Chicago54
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2017
- Messages
- 685
- Reaction score
- 7,129
“Supposition”. Theorem. Moo
Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #82
- Thread starter PommyMommy
- Start date
- Status
Soo an uncertain belief… Again I get it everyone wants answers or closures.
BBM. You're right, that's exactly what happened.
"Gabby Petito’s father was involved in a "public service" incident report at her fiancé Brian Laundrie’s home on Sept. 10, nine days after he returned to Florida without her from a cross-country road trip and a day before she was reported missing by her mother, according to heavily redacted police reports."
"Petito did not go to the home physically, North Port police said separately, but expressed concern about his daughter's whereabouts."
source: Missing Gabby Petito's dad linked to Laundrie home incident report evening before daughter reported missing
jjonez
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2021
- Messages
- 15,203
- Reaction score
- 10,157
What is your conclusion?
My conclusion? LOL JMO which I have said several times is that the simplest answer is usually correct, but not always. He killed her, in a bad relationship, and then he killed himself. Parents were oblivious. The blame game does not always work. People want answers and that may be not the case here.
Do we know that LE called the L's on the phone? I don't think I've ever seen that stated. I thought LE went to the house and knocked on the L's door. And by the time LE was involved, then it would seem GP's family was no longer calling because they must have called LE instead.
We don't know what BL told the L's. We don't know what the L's view was of the drama-filled relationship. They could have been relieved to hear about a "break-up," for example. We don't know that the calls went through. For example, Cassie has said publicly she checked her phone log & her text messages and she was not contacted on the day GP's family publicly said they tried to contact her. Does that mean GP's family lied? No, there are other explanations. JP could have been mistaken in thinking someone tried to call her. (JP said "we called xyz..." he didn't say he called.) GP's family may have had the wrong number. (I mean really. Why would a 22-year old's NY parents maintain contact info for their daughter's FL boyfriend's 32-year married sister who lives in a different town from the boyfriend?). BL could have blocked numbers.
We just don't know.
JMO
64WhetstoneRoad
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2021
- Messages
- 76
- Reaction score
- 691
And unfortunately on Sept 14th they were pleading to someone who was most probably already dead IMO. That’s the saddest part for me, before any of this took off, before Gabby hit national headlines, just as the news reporters were arriving at the L’s house, before they had started searching for GP, before they knew Gabby was absolutely lost, Brian Laundrie had left his residence to never return. IMO he was dead before Brian Entin rolled up to the L’s front lawn. Monday 13th September. JMO. It just makes me so sad the window was so tight between the missing person’s report and Brian going off.
Kristin Esq.
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 17,882
While SB mainly does real estate, his website says that he does other areas of law: The East Islip Law Offices of Steven P. Bertolino, P.C.
As a lawyer, we tell everyone not to talk to LE, especially without an attorney present. As a long time L family attorney, I'm sure he's told them that in the past, or at least it's come up in conversation without there actually being an incident. It could just be that the L's knew this and wouldn't talk until they contacted him.
And at least one of the calls/texts from Joe Petito was to inform that he was going to be calling the police.
I believe that Joe Petito had contacted NPPD by the 10th. I also think that maybe the Laundries were upset at the number of calls/texts from Gabby's family and may have called 911 themselves to report they were being harassed by Gabby's family but until the redacted reports and the 911 calls are released we won't know for sure.
Videos with GP and Rose together? Were these posted somewhere? I have no problem believing GP and Rose were friends, but I haven't seen any info corroborating their closeness. I know I'm not entitled to see things like their texts of conversations like "can I stay with you for a few days? I can't take being with BL for any longer" but I was wondering if those exist.They have tons of videos together
No one associated with the Petitos went to the Laundrie home
MollyDDD
On Time Out
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2018
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 24,904
Sure it does, they’re counting on us AND the public to buy their book. IMO
What book? Do you have a link?
PayrollNerd
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2018
- Messages
- 18,730
- Reaction score
- 110,540
I can’t imagine Gabby’s family or Brian’s family writing a book. Too painful. Only one sided. Never going to have the inside scoop from the myriad of investigative groups.
Now, if someone close to the investigation, like a retired FBI person, or retired police officer wrote a book, then it would be a good seller. Especially if they focused on the domestic violence element. Have the proceeds go to the Gabby Petito Foundation. That would be an effective way to get the facts straight, get a positive message out and fulfill a need for DV education.
If either family does anything in the media, I suspect it would be an interview years down the line. This trauma will take the rest of their lives to process and come to grips with. Both families need to “put the oxygen mask on themself first” and ignore everyone else.
Now, if someone close to the investigation, like a retired FBI person, or retired police officer wrote a book, then it would be a good seller. Especially if they focused on the domestic violence element. Have the proceeds go to the Gabby Petito Foundation. That would be an effective way to get the facts straight, get a positive message out and fulfill a need for DV education.
If either family does anything in the media, I suspect it would be an interview years down the line. This trauma will take the rest of their lives to process and come to grips with. Both families need to “put the oxygen mask on themself first” and ignore everyone else.
Mom24
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2012
- Messages
- 3,875
- Reaction score
- 22,471
They were also pleading with Brian's parents.
ctmom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2012
- Messages
- 848
- Reaction score
- 2,280
BBM
UBM
But... could she have been contacted on a different day and omitted that bit of info?
ie: Maybe she didn't recognize their NY number at the time the call(s) came in and, thinking it was spam, deleted the call(s).
(I know I do that)
I'll have to go back and look at interviews but for now, imo, we don't know but perhaps LE does.
Skigirl
Verified expert in neuroscience & psychology
- Joined
- May 27, 2009
- Messages
- 5,767
- Reaction score
- 15,575
JMO, but the type of real estate transactions they were doing were small beans and easily handled by an attorney on an ad-hoc basis. Small real estate investors rarely have an attorney on retainer. Having someone on retainer implies that there are a lot of expected costs and complicated legal dealings. I would be willing to bet that, at most, they had an engagement letter, but probably not even that. SB was someone they had known for a long time, and he was the first person who came to mind when they realized that they had a serious “situation” on their hands. MOO.
Kristin Esq.
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2021
- Messages
- 2,114
- Reaction score
- 17,882
I agree they must have had an attorney waiting in the wings. But not just for the reasons you stated, though good. SB is a NY attorney. If charges were to be brought in FL or in WY, they would need an attorney local to the area. Now, that doesn't mean that SB couldn't participate because he could still appear with the local attorney under Pro Hac Vice. MOO
After noticing Paragraph 5 on Page 7 of the HDD search warrant last night, I went back and really read it.
Here's a few things that stood out to me:
The affidavit of Officer Alix states he had probable cause to believe and does believe that laws related to missing/endangered person(s) controlled by Florida State Statute 937.021 in regard to GP have been violated.
State 937.021 lays out the procedure for which Florida LE agencies are to handle missing child/adult reports, standards for maintaining information related to the MP, recording/transmitting/releasing information from Amber Alerts or Missing Child Alerts, etc., which seemed like an odd statute to reference when requesting permission to investigate a HDD until you get to 937.021(6) and (7)(a) and (b):
Paragraphs 1-9 - we've all went over this information quite a bit, so won't rehash that except to point out that Paragraph 6 state's the text to NS was the last communication received and "her cellphone was no longer operational." It goes on to state in Paragraph 8 that the van entered North Port on 9/1 at 10:26 pm. The search warrant states the last text was received 8/27.
I know there was an additional text sent on 8/30, but I think LE listed the 8/27 message as the last communication because it was the last message NS was sure came from GP. Outside of that, there's a reason why the indictment limited the Capital One card use to dates between 8/30 and 9/1.
Paragraph 10 states that the cellphone "has been turned off for approximately 15 days." The affidavit was signed on the 15th day of September, 2021, making the date the phone was turned off 9/1, IMO. I understand if you get technical with the hours, 15 days puts it at 8/31, but he didn't write exactly 15 days, he wrote approximately 15 days.
According to an NY Post article, cited a 9/18 tweet from Jeff Butera of ABC 7 stating that NPPD confirmed they now have cell phone tracking access for GP and BL's phones. However, this is just a confirmation that they have it and doesn't really clarify when they obtained that access.
Paragraphs 11 and 12 - 9/14 a search warrant was executed on the van. To my knowledge, there is not a copy of this particular SW available to the public. I have looked and looked, but all I have found is the one related to the HDD. During that search, crime scene technicians located the subject HDD and believe it may contain forensic data that could assist in the location of GP.
In the next paragraph, the affidavit goes on to state:
So thoughts from that:
This warrant stemmed from the 9/14 SW executed on the van, which then ultimately led to the search of the Laundrie home. The order was specific, it gave permission to search the HDD and then seize evidence of the following, which included a list of basically anything electronic.
SB told Banfield he had multiple conversations with the FBI, including the day before BL went on the hike and the day of. It is apparent the FBI was communicating some type of information related to the investigation considering he canceled the original press conference after speaking with the FBI, and SB was likely keeping BL updated on what he was learning. If these one MOO.
I think the subject warrant gives us some information that maybe we hadn't realized was out there before:
A missing person is not automatically a crime, and reporting an adult missing is tough in general due to the fact adults can make the decision to just do communicating. However, whatever LE discovered in the van during the first search led them to believe GP was not just someone who willingly stopped communicating with her parents and that a crime, specifically a felony, had already been committed.
That belief led them to the belief that the HDD possibly held at least part of the answer. After review of the hard drive, they had reason to believe there was additional information in the Laundrie home.
It seems to indicate that LE believed it was unlikely GP was alive pretty early on and that BL was a POI/ suspect of said crime well before he was named publicly. JMO.
Edit some spelling and missing words but probably not all, so please disregard the others lol
Here's a few things that stood out to me:
The affidavit of Officer Alix states he had probable cause to believe and does believe that laws related to missing/endangered person(s) controlled by Florida State Statute 937.021 in regard to GP have been violated.
State 937.021 lays out the procedure for which Florida LE agencies are to handle missing child/adult reports, standards for maintaining information related to the MP, recording/transmitting/releasing information from Amber Alerts or Missing Child Alerts, etc., which seemed like an odd statute to reference when requesting permission to investigate a HDD until you get to 937.021(6) and (7)(a) and (b):
(6) If a missing child or missing adult is not located within 90 days after the missing child or missing adult report is filed, the LE agency that accepted the report shall attempt to obtain a biological specimen for DNA analysis... This subsection does not prevent a LE agency from attempting to obtain information or approved biological specimens for DNA analysis before the expiration of the 90-day period.
The department shall adopt rules specific to cases involving missing children and missing adults which will:
(7)(a) Identify biological specimens that are approved by the department for DNA analysis.
(b) Identify the documentation necessary for the department to use the biological specimens for DNA analysis.
As grounds for issuance, the affidavit cited FL Statute 933.02(3), which states: The department shall adopt rules specific to cases involving missing children and missing adults which will:
(7)(a) Identify biological specimens that are approved by the department for DNA analysis.
(b) Identify the documentation necessary for the department to use the biological specimens for DNA analysis.
Upon proper affidavits being made, a search warrant may be issued under hte provisions of this chapter upon any of the following grounds: (3) when any property constitutes evidence relevant to proving that a felony has been committed. (BBM)
Under Probable Cause:
Paragraphs 1-9 - we've all went over this information quite a bit, so won't rehash that except to point out that Paragraph 6 state's the text to NS was the last communication received and "her cellphone was no longer operational." It goes on to state in Paragraph 8 that the van entered North Port on 9/1 at 10:26 pm. The search warrant states the last text was received 8/27.
I know there was an additional text sent on 8/30, but I think LE listed the 8/27 message as the last communication because it was the last message NS was sure came from GP. Outside of that, there's a reason why the indictment limited the Capital One card use to dates between 8/30 and 9/1.
Paragraph 10 states that the cellphone "has been turned off for approximately 15 days." The affidavit was signed on the 15th day of September, 2021, making the date the phone was turned off 9/1, IMO. I understand if you get technical with the hours, 15 days puts it at 8/31, but he didn't write exactly 15 days, he wrote approximately 15 days.
According to an NY Post article, cited a 9/18 tweet from Jeff Butera of ABC 7 stating that NPPD confirmed they now have cell phone tracking access for GP and BL's phones. However, this is just a confirmation that they have it and doesn't really clarify when they obtained that access.
Paragraphs 11 and 12 - 9/14 a search warrant was executed on the van. To my knowledge, there is not a copy of this particular SW available to the public. I have looked and looked, but all I have found is the one related to the HDD. During that search, crime scene technicians located the subject HDD and believe it may contain forensic data that could assist in the location of GP.
In the next paragraph, the affidavit goes on to state:
Your affiant believes that, in this case, the computer hardware is a container for evidence, a container for contraband, and also itself an instrumentality of the crime under investigation.
(1) Volume of evidence.
(2) Technical requirements - It is also necessary to seize all peripherals so that analysts can show the computer was in a functional operating state and was capable of being used in the manner described in this affidavit.
(3) and (4) These discuss the necessity for searching for various formats of files and software applications, but as a point of reference it explicitly uses "his or her" when talking about a user.
All of the above statements appear to be generic statements likely used in similar warrants to justify the need for forensic examination.
I also wanted to point out that while they do discuss various formats, the focus here seems to be primarily on images, which makes me wonder if they were possibly checking for information related to the photos in GP's last Instagram post.
(5) Necessity to establish a time line. This paragraph popped out this time because it is no longer generic. Earlier in the affidavit Paragraph 12 referred to the item as potentially being the subject's (GP) property, but (5) shifts and is no longer about the subject or the subject's timeline, and it's not about generic users. It's now saying the investigation is necessary to place the suspect behind the computer at the time of the offense. An examiner may need to compile a timeline of files that were altered at or near the time of the offense to show the suspect was utilizing it at the appropriate time and to establish defendant's control over the computer and/or relevant files.
Now, it's possible this was also copied and pasted from a similar SW and just not corrected to fit the situation; however, the point of the affidavit, at least as stated in the Paragraph 12 under reasons, was to assist in locating the "missing endangered suspect," not to establish a timeline for a suspect.(1) Volume of evidence.
(2) Technical requirements - It is also necessary to seize all peripherals so that analysts can show the computer was in a functional operating state and was capable of being used in the manner described in this affidavit.
(3) and (4) These discuss the necessity for searching for various formats of files and software applications, but as a point of reference it explicitly uses "his or her" when talking about a user.
All of the above statements appear to be generic statements likely used in similar warrants to justify the need for forensic examination.
I also wanted to point out that while they do discuss various formats, the focus here seems to be primarily on images, which makes me wonder if they were possibly checking for information related to the photos in GP's last Instagram post.
(5) Necessity to establish a time line. This paragraph popped out this time because it is no longer generic. Earlier in the affidavit Paragraph 12 referred to the item as potentially being the subject's (GP) property, but (5) shifts and is no longer about the subject or the subject's timeline, and it's not about generic users. It's now saying the investigation is necessary to place the suspect behind the computer at the time of the offense. An examiner may need to compile a timeline of files that were altered at or near the time of the offense to show the suspect was utilizing it at the appropriate time and to establish defendant's control over the computer and/or relevant files.
So thoughts from that:
This warrant stemmed from the 9/14 SW executed on the van, which then ultimately led to the search of the Laundrie home. The order was specific, it gave permission to search the HDD and then seize evidence of the following, which included a list of basically anything electronic.
SB told Banfield he had multiple conversations with the FBI, including the day before BL went on the hike and the day of. It is apparent the FBI was communicating some type of information related to the investigation considering he canceled the original press conference after speaking with the FBI, and SB was likely keeping BL updated on what he was learning. If these one MOO.
I think the subject warrant gives us some information that maybe we hadn't realized was out there before:
A missing person is not automatically a crime, and reporting an adult missing is tough in general due to the fact adults can make the decision to just do communicating. However, whatever LE discovered in the van during the first search led them to believe GP was not just someone who willingly stopped communicating with her parents and that a crime, specifically a felony, had already been committed.
That belief led them to the belief that the HDD possibly held at least part of the answer. After review of the hard drive, they had reason to believe there was additional information in the Laundrie home.
It seems to indicate that LE believed it was unlikely GP was alive pretty early on and that BL was a POI/ suspect of said crime well before he was named publicly. JMO.
Edit some spelling and missing words but probably not all, so please disregard the others lol
Last edited:
It's possible she thought it was spam and deleted it. Some people do that so automatically they won't remember doing it. It's possible the call was blocked by an overly-vigorous spam blocker. I doubt GP's family has ever called Cassie before so I doubt any of their numbers would be in Cassie's contact list.
But if any of that happened, then Cassie wasn't intentionally "ignoring" calls and texts. I also think the family only mentioned trying to contact Cassie once. Mostly they talked about trying to text BL (whose phone was likely long gone by then and his new phone was a different number) & RL. GP's family might have been wrong about what they did and when they did it but it still comes down to Cassie could find no record the family tried to call her when they said they did.
JMO
- Status