scenario would involve wrong-doing by GP. She would be the guilty party in the eyes of her bank if she had made that arrangement. But isn't it almost the other side of the coin when looking at BL?

Wouldn't using say, her phone, to use the card be "intent to defraud" in the sense that the phone is an access device? And it's saying "hey I'm GP authorizing this charge?" Just like it would be fraudulent if using the actual card and signing G Petito as the signature? (fraud but no access device issue)

Or was BL the proverbial ham sandwich grand juries are always out to get? (so far as the existence of likely provable fraud at the time of the indictment)

JMO

Violating a contract is not the same thing as committing a crime. If she let him use the card historically, that can be raised as a defense, but that doesn't necessarily succeed. Especially if she was dead at the time of the facts underlying the charge for use of an unauthorized access device.

And the "device" as used in the cited law = card or PIN, not the phone.
 
This lines up with the warrant for the search of the van issued on 9/14 (Tuesday) @Nikynoo also posted it was issued at 7pm, but LE had possession of van since 9/11. Was there a warrant for them to remove the van from the house?

I would think there would have to have been another warrant that has just not been made public. I don't think they can just impound a vehicle from private property without a warrant. JMO
 
Love this post!
Perhaps you could add this to the time lime thread? And maybe @oviedo could include the warrant dates in their next timeline update?

I dug into this sighting again last week, I was sure it must have been debunked and i hadn’t seen it stated anywhere. Eventually I found, from a source I found credible enough, that it still had neither been confirmed nor debunked. No link, sorry, so moo
Thank you! I’ll add it if I can, if not @oviedo please do.
I also was going to list that on each of these days LE was also at the house according to the incident reports posted by Fox News, but I wanted to be accurate and link them. (I’m having some technical problems posting, is anyone else?)
Thank you for your response about the BL sighting! I am not finding it anywhere either. LE did say they were looking into it…then silence.
 
<modsnip: Quoted post was removed> ... SB imo has acted like a bozo in the media, but I'm not positive he was legally representing BL, that's really not clear to me, and at the point he did come to represent the Laundries at the time the van was towed away, BL had committed no crime, and it was only days later when he disappeared was he even named a POI.

SB is and has acted bizarrely, but imo he was just a distraction, his client's the Laundries hadn't committed a crime but it certainly could have become a legal matter having Gabby's van in their driveway without Gabby being present. JMO
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But the first scenario would involve wrong-doing by GP. She would be the guilty party in the eyes of her bank if she had made that arrangement. But isn't it almost the other side of the coin when looking at BL?

Wouldn't using say, her phone, to use the card be "intent to defraud" in the sense that the phone is an access device? And it's saying "hey I'm GP authorizing this charge?" Just like it would be fraudulent if using the actual card and signing G Petito as the signature? (fraud but no access device issue)

Or was BL the proverbial ham sandwich grand juries are always out to get? (so far as the existence of likely provable fraud at the time of the indictment)

JMO
We don't really know that Gabby had previously allowed BL to use her debit card and pin. I've seen a lot of speculation that BL controlled Gabby and the money, but I haven't seen any actual information that BL ever used that debit card prior to "on or about Aug 30" as stated in the indictment. Obviously, BL knew the pin because the indictment states he used it. But that doesn't necessarily mean Gabby voluntarily gave BL the pin number.

And if she did give him the card and pin number and he'd used it numerous times on this trip, why single out Aug 30th as the date it became "fraudulent"? How would a grand jury decide that usage of the debit card before Aug 30th was okay but suddenly became "fraudulent" on Aug 30th? Maybe the first use actually was Aug 30th. We just don't know. And the grand jury is not telling us. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
2,143
Total visitors
2,336

Forum statistics

Threads
589,953
Messages
17,928,213
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top