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

[LinneaE]

Well...yeah. I don't know what it's like in all 50 states, but in general, unless the person who is trying to report a missing person actually goes to the police station, they aren't going to be prioritized. Half of the missing people reported each day are found by family members without assistance from LE - and there's little to no relationship to how people act in terms of urgency and presentation of facts...and whether the person will voluntarily show up.

LE cannot do everything. It often takes some pushing to find the right jurisdiction for a MP report - it's not an ongoing crime; it's not a crime at all.

Part of the problem is that LE is often reluctant to get involved in an adult MP case immediately. Being a missing adult is not a crime, the other problem was jurisdiction, Gabby had been living in Florida but did not disappear from there. She was no longer a resident NY and while her Mom thought that she had last been in Grand Teton, her family couldn't say for sure where she was went she went missing.

 

[nhmemorymaker]

Perhaps there are reasons the L's did not answer the P's? We have no idea what the relationship was like between the six parents involved. If my adult daughter's ex-boyfriend's family started texting or calling me out of the blue, I'd ask my daughter what the heck was going on before deciding whether to call them back or get in the middle of the situation at all. And if my daughter started telling me things that did not make sense or were alarming in some way I'd keep after her for answers. jmo

This realistic scenario is more closely alligned with what most of us would do. I, too, would seek out my daughter before returning the calls. However, I still think I would return the calls. But, even I, don't know what EXACTLY I would do.

After that............. there are so many alternative actions that anyone could or would take. Like seek legal advice, from a friend, who happens to be a lawyer.

 

[Barbie619]

Does anyone know when the Petitos started calling? The Laundries called the police in regards to Joe Petito on the 10th. That's the first official record I could find.

I've never heard this before. Why would the L's have called the police on Joe Petito? JMO

 

[Keyedin]

I think they knew. I mean, Gabby doesn't present herself despite LE being at the door and my claim is that there's no way that 4 adults live in a 1400 sf house and the police come to the door...and only 3 out of 4 know about it. Since LE is specifically asking for Gabby, if Gabby had been there, someone would have said so or somehow urged her to go to the door.

I think LE knew right away when the MPR was filed and the van was seen at Wabasso, and then...Gabby doesn't come to the door, that this is a real MP case, with a potentially (very) dark outcome. And they put the pedal to the metal at that point.



ITA. If I found myself in the same situation (I have a VERY different type of lawyer on my speed dial), I would have insisted on conveying to LE, through my attorney, everything I knew about the case. I would have definitely gotten my kid an attorney, and I can relate to having one attorney represent the family initially, because I live in a small town too. But my goal would have been to help find Gabby - without compromising my own kid's legal case. Because I would have had no way to know the actual facts at that time.

BL knew where Gabby was, though - that's the problem. And most parents would have that option on the table. There's no way he didn't know the last place and time where he saw her. But they knew it would send him to prison (at least get him in jail and then possible charges would be filed).

I think the parents knew Gabby was in no imminent danger whatsoever at the time - but not necessarily through any actual words spoken.

I'm not sure that other counsel would have advised BL to speak to the police with them present - that seems like a big stretch and the client should follow the attorney's advice (which the Laundries apparently did).

I still think if SB felt his client was innocent, he could have relayed whatever information the Laundries/BL had about GP to LE. This keeps them from speaking directly to LE and also aids in the investigation. Something like: My client was not involved and will not be sitting down for an interview. However, he/they are concerned about GP and this is all they know. When he left to go to Florida, she was (place) and that's where she was staying to his knowledge or she was heading (place). He has not had any contact with her since he left.

But they didn't. They didn't offer anything related to the search and/or investigation related to GP. And I still go back to, regardless of your right to remain silent, innocent people don't want to be the POI in a disappearance/murder investigation. Why waste LE's time, really anybody's time, if you have something that clears your name?

 

[Doghairrules]

I think the vast majority of parents would not help police convict their child on a traffic ticket, let alone a murder.

I couldn’t disagree more. Good parents do not shield their children from the natural consequences of their choices/behaviors. Doing so is how we end up with serial predators who have never been held accountable for anything they’ve done because their parents are always cleaning up their messes. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is not BL’s first mess, just his biggest one. Same is true in the Murdaugh case, or both father and son.

 

[Cinna]

I've never heard this before. Why would the L's have called the police on Joe Petito? JMO

I don't know why. Here is a link:

Missing Gabby Petito's dad linked to Laundrie home incident report evening before daughter reported missing

 

[esayer]

Because I think the messages they left were possible threatening. I’d be angry and upset if I could t find my child and I don’t think I’d have any kind words So I think some threats were made and the laundries realized they needed a lawyer
This is why they never returned any calls imo!

that's complete speculation.

 

[Doghairrules]

Is there anyone -- any parent, any attorney, any member of the media, any law enforcement officer-- who has mentioned that someone at the Laundrie home engaged any questions about Gabby (if she's there, how long since she's been seen)?

Because the only conversation I've seen described more likely went something like this:
LE: "Hi there, we're from NPPD doing a welfare check on Gabby Petito."
Mr/Mrs. Laundrie: "Here is the contact information for our attorney. Please refer any questions you have for any member of our household to him."

Gabby's mom has said that on 11th, detectives told her the van and Brian were in Florida. She clearly connected the dots because her first question was the same one everyone else had: "Where's Gabby???"

This is exactly why I don’t believe the petito’s messages were threatening. At the time, they thought BL was missing too! They had NO idea he was sitting at home with mommy and daddy ready to clean up all his mess.

 

[khaki]

Certain people seem more prone to litigation than others? Or that JP has a habit of establishing dominance via name-calling, etc? Not uncommon at all, but a lot of people are not going to want to deal with such a person one-on-one.

This whole case is filled with partly known human dynamics. But, personally, I don't "do" relationships with my kids' SO's families - and everyone understands why and what's going on. If the Laundries didn't want to "do" relationships with their son's fiancée's family or part of that family, that's absolutely their right. And we don't know what they're thinking - maybe they had reasons?

We don't know.

At any rate, I certainly wouldn't have interacted with JP in that situation.

I know it would bother me if my future daughter-in-law's father called my son a girl's name on purpose, as JP has admitted he did. It conveys a vibe that I would prefer not to interact with. It is so intentionally demeaning and creates an unhealthy dynamic IMO.

 

[Coquette]

Have I missed something? I thought the Laundrie parents were still considered victims here as they haven't been charged with any crimes. They lost a child too, after all.

MOO.

 

[BCSleuth]

I wonder how this tragic event would have turned out IF the L’s answered G’s mother’s desperate calls at the beginning and they and BL spoke with LE, instead of referring to their business attorney. But I guess it wouldn’t matter much, as G would still be dead, and BL would be in prison. IMO

Right. No matter what the Laundries did (the parents, that is) Gabby would still be dead.

But why would we assume Brian would be in prison? His actions look to me like somebody who planned suicide all along. Maybe he would have committed suicide sooner. Maybe suicide by cop. Maybe he would have committed suicide in prison.

There are a lot of people who would rather die than spend years in a cage.

<modsnip>

 

[Krwiley60]

I'm always a little concerned when I hear someone say, "If you're innocent there is no harm in helping or talking to the police." Um, no. The police are not your friends and couldn't care less about you. They care about getting an A+ on their performance eval. The Chief cares about his department's solve rate. The DA cares about his/her upcoming re-election. They don't care if you go under the bus as long as they can mark "solved" on a case.

If you feel inclined to help or talk to the police, that's fine. Just make sure you have an attorney at your side when you do. jmo

I totally disagree with your post. That is a very broad statement you made. You say they couldn’t care less? What about the officer giving CPR to the man that has a heart attack on the street or an officer giving mouth to mouth on a newborn baby trying to get her to breathe? Or maybe the officer that runs into a burning house trying to save a family? I could go on and on. They don’t do these things because they have to. It’s because they want to. You get my point.

ETA MO

 

[Tiger Stripes]

I couldn’t disagree more. Good parents do not shield their children from the natural consequences of their choices/behaviors. Doing so is how we end up with serial predators who have never been held accountable for anything they’ve done because their parents are always cleaning up their messes. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is not BL’s first mess, just his biggest one. Same is true in the Murdaugh case, or both father and son.

Absolutely outstanding, @DHR! There's that lovely, old-fashioned word: consequences... Totally agree with you that, due to parents' (collectively speaking, here) lack of consequences, we're all stuck with everything from petty criminals to serial predators. This is all JMOO, of course -- no doubt colored by the fact of my having been born "last century"...

ETA: Oh -- and if parents reeeally had consequences that "stuck", thus limiting potential criminal activity, then... we'd have nooo WS (which none of us can even imagine) for discussing such cases. So there's that.

 

[blackbeary]

Was Gabby's tent missing? I noticed there is a photo of it, along with her & the van in this press conference.
Joe Petito comes to North Port: 'We need help' finding Gabby

 

[nhmemorymaker]

I know it would bother me if my future daughter-in-law's father called my son a girl's name on purpose, as JP has admitted he did. Whether right or not, it conveys a vibe that I would prefer not to interact with.

It is so intentionally demeaning and creates an unhealthy dynamic IMO.

i dunno....... it seems like a common sortof-macho-dad type of thing...........
Not saying it is not demeaning in a pure context.....

But dads have their protective ways........
And I think we have heard that Gabby knew how to for--warn people of her dad's protective ways.

( I soooo wish I had a link, but I swear i did see this somewhere)

 

[10ofRods]

To me, this isn't a legal issue. It's a moral one. The judicial system under our constitution is designed to protect people from deprivation of liberty without due process. It's intended to protect the innocent and prevent the government from unlawful takings, of your property, freedom, life. But because imperfect humans are limited by their imperfection to creating an imperfect system that protects the guilty along with the innocent. But that is NOT the intention. And this isn't even about whether he's guilty.

It's about morality and human decency. I'm not willing to limit moral obligations to legal obligations. Of course one is free to be immoral. That is your right. But there are always limits on rights. They can be voluntary or imposed by law. The Laundries refused to voluntarily accept any limit at all on those rights. I find that immoral under these circumstances.

I have felt this way from the beginning and time and information have only intensified that opinion. In large part because I think the lawyer's handling of this matter was reckless and that someone better equipped may have been in a better position to possibly save Brian's life. In this situation, in patient mental health care could have been pretty easily obtained. The Laundries & attorney obviously knew this was a serious matter and seem to have known Brian was in great distress.

So lots of rights got exercised by family members based on the lawyers advice and now Brian is dead. Rights will not save you from the mental consequences of your actions, only the legal ones.

Fortunately, there's far more agreement on what the laws of the United States (and each state) say than on "morality."

There is no "general morality" nor any widespread agreement on what it is. You say you can feel it, certainly. But not everyone uses feelings to establish waht is "moral." Whether we use feelings as the main basis for our morals, though, is quite variable (I discourage it, I prefer other viewpoints).

OTOH, I am not inclined to judge the Laundries or anyone else, because I do not know them and for other reasons. There are pro's and con's to basing things on "feelings," and I think that's also well known. I am not at all sure that's what the Laundries did, at all.

BuI am disinclined to discuss what the Laundrie's moral framework may be, as I do not have enough facts - but even if I use similar cases or my imagination, I'm quite certain that we will still each hold to our own viewpoints. It's entirely possible that their mental states shift from hour to hour and day to day, this is a terrible tragedy. Also, there are no universal moral frameworks by which we can judge others...they are human, and so are we.

 

[LeeJay55]

I couldn’t disagree more. Good parents do not shield their children from the natural consequences of their choices/behaviors. Doing so is how we end up with serial predators who have never been held accountable for anything they’ve done because their parents are always cleaning up their messes. I would bet dollars to donuts that this is not BL’s first mess, just his biggest one. Same is true in the Murdaugh case, or both father and son.

They got him a Lawyer!
He vanished on mom abs dad and killed himself!
I think The Laundries were getting prepared for his arrest and sought legal advice abd were told say nothing till he’s arrested!

 

[FindingJoLee]

i dunno....... it seems like a common sortof-macho-dad type of thing...........
Not saying it is not demeaning in a pure context.....

But dads have their protective ways........
And I think we have heard that Gabby knew how to for--warn people of her dad's protective ways.

( I soooo wish I had a link, but I swear i did see this somewhere)

If this is the comment you're thinking of ,it was Joe that said it:
Gabby Petito's dad mocked Brian Laundrie with nickname

"Although as the years progressed, I think [Gabby] prepared them for when they met me.''

 

[witchway]

Earlier this morning someone here mentioned there was a MIP charge on one of the LE papers in regards to BL. IF the Laundries have had past experience with LE in regards to BL, then they would have known NOT to talk to LE and just give the card. I have no idea if BL was ever charged with anything before, but, if he had been, that might also explain the Laundries behavior in handing LE the attorney's card right away. JMO.

Hi, I have reviewed this MIP acronym and I honestly think in my own opinion, that this means one of 2 things. One, it could mean “Missing Identified Person” or the other would be “Medical Information Provided”. Why? I studied the report, which is not actually the official missing report. It is an Incident Report. A missing person report is very very extensive. I think this incident report was the initial responding officer’s to the call from Laundrie family that they wanted to report him missing. MIP was entered under offense but was not really an offense as I don’t think or know that there was anyone on premises that was a “minor in possession”. Maybe someone else has a link to his actual missing person report? Not just the incident report from a responding officer.

 

[LeeJay55]

that's complete speculation.

True but I don’t think I’m wrong!
It’s just my opinionated