Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #88

[Trooper]

AND, I would argue, being that they could afford it, there was nothing wrong with getting him an attorney appropriate for something really bad. But there was something wrong, in my opinion, in not immediately telling Gabby's parents that Gabby is not with Brian and they don't know where she is.

I would have told him that whatever happened, it sounds like he is in big trouble, and his only hope is to talk to the attorney they paid for and follow the advice given to the letter. I would have told him that if he failed to do this, I would call the police myself and turn him in/report my suspicions. And I would have done all that in love. I have no doubts Brian's family loved him, and I don't think that love goes away because your child confessed to murder or you suspect your child of murder.

I believe that advice would have saved his life.

MOO

Not a lot to argue against the Laundries telling the Petito's that yes , wherever Gabby is, she is on foot because Bri has driven clear across the country in her van without her, it currently being her home, with all her possessions in it, it's sitting right here in our drive way !! no we don't kmow if Gabby gave him permission to take the van, but that's Bri, he takes what he wants, and also, he didn't think it would be wrong to use her credit card on the journey, it wasn't much, he figured well, since he had it on him, luckily, why not use it? He won't tell us why she left without her credit card, but hey, it's only about a $thou or so,,,oh he's so cheeky, isnt he? ha ha so wherever Gabby is, she has no credit card.... haha, she must be busking in Jackson Hole or something, with a hat on the pavement, singing Kumbaya, and just as an aside, Bri played a few little tricks with her phone, yeah, he took her phone too, so she is incommunicado... no money, no credit, no phone...so don't take any notice of dodgy messages.. other than that, we know nothin........

They could have coughed up all this....but no!. nope ... stonewall, deceive, deflect, ignore, make them suffer and suffer and suffer and suffer. Make them suffer 'unduly', which was the point of their civil suit.

 

[Marysmith]

All I'm saying is there's a possibility that some unhinged person who views the Netflix series may get angry enough to attack and harm the Laundries.

I never said that it has happened yet, but I do feel that it could happen. I also never said that people shouldn't be allowed to voice their hatred for them publicly so I'm not sure why you're informing me about their freedom of speech. JMO.

Lots of things could happen. They seem pretty capable of handling themselves.
Wild world that people are more worried about something that might happen to these 3 but ok with a man in a mental crisis that might harm someone being put in a chokehold and dying in public.

 

[Deleted member 19575]

Are you addressing me? On this subject?... It is customary to include the original post, to forestall confusion.. But just in case you are asking me, I am available to respond..

One of the significant indicators of what Brian was doing to his own family, is the famous camping trip, where Brian lobs home in Gabby's vehicle, with a strange story, and the family , sis and hubby and the kids, mum and dad and Bri, all decide to go camping. But.. there is a condition attached, no one is allowed to mention Gabby. This is the story that Roberta tells, that Cassie tells, and god alone knows what it cost Casse, she liked Gabby, and her kids loved their Aunt Gabby, how she kept their little mouths shut, is a mystery.. But this is what a psychopath does. Total control. Violence to people's identity and thought processes..

Just one example.

Another, #2 His sly manipulation of the police officer in Moad, Bri immediately twigged that he had a ripe one on the end of his fishing line, a police officer who was cross with women in general, and cross with women ,in particular ,who rocked the boat of normal nice guys just wanting to have their own way, to which they are entitled. Apparently. Brian played him like a Gibson guitar. And got the desired result. You can watch it again and pick up all the moves and plays, it's textbook stuff.

Example # 3. Brian's own 'valedictory ' note, where he bids us all farewell, histrionically, as usual , has violence, in his own words from go to whoa.

Some light reading might be insightful.... Turning Your Attention to Narcissistic Personality Disorder

I think he always had some personality disorder, apparently he didn't have a lot of friends.That's a red flag right there. I think there were red flags along the way from day 1, that he was antisocial. And teenage relationships are volatile and emotional and codependent anyways. What I don't get is why Gabbi went to live with HIS family. I really question a lot of their decisions.

 

[Sundog]

Not a lot to argue against the Laundries telling the Petito's that yes , wherever Gabby is, she is on foot because Bri has driven clear across the country in her van without her, it currently being her home, with all her possessions in it, it's sitting right here in our drive way !! no we don't kmow if Gabby gave him permission to take the van, but that's Bri, he takes what he wants, and also, he didn't think it would be wrong to use her credit card on the journey, it wasn't much, he figured well, since he had it on him, luckily, why not use it? He won't tell us why she left without her credit card, but hey, it's only about a $thou or so,,,oh he's so cheeky, isnt he? ha ha so wherever Gabby is, she has no credit card.... haha, she must be busking in Jackson Hole or something, with a hat on the pavement, singing Kumbaya, and just as an aside, Bri played a few little tricks with her phone, yeah, he took her phone too, so she is incommunicado... no money, no credit, no phone...so don't take any notice of dodgy messages.. other than that, we know nothin........

They could have coughed up all this....but no!. nope ... stonewall, deceive, deflect, ignore, make them suffer and suffer and suffer and suffer. Make them suffer 'unduly', which was the point of their civil suit.

Lots of suffering at both ends. This is what Brian brought upon the Petitos and the Laundries.


ebm

 

[Sundog]

Lots of things could happen. They seem pretty capable of handling themselves.
Wild world that people are more worried about something that might happen to these 3 but ok with a man in a mental crisis that might harm someone being put in a chokehold and dying in public.

For many of us, it's not mutually exclusive.

 

[Trooper]

Since it is my belief that the Laundries were completely au fait with what had occurred in Wyoming, and why BriAN was dithering off home to them on his big cross country expedition, alone, in a stolen van, that it never seemed to cross the mind of the Laundries that Brian would not kill someone else. They must have been convinced than Brian would only have murdered Gabby, that he was now immune from that severe irritation that caused this horror, and the women he would cross paths with on that journey would be safe.. what an incredible assumption to arrive at!! all those gals, at service stations, diners, cafe's, etc.. all at risk ......

I mean, here was a practised murderer, a killer of a woman, strangling her, hitting her head with a rock, leaving her in the dust, and they thought it was 'safe' for him to travel the byways and highways for days, in this murderous frame of mind?? what the???

ALL at a far greater risk that some nerdy websleuther, rocking up to the Laundries and causing their demise... don't you think??

 

[LinasK]

If this is true, that he actually retained the lawyer, horse of a different color. Never mind, that was a bad headline. He didn't retain the lawyer, his parents did. Very suspicious still, but "gone" could mean missing or wandered off or left. Does make me lean more towards the parents SHOULD have suspected something really bad right away.

The fact that they lawyered up 9 days before she was reported missing tells me that they knew their son well and what he was capable of, and that it was bad.

 

[Trooper]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>... lots of families... lots of young adults make these kinds of decisions, to go and live with a boyfriend , or a girlfriend, to travel to the outer limits, I did that as a ridiculous 20 yr old, clear across Russia, by train, from Sydney , by ship to Vladivostok, all third class because my parents were shouting me and I wanted to get the longest distance for the most buck and a half, and I ran into trouble and strife and fun and fabulous experiences and loneliness and companionship and I learned and learned and lived every day to the fullest, and how to conduct myself in situations of peril and joy. Invaluable stuff. I came home unscathed, alive and with a nodding relationship with Italian and French and Spanish.. not much Russian, but enough to find out the way to the station. Mainyy because the Russians I met wanted to speak a sort of English, every time...

My parents even now say they must have been out of their minds to agree to such an adventure... they scream about their grandkids travelling to the next suburb...

It's when those decision are interrupted by a psychopath that every thing changes, this was Gabby's terrible , terrible bad luck, and what is so sad, in the final days, she appeared to be aware of Brian's long standing inherent problems that had nothing to do with her, and everything to do with what he was born as. Just horrible bad luck, 90% of teenagers survive a bad romance .. it''s common and a passage of life mostly.......

If psychopaths wore a badge, or had it tattooed on their forehead ' Beware, this way lies trouble', everyone would be better off, but that's not how it works, they spend their lives mimicking what they think will pass for normal, and they get very , very good at it...

 

[girlhasnoname]

They never followed up after Gabby didn't answer when they asked about the marks she had on her face and arm. One cop was very flippant, saying his wife got anxiety and he'd send her to take showers. They suggested Gabby use a $4 shower. How is that helpful? She had marks, didn't give a clear answer about how they got there and because Gabby wasn't going to admit her abuser abused her, just let it go.

That's MOO, though, as I stated.

Agreed, all the while yucking it up with BL and comparing similar 'issues' with their wives. Really? That made me see Red. There was a 911 call from a concerned citizen that stated BL was seen hitting and dragging Gabby from the Cafe, which is how LE were on to the Van to begin with.

Gabby clearly had physical injuries, it doesn't matter that she might have downplayed them to LE officers. Victims of DV do this more often than not. That is something LE should have known and acted upon.

They could have taken both of them to jail for DV as there were physical marks on each of them. I'm not saying that would have prevented Gabby's death, but separating them overnight might have been enough of an eye opener for Gabby to make different decisions about continuing on with BL.

Such a sad and needless loss of life.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm just failing to see how the Moab officers were "awful." What did they see that should have led them to do something different?

They did not follow LE procedure after seeing physical marks on both of the occupants of the van. They chose to believe one side of a highly stressful and emotional situation even though there was a 911 call placed that the person had seen the man (BL) slapping and dragging Gabby from the Cafe.

They are standing around outside with BL (even joking about their wives) while Gabby was left to sit in the back of a police cruiser. That shows bias to me whether or not they meant to. They should have both been detained and separated.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I would still like to know why BL flew home to Florida and then back in the week or two before all of this happened? Was there ever any legitimate explanation for that? I never ran across it while reading the Court Docs, but could have easily overlooked it.

 

[NCWatcher]

I'm just failing to see how the Moab officers were "awful." What did they see that should have led them to do something different?

It seems to me that what some people want (after the fact anyway) is for the Moab officers to have decided GP was lying. She told them she hit BL first so she was (reasonably IMO) initially presumed to be the aggressor. (The law in Utah called for AN aggressor, I believe. Not mutual aggressors so arresting both G&B as some have suggested was probably not an option. And they would have been released the next day regardless.) Whether GP did hit first still isn't known, IMO. We do know from other sources like Rose Davis that GP did slap BL when he angered her. So GP saying she slapped him that day when he made her mad isn't necessarily a false statement.

GP claimed to have just quit her job as a nutritionist and that wasn't true (although not terribly relevant. Still, it was not the truth but how would LE know?)

She said she had OCD, a diagnosis her family denies. But an adult child could have diagnoses/medical problems her family might not know about. So we don't really know if that was the truth. It did, however, suggest a mental health basis for the conflict that occurred after weeks of traveling in a small van. Many things GP said to LE encouraged that view IMO.

Not too long ago we saw the emergence of a movement targeting sexual abuse and harassment that mandated "believe women." But apparently it's more nuanced than that. We are supposed to believe women when they say they were assaulted but not believe them when they say (or imply) they weren't. While people (not just women) in abusive domestic relationships may deny abuse, I'm not sure how that known tendency to deny and to lie can form the basis for legal actions involving arrests. Not only are LE supposed to arrest the other person (usually a man but not always) if the woman alleges abuse/DV, giving no thought to the possibility the woman might be lying, but they are also supposed to arrest the man if the woman alleges he has not been violent? In the latter case, LE apparently should assume the woman IS lying.

In Moab, GP asked LE not to separate her from BL saying "like we're a team, please. It's going to give me so much anxiety. Can we just have, like, a driving ticket?" Given that she'd already alleged that her mental state was precarious, I can certainly see why LE preferred not to lock her up as the aggressor. And separating her not just from BL but from her home, her van, could be imagined to make existing anxiety worse.

Further, in mid-Sept, before GP was found, GP's mother addressed reports of the Moab incident. Although she talked to GP during the incident as well as later that day, Nichole Schmidt said about the incident to the Daily Mail: 'It's irrelevant. Two people traveling together with each other 24 hours a day, it's not going to be perfect, it was an argument, and that's all I'm going to say about it.'

Police looking into murder of worker of co-op where Petito stayed

Six days after Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie had a physical altercation at Moonflower Community Cooperative, store worker Kylen Schulte, 24, and her wife Crystal Turner, 38, were found dead.

www.dailymail.co.uk

html

So despite their seeming to think the incident was minor at the time, like some here GP's family seemed to later believe LE should have known what they didn't know-- that the relationship was unhealthy & BL could be violent. And if they didn't know, they still should have arrested him, just in case. Further, asking GP more questions (the lethality assessment) would have somehow gotten to the truth, a truth her family didn't know or even suspect despite the years the couple lived together and the fact the couple spent 2+ weeks with them in NY before starting the van trip. Even Tara Petito said she saw no red flags and she shared she'd been in an abusive relationship before. GP's parents encouraged the trip, stating they were "proud of" GP for doing it rather than "settling" for a conventional job. So to help, they said they took on some of the costs of the trip. While I don't believe they shared detailed financial information about the second trip, for the first trip the couple took to California the year before Joe P rented GP a Nissan to travel. Since people in close contact with the couple for years thought it was a healthy relationship, supported it, and helped to fund a travel lifestyle for the couple, why expect LE to spot the truth during a brief roadside encounter?

I do think the officers should have spoken to the 911 callers but it's not clear what dispatch told them and it appeared at least one caller "backtracked" on details a bit. So that might not have been useful.
MOO

 

[Jade]

Like you,Jade, I figure it is safe to assume that the Laundries had some cognisance of a crime that had been committed, that involved their son, and that he needed legal representation ..... no one hires a lawyer because it's only Tuesday, and it might be fun to try it on to stave off boredom. they hire lawyers out of apprehension of some legal horribleness emerging on their horizon. My operational theory is , the Laundries knew exactly what hideous crime had been done, and exactly who did it, and exacly where the crime took place. And they needed a local lawyer , local to the jurisdiction.

Proof to any reasonable person that Brian's Mom knows what to expect from Brian’s “upset”:

[...]
When asked what she thought Brian meant when he said "Gabby's gone, please call a lawyer," Roberta Laundrie said several possibilities had crossed her mind, including that the couple may have got into a fight, Brian had hit Petito and she was going to press charges against him.

[…]
Initially, Roberta Laundrie told the Petito family's attorneys that she "didn't know what to think" when questioned if she thought Petito was dead.

… but later admitted that "it probably went through my mind."

[...]

Brian Laundrie's parents detail 'frantic' conversations with son: 'Gabby's gone, please call a lawyer'

The case of Gabby Petito, 22, gained national attention in 2021, sparking widespread speculation about her disappearance and death.

www.usatoday.com

More of the Laundries selfish manipulations knowingly indulging Brian's escaping justice, wasting time and money of local officials, disrupting visitation to the nature reserve, acting like their loss of Brian has any comparison to Gabby being attacked and sadistically hand strangled by a larger, stronger, trusted boyfriend in a private location where she was vulnerable, had no hope of help from bystanders, to a killer running away from justice, polluting the landscape and obliging animals to feed on his body like a weirdo.


[…]

The documentary shows a massive, weeks long search for Laundrie that only ended with the discovery of his body when his parents joined the search.

[…]

After he and his parents refused to speak to law enforcement, Brian Laundrie soon vanished as well, telling his family he was going hiking in a vast reserve near the home on Sept. 13, slipping out of the house undetected by law enforcement keeping watch. His parents reported him missing on Sept. 17.

[...]

Brian Laundrie's parents faced protests amid search for Gabby Petito. Were they charged?

A Netflix docuseries shows Brian Laundrie's parents faced backlash, but not charges, as authorities investigated the death of Gabby Petito.

www.usatoday.com

All imo

 

[Ruminations]

It seems to me that what some people want (after the fact anyway) is for the Moab officers to have decided GP was lying. She told them she hit BL first so she was (reasonably IMO) initially presumed to be the aggressor. (The law in Utah called for AN aggressor, I believe. Not mutual aggressors so arresting both G&B as some have suggested was probably not an option. And they would have been released the next day regardless.) Whether GP did hit first still isn't known, IMO. We do know from other sources like Rose Davis that GP did slap BL when he angered her. So GP saying she slapped him that day when he made her mad isn't necessarily a false statement.

GP claimed to have just quit her job as a nutritionist and that wasn't true (although not terribly relevant. Still, it was not the truth but how would LE know?)

She said she had OCD, a diagnosis her family denies. But an adult child could have diagnoses/medical problems her family might not know about. So we don't really know if that was the truth. It did, however, suggest a mental health basis for the conflict that occurred after weeks of traveling in a small van. Many things GP said to LE encouraged that view IMO.

Not too long ago we saw the emergence of a movement targeting sexual abuse and harassment that mandated "believe women." But apparently it's more nuanced than that. We are supposed to believe women when they say they were assaulted but not believe them when they say (or imply) they weren't. While people (not just women) in abusive domestic relationships may deny abuse, I'm not sure how that known tendency to deny and to lie can form the basis for legal actions involving arrests. Not only are LE supposed to arrest the other person (usually a man but not always) if the woman alleges abuse/DV, giving no thought to the possibility the woman might be lying, but they are also supposed to arrest the man if the woman alleges he has not been violent? In the latter case, LE apparently should assume the woman IS lying.

In Moab, GP asked LE not to separate her from BL saying "like we're a team, please. It's going to give me so much anxiety. Can we just have, like, a driving ticket?" Given that she'd already alleged that her mental state was precarious, I can certainly see why LE preferred not to lock her up as the aggressor. And separating her not just from BL but from her home, her van, could be imagined to make existing anxiety worse.

Further, in mid-Sept, before GP was found, GP's mother addressed reports of the Moab incident. Although she talked to GP during the incident as well as later that day, Nichole Schmidt said about the incident to the Daily Mail: 'It's irrelevant. Two people traveling together with each other 24 hours a day, it's not going to be perfect, it was an argument, and that's all I'm going to say about it.'

Police looking into murder of worker of co-op where Petito stayed

Six days after Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie had a physical altercation at Moonflower Community Cooperative, store worker Kylen Schulte, 24, and her wife Crystal Turner, 38, were found dead.

www.dailymail.co.uk

html

So despite their seeming to think the incident was minor at the time, like some here GP's family seemed to later believe LE should have known what they didn't know-- that the relationship was unhealthy & BL could be violent. And if they didn't know, they still should have arrested him, just in case. Further, asking GP more questions (the lethality assessment) would have somehow gotten to the truth, a truth her family didn't know or even suspect despite the years the couple lived together and the fact the couple spent 2+ weeks with them in NY before starting the van trip. Even Tara Petito said she saw no red flags and she shared she'd been in an abusive relationship before. GP's parents encouraged the trip, stating they were "proud of" GP for doing it rather than "settling" for a conventional job. So to help, they said they took on some of the costs of the trip. While I don't believe they shared detailed financial information about the second trip, for the first trip the couple took to California the year before Joe P rented GP a Nissan to travel. Since people in close contact with the couple for years thought it was a healthy relationship, supported it, and helped to fund a travel lifestyle for the couple, why expect LE to spot the truth during a brief roadside encounter?

I do think the officers should have spoken to the 911 callers but it's not clear what dispatch told them and it appeared at least one caller "backtracked" on details a bit. So that might not have been useful.
MOO

The Moab police department themselves made changes because THEY acknowledge they could have done things better.

<modsnip>

MOO

 

[arielilane]

@BrianEntin

https://gabbypetitofoundation.org

https://twitter.com/x/status/1892743764050907221

 

[arielilane]

@BrianEntin


I have never talked about this -- but Kirstie Alley messaged me almost every day for weeks. She was obsessed with the case and Gabby.She invited me to come see her monkeys!


8:30 PM · Feb 20, 2025




@BrianEntin


oh that's right I think they were lemurs. No I never went. I wish I did.


8:34 PM · Feb 20, 2025

 

[imstilla.grandma]

1. Did the aggressor ever use a weapon against you or threaten you with a weapon?
2. Did the aggressor ever threaten to kill you or your children?
3. Do you believe the aggressor will try to kill you?
4. Has the aggressor ever choked you or attempted to choke you?
5. Does the aggressor have a gun or could the aggressor easily obtain a gun?
6. Is the aggressor violently or constantly jealous, or does the aggressor control most of your daily activities?
7. Did you leave or separate from the aggressor after you were living together or married?
8. Is the aggressor unemployed?
9. To the best of your knowledge, has the aggressor ever attempted suicide?
10. Do you have a child whom the aggressor believes is not the aggressor’s biological child?
11. Has the aggressor ever followed, spied on, or left threatening messages for you?
12. Is there anything else that worries you about your safety and, if so, what worries you?

https://www.wwlp.com/news/national/netflix-series-american-murder-gabby-petito-what-are-the-11-questions-in-domestic-violence-investigations/

 

[Deleted member 39678]

1. Did the aggressor ever use a weapon against you or threaten you with a weapon?
2. Did the aggressor ever threaten to kill you or your children?
3. Do you believe the aggressor will try to kill you?
4. Has the aggressor ever choked you or attempted to choke you?
5. Does the aggressor have a gun or could the aggressor easily obtain a gun?
6. Is the aggressor violently or constantly jealous, or does the aggressor control most of your daily activities?
7. Did you leave or separate from the aggressor after you were living together or married?
8. Is the aggressor unemployed?
9. To the best of your knowledge, has the aggressor ever attempted suicide?
10. Do you have a child whom the aggressor believes is not the aggressor’s biological child?
11. Has the aggressor ever followed, spied on, or left threatening messages for you?
12. Is there anything else that worries you about your safety and, if so, what worries you?

https://www.wwlp.com/news/national/netflix-series-american-murder-gabby-petito-what-are-the-11-questions-in-domestic-violence-investigations/

Thanks for the link. Quote from it below.

If the victim answers yes to any of the first four questions, or if they answer no to the first four questions but yes to at least four of questions five through 11, law enforcement officers will have to direct the victim to the nearest certified domestic violence shelter.

If the DV victim doesn't want to go to a domestic violence shelter can LE force them to?

 

[PrairieWind]

So, you are saying that the following could not happen in a civil trial:

A LE officer testifies that they found it suspicious that an attorney was retained with 25k around the same time that there were several long phone calls between BL and RL before Gabby was missing, the jury instruction would be to ignore that?

I'm not talking about considering that there was representation. I'm talking about witnesses finding the timing suspicious. Wouldn't it be up to each individual juror to evaluate the LE witness's statement that the timing was suspicious? I thought it would be up to each juror to evaluate if the LE officer was credible in saying so, and in evaluating its relevance.

It seems to me that such information is very relevant to determine where the preponderance of evidence lies, although it may be irrelevant to proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

And, again, I would indeed find it relevant as a juror. You don't wire 25k because your kiddult rolled through a stop sign while he was stressed out over a break-up. That's like-400? - hours prepaid more or less. And you don't prepare to defend your son in a missing girlfriend case if you don't already know the girlfriend is missing.

To clarify my question: If you were the Laundrie's civil defense attorney would you want it on the record or avoid having it on the record that the Laundries retained an attorney with 25k before they should have known Gabby was missing?

MOO

I am still having a lot of trouble following your thoughts are here. First, originally i was discussing a criminal issue. But lets consider this in the context of a civil lawsuit against the Laundries. In what context would testimony come out of an officer saying the hiring of an attorney was suspicious? Did officers know? Why would that be relevant. I would object at the trial to the testimony even coming in. The Laundries have said Brian told them Gabby was "gone." Why does them hiring an attorney for him relate to any thing alleged against the Laundries? The conversations they had with Brian would or could be relevant, but I see in now way how the retaining of an attorney for him would be. What does it matter if LE found this suspicious? What is the hiring of an attorney intended to show? That the Laundries knew Gabby was missing? They already admitted that. That they had suspicions their son might be in trouble over it? Certainly, but how would that pertain to the causes of action against the Laundries?
To answer your last question: I would NOT want that on the record. It is irrelevant to anything a finder of fact should be considering.

 

[Deleted member 19575]

Lots of things could happen. They seem pretty capable of handling themselves.
Wild world that people are more worried about something that might happen to these 3 but ok with a man in a mental crisis that might harm someone being put in a chokehold and dying in public.

I'm not ok with with it.

Since it is my belief that the Laundries were completely au fait with what had occurred in Wyoming, and why BriAN was dithering off home to them on his big cross country expedition, alone, in a stolen van, that it never seemed to cross the mind of the Laundries that Brian would not kill someone else. They must have been convinced than Brian would only have murdered Gabby, that he was now immune from that severe irritation that caused this horror, and the women he would cross paths with on that journey would be safe.. what an incredible assumption to arrive at!! all those gals, at service stations, diners, cafe's, etc.. all at risk ......

I mean, here was a practised murderer, a killer of a woman, strangling her, hitting her head with a rock, leaving her in the dust, and they thought it was 'safe' for him to travel the byways and highways for days, in this murderous frame of mind?? what the???

ALL at a far greater risk that some nerdy websleuther, rocking up to the Laundries and causing their demise... don't you think??

how was he a practiced murderer?