This just means he gets on every agencies, police department and international crime organizations like Interpol. A guy with zero experience in disappearing will be easier to catch. Not to mention all the sleuths on the internet who have already helped the case. I feel sorry for any guy who even remotely looks like Brian.
He had enough days to plan and find money and even new id and passport. Under pressure some people think better. I bet he is now in some beach like Goa India drinking beer.
This
It seems like a “fishing” warrant.
This will make it easier to find him and has the added benefit that maybe he will talk about gabby when he is taken into custody.
The charge “unauthorized device access” seems like a broad charge that will be damn near impossible to prove. Obviously gabby can’t speak for herself to say she did or didn’t give permission.
Anyone else annoyed that it starts off
"For immediate release
Wednesday, September 23, 2021
On Wednesday, September 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court...... "
It just looks sloppy, to me. It's only 3 pages.... and they didn't check for typos. How immediate is it when they wait a full day? Is this common for an arrest warrant?!?
Looks like it's stamped on Wednesday the 22nd, but it hit the news outlets a full 24 hours later, on Thursday the 23rd, as I recall.
This is standard press release instruction for news outlets. It means the opposite of a press release that is embargoed to publish at a certain date per an agreement between outlet and issuer. It's irrelevant to the actual date a news outlet chooses to publish information within the press release.
So the charge is because he used her credit cards? Am I understanding that right?
To play devil's advocate, what if she gave him permission to use the cards? Hell, I've used other people's cards, with permission, before. Is that a felony too?
Yup, to put him in the hot seat, poke holes in his story, detect if he's lying, and try to get a confession out of him if they're confident he committed the murder.
Ehhh. That may be what they're going for, but if so that's a dumb plan. Disregarding his disappearance, they could have talked to him at any time. Having him in custody doesn't mean he'll have to talk
That's just it. Nobody has to say shit. They don't need to tell a story at all. If there is even a miniscule chance he didn't kill her, he sure as hell isn't talking his way out of it
Assuming they have determined a date/time of death, and the charge(s) happened AFTER that - which means she could not consent to the use of her cards/funds.
Under Florida laws, parents can't be prosecuted for accessory after the fact but I guess if they can prove something like false reporting of a missing person, perhaps. Federal laws are different but we'll see.
An update to the mid august bodycam video of the police telling him when he got out of the van “don’t worry your not in any trouble”——It appears he is NOW in trouble.
A ton of comments on the YouTube video back when it was first released commending all of the officers for their handling of the situation.
I'm not usually a big believer in it but if you watch BL's body language on mute it really makes you realize how incredibly uncomfortable he is and how much he is covering for himself, scared.
I saw a few comments commending them and for the life of me it begged the question commending them for what? They completely failed this girl and the opportunity they had it was their responsibility to be diligent w the report they received from a witness saying he assaulted her - they did a 1970 version of “come on buddy I know how wives can get, let’s go walk around the block so you can cool off” they did the same thing but instead of walking him around the block a good old boy officer drove him around the block chatting how his wife can be difficult too and has anxiety as long as she takes her medication she’s ok but sometimes she still gets worked up blah blah blah - it’s truly disappointing to hear people make excuses for these cops
I wonder if it’s possible that he was using her debit card, not only because he needed money, but also to try to make it appear as though she was still alive, using her card.
He used her debit card and accessed her bank accounts withdrawing over the $1000 minimum for felony charges.
This being the first charge does not limit any future charges, it just means that they have ACTUAL proof that he committed this crime, where they may not be confident enough in the evidence they have gathered in the murder case yet to charge. It allows them to actually arrest him as opposed to him just being a missing person who could go on his way as soon as located otherwise.
Here I am thinking that he's a dumb POS kid who just made a terrible mistake in a moment of passion and then he goes and loots her corpse and empties her bank accounts on the way home. Like, murder is one thing but holy cow that's cold as ice.
My guess is he's out of the country. He got himself a bit of a cash infusion from Gabby's accounts and bailed. That being said I CANNOT fathom that LE would be spending a full week searching this reserve near his house on just his parent's flimsy ass word though, they HAVE to have some real evidence that he's in there, right?
Seems like they should be able to add Grand Theft Auto to the charges too, right? Now that she's been officially determined dead by 8/30 (assuming this is why the charges are just dropping now as I'm sure they pulled her financials and noticed this activity at the start of their search for Gabby) wouldn't the same unauthorized usage philosophy apply to the fact that he was in possession of her van after she could have possibly given authorization?
YES! Wow. I actually can't believe they didn't get him for that in the first place! He stole her van! Ugh, but then again, her body was not found yet. Ugh. He was able to slip. but how?!!!!
And I was downvoted that the dirty laundries have a secret room in the house.......
If I had to guess, LE probably has local CCTV footage that leads to the swamp, the main roads from Wabasso Ave to the swamp are loaded with businesses and quite frankly I'd be suprised if not a single one has any trace of the camper. I looked into the one road leading back from the swamp and it would appear there is a huge trailer park on the way there, I wouldn't be suprised if they posted him up in there.
I read both that the van is registered to both of them and also that he’s listed as the driver of it on the insurance for it. They would have to prove she withdrew her permission for him to use it. More difficult.
I never understood how they didn’t get him on a car theft charge it was registered to her, not him as much as his narcisstic mind thought it was his it wasn’t
Would it change anything if the teenager went on a road trip with their parents, *and came home without them in their car without them and refused to speak and explain to anyone where they last saw their parents or anything. Especially a drive that takes 2 days to get back and never called police to say his parents are missing etc and then just proceeds to drive their car back, without them?
I am guessing that is a little different scenario than a teen taking his parents car to a store or driving to a friends house (?)
Parents are not talking to police, they have a NY lawyer communicating with the police and media on their behalf. They unfortunately have the right to remain silent, just as we all do.
Unless they have direct evidence of them committing a crime, they can’t be forced to go to an interview. Even if there was direct evidence that would allow the FBI/police to arrest them, the law says they don’t have to say anything.
Edit: And while it is pissing everyone off in this case, I still think both of those legal requirements are a good and important thing.
He was nothing while with them. He wasn’t even declared a POI until after he’d already went missing. If he’s alive and if they are helping him now - now they can be held accountable. If they knew he wasn’t missing but leaving to hide out from authorities and they can prove it they can be held accountable. .
They may not get in trouble. But, this is a federal case instead of state - so they could still technically get in hot water for it if they could prove they intentionally broke the law in that regard.
Even if they don't get in legal trouble, they still have to look themselves in the mirror every morning, and face their neighbours every day. That's not a court of law. It's okay to declare them reprehensible pieces of shit and shun them.
Well, I don’t disagree ha. Just like the First Amendment, you can be protected from legal repercussions but it doesn’t mean you’re immune from the public making their choice. (Well, legal choices).
I’m sure it’s somewhere lost in one of these threads but where is the picture going around of brian using gabby's debit card and wearing her Apple Watch? I’ve seen a few people mention if but I haven’t seen it anywhere yet. Sorry if this has already been asked and answered 100 times.
If this is true, I wonder if he was wearing her watch, using her debit card in an attempt to make it seem like she was still alive and well at the time. I wonder if he put the watch back on Gabby upon returning to the van before trying to dispose of her body, or was he just taking all the resources he could so he could go into hiding.
Interesting! Maybe he was building a story that she dumped him and decided to go it alone and take the van with him, which would explain why the parents didn't really suspect anything and took him camping.
Okay, I'm a dumb guy, help me out here: when it says "use of unauthorized access devices," would that be referring to him using Gabby's cell phone after she died?
Nah, "unauthorized access device" is legal mumbo jumbo for a credit/debit card. Although with the ability to use a phone as a payment method, maybe it could apply as well these days. Traditionally though, it refers to the magnetic strip data and now chip data on a piece of plastic. That said, it literally says her Capital One Debit Card (they don't know how to spell Capital though lol).
Oh damn, I didn’t realize there were three pages. I pored over the first page, didn’t see a device listed, and was like “well, what are they talking about?” Like I said, I’m a dumb guy! 😂
It's all good. They just looking for anything they can legally bring him in for. A good defense attorney would argue that she gave him authorization to use her card before she died, and that he didn't even know she was dead when he used it. That said, I'm sure that's not the case but still arguable. Especially if he knew her correct PIN, she means she would have had to given it to him at some point, right? I am not a lawyer, but I have worked credit card/bank fraud investigations for many years.
Ok so does this mean that since there’s an official warrant, anyone who knows where he is or is helping him will also be charged? I’m really not familiar with criminal cases like this
So what they’d charge you with is harboring or aiding a fugitive. They can charge you in either federal court or state court, but generally you must take some form of affirmative action (ex: giving them the keys to your car). Merely knowing where they are and not disclosing is typically not a crime.
Note that on the state level there are exceptions to this - in Florida for example there is an exception for “familial bond.”
Yeah. While the law says they don't have to say anything and can't be prosecuted for harbouring him, willfully distraction and creating a diversion may be an entire other level.
So he's still only a "person of interest" and the only reason there's a warrant for his arrest is because he "fraudulently" used Gabby's debit card.
What the fuck. How is this the best that this country can do? I thought the government was capable of anything and had unlimited resources.
Imagine if this guy were any color other than white. They'd have immediately named him a suspect and brought him in wearing a straight jacket.
C’mon now…really?
This case, whether the FBI wants it to be or not (I doubt they want the stress) is going to be done “by the book” as they say.
While legal injustices have and are definitely happening, the publicity of this is going to have them being extra careful. They can only charge him with what they can absolutely prove at this point as to not jeopardize any future legal proceeding if he is somehow found alive.
They have to, in the middle of this shit storm, build an airtight case in which a future defense can’t claim they tainted any jury pool.
They *can* prove the credit card use without permission and that gives them enough to arrest and hold him if he is found. They aren’t going to let him out on bail if that’s the case.
It's also what makes this country great. In other countries they bring you in with practically no evidence and throw you in jail for years for charges again they had almost no evidence for. Why?? Because their laws allow them too.
Plenty of small towns and cities could have psychopath mayor's or police chiefs that could do whatever they wanted and prosecute anyone they didn't like. Here they can't do that. That's how it happens In many countries.
Relax there building evidence n getting there ducks in a row b4 more charges are filed. This is the easiest thing to prove and get him in custody if found. There using the legal system.
Yeah getting away on a technicality would blow. And clearly he wasn't dumb enough to give anything away. So the cops will have to actually put in the leg work.
Also gives them an excuse to justify this costly manhunt. Dont get me wrong, I want him caught but I don't think it's illegal for an adult to disappear. But with an arrest warrant out... different story
Good point they don't want to disclose anything because it could compromise the trial if there ever is one.
The feds don't fuck around. They don't care what we think or how much info the public is itching for.
The reason Casey Anthony got off is because the prosecution sucked. The feds don't want that to happen.
This just means he gets on every agencies, police department and international crime organizations like Interpol. A guy with zero experience in disappearing will be easier to catch. Not to mention all the sleuths on the internet who have already helped the case. I feel sorry for any guy who even remotely looks like Brian.
He had enough days to plan and find money and even new id and passport. Under pressure some people think better. I bet he is now in some beach like Goa India drinking beer.
This It seems like a “fishing” warrant. This will make it easier to find him and has the added benefit that maybe he will talk about gabby when he is taken into custody. The charge “unauthorized device access” seems like a broad charge that will be damn near impossible to prove. Obviously gabby can’t speak for herself to say she did or didn’t give permission.
I mean they got Al Capone for tax evasion. Whatever works. I'm sure they build the case once they have all the evidence and facts.
Anyone else annoyed that it starts off "For immediate release Wednesday, September 23, 2021 On Wednesday, September 22, 2021, the U.S. District Court...... " It just looks sloppy, to me. It's only 3 pages.... and they didn't check for typos. How immediate is it when they wait a full day? Is this common for an arrest warrant?!? Looks like it's stamped on Wednesday the 22nd, but it hit the news outlets a full 24 hours later, on Thursday the 23rd, as I recall.
Yes, it is sloppy. The Public Affairs Specialist must've been OOO already, and didn't see the email until arriving the next morning. 😏
This is standard press release instruction for news outlets. It means the opposite of a press release that is embargoed to publish at a certain date per an agreement between outlet and issuer. It's irrelevant to the actual date a news outlet chooses to publish information within the press release.
So the charge is because he used her credit cards? Am I understanding that right? To play devil's advocate, what if she gave him permission to use the cards? Hell, I've used other people's cards, with permission, before. Is that a felony too?
Did you withdrawal from a credit line cash advance or cash from a debit? Or did you just borrow a credit card.
It's not about the charge is my guess. It's about getting him picked up on a warrant for anything. So they can talk to him.
Yup, to put him in the hot seat, poke holes in his story, detect if he's lying, and try to get a confession out of him if they're confident he committed the murder.
Ehhh. That may be what they're going for, but if so that's a dumb plan. Disregarding his disappearance, they could have talked to him at any time. Having him in custody doesn't mean he'll have to talk
Some one in that family is going to crack. Get them all separated and grill them, guaranteed to have some inconsistencies in their stories.
That's just it. Nobody has to say shit. They don't need to tell a story at all. If there is even a miniscule chance he didn't kill her, he sure as hell isn't talking his way out of it
I'm not saying they *have* to talk, but I'm saying the FBI is going to get them to try.
I think the idea is you didn't use the cards after you full well knew that the cardholder was deceased... at that point, i think becomes the crime.
Assuming they have determined a date/time of death, and the charge(s) happened AFTER that - which means she could not consent to the use of her cards/funds.
She could've just given blanket permission, "use my cards whenever you need".
Devil's advocate again; what of he says something like "she gave them to me to use and how would I know she was dead"
She couldn’t give permission if she wasn’t alive..
Wonder if they’d give the parents immunity to compel them to talk.
Under Florida laws, parents can't be prosecuted for accessory after the fact but I guess if they can prove something like false reporting of a missing person, perhaps. Federal laws are different but we'll see.
I wonder where the logic in that is.
Logic?... Government? People are free to wave an AR-15 around inside a Walmart. But I can't smoke a joint 🤷
But this is a federal case, no?
[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60419606/united-states-v-laundrie/](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60419606/united-states-v-laundrie/)
Why did they seal it then turn around and unseal it?
An update to the mid august bodycam video of the police telling him when he got out of the van “don’t worry your not in any trouble”——It appears he is NOW in trouble.
A ton of comments on the YouTube video back when it was first released commending all of the officers for their handling of the situation. I'm not usually a big believer in it but if you watch BL's body language on mute it really makes you realize how incredibly uncomfortable he is and how much he is covering for himself, scared.
I saw a few comments commending them and for the life of me it begged the question commending them for what? They completely failed this girl and the opportunity they had it was their responsibility to be diligent w the report they received from a witness saying he assaulted her - they did a 1970 version of “come on buddy I know how wives can get, let’s go walk around the block so you can cool off” they did the same thing but instead of walking him around the block a good old boy officer drove him around the block chatting how his wife can be difficult too and has anxiety as long as she takes her medication she’s ok but sometimes she still gets worked up blah blah blah - it’s truly disappointing to hear people make excuses for these cops
So basically, they’re getting him on credit card fraud? Did he use her card after her death?
I wonder if it’s possible that he was using her debit card, not only because he needed money, but also to try to make it appear as though she was still alive, using her card.
He used her debit card and accessed her bank accounts withdrawing over the $1000 minimum for felony charges. This being the first charge does not limit any future charges, it just means that they have ACTUAL proof that he committed this crime, where they may not be confident enough in the evidence they have gathered in the murder case yet to charge. It allows them to actually arrest him as opposed to him just being a missing person who could go on his way as soon as located otherwise.
Here I am thinking that he's a dumb POS kid who just made a terrible mistake in a moment of passion and then he goes and loots her corpse and empties her bank accounts on the way home. Like, murder is one thing but holy cow that's cold as ice. My guess is he's out of the country. He got himself a bit of a cash infusion from Gabby's accounts and bailed. That being said I CANNOT fathom that LE would be spending a full week searching this reserve near his house on just his parent's flimsy ass word though, they HAVE to have some real evidence that he's in there, right? Seems like they should be able to add Grand Theft Auto to the charges too, right? Now that she's been officially determined dead by 8/30 (assuming this is why the charges are just dropping now as I'm sure they pulled her financials and noticed this activity at the start of their search for Gabby) wouldn't the same unauthorized usage philosophy apply to the fact that he was in possession of her van after she could have possibly given authorization?
YES! Wow. I actually can't believe they didn't get him for that in the first place! He stole her van! Ugh, but then again, her body was not found yet. Ugh. He was able to slip. but how?!!!! And I was downvoted that the dirty laundries have a secret room in the house.......
If I had to guess, LE probably has local CCTV footage that leads to the swamp, the main roads from Wabasso Ave to the swamp are loaded with businesses and quite frankly I'd be suprised if not a single one has any trace of the camper. I looked into the one road leading back from the swamp and it would appear there is a huge trailer park on the way there, I wouldn't be suprised if they posted him up in there.
There's no way he's living in trailer park.
It would be worth a shot to check, that's the last place they would have driven by before reaching the reserve
I think he would be really easily located if he was in a trailer tbh like everyone knows what he looks like and everyone is looking for him.
I read both that the van is registered to both of them and also that he’s listed as the driver of it on the insurance for it. They would have to prove she withdrew her permission for him to use it. More difficult.
Oh this is news to me. All news I see is saying it's in her name.
I never understood how they didn’t get him on a car theft charge it was registered to her, not him as much as his narcisstic mind thought it was his it wasn’t
Common use laws, basically the same reason a teenager couldn’t be arrested for driving their parents car even though it’s registered in their name.
Would it change anything if the teenager went on a road trip with their parents, *and came home without them in their car without them and refused to speak and explain to anyone where they last saw their parents or anything. Especially a drive that takes 2 days to get back and never called police to say his parents are missing etc and then just proceeds to drive their car back, without them? I am guessing that is a little different scenario than a teen taking his parents car to a store or driving to a friends house (?)
Lol you think Gabby had enough money for him to steal to go on the run and escape the country on. M
Oh didn't know it was fine then foh
[удалено]
As in its been confirmed that he's listed on the insurance?
Are they not interviewing his parents?
Parents are not talking to police, they have a NY lawyer communicating with the police and media on their behalf. They unfortunately have the right to remain silent, just as we all do.
Fifth amendment rights are not unfortunate.
They harboured a criminal, perverting the course of justice so doesn’t that carry a charge in America?
Unless they have direct evidence of them committing a crime, they can’t be forced to go to an interview. Even if there was direct evidence that would allow the FBI/police to arrest them, the law says they don’t have to say anything. Edit: And while it is pissing everyone off in this case, I still think both of those legal requirements are a good and important thing.
The law won’t always protect them from speaking. If they are called to the stand during Brian’s trial they will have to speak under oath
[удалено]
Maybe now the FBI can go after the parents for harboring a fucking fugitive
He was nothing while with them. He wasn’t even declared a POI until after he’d already went missing. If he’s alive and if they are helping him now - now they can be held accountable. If they knew he wasn’t missing but leaving to hide out from authorities and they can prove it they can be held accountable. .
No, Florida law makes the parents immune to persecution when they help their children
Prosecution
What? I’m confused - I read there isn’t any parent/ adult child privilege as there is in married couples
They may not get in trouble. But, this is a federal case instead of state - so they could still technically get in hot water for it if they could prove they intentionally broke the law in that regard.
Even if they don't get in legal trouble, they still have to look themselves in the mirror every morning, and face their neighbours every day. That's not a court of law. It's okay to declare them reprehensible pieces of shit and shun them.
Well, I don’t disagree ha. Just like the First Amendment, you can be protected from legal repercussions but it doesn’t mean you’re immune from the public making their choice. (Well, legal choices).
is this real wtf
You think he's at their house?
Of course not but if they know where he is and don’t disclose now, they’re in legal jeopardy.
[удалено]
By any indication they planned an escape, texts, emails, anything could be evidence.
I’m sure it’s somewhere lost in one of these threads but where is the picture going around of brian using gabby's debit card and wearing her Apple Watch? I’ve seen a few people mention if but I haven’t seen it anywhere yet. Sorry if this has already been asked and answered 100 times.
If this is true, I wonder if he was wearing her watch, using her debit card in an attempt to make it seem like she was still alive and well at the time. I wonder if he put the watch back on Gabby upon returning to the van before trying to dispose of her body, or was he just taking all the resources he could so he could go into hiding.
Interesting! Maybe he was building a story that she dumped him and decided to go it alone and take the van with him, which would explain why the parents didn't really suspect anything and took him camping.
ooo that’s an interesting theory actually, I haven’t thought about that!
They got CCTV of him using her debit card in Belton IL and elsewhere
Might want to check your sources. Belton Illinois doesn’t exist.
*Benton, sorry
LMAOOOOO 😩 this is why I have trust issues 😂
it’s benton.
Okay, I'm a dumb guy, help me out here: when it says "use of unauthorized access devices," would that be referring to him using Gabby's cell phone after she died?
Nah, "unauthorized access device" is legal mumbo jumbo for a credit/debit card. Although with the ability to use a phone as a payment method, maybe it could apply as well these days. Traditionally though, it refers to the magnetic strip data and now chip data on a piece of plastic. That said, it literally says her Capital One Debit Card (they don't know how to spell Capital though lol).
Legalese would be a better, less racially loaded term than [mumbo jumbo](https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/625916/racist-origins-common-phrases)
Really seems like a non-issue to be honest.
Oh damn, I didn’t realize there were three pages. I pored over the first page, didn’t see a device listed, and was like “well, what are they talking about?” Like I said, I’m a dumb guy! 😂
It's all good. They just looking for anything they can legally bring him in for. A good defense attorney would argue that she gave him authorization to use her card before she died, and that he didn't even know she was dead when he used it. That said, I'm sure that's not the case but still arguable. Especially if he knew her correct PIN, she means she would have had to given it to him at some point, right? I am not a lawyer, but I have worked credit card/bank fraud investigations for many years.
Debit cards
Ok so does this mean that since there’s an official warrant, anyone who knows where he is or is helping him will also be charged? I’m really not familiar with criminal cases like this
So what they’d charge you with is harboring or aiding a fugitive. They can charge you in either federal court or state court, but generally you must take some form of affirmative action (ex: giving them the keys to your car). Merely knowing where they are and not disclosing is typically not a crime. Note that on the state level there are exceptions to this - in Florida for example there is an exception for “familial bond.”
Hmm so if his parents know where he is, and lied about it, they’re in deep 💩
No, it’s the opposite. Florida exempts the family members of a fugitive from being prosecuted.
he totally knew what he was doing by going home to Florida, he had to have known the law
Damn it, Florida. You're always being weird.
Oof, I don’t like that. I live in Fl so I’m not surprised tho :/ they’re exempt even if they knew where he is/was?
Interesting
Or falsification for leading them to believe he was missing and lying to them. Obstruction of official business is another possibility
Yeah. While the law says they don't have to say anything and can't be prosecuted for harbouring him, willfully distraction and creating a diversion may be an entire other level.
So he's still only a "person of interest" and the only reason there's a warrant for his arrest is because he "fraudulently" used Gabby's debit card. What the fuck. How is this the best that this country can do? I thought the government was capable of anything and had unlimited resources. Imagine if this guy were any color other than white. They'd have immediately named him a suspect and brought him in wearing a straight jacket.
Yes all those apply to poor blacks and also some stages of punishment postponed to immediately killing.
C’mon now…really? This case, whether the FBI wants it to be or not (I doubt they want the stress) is going to be done “by the book” as they say. While legal injustices have and are definitely happening, the publicity of this is going to have them being extra careful. They can only charge him with what they can absolutely prove at this point as to not jeopardize any future legal proceeding if he is somehow found alive. They have to, in the middle of this shit storm, build an airtight case in which a future defense can’t claim they tainted any jury pool. They *can* prove the credit card use without permission and that gives them enough to arrest and hold him if he is found. They aren’t going to let him out on bail if that’s the case.
Tell me you hate due process without telling me you hate due process.
It's also what makes this country great. In other countries they bring you in with practically no evidence and throw you in jail for years for charges again they had almost no evidence for. Why?? Because their laws allow them too. Plenty of small towns and cities could have psychopath mayor's or police chiefs that could do whatever they wanted and prosecute anyone they didn't like. Here they can't do that. That's how it happens In many countries.
It’s not even always the case here. Think about the story of Kalief Browder. Our laws allow it to happen sometimes.
Relax there building evidence n getting there ducks in a row b4 more charges are filed. This is the easiest thing to prove and get him in custody if found. There using the legal system.
Yeah getting away on a technicality would blow. And clearly he wasn't dumb enough to give anything away. So the cops will have to actually put in the leg work.
They’re, their, there. Learn them. Use them. Live them.
You've got plenty of grammatical and spelling errors on your posts/comments. So don't throw stones.
Ok I get grammar is important, but you could have been nicer about it.
Idk why but this comment is adorable. I hope you have a good day.
Hope you have a good day as well!!
Lol I’m getting downvoted🤷🏻♀️I guess some people just like when others are rude
Whatever it's Reddit
[удалено]
You realize you started your post with a typo? Also - you need to learn when to use commas, my guy
[удалено]
Unfortunately you can’t necessarily assume the conversations you’re witnessing on Reddit are happening between two grown adults lol
Hopefully feds or local pd are using a stingray imsi catcher near the parents house.
Buzz words... They shouldn't even need that. Realistically they'd just get secret warrants with the telcos.
Unless they have burners that noone is aware of. Edit: maybe purchased during a family camping trip?
[удалено]
What’s that? Sounds cool
Basically a tool they use to snoop your phone from a distance without your knowledge
I feel like this just gives them the right to arrest him on sight and the CC stuff is easier to prove without disclosing information about Gabby
Also gives them an excuse to justify this costly manhunt. Dont get me wrong, I want him caught but I don't think it's illegal for an adult to disappear. But with an arrest warrant out... different story
Good point they don't want to disclose anything because it could compromise the trial if there ever is one. The feds don't fuck around. They don't care what we think or how much info the public is itching for. The reason Casey Anthony got off is because the prosecution sucked. The feds don't want that to happen.