Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #80

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZoriahNZ said:
<modsnip> we know that a partial skull was recovered. Presumably some teeth were intact in the skull fragment. Dental X-Rays record the position and shape of the teeth in relation to each other. The structure of the bones around the teeth. Even the roots are distinctive. And of course, any fillings or other work done.

It is unlikely a positive odontological ID would be done with just random scattered teeth.

They can, however, extract DNA from teeth and teeth fragments. So, as was posted upthread, this is a secondary way that an ID can also be confirmed. Since we know that the latter hasn't been done yet, we can assume (occam's razor) that the former technique was used instead.

Since it's possible no bone marrow was recoverable, it might be difficult to get a DNA match via the skull itself.

The FBI has confirmed Brian as deceased through his remains. They are confident enough to issue a statement to that effect. That should be the end of it. JMO, but I think that continuing speculation of a criminal conspiracy with the parents planting corpses or corpse body parts to fool LE and 'pretend' BL is deceased does this case a massive disservice. MOO
Click to expand...
BBM
Thank you.
I just saw this and questioned what you have articulated much better than I!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kristin Esq. said:
In his interview on Banfield Tonight, SB said that he had individual conversations with ChL, BL, and RL. Then he had conversations with ChL and RL, and then all three together. Whatever he said to all three is not privileged. The convo with all three could have been "do not talk to anyone" but we don't know that. Banfield's guest (and excuse me for not remembering his name) explained that laying a spousal privilege on top of the A/C privilege is not settled law. He also explained that when representing multiple people whose interests are not aligned, that makes it even riskier.

If SB had individual conversations and did not repeat anything when all three met with him, then yes, of course those conversations are still privileged.

This is the reasons that most criminal defense attorneys will not represent more than one person.
Click to expand...

BBM
For reference:
Banfield’s 1-on-1 interview with Laundrie family attorney | NewsNation Now

I specifically remember, because I wrote it down, when SB said he had conversations on Sept 12th & 13th with:
1) BL
2) CL
3) CL & RL
4) BL, CL, RL

I specifically remember he omitted Roberta when 1st listing his individual private conversations.

Here's that (SB's) part transcribed (Beginning Approx. 7:20 into the interview):

"I had private conversations with Brian"
"I had private conversations with Chris"
"I had private conversations with Chris and Roberta separately"
"There were a couple conversations where all three members of the family in that household were together, yes."

I think the word separately is what's throwing us off.

Imo
Why list Chris twice when he could have just continued with
"I had private conversations with Roberta"

Imo, it wasn't by oversight that he omitted Roberta when 1st listing his individual conversations.


THAT was a red flag to me & immediately caused me to wonder where exactly does Roberta fall in the dynamics of this Family/Friend/Attorney relationship.
 
Kristin Esq. said:
Mahsa just said it would all be privileged. I guess it's a difference of opinion to play out in court if need be!
Click to expand...
I don't particularly agree with Mahsa, MOO. But, we know anything is possible if you can put together an articulate and seemingly intelligent argument grounded in some basis of fact. Even black letter law is not so "black letter" or "text book" against a good brief and oral argument. MOO IMO
 
cottonweaver said:
On WFLANow tonight Mahsa S said that Scott Morgan had said a mandible was found. ( She had interviewed Scott Morgan just recently)
Click to expand...

Interesting Joseph Scott Morgan is very respected in his field of death investigation. Tricia interviewed him recently too. A mandible makes sense in terms of the released statements from the FBI.
 
mitzy said:
Quite a statement that one.

As for grieving in peace… nothing peaceful about grieving your murdered daughter, knowing that the family she spent months of her life with isn’t saying anything, the man that was supposed to protect her is missing, their lawyer is throwing insults around and everyone is just making random assumptions about Gabby (her being pregnant being one of them). That’s a lot to take in on top of accepting the fact that she is gone.

—-

Also want to say that I don’t necessarily agree with the protestors but at the same time I can understand them. What I don’t understand is people thinking everyone will just stop talking about all of this or stop trying to get answers just because Brian was found.
Click to expand...
Bolded by me. I just wanted to mention that the Coroner confirmed Gabby was not pregnant.

Quick Transcript @ approximately 12:13:
Q: Was Gabby Petito pregnant?
A: She was not pregnant.

 
ZoriahNZ said:
<modsnip> we know that a partial skull was recovered. Presumably some teeth were intact in the skull fragment. Dental X-Rays record the position and shape of the teeth in relation to each other. The structure of the bones around the teeth. Even the roots are distinctive. And of course, any fillings or other work done.

It is unlikely a positive odontological ID would be done with just random scattered teeth.

They can, however, extract DNA from teeth and teeth fragments. So, as was posted upthread, this is a secondary way that an ID can also be confirmed. Since we know that the latter hasn't been done yet, we can assume (occam's razor) that the former technique was used instead.

Since it's possible no bone marrow was recoverable, it might be difficult to get a DNA match via the skull itself.

The FBI has confirmed Brian as deceased through his remains. They are confident enough to issue a statement to that effect. That should be the end of it. JMO, but I think that continuing speculation of a criminal conspiracy with the parents planting corpses or corpse body parts to fool LE and 'pretend' BL is deceased does this case a massive disservice. MOO
Click to expand...

Yes, logic would dictate, but this case has had so many mistakes and missteps, I for one have lost confidence in the NPPD.
I would hope the FBI wouldn't declare someone deceased by finding only one tooth fragment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
x_files said:
Yes, logic would dictate, but this case has had so many mistakes and missteps, I for one have lost confidence in the NPPD.
I would hope the FBI wouldn't declare someone deceased by finding only one tooth fragment.
Click to expand...
LOL
 
x_files said:
Yes, logic would dictate, but this case has had so many mistakes and missteps, I for one have lost confidence in the NPPD.
I would hope the FBI wouldn't declare someone deceased by finding only one tooth fragment.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would consider that irresponsible and hope they wouldn't do that either. Until they release more details about what was tested, I remain sceptical. IMO.
 
ctmom said:
BBM
For reference:
Banfield’s 1-on-1 interview with Laundrie family attorney | NewsNation Now

I specifically remember, because I wrote it down, when SB said he had conversations on Sept 12th & 13th with:
1) BL
2) CL
3) CL & RL
4) BL, CL, RL

I specifically remember he omitted Roberta when 1st listing his individual private conversations.

Here's that (SB's) part transcribed (Beginning Approx. 7:20 into the interview):

"I had private conversations with Brian"
"I had private conversations with Chris"
"I had private conversations with Chris and Roberta separately"
"There were a couple conversations where all three members of the family in that household were together, yes."

I think the word separately is what's throwing us off.

Imo
Why list Chris twice when he could have just continued with
"I had private conversations with Roberta"

Imo, it wasn't by oversight that he omitted Roberta when 1st listing his individual conversations.


THAT was a red flag to me & immediately caused me to wonder where exactly does Roberta fall in the dynamics of this Family/Friend/Attorney relationship.
Click to expand...

Yes this is very confusing. However I think the key word was the 'unresolved case-law' which to me means its probably very expensive and outside of the current scope to really pursue those grounds. I would think the same rights given between spouses would apply. As for extending to BL depends.....did he live with them? Did they insure him still? comes down to dependent or not.
 
cottonweaver said:
Also I thought it was interesting that Mahsa commented * that she feels that most other LE forces would have followed the Mustang ( Bearing in mind that Banfield, yesterday was getting energised by the same point, as she felt that the excuses as to why they were not physically following him were baloney)

* c 25mins into the show here
Click to expand...
bbm
Sheriff Judd Grady of Polk County said a month ago that BL would have been detained as soon as the missing person report was filed on Gabby.
He is quite a character.
Sheriff Grady Judd on Brian Laundrie: ‘We would have never let him out of our custody’ | WFLA
 
cady said:
I don't think we saw it leave. It left on Monday morning and how early in the morning we don't know. I think the first time we ever saw it was on Wednesday, after it had been retrieved. We didn't see it come back, either. But the surveillance camera captured it both leaving and returning. I think?? jmo (you may bethinking about the truck that keyedin was checking out.) ??
Click to expand...
This is what I am trying to remember. I thought members here using other information with the video evidence determined it was gone not at 6 am, but rather at 6 pm. Something to do with the rain? I wasn't a part of that analysis so I am unsure what you all determined. JMO IMO
 
Jurisprudence said:
Yeah, including representing Brian when Brian was an infant, lol. And, then getting caught by Marni Hughes and having to admit that he actually did not know Brian, but rather only knew of him as the child of a client. MOO. He has not been careful, IMO. These inconsistencies may come back to bite him. MOO
Click to expand...

Yes! He hasn't learned to shut his mouth!
 
bluwaters said:
bbm
Sheriff Judd Grady of Polk County said a month ago that BL would have been detained as soon as the missing person report was filed on Gabby.
He is quite a character.
Sheriff Grady Judd on Brian Laundrie: ‘We would have never let him out of our custody’ | WFLA
Click to expand...

also what p... me off on this bluwater is , if on that redacted Gabby misper report ( whose redactions Justin WFLA & JB have both been highlighting this last couple of days) there's also commentary showing nppd had been completely aware of the van belonging to Gabby as well as the MOAB stop details.

(I appreciate that BL may well have paid towards that van's purchase but nonetheless GP's name was on the registration - or whatever u call it in USA - and this aspect was missed at the MOAB stop & maybe missed here too. It could've been grounds for surveillance or arrest? I might be totally off base on this report but it just feels there's an element of sexism re her property)

Justin WFLA estimated that misper wouldn't be un-redacted for another 12 months
 
Last edited:
ExpectingUnicorns said:
This is what I don't understand. If LE couldn't ask (require the Laundries to answer) these questions while Brian was alive ~ then under what authority or circumstances could they require them to answer now that he's deceased? :confused:
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of BL being alive or deceased. It's a matter of whether conversations were privileged or not. <modsnip - opinion as fact, no links>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ctmom said:
BBM
For reference:
Banfield’s 1-on-1 interview with Laundrie family attorney | NewsNation Now

I specifically remember, because I wrote it down, when SB said he had conversations on Sept 12th & 13th with:
1) BL
2) CL
3) CL & RL
4) BL, CL, RL

I specifically remember he omitted Roberta when 1st listing his individual private conversations.

Here's that (SB's) part transcribed (Beginning Approx. 7:20 into the interview):

"I had private conversations with Brian"
"I had private conversations with Chris"
"I had private conversations with Chris and Roberta separately"
"There were a couple conversations where all three members of the family in that household were together, yes."

I think the word separately is what's throwing us off.

Imo
Why list Chris twice when he could have just continued with
"I had private conversations with Roberta"

Imo, it wasn't by oversight that he omitted Roberta when 1st listing his individual conversations.


THAT was a red flag to me & immediately caused me to wonder where exactly does Roberta fall in the dynamics of this Family/Friend/Attorney relationship.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 
Jurisprudence said:
I don't particularly agree with Mahsa, MOO. But, we know anything is possible if you can put together an articulate and seemingly intelligent argument grounded in some basis of fact. Even black letter law is not so "black letter" or "text book" against a good brief and oral argument. MOO IMO
Click to expand...

Very true, and I don't agree with Mahsa either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 2,951 (members: 200, guests: 2,751)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
2,751
Total visitors
2,951
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,835
Messages
18,164,182
Members
231,872
Latest member
Noseynellie1234
Back
Top