Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85

[PommyMommy]

Missing woman disappears after road trip with boyfriend as mom reveals message to authorities

Gabby Petito, 22, set out on a road trip with her boyfriend in a converted camper van in early July to tour National Parks, but she disappeared in late August and her family hasn't heard from her in more than two weeks. Now, her mother is pleading for help finding her daughter.

Nicole Schmidt, Petito's mother, said that the last verbal conversation she had with her daughter was on Aug. 25.

"I don't know if she left Grand Teton or not," Schmidt said. "I did receive a text from her on the 27th and the 30th, but I don't know if it was technically her or not, because it was just a text. I didn't verbally speak to her."

[...]

The couple stopped in Grand Teton National Park on Aug. 25, Petito's last known location, before a planned trip to Yellowstone. They were traveling in a 2012 Ford white van that was converted into a camper.

[...]

A spokesperson for the Jackson Police Department said that an "attempt to locate" call was recently filed for Petito. The Suffolk County Police Department is also investigating the case. Suffolk County PD declined to comment on Sunday.

Petito is 5’5" and has blonde hair and blue eyes. She has a triangle tattoo with flowers on her left arm and a "Let it be" tattoo on her right arm.

Anyone who has seen Gabby or has any information on the case should contact the Suffolk County Police Department at 1-800-220-8477.

MEDIA, MAPS thread *NO DISCUSSION*

TIMELINE thread *NO DISCUSSION*

Case Players and Initials Reference List

Kick Back and Unwind - Off Topic Side Chat


Thread #1 Thread #2 Thread #3 Thread #4 Thread #5 Thread #6 Thread #7 Thread #8 Thread #9 Thread #10 Thread #11 Thread #12 Thread #13 Thread #14 Thread #15 Thread #16 Thread #17 Thread #18 Thread #19 Thread #20 Thread #21 Thread #22 Thread #23 Thread #24 Thread #25 Thread #26 Thread #27 Thread #28 Thread #29 Thread #30 Thread #31 Thread #32 Thread #33 Thread #34 Thread #35 Thread #36 Thread #37 Thread #38 Thread #39 Thread #40 Thread #41 Thread #42 Thread #43 Thread #44 Thread #45 Thread #46 Thread #47 Thread #48 Thread #49 Thread #50 Thread #51 Thread #52 Thread #53 Thread #54 Thread #55 Thread #56 Thread #57 Thread #58 Thread #59 Thread #60 Thread #61 Thread #62 Thread #63 Thread #64 Thread #65 Thread #66 Thread #67 Thread #68 Thread #69 Thread #70 Thread #71 Thread #72 Thread #73 Thread #74 Thread #75 Thread #76 Thread #77 Thread #78 Thread #79 Thread #80 Thread #81
Thread #82 Thread #83 Thread #84

 

[Tiff23fr]

*REMINDER: WS Volunteer Admins and Mods are not online 24/7. We may need some time to clean up posts against TOS* AND when there are pages of them it may require closing the thread.

 

[Tiff23fr]

STOP HERE FIRST
———————————————
Mod Note:
Websleuths has 100’s of active threads, and nearly 200k members. With only a few volunteer Mods/Admins we need your help in keeping Gabby’s threads relative, civil, and engaging. Following the rules that are clearly outlined below will support the Mod Team and enhance your experience and interactions with fellow Posters.

The Rules:
-Domestic Violence Discussions/Debates are not permitted
-The Moab Traffic Stop is no longer open for dissecting (there are 76 threads filled with this info).
-Mental Health is not permitted
-Moab double murders are not permitted unless LE were to change position at some point
-No Bickering (Ignore or “Roll and Scroll”)
-Do not suggest Gabby died by anything other than what the ME has stated (Manual Strangulation)
-Do not Trash Brians parents (You can share opinions or perspectives of events, but rise above the rest. They have not been named POI’s in the case. Stick to what is known / has been reported.)
-Any other rules as outlined in TOS

Tip: Notice if you are posting about the case or about other Posters. Posting about other Posters is off topic. This can show up in the following ways:
-“I don’t know why others……”
-Party X or Party Y “Sympathizers”
-“Some Posters…”
-“Everybody keeps ……”

In a nutshell, be aware of what the intent is behind your post. Is it to bash fellow posters or is it to discuss the case?

Thank you for your help and support!

Tiff

 

[CocoChanel]

SOME of us need these REMINDERS below.
Ignore them at your own risk.

STOP HERE FIRST
———————————————
Mod Note:
Websleuths has 100’s of active threads, and nearly 200k members. With only a few volunteer Mods/Admins we need your help in keeping Gabby’s threads relative, civil, and engaging. Following the rules that are clearly outlined below will support the Mod Team and enhance your experience and interactions with fellow Posters.

The Rules:
-Domestic Violence Discussions/Debates are not permitted
-The Moab Traffic Stop is no longer open for dissecting (there are 76 threads filled with this info).
-Mental Health is not permitted
-Moab double murders are not permitted unless LE were to change position at some point
-No Bickering (Ignore or “Roll and Scroll”)
-Do not suggest Gabby died by anything other than what the ME has stated (Manual Strangulation)
-Do not Trash Brians parents (You can share opinions or perspectives of events, but rise above the rest. They have not been named POI’s in the case. Stick to what is known / has been reported.)
-Any other rules as outlined in TOS

Tip: Notice if you are posting about the case or about other Posters. Posting about other Posters is off topic. This can show up in the following ways:
-“I don’t know why others……”
-Party X or Party Y “Sympathizers”
-“Some Posters…”
-“Everybody keeps ……”

In a nutshell, be aware of what the intent is behind your post. Is it to bash fellow posters or is it to discuss the case?

Thank you for your help and support!

Tiff

 

[YaYa_521]

Please continue here.

 

[NCWatcher]

Since I posted minutes before the last thread closed I thought I'd repost here. Hope that's not a problem but I'm curious what others think about the key and gun issues.

Re: the gun

I know this article was discussed at the time. And DM isn't always the best source and much of the info in the article is moot now anyway. But the article does say the Laundries couldn't identify the make and model of the missing gun except that it was a revolver.

Where is Brian Laundrie's gun? | Daily Mail Online

I'm also thinking the condition of the bullet and the gun probably made matching impossible. And maybe given the degree of rust it wasn't possible to for the L's to even recognize the gun? (Or maybe they weren't asked.) I'd have thought there would be a record of the serial number but maybe not. And maybe it was BL's gun not theirs. I'd like to know more too but maybe there's no more to know.

One question-- I don't see that the key to the Mustang was found with BL's body. The car was driven home by the L's so they probably had a second key. But what happened to B's key? I doubt he left it in the unlocked car. Nobody does that these days. And if he locked it in the car that kind of says he knew he'd not need it. Wonder if that's the msg his parents got if that's what they found? Or I guess it could have floated away. Along with his pencil/pen. (But I think I'd have taken several writing tools with me under those circumstances.)
JMO

 

[Nikynoo]

Thanks everyone for your replies to my post on the last thread. The reason I went hmmm, is because of the phrasing. I believe, as some has already posted, that the determination by the coroner is not sitting well with at least one of the L's.

 

[Mike in WNY]

Thanks everyone for your replies to my post on the last thread. The reason I went hmmm, is because of the phrasing. I believe, as some has already posted, that the determination by the coroner is not sitting well with at least one of the L's.

Wasn't the differential in wording - 'suspected' versus "determined' - actually put forth by the plaintiffs? I'm no procedural guru, but would that be likely (ie that the plaintiff's would include "represent" the feelings of the defendant(s)? Maybe. I really do not know.

 

[NCWatcher]

Wasn't the differential in wording - 'suspected' versus "determined' - actually put forth by the plaintiffs? I'm no procedural guru, but would that be likely (ie that the plaintiff's would include "represent" the feelings of the defendant(s)? Maybe. I really do not know.

I could have missed it but I don't see that the plaintiffs' Complaint mentioned Brian's manner of death at all. He is referred to as "deceased" and that's it. The defense's Motion To Dismiss uses the term "suspected suicide" at the end of the first section entitled "Background."

 

[acutename]

The Motion to Dismiss has all the scholarly research absent from the initial complaint, IMO. I do wonder if the Ls and GP were all on the same phone plan and the Ls were paying for it. That would be weird, IMO.

 

[NCWatcher]

The Motion to Dismiss has all the scholarly research absent from the initial complaint, IMO. I do wonder if the Ls and GP were all on the same phone plan and the Ls were paying for it. That would be weird, IMO.

I wondered the same thing. I don't know the particulars because it really hasn't been relevant to me personally but a few years ago it seemed like all the cell phone companies doing business in NC were pushing "family plans" with up to 4 different lines. Seems a bit weird to me for parents to pay for an adult child's phone much less his GF's cell phone but it also seems a bit weird to me adult children up to 26 yo can be on their parents' health insurance! And GP's family leased her the Nissan for the first West Coast trip G&B took. And NS talked about providing money for the second trip too. So maybe the L's paying for cell service isn't that weird. Certainly the Complaint seems presume they'd have access to bills for GP's phone.

 

[Wallendo]

I wouldn't read much into the plaintiffs requests for information. This is basically an all-inclusive request for any information that might be particularly relevant. Based on the large volume of information requested, it is unlikely the plaintiffs lawyer knows all of it to exist - it comes across to me as a lot of "if this exists, send it to us".

It is unlikely the L's will provide any useful information that couldn't be obtained from GP and BL's phone records. They may be hoping the L's slip up and release incriminating evidence, but the L's have been savvy about this so far and I don't see that changing.

I would be extremely surprised if there is any phone or computer evidence of planning a way to get BL out of the country. If there were any such evidence, I doubt LE would have been so incredibly focused on searching the reserve.

 

[NCWatcher]

I wouldn't read much into the plaintiffs requests for information. This is basically an all-inclusive request for any information that might be particularly relevant. Based on the large volume of information requested, it is unlikely the plaintiffs lawyer knows all of it to exist - it comes across to me as a lot of "if this exists, send it to us".

It is unlikely the L's will provide any useful information that couldn't be obtained from GP and BL's phone records. They may be hoping the L's slip up and release incriminating evidence, but the L's have been savvy about this so far and I don't see that changing.

I would be extremely surprised if there is any phone or computer evidence of planning a way to get BL out of the country. If there were any such evidence, I doubt LE would have been so incredibly focused on searching the reserve.

Good pts.

LE definitely seemed focused on the swamp area. And when Appalachian Trail tips came in it sounded like it sometimes took LE days to get back to the person who called. They apparently did break down doors at that one hotel near the AT but otherwise they sure seemed to think BL was in the swamp. Good grief, remember they even plowed down parts of the "protected" nature preserve with bulldozers!! (I thought that was inexcusable myself.) I do wonder if part of LE's certainty some of the time came from mistaking that other guy they found (alive) in the swamp for BL on trail cams. But while that could have increased their certainty, I agree it's unlikely LE had electronic evidence of a planned escape from the US. And if LE didn't find evidence of that at the time, I doubt the P's will find it more than 6 months later with their lawsuit.

The more I think about it, the more I do not understand the P's actions. And I certainly don't understand the reasoning of their legal counsel!

I understand the P's are grieving. But despite establishing the foundation to ensure some good comes from very bad situation, it seems to me the P's are doing what they are doing mostly to torture the L's, an action that IMO is unlikely to assuage their grief (and probably has the opposite effect, frankly.)

While the files are sealed, it's obvious that NS is still involved in taking some sort of action against BL's estate. But there's apparently been no filing of a wrongful death suit. I had thought there likely isn't enough in the estate to make a suit worthwhile-- and obviously there are protected estate expenses-- burial, some legal expenses, executor/administrator fees, court fees, any past income taxes BL owed, and so forth so the $20K estate could be whittled down fast anyway. But the record shows NS has placed a claim. Twice, it appears. What could that be about? The fear that the P's may not have gotten back all G's property that no one even knows exists? I do understand a grieving family would want the deceased's property returned. But I don't know how that issue can ever be decided.

Both P's claimed Gabby sought out "experiences" not tangible property. And the P's have said several times they don't know what GP left behind. While those statements could be misquotes, they likely don't know. There's no evidence the P's have ever been in the L's house where BL and GP lived most recently. (The family attorney said JP had never been there & he lived in Florida, unlike NS.) Besides the P's being allowed to inspect every nook and cranny of the L's house at their leisure, what sort of resolution is possible? I can't imagine the L's would want to keep GP's property. (What could a 22-year old minimum wage worker have owned that a 55-year old and 62-year old would want even under different circumstances?) Regardless, I'm not seeing an "open house, take what you want" ever happening.

The claim certainly can't be for BL's debit card use. Assuming that actually happened (and we have seen zero evidence other than a warrant and that's not evidence itself) I'm pretty sure the bank would have made good on that. So it's the bank that would have a claim, not NS. At least I don't think the bank can scream fraud while not paying back the customer's loss. And if the bank did put the money back in GP's account, NS wouldn't have a claim. So I don't get it.
JMO

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Plaintiff's Filed their response to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[tlcya]

just now reading the response to MD. MOO it is not great at clearing up the very real issues outlined in the MD

I just really do not think they have a case here. But they probably know that. Their daughter is dead. They feel the Laundries are culpable. facts are not feelings and feelings are not facts. But I don't think they really care about winning. IMO It's about punishing the Laundries for their perceived slights and moral failings. So the object isn't a win. Its a you won't forget us or our beautiful daughter because we will spend the rest of our lives making you miserable type thing. again just MOO.

 

[Mike in WNY]

Plaintiff's Filed their response to the Motion to Dismiss.

IMO, weak... and that is being generous.

 

[Gemmie]

Plaintiff's Filed their response to the Motion to Dismiss.

I find it sad. It's filled with emotion and as @Mike in WNY said... weak.

 

[Gemmie]

just now reading the response to MD. MOO it is not great at clearing up the very real issues outlined in the MD

I just really do not think they have a case here. But they probably know that. Their daughter is dead. They feel the Laundries are culpable. facts are not feelings and feelings are not facts. MOO.

Shortened for focus & BBM.

I LOVE this saying!!!! I've seen an awful lot of that everywhere (not just here) and wish more would heed it. It's brilliant and so SO true! LOVE IT!!

 

[Gemmie]

facts are not feelings and feelings are not facts. MOO.

Shortened & BBM.

And speaking of facts... that right there is emotionless and FACTUAL!

 

[Shamrock1]

This is already making the rounds in my area as a shining example of extremely poor motion practice & writing (to be polite). JMO.