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

[cady]

I don't think so but I never went in that way or went over the footbridge. I would think he would have walked along the road, walked the park trails, then went over the footbridge to walk those trails. Upon return, he’d likely use the short cut to where he parked. But maybe not, maybe he went back to the Mustang, checked it again and then back to the truck. ETA - added photo

I'm confused, lol. I was talking about Monday night. Chris didn't say he saw the mustang on Mon. Supposedly, they didn't find it until Tuesday afternoon. It was daylight and the park was open and Mustang was there with a ticket. jmo
ETA We only know what their spokesperson relates to us, though, and he has been less than clear!

 

[PayrollNerd]

I'm confused, lol. I was talking about Monday night. Chris didn't say he saw the mustang on Mon. Supposedly, they didn't find it until Tuesday afternoon. It was daylight and the park was open and Mustang was there with a ticket. jmo

Oh I didn’t pick up your point about a particular day. I was speaking in general as to how I believe his search would have gone. Anyway, once the weather cools more, I plan to go back to the park for another tour. I have an electric trike as my mobility device and I want to try it out on those trails.

 

[JudgeJudi]

Videos with GP and Rose together? Were these posted somewhere? I have no problem believing GP and Rose were friends, but I haven't seen any info corroborating their closeness. I know I'm not entitled to see things like their texts of conversations like "can I stay with you for a few days? I can't take being with BL for any longer" but I was wondering if those exist.

I only have one YT video from an allowable source plus a few pics.

Brian Laundrie is 'well equipped' to survive MONTHS in the 25,000-acre nature reserve | Daily Mail Online

 

[Mom24]

An article from an interview with one of Brian's friends.

Brian Laundrie's best friend says notebook holds vital clues as bones found

 

[Mom24]

Anthropologist examining Brian Laundrie’s remains may have results by end of November

 

[Warwick7]

My original post was shortened as there was a question about what I meant by “rule”. This is my original post in its entirety:

“When the police showed up, The Ls handed them their attorney’s info and refused to allow BL to talk to them. Logic begs there are only 2 scenarios to explain this ,
1. The Ls had already retained the atty for this matter and had been advised what to do
Or
2. There was a rule of the house that if LE EVER shows up, shut up, give them SBs card and THEN call their good friend, the atty who has represented them on REAL ESTATE legalities???

Do you think there could be enough underlying reason to warrant such a rule???“

I was responding to a post by @BCSleuth that stated “
An attorney was retained late on the 11th, after police showed up.”

My point, in a nutshell, was that given the atty info being handed to LE, he had already been retained, or they were going by the never talk to LE without atty present “rule”.

I get what you’re saying. And agree-to an extent.
I get the Ls being caught off guard and most likely uniformed, and wanting to get their bearings and legal advice. But after talking to SB late Sat and early Sunday, they had an attorney, he could be present and SB and BL could have sat down together with LE because his future wife could be in serious danger and need help. I don’t get why that didn’t happen. He had counsel.

My subtext about using a real estate atty for criminal defense remains. I can see the initial call to the only atty they had ever used, but for him to stay on??? Whether this guy advertises “criminal” representation or not, I hardly imagine he would be adequate for a murder defense. And I think the Ls and SB knew it too and planned for it.
I think that’s what the Orlando trip was all about. Moo. I think they had another atty waiting in the wings if addition warrants were issued.
SB stuck his, what I consider, unprepared, foot in his mouth on AB. He claims he never visited the Ls in Fl but only spoke via phone, and video conference, but earlier had stated Ls went to Orlando to meet with their atty. clearly it wasn’t him.
Moo

Excellent post!!! Bam!! This is what I need, putting issues in logical order. Since I've gotten covid I don't think as quick as I used to----so posts like this help me make sense of things.

 

[Warwick7]

After noticing Paragraph 5 on Page 7 of the HDD search warrant last night, I went back and really read it.

Here's a few things that stood out to me:

The affidavit of Officer Alix states he had probable cause to believe and does believe that laws related to missing/endangered person(s) controlled by Florida State Statute 937.021 in regard to GP have been violated.

State 937.021 lays out the procedure for which Florida LE agencies are to handle missing child/adult reports, standards for maintaining information related to the MP, recording/transmitting/releasing information from Amber Alerts or Missing Child Alerts, etc., which seemed like an odd statute to reference when requesting permission to investigate a HDD until you get to 937.021(6) and (7)(a) and (b):

(6) If a missing child or missing adult is not located within 90 days after the missing child or missing adult report is filed, the LE agency that accepted the report shall attempt to obtain a biological specimen for DNA analysis... This subsection does not prevent a LE agency from attempting to obtain information or approved biological specimens for DNA analysis before the expiration of the 90-day period.
The department shall adopt rules specific to cases involving missing children and missing adults which will:
(7)(a) Identify biological specimens that are approved by the department for DNA analysis.
(b) Identify the documentation necessary for the department to use the biological specimens for DNA analysis.
​

As grounds for issuance, the affidavit cited FL Statute 933.02(3), which states:

Upon proper affidavits being made, a search warrant may be issued under hte provisions of this chapter upon any of the following grounds: (3) when any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed. (BBM)
​

Under Probable Cause:
Paragraphs 1-9 - we've all went over this information quite a bit, so won't rehash that except to point out that Paragraph 6 state's the text to NS was the last communication received and "her cellphone was no longer operational." It goes on to state in Paragraph 8 that the van entered North Port on 9/1 at 10:26 pm. The search warrant states the last text was received 8/27.

I know there was an additional text sent on 8/30, but I think LE listed the 8/27 message as the last communication because it was the last message NS was sure came from GP. Outside of that, there's a reason why the indictment limited the Capital One card use to dates between 8/30 and 9/1.

Paragraph 10 states that the cellphone "has been turned off for approximately 15 days." The affidavit was signed on the 15th day of September, 2021, making the date the phone was turned off 9/1, IMO. I understand if you get technical with the hours, 15 days puts it at 8/31, but he didn't write exactly 15 days, he wrote approximately 15 days.

According to an NY Post article, cited a 9/18 tweet from Jeff Butera of ABC 7 stating that NPPD confirmed they now have cell phone tracking access for GP and BL's phones. However, this is just a confirmation that they have it and doesn't really clarify when they obtained that access.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 - 9/14 a search warrant was executed on the van. To my knowledge, there is not a copy of this particular SW available to the public. I have looked and looked, but all I have found is the one related to the HDD. During that search, crime scene technicians located the subject HDD and believe it may contain forensic data that could assist in the location of GP.

In the next paragraph, the affidavit goes on to state:

Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidence, a container for contraband, and also itself an instrumentality of the crime under investigation.
(1) Volume of evidence.
(2) Technical requirements - It is also necessary to seize all peripherals so that analysts can show the computer was in a functional operating state and was capable of being used in the manner described in this affidavit.
(3) and (4) These discuss the necessity for searching for various formats of files and software applications, but as a point of reference it explicitly uses "his or her" when talking about a user.

All of the above statements appear to be generic statements likely used in similar warrants to justify the need for forensic examination.

I also wanted to point out that while they do discuss various formats, the focus here seems to be primarily on images, which makes me wonder if they were possibly checking for information related to the photos in GP's last Instagram post.

(5) Necessity to establish a time line. This paragraph popped out this time because it is no longer generic. Earlier in the affidavit Paragraph 12 referred to the item as potentially being the subject's (GP) property, but (5) shifts and is no longer about the subject or the subject's timeline, and it's not about generic users. It's now saying the investigation is necessary to place the suspect behind the computer at the time of the offense. An examiner may need to compile a timeline of files that were altered at or near the time of the offense to show the suspect was utilizing it at the appropriate time and to establish defendant's control over the computer and/or relevant files.
​

Now, it's possible this was also copied and pasted from a similar SW and just not corrected to fit the situation; however, the point of the affidavit, at least as stated in the Paragraph 12 under reasons, was to assist in locating the "missing endangered suspect," not to establish a timeline for a suspect.

So thoughts from that:

This warrant stemmed from the 9/14 SW executed on the van, which then ultimately led to the search of the Laundrie home. The order was specific, it gave permission to search the HDD and then seize evidence of the following, which included a list of basically anything electronic.

SB told Banfield he had multiple conversations with the FBI, including the day before BL went on the hike and the day of. It is apparent the FBI was communicating some type of information related to the investigation considering he canceled the original press conference after speaking with the FBI, and SB was likely keeping BL updated on what he was learning. If these one MOO.

I think the subject warrant gives us some information that maybe we hadn't realized was out there before:

A missing person is not automatically a crime, and reporting an adult missing is tough in general due to the fact adults can make the decision to just do communicating. However, whatever LE discovered in the van during the first search led them to believe GP was not just someone who willingly stopped communicating with her parents and that a crime, specifically a felony, had already been committed.

That belief led them to the belief that the HDD possibly held at least part of the answer. After review of the hard drive, they had reason to believe there was additional information in the Laundrie home.

It seems to indicate that LE believed it was unlikely GP was alive pretty early on and that BL was a POI/ suspect of said crime well before he was named publicly. JMO.

Edit some spelling and missing words but probably not all, so please disregard the others lol

Wowzers awesome post!! I'm going to have to read this 3-4 times to soak all this in.

 

[MollyDDD]

What book? Do you have a link?

The book the L’s are going to write IMO. I’ll send you the link once it’s on sale.

 

[FindingJoLee]

After noticing Paragraph 5 on Page 7 of the HDD search warrant last night, I went back and really read it.

Here's a few things that stood out to me:

The affidavit of Officer Alix states he had probable cause to believe and does believe that laws related to missing/endangered person(s) controlled by Florida State Statute 937.021 in regard to GP have been violated.

State 937.021 lays out the procedure for which Florida LE agencies are to handle missing child/adult reports, standards for maintaining information related to the MP, recording/transmitting/releasing information from Amber Alerts or Missing Child Alerts, etc., which seemed like an odd statute to reference when requesting permission to investigate a HDD until you get to 937.021(6) and (7)(a) and (b):

(6) If a missing child or missing adult is not located within 90 days after the missing child or missing adult report is filed, the LE agency that accepted the report shall attempt to obtain a biological specimen for DNA analysis... This subsection does not prevent a LE agency from attempting to obtain information or approved biological specimens for DNA analysis before the expiration of the 90-day period.
The department shall adopt rules specific to cases involving missing children and missing adults which will:
(7)(a) Identify biological specimens that are approved by the department for DNA analysis.
(b) Identify the documentation necessary for the department to use the biological specimens for DNA analysis.
​

As grounds for issuance, the affidavit cited FL Statute 933.02(3), which states:

Upon proper affidavits being made, a search warrant may be issued under hte provisions of this chapter upon any of the following grounds: (3) when any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed. (BBM)
​

Under Probable Cause:
Paragraphs 1-9 - we've all went over this information quite a bit, so won't rehash that except to point out that Paragraph 6 state's the text to NS was the last communication received and "her cellphone was no longer operational." It goes on to state in Paragraph 8 that the van entered North Port on 9/1 at 10:26 pm. The search warrant states the last text was received 8/27.

I know there was an additional text sent on 8/30, but I think LE listed the 8/27 message as the last communication because it was the last message NS was sure came from GP. Outside of that, there's a reason why the indictment limited the Capital One card use to dates between 8/30 and 9/1.

Paragraph 10 states that the cellphone "has been turned off for approximately 15 days." The affidavit was signed on the 15th day of September, 2021, making the date the phone was turned off 9/1, IMO. I understand if you get technical with the hours, 15 days puts it at 8/31, but he didn't write exactly 15 days, he wrote approximately 15 days.

According to an NY Post article, cited a 9/18 tweet from Jeff Butera of ABC 7 stating that NPPD confirmed they now have cell phone tracking access for GP and BL's phones. However, this is just a confirmation that they have it and doesn't really clarify when they obtained that access.

Paragraphs 11 and 12 - 9/14 a search warrant was executed on the van. To my knowledge, there is not a copy of this particular SW available to the public. I have looked and looked, but all I have found is the one related to the HDD. During that search, crime scene technicians located the subject HDD and believe it may contain forensic data that could assist in the location of GP.

In the next paragraph, the affidavit goes on to state:

Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidence, a container for contraband, and also itself an instrumentality of the crime under investigation.
(1) Volume of evidence.
(2) Technical requirements - It is also necessary to seize all peripherals so that analysts can show the computer was in a functional operating state and was capable of being used in the manner described in this affidavit.
(3) and (4) These discuss the necessity for searching for various formats of files and software applications, but as a point of reference it explicitly uses "his or her" when talking about a user.

All of the above statements appear to be generic statements likely used in similar warrants to justify the need for forensic examination.

I also wanted to point out that while they do discuss various formats, the focus here seems to be primarily on images, which makes me wonder if they were possibly checking for information related to the photos in GP's last Instagram post.

(5) Necessity to establish a time line. This paragraph popped out this time because it is no longer generic. Earlier in the affidavit Paragraph 12 referred to the item as potentially being the subject's (GP) property, but (5) shifts and is no longer about the subject or the subject's timeline, and it's not about generic users. It's now saying the investigation is necessary to place the suspect behind the computer at the time of the offense. An examiner may need to compile a timeline of files that were altered at or near the time of the offense to show the suspect was utilizing it at the appropriate time and to establish defendant's control over the computer and/or relevant files.
​

Now, it's possible this was also copied and pasted from a similar SW and just not corrected to fit the situation; however, the point of the affidavit, at least as stated in the Paragraph 12 under reasons, was to assist in locating the "missing endangered suspect," not to establish a timeline for a suspect.

So thoughts from that:

This warrant stemmed from the 9/14 SW executed on the van, which then ultimately led to the search of the Laundrie home. The order was specific, it gave permission to search the HDD and then seize evidence of the following, which included a list of basically anything electronic.

SB told Banfield he had multiple conversations with the FBI, including the day before BL went on the hike and the day of. It is apparent the FBI was communicating some type of information related to the investigation considering he canceled the original press conference after speaking with the FBI, and SB was likely keeping BL updated on what he was learning. If these one MOO.

I think the subject warrant gives us some information that maybe we hadn't realized was out there before:

A missing person is not automatically a crime, and reporting an adult missing is tough in general due to the fact adults can make the decision to just do communicating. However, whatever LE discovered in the van during the first search led them to believe GP was not just someone who willingly stopped communicating with her parents and that a crime, specifically a felony, had already been committed.

That belief led them to the belief that the HDD possibly held at least part of the answer. After review of the hard drive, they had reason to believe there was additional information in the Laundrie home.

It seems to indicate that LE believed it was unlikely GP was alive pretty early on and that BL was a POI/ suspect of said crime well before he was named publicly. JMO.

Edit some spelling and missing words but probably not all, so please disregard the others lol

Wow thank you so much for taking the time to flesh that out and explain it!!!

 

[10ofRods]

When the police showed up, The Ls handed them their attorney’s info and refused to allow BL to talk to them. Logic begs there are only 2 scenarios to explain this ,
1. The Ls had already retained the atty for this matter and had been advised what to do
Or
2. There was a rule of the house that if LE EVER shows up, shut up, give them SBs card and THEN call their good friend, the atty who has represented them on REAL ESTATE legalities???

Do you think there could be enough underlying reason to warrant such a rule???

plots of people do have such a rule. I think the “never talk to police” rule is widely publicized. We have it ourselves, although I would certainly *listen* to why an officer was at the door, and I believe that is what the Laundries did.
If the police were asking about a missing person and I had no idea where they were, I wouldn’t talk to police and I also wouldn’t state that except through my attorney.

 

[Chicago54]

plots of people do have such a rule. I think the “never talk to police” rule is widely publicized. We have it ourselves, although I would certainly *listen* to why an officer was at the door, and I believe that is what the Laundries did.
If the police were asking about a missing person and I had no idea where they were, I wouldn’t talk to police and I also wouldn’t state that except through my attorney.

I agree. However, as I also said, I can not understand, or agree with the decision, once they had spoken with said counsel, not to speak to the police. BL was also represented by SB and while The Ls may have had no idea where she was (like your example), BL may have. His future wife may have been in serious danger. If the overriding concern were their legal rights, and the right to have counsel present, they had it. IMO their concern for the life of GP could have then been addressed.

and oops for apparently posting a bad msm link about the mustang. sorry. I’m looking for other verification on that.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

I agree. However, as I also said, I can not understand, or agree with the decision, once they had spoken with said counsel, not to speak to the police. BL was also represented by SB and while The Ls may have had no idea where she was (like your example), BL may have. His future wife may have been in serious danger. If the overriding concern were their legal rights, and the right to have counsel present, they had it. IMO their concern for the life of GP could have then been addressed.

and oops for apparently posting a bad msm link about the mustang. sorry. I’m looking for other verification on that.

I think your statement says it all - "... their concern for the life of GP could have then been addressed." I'm just not so sure they had concern over the life of GP. I think they were only concerned about BL. Even with SB present, BL did not have to talk. moo

 

[Barbie619]

Oh geez, let’s just say it’s a gut feeling since BL’s parents clammed up from the start and offered zero response or assistance to GP’s desperate parents’ pleas for information regarding their daughter’s whereabouts. Instead, they lawyered up, withheld information, creating a circus-like attraction to themselves. The national attention this story has received will no doubt IMO, have a big payout when they finally tell “their” side of the story. IMO

They acted on their attorney's advice. These people had nothing to do with Gabby's murder and it should have all been put on their son and his inactions of speaking to anyone.

Adult children are responsible and accountable for any crimes they may commit, the parent's should not. People coming out to torment the parent's for the sins of the son is despicable, IMO.

 

[Balthazar]

When the police showed up, The Ls handed them their attorney’s info and refused to allow BL to talk to them. Logic begs there are only 2 scenarios to explain this ,
1. The Ls had already retained the atty for this matter and had been advised what to do
Or
2. There was a rule of the house that if LE EVER shows up, shut up, give them SBs card and THEN call their good friend, the atty who has represented them on REAL ESTATE legalities???

Do you think there could be enough underlying reason to warrant such a rule???

Since they are the owners of a business they run out of their house, I would say, emphatically, yes. Retainer fees are between $500 and $5,000 and for any business owner, they are necessary. People here are forgetting that Gabby's vehicle was located by LE on the Laundrie's property AND that is the address for the Laundrie's business and livelihood. The Laundries were right to zealously protect their business. Also, if you look at SB's website, he is, in fact a business attorney, not just a real estate attorney and he also practices criminal law and personal injury law. People here are assuming SB only represented the Laundries on real estate, but I don't think that is factual. I think he is most likely their business attorney. The Laundries home should be treated like a business headquarters. If LE comes into a business, they are directed to the corporate attorney. That is what the Laundries did, they directed LE to SB, their business attorney.

 

[Barbie619]

I think your statement says it all - "... their concern for the life of GP could have then been addressed." I'm just not so sure they had concern over the life of GP. I think they were only concerned about BL. Even with SB present, BL did not have to talk. moo

As awful as the L's were for not speaking up, they had no obligation, especially if they really didn't know anything.

But let's not make the mistake of thinking the parent's committed a crime, their son committed the crime, he was the only one who should have spoken up concerning this case.

The only other case where the crowds gathered a around parent's and protested, is Casey Anthony. The Anthony parent's committed no crime until the day Cindy Anthony got on the stand and perjured herself.

Other than not responding to the Petito's what crime have they committed. Their wanting to protect their child is not a crime, millions of parents have done this for their child even the worst of the worst criminals have the support of at least their paren
<modsnip>

 

[Barbie619]

IMO. The pics in the quoted article are from the day that the search warrant was served on the house at wabasso ave. I watched live on wflanow. That was not GP’s van. That was a LE vehicle. Moo.

Color me confused. Because the van was towed 11:30 pm and it was as new as a newborn baby case, how was there a video made? I've never saw it if it exists, do you have a link? I'd appreciate seeing this video. JMO

 

[BCSleuth]

plots of people do have such a rule. I think the “never talk to police” rule is widely publicized. We have it ourselves, although I would certainly *listen* to why an officer was at the door, and I believe that is what the Laundries did.
If the police were asking about a missing person and I had no idea where they were, I wouldn’t talk to police and I also wouldn’t state that except through my attorney.

Same here. If somebody I am close to goes missing I would be inclined to lawyer up.

When dealing with perps, or potential perps, police often lie. You therefore cannot be confident that anything they say to you is true. It seems that many folks are completely ignorant to the serious jeopardy they put themselves in when talking to the police. You should *never* talk to the police without a lawyer unless you are confident that you know what you are doing. But even then, problems can still arise.

The classic example given is that let's say something went down at a movie theater. You say, "I was never at that movie theater." Next thing you know, a witness mistakenly picks you out of a photo lineup as being someone who was at the theater. Police now have "proof" that you are a liar. So you would have been better off saying nothing.

People always want to be helpful and whatnot but if you talk to the police you do so at your peril. It is just plain a bad idea.

 

[BCSleuth]

Here's a law professor explaining it better than I did:

"You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime."

source: A Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police

 

[PoppyBear]

Here's a law professor explaining it better than I did:

"You might make mistakes when explaining where you were at the time of a crime that the police interpret as lies; the officer talking to you could misremember what you say much later; you may be tricked into saying the wrong things by cops under no obligation to tell you the truth; and your statements to police could, in combination with faulty eyewitness accounts, shoddy "expert" testimony, and sheer bad luck, lead to you being convicted of a serious crime."

source: A Law Professor Explains Why You Should Never Talk to Police

Yes. The police are not there to be your friends. They are also not experts in the law. That is what lawyers are for. There is no way I would be talking to LE alone if I were the Laundries.

 

[Sassafrass]

It cracks me up to see others views on FL. I wasn't born here. Arrived in '81. My kids are Floridians. The great majority that live here we're not born here unless they are young adults or kids. moo

The Laundries moved there like a year ago. So to the extent there is a Florida culture (my people have been there for 150 years, though I myself have never lived there), the Laundrie parents are probably far more Long Island than North Port.