Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #67

[sarahboirin]

They saw the van door slightly ajar and then shut, not when they drove by but when they checked out there footage later and enhanced, zoomed in and slowed it down. It’s pretty clear

I thought it was another YouTuber who took their footage and enhanced it and slowed it down?

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

I thought the Bethunes said they wanted to stop and talk to fellow Florida travelers, but didn't because they thought the van looked abandoned...I could be misremembering though. JMO

Edit - I found the article I was thinking of

We came across a white van that had Florida plates,” Jenn Bethune said. “A small white van. We were going to stop and say hi because we’re from Florida too, but the van was completely dark. There was nobody there, so we decided to continue on our way.”

The couple, who are documenting their family’s travels across the country, said the van seemed “abandoned.”

https://nypost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/nypost.com/2021/09/19/gabby-petitos-abandoned-van-spotted-near-grand-teton-on-aug-27/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a6&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw==#amp_tf=From %1$s&aoh=16344149008410&referrer=https://www.google.com&ampshare=https://nypost.com/2021/09/19/gabby-petitos-abandoned-van-spotted-near-grand-teton-on-aug-27/

I thought that was a bizarre comment from them, but maybe it's just me. When I go on vacation, I'm not interested in connecting with others other than my family who I'm with. Why would they think it was abandoned? People park, and then go hiking. A van or car or RV would often be empty (abandoned is a strange term!). People nap! People sleep. People take walks.

 

[10ofRods]

That’s a very interesting theory! I didn’t realize that could happen with anything other than like secondary drowning. Very interesting… hmmmm.

It sounds like you're saying the ME wouldn't have evidence of strangulation - but he did. And it was nearly immediately called a homicide - so it didn't take the forensic processes I'll outline below (not for the squeamish).

Gabby is still dead, still strangled. All that changes is her level of fear and suffering.

The poor elderly man in the case cited above had a very swollen/bruised tongue (would have been quite painful), a sore throat and could not speak properly. Instead, it just makes the whole situation more gruesome and tragic. Gabby would have been unable to speak properly, with a badly swollen tongue, and neither of them thought to seek medical aid? Or she was prevented from seeking aid?

I can't find a single other article and in that one, the forensic evidence includes bleeding of the hard palate as well as other markers. This singular case involved an elderly man who attempted to strangle himself (sounds like his thumbs couldn't be positioned properly and instead put pressure upward). That's why there was bruising of the hard palate, too.

Also, even after 3-4 weeks, some of the decayed blood cells in the throat/thyroid area would be detectable. It would take quite a large number of red blood cells to asphyxiate the person (which is what happened in the article cited above - a few hours after manual strangulation, the bleeding in the palate spread to the epiglottal space near the thyroid - pretty deep, actually, lots of connective tissue that should last 3 weeks, it would be covered in pigment from the red blood cells - but there should be other pathological evidence of such an amount of blood).

 

[jamicat]

Another narrative:

BL and GP arrive at the Spread Creek camp site. She works on her project and he hikes off on his own, taking the debit card with her permission to use if he needed anything, a ride back, food, supplies, etc. Since she is camping near the van, she has everything she needs, supplies, food, her phone, etc.

BL hitchhikes back to GP, getting two rides.

BL finds GP dead and is afraid he'll be charged so he takes the van and goes home to get help from a lawyer.

Does it really matter what the people thought of him when they gave him rides? They can say, "he didn't smell as if he'd been hiking for two days," but how else did he get up to Colter Bay? Probably hiked. So, maybe he's not a smelly guy, or he cleaned up.

Oh, he only had a tarp in a backpack. Weird, but people can be weird. They guy hikes around barefoot apparently. I think that's weird too. So what?

Yes, he used the bank card. Probably for food and gas to get home.

Yes, it wasn't his account. Lots of people in relationships let their SO use their debit card. It sounds as if they were sharing the one bank account. People can do that. My understanding is that it's not a crime to use someone's bank card unless they report it as fraud. If he says knew she was dead, but he didn't do it, and he drove home using the "shared" bank account, he may still be convicted of wrongly using it, but using the bank card doesn't prove that he killed her.

I hope they have some rock solid evidence, but the remains were out there for 3-4 weeks, and that, I believe, is an estimate. The defense may be able to argue that she could have been out there for 4-5 weeks and BL was home by then.

The defense may want to do another autopsy but they are unable to because the remains were cremated.

I'm sure there are lots of ways to pick apart a circumstantial case.

It all comes down to the jury, judge’s instructions and the attorneys. If the jury feels there is reasonable doubt, that BL could have gone in a walk about. Maybe after a fight that got too heated —those Moab tapes can be used to his advantage, that Gabby gets physical, that she scratched. He has that One witness who states she picked him up. Maybe 2. He comes back and no Gabby finds her body later and panics, sure he will be blamed. Maybe other campers heard them fight. Maybe, maybe, but all possible, all reasonable. It’s not a Big Foot theory.
If it’s reasonable , and judge impresses upon jury that they must keep in mind, I can see without some piece of more solid evidence, that he gets off
I believe that the simplest and most likely thing that happened was that he killed her and took off in a panic home. How reasonable is it that a killer happened upon her alone and killed her? It will depend upon the jury to assess that

 

[cady]

This is what I've been wondering all day. We have a supposed Jenny Lake sighting on the 25th, but I don't know where they spent that night. Then we have the supposed sighting in SC on the 26th. Were they camped there that whole time?

Last time mom saw her face (I think) Gabby told her they were in Grand Teton, but I don't think she said where in GT (and I have seen different dates for when mom saw/chatted/ with her.) I have heard 24th and 25th????? jmo

 

[jamicat]

Another narrative:

BL and GP arrive at the Spread Creek camp site. She works on her project and he hikes off on his own, taking the debit card with her permission to use if he needed anything, a ride back, food, supplies, etc. Since she is camping near the van, she has everything she needs, supplies, food, her phone, etc.

BL hitchhikes back to GP, getting two rides.

BL finds GP dead and is afraid he'll be charged so he takes the van and goes home to get help from a lawyer.

Does it really matter what the people thought of him when they gave him rides? They can say, "he didn't smell as if he'd been hiking for two days," but how else did he get up to Colter Bay? Probably hiked. So, maybe he's not a smelly guy, or he cleaned up.

Oh, he only had a tarp in a backpack. Weird, but people can be weird. They guy hikes around barefoot apparently. I think that's weird too. So what?

Yes, he used the bank card. Probably for food and gas to get home.

Yes, it wasn't his account. Lots of people in relationships let their SO use their debit card. It sounds as if they were sharing the one bank account. People can do that. My understanding is that it's not a crime to use someone's bank card unless they report it as fraud. If he says knew she was dead, but he didn't do it, and he drove home using the "shared" bank account, he may still be convicted of wrongly using it, but using the bank card doesn't prove that he killed her.

I hope they have some rock solid evidence, but the remains were out there for 3-4 weeks, and that, I believe, is an estimate. The defense may be able to argue that she could have been out there for 4-5 weeks and BL was home by then.

The defense may want to do another autopsy but they are unable to because the remains were cremated.

I'm sure there are lots of ways to pick apart a circumstantial case.

It all comes down to the jury, judge’s instructions and the attorneys. If the jury feels there is reasonable doubt, that BL could have gone in a walk about. Maybe after a fight that got too heated —those Moab tapes can be used to his advantage, that Gabby gets physical, that she scratched. He has that One witness who states she picked him up. Maybe 2. He comes back and no Gabby finds her body later and panics, sure he will be blamed. Maybe other campers heard them fight. Maybe, maybe, but all possible, all reasonable. It’s not a Big Foot theory.
If it’s reasonable , and judge impresses upon jury that they must keep in mind, I can see without some piece of more solid evidence, that he gets off
I believe that the simplest and most likely thing that happened was that he killed her and took off in a panic home. How reasonable is it that a killer happened upon her alone and killed her? It will depend upon the jury to assess that

 

[ringbearer]

I thought that was a bizarre comment from them, but maybe it's just me. When I go on vacation, I'm not interested in connecting with others other than my family who I'm with. Why would they think it was abandoned? People park, and then go hiking. A van or car or RV would often be empty (abandoned is a strange term!). People nap! People sleep. People take walks.

I think those type of travelers have different habits than a "vacationer." It's more like a lifestyle. Not only that, but people are sooo different in that regard. I'm like you, but I always marvel at the number of tourists who make fast friends with other hotel guests and the like in just a few short days. jmo

 

[WizardQuest]

well I’m in good company then cause I’ve not found where Gabby slept that night. I know she had the van but where did she park the van? Part of me thinks she might have went back to the hotel to talk to him during the night. When and how did they meet back up the next day?

good questions!

Something tells me he didn't stay in the room all night. If I had to guess, he checked out the digs, and took off somewhere. If nothing else, to eat dinner. The questions I have there is: did he have the cash to do so without meeting up with her again? where did he eat?

 

[NCWatcher]

Yes, and now we know that she had at least $1,000 in her account because BL stole that amount after GP's death.

Maybe. But we don't be really know that. It's possible one of GP's parents put money in after Aug 12. I know we've gone around and around about whether GP shared her accts with a parent. I don't think so but am not trying to start a debate on that. (Think if she did, the parents would have looked for card activity vs simply make phone calls when they couldn't reach GP)

But they could easily add money to the acct. Her mother said they paid for things along the way on the trip.

JMO

Mother of missing Gabby Petito says boyfriend IGNORED her texts

 

[tiara1972]

I must've missed something. Why would we think they were walking? Is that because the van may have been in the same location at Spread Creek both before and after? Perhaps there was some confusion about when the van was there. (I guess they could've hitched to Jackson & MP, but why hitch if you have a van??)

Or maybe they parked the van there, then drove to MP, and drove back. I remember that by the time the Bethunes were there, the campground was full. But if they indeed were there both before and after the MP trip, BL & GP may have been able to get the same spot twice precisely because it wasn't an official spot.

Without reopening that whole discussion, maybe they did put up the tent across the creek. (I realize that GP's stepfather did not say the tent was there, just that there was a good place for one). If the tent was up before the trip to MP, though, they might not have been 100% sure they'd get the same spot when they got back. And we don't know if they slept in the tent or the van during the days at Spread Creek.

Relevant questions -- I hope LE has the answers, even if we don't:

• Is it certain the van was parked in the same spot before and after the MP trip?
• If so, did it look like the van had gone anywhere and returned? Were there multiple tire tracks in and out, beyond what would be needed for parking? Was the van in the exact same orientation?
• Was there evidence that they did have the tent up across the creek? Would the tent have been visible from other campsites?

JMO

All GREAT questions! Not sure about the walking part...I think earlier in this thread someone mentioned that they were on foot. I hadn't heard that before, so I became a bit double baffled. Lol. MOO.

 

[moribund]

Another narrative:

BL and GP arrive at the Spread Creek camp site. She works on her project and he hikes off on his own, taking the debit card with her permission to use if he needed anything, a ride back, food, supplies, etc. Since she is camping near the van, she has everything she needs, supplies, food, her phone, etc.

BL hitchhikes back to GP, getting two rides.

BL finds GP dead and is afraid he'll be charged so he takes the van and goes home to get help from a lawyer.

Does it really matter what the people thought of him when they gave him rides? They can say, "he didn't smell as if he'd been hiking for two days," but how else did he get up to Colter Bay? Probably hiked. So, maybe he's not a smelly guy, or he cleaned up.

Oh, he only had a tarp in a backpack. Weird, but people can be weird. They guy hikes around barefoot apparently. I think that's weird too. So what?

Yes, he used the bank card. Probably for food and gas to get home.

Yes, it wasn't his account. Lots of people in relationships let their SO use their debit card. It sounds as if they were sharing the one bank account. People can do that. My understanding is that it's not a crime to use someone's bank card unless they report it as fraud. If he says knew she was dead, but he didn't kill her, and he drove home using the "shared" bank account, he may still be convicted of wrongly using it, but using the bank card doesn't prove that he killed her.

I hope they have some rock solid evidence, but the remains were out there for 3-4 weeks, and that, I believe, is an estimate. The defense may be able to argue that she could have been out there for 4-5 weeks and BL was home by then.

The defense may want to do another autopsy but they are unable to because the remains were cremated.

I'm sure there are lots of ways to pick apart a circumstantial case.

in your hypothetical scenario, he still chooses not to report the found body, or missing girlfriend, and proceeds to drive halfway across the country for multiple days without her, in her van, to his parents house where he plays like nothing is wrong and makes smores

 

[JerseyWasHome2]

I think those type of travelers have different habits than a "vacationer." It's more like a lifestyle. Not only that, but people are sooo different in that regard. I'm like you, but I always marvel at the number of tourists who make fast friends with other hotel guests and the like in just a few short days. jmo

I think you're right. They are more social. Like some folks who like to stay in bed and breakfasts, for that reason. Still bizarre she thought the van was abandoned. Did she expect to see them both sitting in the cab, waving? LOL!

 

[MyBelle]

He doesn't have to get on the stand or say a word for the defense to convince a jury that there is reasonable doubt [ETA: that BL killed GP.] Maybe he will be convicted on the bank fraud charge, but if he "didn't know she was deceased, and had permission to use the card/funds" maybe that will result in a low sentence or no time. ]

There are plenty of cases where the defendant didn't take the stand and were found not guilty.

Two very famous examples:

• California v. OJS
• Florida v. CMA

OJ took the stand in the wrongful death civil trial and the jury had no problem finding him guilty.

In this case, being a fugitive from justice will be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt and the jury will have no doubt of guilt. jmo

 

[CarolynAB2]

I don't know the FL case, but the OJ case did in fact turn around a single action by. the defendant (the glove). In this case, I think that the defense will definitely have to construct a narrative based on BL doing something different than what he is absolutely known to have done. They can throw spaghetti on the wall, but it won't stick. IMO. Also, the choice of court venue and jury selection helped - Los Angeles is a very populated place, with a lot of diversity in attitudes, so the police malfeasance defense struck a huge chord with many jurors.

I do not think that's going to happen in Wyoming.

Whereas, if BL has anything he can say that will substantiate any form of alibi, he is going to need to do that. Sure, putting the people who picked him up on the stand can be done - but I do believe all three of them will say they didn't believe him at the time, he was acting strangely and impulsively, etc.

I am aware that juries sometimes find reasonable doubt without the defendant being on the stand - but it's rare. We don't even know where this is going to be tried (my understanding right now is that it is likely to be in a state court in Wyoming, in any case with a Wyoming jury). He's going to need a lot to get to reasonable doubt, IMO. An awful lot. What we already know and what can clearly be shown will need a great deal to give even one juror "reasonable doubt."

Of course, I believe that there's more camera footage available. BL leaves the campsite (they arrive on August 27) and walks for two days, during which he goes to the ATM, perhaps maxxing out the cash limit on two days. Wow. That looks really bad for him. And he's charged with a crime for doing it. Then he goes back to the campsite and takes off (with the autopsy indicating it's very possible she was killed before that), doesn't seem to look for her, doesn't raise an alarm about her being missing, takes all her stuff...runs away and becomes a fugitive.

I wouldn't be surprised if phone records show the two phones together - for a while, including when the supposed texts from Gabby to Mom occur past the 27th. He may even have called his parents a few times. While they may not be called to the stand in Florida, this trial won't happen in Florida. If Mom and Dad both take the 5th, I think that's the final nail in the coffin for most reasonable jurors.

I believe the circumstantial evidence and the forensic evidence from Gabby's body will be plenty strong enough - along with the evidence of mens rea.

Mom and Dad not saying anything seems wrong to the average person, but it can be explained that BL told them he needed to talk to a lawyer, the parents connected him with SB who advised both BL and his parents to say nothing to anyone, and that's what they did: followed the advice of their attorney. This doesn't have to make BL or the parents look guilty of anything, nor should it to a jury. To everyone on this forum, sure. We can have all the opinions and gut feelings in the world.

The cell phone data will be interesting. It could trip BL up in a statement he made, but - - he never made a statement which leaves a lot of wiggle room to explain whatever turns up as far as location data of where the phones were when.

 

[Balthazar]

BL was reported to have a hiking pack with waist strap when he left for his 'meditation walk' in the Reserve. Who leaves any form of tracing, a phone and wallet, and takes a full hiking pack on a walk? And if he is dead in the reserve, it's getting harder to imagine that, between the live scent and cadaver dogs in and out and the hiking pack that would be covered with his scent that would remain.

This is something that has been troubling me. Apparently, the Laundries told LE that Brian was wearing a hiking pack with a waist strap, but there was no description of his clothing. Further, there seemed to be confusion about where the Laundries found his car (at best.) Or the Laundries simply lied about where they found the car which turns out to have been 16 miles from their house rather than 5 miles away. This, of course, leads to further questions of how did they think BL would get home without the car?

Presumably, if the Laundries saw BL on his way out of the house to go hiking, he would not have the hiking pack on - it would be in his hand being carried by the straps or a handle because he was going to go drive the Mustang to the Reserve. No one drives a car to go hiking wearing a hiking pack! How could you fit in the front seat, for one thing?

So...it would seem to me that Brian's attire would have been far more noticeable than the pack he was carrying in his hand. Yes, they would have seen the pack, but what about the clothes? But there was no description of his clothes.

And the Laundries apparently told LE to search an area of the reserve far away from where the Laundries found the car until 3 city mower men stepped forward in the press and said where they saw the Mustang parked. Then we have a new date that BL left for his hike as well.

 

[Angels Advocate]

Gabby Petito's parents are seen collecting her remains in Wyoming three weeks after body was found | Daily Mail Online

 

[MyBelle]

It all comes down to the jury, judge’s instructions and the attorneys. If the jury feels there is reasonable doubt, that BL could have gone in a walk about. Maybe after a fight that got too heated —those Moab tapes can be used to his advantage, that Gabby gets physical, that she scratched. He has that One witness who states she picked him up. Maybe 2. He comes back and no Gabby finds her body later and panics, sure he will be blamed. Maybe other campers heard them fight. Maybe, maybe, but all possible, all reasonable. It’s not a Big Foot theory.
If it’s reasonable , and judge impresses upon jury that they must keep in mind, I can see without some piece of more solid evidence, that he gets off
I believe that the simplest and most likely thing that happened was that he killed her and took off in a panic home. How reasonable is it that a killer happened upon her alone and killed her? It will depend upon the jury to assess that

I can't think of a faster way to alienate a jury than to build a defense blaming the victim. jmo

 

[Angels Advocate]

IMO, as someone with a doctorate in biological anthropology and 30 years of forensic work, it does not happen without leaving forensic evidence. In fact, the argument can be made merely with deduction.

If someone strangles me and I die a few hours later...how would any medical examiner or pathologist know I had been strangled? A bruise mark doesn't prove strangulation. Why couldn't my cause of death be, say, a stroke from anxiety?

Nope. There's forensic evidence of strangulation in any such case. And, I'm guessing, all of them involve people in comas (again, even with access to nearly all major medical journals, I can't find a single published case - so I need a link).

People in a coma do not take their boots off or text anyone. And it makes BL look even more guilty, since why would a loving fiancé, who did nothing more than sort of strangle her, but she was pretty fine afterwards, decide to bolt and steal her money?

Because he knew he had strangled her.

Just did my third and final literature search on this topic - no published academic articles, so the ball is in someone else's court. The one article quoted plainly states the forensic evidence (to the hard palate in that one case) which would still be visible on autopsy.

So Gabby still dies of strangulation. Nothing changes. I can't find a single other article and in that one, the forensic evidence includes bleeding of the hard palate.

Always love to see your analysis.

 

[CarolynAB2]

OJ took the stand in the wrongful death civil trial and the jury had no problem finding him guilty.

In this case, being a fugitive from justice will be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt and the jury will have no doubt of guilt. jmo

Civil cases have different standards from criminal trials and result in damages not convictions.

A jury may find BL guilty in a criminal trial, but then again, they may not. The standard of proof in criminal trials is much higher and the jury must be sure of the person's guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt."

 

[bluwaters]

Coyotes got ahold of my brother. They even chewed his shoes off.

That is terrible.
I am so sorry.