Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #16

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you zoom in on the bottom/ front circle it clearly looks like a flip flop. (I’m not speculating on the back item as I can’t tell.)
Consider that there is common perception error when the mind processes info. There is a unique bias that fills in missing content.

In this case, why not consider the light brown pig sniffing the left circle, or the shrunken head to the right of the right circle.

Shadows are interesting but not reliable enough to conclude .

take a look at the image shapes I referenced and try to convince otherwise.
 
Juries can make reasonable inferences based on the evidence. They can decide whether any testifying witnesses are credible and decide whether their actions and testimony support each other. I’m sure there will by physical evidence, but cases have been made on circumstantial evidence, just watch the Innocent Files on Netflix, even though the jury got it wrong in that instance. It may be an uphill battle, but not impossible.
 
If you zoom in on the bottom/ front circle it clearly looks like a flip flop. (I’m not speculating on the back item as I can’t tell.)
Consider that there is common perception error when the mind processes info. There is a unique bias that fills in missing content.

In this case, why not consider the light brown pig sniffing the left circle, or the shrunken head to the right of the right circle.

Shadows are interesting but not reliable enough to conclude .

take a look at the image shapes I referenced and try to convince otherwise.
 
teven Bertolino, the Laundrie family attorney told ABC News on Sunday that the family picked up the car, Brian Laundrie was using, on Thursday morning from the reserve after going out on Wednesday to look for their son.

Laundrie left the family home on Tuesday morning with a backpack. Bertolino said that the family went out to the reserve on Wednesday to look for him and spotted a note from the North Port Police Department on the car saying it needed to be removed.

The family left the car overnight "so he could drive back," the attorney said. When Laundrie didn't come home Thursday morning, the family went back to retrieve the car.

The family then called police on Friday to file a missing person report
--------------------------------------------------------------

SPECULATION.....What if instead of the above it said:

Steven Bertolino, the Laundrie family attorney told ABC News on Sunday that the family picked up the car, Brian Laundrie was using, on Wednesday morning from the reserve after going out on Tuesday to look for their son.

Laundrie left the family home on Tuesday morning with a backpack. Bertolino said that the family went out to the reserve on Tuesday to look for him and spotted a note from the North Port Police Department on the car saying it needed to be removed.

The family left the car overnight "so he could drive back," the attorney said. When Laundrie didn't come home Wednesday morning, the family went back to retrieve the car.

The family then called police on Friday to file a missing person report

Can we entertain, especially in light of the video evidence that is easily verified by reporters outside, that an error in the days of the week was made? And not some conspiracy?

You could, but if there was ever a time for an attorney to be precise and not get his days mixed up, it would certainly be now. Surely he's not that inept.
 
Yeah, I have been thinking along those lines. Their story is strange right from the beginning... did these parents not get virtually slapped over the head with a giant red flag when their son "went for a hike" in the midst of these circumstances? I mean "strange" isn't even the word for that part alone. His fiancée was missing, he's most likely the last person to see her, he's refusing to cooperate, but hey... it's a nice day for a hike? Nice try.

Why did they take four days to report him missing? Just my opinion... but I'd say it's likely that they needed four days to stash him away in a secure location, whether that's across state lines, international borders, or in a complicit extended family member's basement (for example). Just anywhere he either won't be found or can't be arrested. The missing persons report then conveniently directs LE to the most vast and time consuming area available. And the reason BL's sister genuinely knows nothing about it, is that she's too above-board and in possession of a moral compass, to ever go along with such a plan. So no one breathed a word to her.

This makes a lot of sense.
 
IMO, you would be enabling your child to behave that way again. I would have no compassion for anyone who allowed another family to suffer because a mother wanted to hide what her child had done. Tough love is a thing.
Enabling is different from sticking by them. Your child can be accused of murder and you can still be there and get them a lawyer and follow the lawyer’s advice, it doesn’t mean you’re enabling them.

It’s easy to make it so black and white in this particular situation but none of us know what Brian told his parents.
 
Enabling is different from sticking by them. Your child can be accused of murder and you can still be there and get them a lawyer and follow the lawyer’s advice, it doesn’t mean you’re enabling them.

It’s easy to make it so black and white in this particular situation but none of us know what Brian told his parents.

We don't know what he told his parents, true. But, how likely is it that they'd believe him blindly despite all the evidence to the contrary? At that point, they became complicit.
 
At this point in time, without a cause or method of death determined, can you think of any crime BL could be charged with if he just walked in the police with his attorney and asked to talk, but gave no information "on the advice of his attorney"? Is there anything that would stick and have a high enough bail that he wouldn't walk out on bail, without having to hide?

Grand theft auto?

Obstruction of justice?

Concealed weapon?

Anything?
 
Unsolicited opinion from a long time poster who has a very short temper:

If you see a post that you really, really disagree with - that gets you actually mad - DON'T respond to it. Think about YOUR position and make a new post that outlines your own thoughts. Don't tag your nemesis, just make a new post. This avoids an argument, bickering, or making your post personal and also gives you the chance to put forth your own theories and views.

I try do this as much as I can. I get baited or fail more than I'd like but most of the time I just try to ignore or not participate in responding directly to someone I really disagree with. Use that ignore list to make your time here more fun.

If you are a very temperate and calm person you probably don't need this advice. But if you are a little fiery this can help. I end up deleting more than I post some days!
Ahh yes! As someone who is likely a Kindred spirit, I would support this advice. Unfortunately, the "Do as I say & not as I Do" rule likely applies here when I post this advice. Thank you for the reminder. ...and due to that reminder, I think I'll probably call it a night. (Well, soon anyway but maybe not just *right now*.) :)
 
I was watching live KSLTV on Facebook live and saw footage of them setting up the popup canopy. At one point I saw what looked very clearly was a shallow grave or earth-covered form of a person. I don't have the exactly point in the video where that was clear to me, but I had the video in full screen on my laptop and it was something that seemed obvious to me. When I play it back from this link I can't find that spot in the video but around the 33:00 mark it looks like that point where I saw that, but now it looks less clear to me. Maybe the angle of the video was different.

The pop-up canopy wasn't erected directly over the body though and I have no idea if it were moved over the remains later, which seemed to be off camera (in the direction the group of people would later walk I assume). During the section of video where they set that up, they had been walking all over the ground it ended up covering.

Others have stated that early footage showed the remains and clothing could be seen but that it was quickly edited out.
 
Yes, sort of. He could have gone there in the car, hidden just out of sight while waiting for someone to pick him up. That would create scent trails from car to hiding location and then to ride who picks him up, if this were the scenario. I do think he could have been there, but I am not convinced he entered the reserve. But then again, they have had a SAR team searching so perhaps they found a strong scent trail once inside the reserve and haven't reported it, IDK. MOO, JMO, based on my experience with K-9 SAR.
I have the same question someone posted earlier, but never saw an answer to.

Could his "scent" have been planted? TIA
 
Enabling is different from sticking by them. Your child can be accused of murder and you can still be there and get them a lawyer and follow the lawyer’s advice, it doesn’t mean you’re enabling them.

It’s easy to make it so black and white in this particular situation but none of us know what Brian told his parents.
I agree with you. I just can't get past the fact that Gabby's mom sent a text to his parents and said she was worried about the kids, because she hadn't heard from them. Absolutely no response from his parents. And they knew she didn't come back with him.
 
I was watching live KSLTV on Facebook live and saw footage of them setting up the popup canopy. At one point I saw what looked very clearly was a shallow grave or earth-covered form of a person. I don't have the exactly point in the video where that was clear to me, but I had the video in full screen on my laptop and it was something that seemed obvious to me. When I play it back from this link I can't find that spot in the video but around the 33:00 mark it looks like that point where I saw that, but now it looks less clear to me. Maybe the angle of the video was different.

Log In or Sign Up to View

Watched the same footage several times at the time period as you describe (LE tent was being put up). I have not been able to come to the same conclusion however.

It appears as an LE jacket over the upper portion, underneath a small tree. I was not able to identify any evidence of disturbed ground directly at the site or in the immediate vicinity from that footage.

Time will tell, but I hesitate to make that assumption at this point as it directly impacts the possible scenarios of what has happened.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
217
Guests online
617
Total visitors
834

Forum statistics

Threads
607,961
Messages
18,232,059
Members
234,255
Latest member
Zxywvut
Back
Top