Van Lifer couple camping in Utah national park - two weeks later fiancee arrives in FL alone

[Anonymous]

No body, no crime.

He will say she left him.

What really happened?

-They took drugs and she OD’d? But why not take her to a hospital and just say what happened?

-He sold her to traffickers or they got mixed up with something bad and he was threatened. (I’ve probably been watching too many crime dramas.)

-He went bananas and killed her.

[Anonymous]

Lawyers tell people not to cooperate with police, especially in these situations where they’re going to look at you first and foremost.

I think he probably did it but I don’t think it’s susoicious that he’s not cooperating. It’s smart. No one should talk to police without a lawyer present.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boyfriend has lawyer'd up and refuses to cooperate with police. If I had to guess, the police are likely focusing on retracing the GPS history of their phones.

People like this always have their phones on them.

I don't understand why guilty people do this and think it will work and they will get away with it.

Because sometimes it DOES work.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Refusing to cooperate with police is not something an innocent person does.

Every rich kid with a trust fund is taught to never talk to the police. It’s just self-preservation to go through your lawyer…

And every other innocent person in the world would say, here’s what happened, here’s my phone, and here’s the location I last saw her, I’m extremely worried that someone I care about has gone missing.

Actually, plenty of guilty people do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would’ve made more sense got him to whack her out in the middle of nowhere, keep her phone on, make calls to businesses or whatever and occasional texts to her contacts so it implied that they were returning. Leave a trail all the way back across the country. Maybe even tell one of her friends (on her phone) she was breaking up because she met a new guy with more money/bigger penis/better van/whatever and was planning to meet him at a spot on the way back.

Then he ditches the phone at that spot and trail goes cold. Still lots of potential pitfalls with this plan, too, but it’s better than what he’s got right now.

Woulda made more sense to just keep her phone drive away from her in the desert. She’d be dead from heat exposure within a few hours. Then he could say they had a fight and she stormed off in a huff.

What he’s got right now is zero evidence. No body, no witnesses, no weapon, no bs story he tried to sell the cops. Possibly no cell tower pings.

He’s actually being really smart about it. He just needs to keep his cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boyfriend has lawyer'd up and refuses to cooperate with police. If I had to guess, the police are likely focusing on retracing the GPS history of their phones.

People like this always have their phones on them.

I don't understand why guilty people do this and think it will work and they will get away with it.

Because sometimes it DOES work.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Refusing to cooperate with police is not something an innocent person does.

Every rich kid with a trust fund is taught to never talk to the police. It’s just self-preservation to go through your lawyer…

And every other innocent person in the world would say, here’s what happened, here’s my phone, and here’s the location I last saw her, I’m extremely worried that someone I care about has gone missing.

Actually, plenty of guilty people do this.

And this is usually how they get caught. It’s much better to be silent than to create a web of lies that will eventually fall apart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would’ve made more sense got him to whack her out in the middle of nowhere, keep her phone on, make calls to businesses or whatever and occasional texts to her contacts so it implied that they were returning. Leave a trail all the way back across the country. Maybe even tell one of her friends (on her phone) she was breaking up because she met a new guy with more money/bigger penis/better van/whatever and was planning to meet him at a spot on the way back.

Then he ditches the phone at that spot and trail goes cold. Still lots of potential pitfalls with this plan, too, but it’s better than what he’s got right now.

Woulda made more sense to just keep her phone drive away from her in the desert. She’d be dead from heat exposure within a few hours. Then he could say they had a fight and she stormed off in a huff.

What he’s got right now is zero evidence. No body, no witnesses, no weapon, no bs story he tried to sell the cops. Possibly no cell tower pings.

He’s actually being really smart about it. He just needs to keep his cool.

And no on-camera interviews like every other sociopath killer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boyfriend has lawyer'd up and refuses to cooperate with police. If I had to guess, the police are likely focusing on retracing the GPS history of their phones.

People like this always have their phones on them.

I don't understand why guilty people do this and think it will work and they will get away with it.

They act in the heat of the moment while not thinking clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't think he planned to kill her? Like - it's easy enough to imagine a scenario where they're alone in the van, he pushes for sex, she says no/get off me, and it spirals from there.

I still can't get a grip on his age but he looks at least late 20s and she just turned 22.

I agree. It’s extremely unlikely he planned it, even a real dummy would understand that he would be the obvious suspect. If he’s THAT dumb, however, he probably made a mistake somewhere along the way that will undo him. Based on the facts as stated in this thread, I’d put the highest probability on accidental death for which he’s concerned that he has legal exposure: drug overdose, allowing her to wander off in an intoxicated state, messing around in some reckless way, leaving her by the side of the road in a spat and not knowing what the hell happened, etc. Second place is crime of passion, also quite possible. Or maybe it’s a Gone Girl scenario where she bailed on him and he’s scared. Dark horse possibility: intentional publicity stunt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyers tell people not to cooperate with police, especially in these situations where they’re going to look at you first and foremost.

I think he probably did it but I don’t think it’s suspicious that he’s not cooperating. It’s smart. No one should talk to police without a lawyer present.

I don't expect a person of means to talk to police without a highly paid lawyer - that's just how it is.

It's the "not cooperating with the police investigation of your missing girlfriend" part is where his looks really guilty. On the other hand, if they don't find a body, he will certainly walk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't think he planned to kill her? Like - it's easy enough to imagine a scenario where they're alone in the van, he pushes for sex, she says no/get off me, and it spirals from there.

I still can't get a grip on his age but he looks at least late 20s and she just turned 22.

I agree. It’s extremely unlikely he planned it, even a real dummy would understand that he would be the obvious suspect. If he’s THAT dumb, however, he probably made a mistake somewhere along the way that will undo him. Based on the facts as stated in this thread, I’d put the highest probability on accidental death for which he’s concerned that he has legal exposure: drug overdose, allowing her to wander off in an intoxicated state, messing around in some reckless way, leaving her by the side of the road in a spat and not knowing what the hell happened, etc. Second place is crime of passion, also quite possible. Or maybe it’s a Gone Girl scenario where she bailed on him and he’s scared. Dark horse possibility: intentional publicity stunt.

RE dumb mistake, time and conflicting LEOs are on the murderer's side. If you don't notice the victim is gone in the first 24 hours, its less likely to be resolved. See Suzanne Morphew and Jennifer Dulos.

As for the search for her, the U.S. is pretty good about doing search parties for a missing person in a single area of a state. But this jurisdiction is literally a beeline across the whole of the United States. Starting in a desert in southern Utah (which would be hard to search because of arid conditions for the volunteers) all the way down to the swamps of Florida.

It's not always the case of no body, no case. But no body, no crime scene, and 12 jurisdictions? He's pretty much guaranteed to walk until they find her 5-10 years from now.

[Anonymous]

The local yokels have taken the van. Let's hope they have a good forensic team.


https://www.winknews.com/2021/09/13/north-port-police-circumstances-are-odd-after-fiance-of-missing-road-tripper-gabby-petito-returns-home-hires-attorney/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The boyfriend has lawyer'd up and refuses to cooperate with police. If I had to guess, the police are likely focusing on retracing the GPS history of their phones.

People like this always have their phones on them.

I don't understand why guilty people do this and think it will work and they will get away with it.

Because sometimes it DOES work.
Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

Refusing to cooperate with police is not something an innocent person does.

Yep. This is not “we broke up and I dropped her off in the next town”. This is now a recovery operation.

Exactly. They were supposedly heading to Yellowstone at the end of August, and then her family didn't hear from her again. And all of a sudden their "van life" trip is cut short because he shows up all the way back in FL with the van, but without her, and it was her mother who reported her missing, not him.

Ugh. Just lock him up and throw away the key; he clearly murdered her.

No need for a costly show trial.

That’s not how it works in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80% chance he walks. It sounds like he has a bit of money to be able to afford an attorney. He likely already destroyed and disposed of his and her phones a long time ago, so cops wont have that evidence to use. He will claim that she decided to break up with him during the trip and she decided to hitchhike. The van was owned by him, IIRC.

The van will have her DNA all over it, but likely nothing that indicates a crime. He most likely killed her outside the van.

The police will retrace his route by looking at his transactions (he probably didn't pay for gas in cash on a cross country drive) and the mobile phone tower pings. Whenever he shut off the phones, that's likely when she died.

Completely disagree. Not with the insane amount of location and other data available these days. They don’t need her physical phone for that.

And let’s be real. If he just showed up back in town without any kind of excuse, or story of what happened, this guy isn’t exactly playing 3D chess.

DP His story is - she left - end of story.

As for the location pings, if I learned anything from the California couple hiking who died from algae bloom. The national parks and extremely rural areas of America have zero cell service.

All he’d have to do is leave the phone in the area with no cell service or destroy it before he drove back into areas near cell phone towers. And it’s be like he was never there.

I don’t understand why they don’t just extend cell service to them? These parks sound horrible.

Yeah, horrible lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:80% chance he walks. It sounds like he has a bit of money to be able to afford an attorney. He likely already destroyed and disposed of his and her phones a long time ago, so cops wont have that evidence to use. He will claim that she decided to break up with him during the trip and she decided to hitchhike. The van was owned by him, IIRC.

The van will have her DNA all over it, but likely nothing that indicates a crime. He most likely killed her outside the van.

The police will retrace his route by looking at his transactions (he probably didn't pay for gas in cash on a cross country drive) and the mobile phone tower pings. Whenever he shut off the phones, that's likely when she died.

Completely disagree. Not with the insane amount of location and other data available these days. They don’t need her physical phone for that.

And let’s be real. If he just showed up back in town without any kind of excuse, or story of what happened, this guy isn’t exactly playing 3D chess.

DP His story is - she left - end of story.

As for the location pings, if I learned anything from the California couple hiking who died from algae bloom. The national parks and extremely rural areas of America have zero cell service.

All he’d have to do is leave the phone in the area with no cell service or destroy it before he drove back into areas near cell phone towers. And it’s be like he was never there.

I don’t understand why they don’t just extend cell service to them? These parks sound horrible.

Because no one lives there. You choose to take a vacation in a remote uninhabitable location - its on you when the going gets tough. Maybe we should extend cell service to the Sahara Desert as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Websleuths are now on the case:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/wy-gabrielle-%E2%80%98gabby%E2%80%99-petito-22-grand-teton-national-park-25-aug-2021-road-trip-w-bf.586258/

Those peeps are into it. Thanks for sharing.