Yes, that was the way my parents worked.
Same for the house actually, given that it was a rental.
Apparently every skinny, balding guy with a beard will get mistaken for Brian Laundrie.
Canada? There’s no way Laundrie’s neatly trimmed beard got that bushy in three weeks. The guy is flustered because he’s got strange people staring at him. 
yeah , heres another one a little closer to his home (500 miles north at 6am on a deer cam)
I dont know if it has been debunked or not. Lots of fake videos nowadays.
I’m sorry. I don’t really want to make light in a serious situation, but I really can’t resist.
Gabby van Lifer sounds like a movie character.
Still looks like it’s the camera focus playing tricks with the black ladder on the back of the van in that same area, possibly cause by the blot of something over the camera partially obstructing the view around the same time.
ETA: And I just want to say that I appreciate you used the words “apparently” and “allegedly.” Because what it looks like they did was apply digital zoom and maybe fix the view on that one point. All that really does is make it less clear what is being shown, not more, by removing context. That is, the context of this is a distance shot, from a moving vehicle, and that although the black seam looks huge relative to what is shown on zoom, it amounts to maybe a few pixels in width in the original view, which makes it much more plausible that it’s a trick of the lens.
It looks pretty clear to me (ymmv obviously) from the unzoomed full resolution youtube video, that the door smoothly closes looking just like you would expect it to.
More obvious to me than the sandal anyway.
yeah I agree, video would be better. Trail cams are pretty low resolution. FBI would “probably” move on that if was valid. Havnt heard much of anything from them on mainstream media. And Reddit? Holy smokes that place is insane.
I’m pretty sure they identified the guy as a local and not Laundrie.
ETA: Here’s one news story where the Sherriff’s Office says as much.
Cop shows strongly promote this kind of misunderstanding. You’ve got the detective peering over the shoulder of the geeky tech guy and there’s a blurry picture on his computer screen. Usually it’s of a person or a license plate. Then magically the techie zooms in and as pixels appear out of nowhere, the picture becomes crystal clear. Nope. Doesn’t happen. Pixels don’t appear out of nowhere to make the picture finer and more distinct. If anything, the opposite happens-- the picture is more blurry and less distinct after zooming than before.
These men look dissimilar to me. Eye sockets, nose, overall vibe.
Hmm…
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/24/us/gabby-petito-brian-laundrie-update-friday/index.html
Laundrie used a debit card and PIN number for accounts that did not belong to him for charges totaling more than $1,000 between the dates of August 30 and September 1, according to the indictment.
This raises some questions. Was it Petito’s card? What did he spend the money on? Did he use the debit card because he was out of money or (if it wasn’t Petito’s card) because he didn’t want his transactions traced? Or because (if it was Petito’s card) it’d make it look like she was still alive?
And on a related note, what did Laundrie do for a living before this van trip? Or DID he work?
Hmmmm, I just assumed he was using Petito’s card; it never occurred to me it might be someone else’s. What was the story again with that other couple who were killed nearby?
It will be interesting if he is being charged for using Petito’s card because then we would have the same sort of debate we were having a little bit ago about the stolen car. If she gave him the PIN and permission to use the card, then that isn’t illegal–I don’t think.
It is an interesting point. If you loan me your vehicle, obviously there are implied limitations and one would almost certainly be: “If you murder or abandon me, then your permission to use this car is revoked.”
But, again, if they don’t have enough evidence to charge him with murder, then the first is out. And how do we know that she didn’t tell him, “Get lost. I’m staying here. You drive the van home, because I can’t drive it. Take it home and when I’m done out here, I’ll have my parents wire me money to fly home”?
Laundrie used the card up to September 1st. The police believe Petito was killed between August 27th and September 1st.
Technically he could claim he didn’t know she was dead at the time, but he’ll have to to confront the prosecutor to do that.
Sorry for the triple post, but maybe it is illegal. There are computer hacking laws and a computer operator gives certain people certain access permissions, so maybe it is a crime to use someone else’s credit or debit card even with permission.
I know it happens a lot and maybe for the mine run of incidents they do not care, but in this case they have a solid hook for an arrest warrant.
I’d assumed it was Petito’s card, too, but
The indictment does not say who the card belonged to and the nature of the charges have not been disclosed.
[source]
Utah police determined there was no connection between the Petito case and the murders of the newlywed couple.
Curioser and Curioser.
That seems extremely unlikely. Why would she send him off with the van and all their supplies? (Remember they were camping in the van, not a tent.) Was there even cell phone reception where she was at the time? And how would she have gotten to an airport to fly home? I can’t see her taking the risk of hitchhiking.
If it were Petito’s card, why would the FBI not have released that information? They stated what type of debit card it was, when it was used, and the approximate amount. If the card belonged to someone else, I’d expect them to spare the cardholder the inevitable media and social media attention.
I guess what I am saying is that if it is illegal to use someone else’s card and PIN, even with permission, then they would have him dead to rights on that charge. They wouldn’t have to worry if some defense attorney argued as I am doing that a stolen car or homicide charge was not supported by the facts so that any evidence seized upon his arrest gets suppressed.
Mind they probably don’t care if they can convict on the debit card use–but it has enough probable cause to justify an arrest warrant, which lets them treat him as a fugitive instead of a person of interest.
Of course a murder arrest warrant does the same, but I suspect the prosecutor wants to keep all his cards close to his chest until Laundrie is in custody on the murder charge.