Found Deceased WY - Gabby Petito, Grand Teton National Park #86

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
typically, you should budget $2million to defend a civil case. If my company was being sued for that amount, I would defend it. Depending on their insurance requirements and any legal opinion that the insurers have, may well be out of their hands.
The decision to settle a case will still be up to the City of Moab. The insurance company may throw in their money, but the City can refuse to settle. And I think they should refuse. This case is now about a lot more than Gabby. If this suit is successful, they render themselves (and every other municipality in Utah) susceptible to lots of lawsuits for crimes they didn't prevent. If the city just stays strong, they will get this case dismissed with zero payout.
 
Snipped for focus

You're not going to be alone in this.
I'm wondering where they even found these lawyers?

I like the first question the reporter asked, "the supreme court has a high threshold for law enforcement lawsuits. Are you laying out the case why you believe and can overcome that because the supreme court has been very adamant."


Around 21:15 mark

I listened where you indicated - I am not convinved that they have a case if this is their argument.

If they are saying that the MOAB police officers did not follow the law and should have made an arrest - that arrest based on the evidence that the police officers saw/heard at the time of the stop - would have led to the arrest of G - or even if the po's had taken into account the information that they did not get (e.g. the witness who claimed that G was the victim and not the aggressor) - the arrest of both B and G - for what though?

Even if one of both were arrested, it is for the plaintiffs to prove that that arrest would have prevented G's death - and I don't see it here - I dont think either of them would have been jailed (from memory one of the olice officers mentioned writing up a citation and the court process that went along with it and jail time was not indicated).

G was supposedly calling her mum from the rear of the officers car, N has claimed ignorance of the MOAB incident in the Dr Phil interview, so do they think that they would have known if both were arrested? Would either B or G have told their parents? They were adults after all. I am certain, whatever the outcome of any police action at the Moab indicent, Band G would have got back together.

I do have sympathy with G's parents and applaud the cause of raising awareness of DV. Part of me is hoping that they are trying to raise money to further that cause, but laying the blame anywhere other than B (and not his parents), will, IMO backfire on them massively.
 
The decision to settle a case will still be up to the City of Moab. The insurance company may throw in their money, but the City can refuse to settle. And I think they should refuse. This case is now about a lot more than Gabby. If this suit is successful, they render themselves (and every other municipality in Utah) susceptible to lots of lawsuits for crimes they didn't prevent. If the city just stays strong, they will get this case dismissed with zero payout.
I agree with you completely, MOAb should defend this (IMO, the plaintiffs case is weak).

My comment was in relation to whether they wanted to defend and their insurers to payout if they lose. On our insurance, if we want to defend (and use our insurance to cover any payout), the insurers have the right to manage or at the very least steer the course of litigation.
 
Thanks @sds71 From the document:

"3. Gabby contacted her family to tell them that the couple had been fighting, that Brian had hit her, and that the police had been called. The family immediately responded by beginning to arrange for Gabby to fly home and to have her van shipped home, to separate her from Brian."

I don't remember that part. Quite opposite, in fact:


"Addressing reports of the (Moab) incident on Wednesday, Gabby's mother, Nichole Schmidt told DailyMail.com: '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.'"
 
Wow. Some new information to me here. Snipping for focus from Petito v Moab Police Complaint

32. At some point prior to their interaction with Moab police officers, Brian grabbed Gabby by the face so forcefully that he cut her cheek and drew blood. Gabby took a photograph of her injury, which shows blood across her nose and left eye. Gabby pointed out the injury to Officer Pratt, but he ignored her and did nothing more to investigate or document the injury.

35. Another witness later reported seeing Brian hit Gabby with a closed fist, causing her to fall against the side of the van with her back and probably her head

36. Dispatch alerted officers about a man who reportedly hit a woman then drove northbound on Main Street, away from the Co-op.

37. Officer Eric Pratt went to the Co-op to investigate and got the phone number of a second witness. While at the Co-op, Officer Pratt failed to activate his body camera as required and failed to locate and talk to the 911 caller who has reported Brian hitting Gabby.

55. Gabby initially hesitated and claimed she wasn’t sure. She said she was trying to get into the back of the van, and there was a backpack on the back of the van that scratched her.

56. Officer Pratt then told Gabby that a couple of witnesses had reported seeing Brian punch Gabby.

98. Gabby then called her parents.

99. On that call, Gabby’s parents demanded that Gabby fly home to get away from Brian, offering to pay for her ride to Salt Lake City and her flight home. But upon learning that the police were involved, Gabby’s parents accepted Gabby’s assurances that she should continue her trip. Gabby’s parents relied to their detriment on the police officers involved to evaluate the situation and intervene as necessary to protect Gabby. But for the officers’ failure to investigate and follow Utah law, Gabby’s parents would have intervened to end the trip and bring Gabby home.

139. After resigning as police chief in Salina, Pratt explained in publicly published statements online and in podcasts that he had become “disillusioned” with police work and that it was his practice to find “loopholes” to avoid applying the law, stating "I'd find my own loopholes, perfectly legal and I think very. . . just loopholes.”
 
Just saw this -- Hoping I'm putting it in the correct thread:

$50M Gabby Petito Lawsuit In Utah: 'She Would Have Been Alive Today'​

Petito's family lawsuit claims Utah police did not follow the domestic violence statutes they were charged with enforcing.​

MOAB, UT — The parents of Gabby Petito filed a $50 million lawsuit against Moab City Police claiming its officers could have saved her life had they followed their own protocols during a traffic stop spurred by a domestic violence incident just weeks before her tragic death.
[...]
A tearful Nichole Schmidt told reporters the family is broken over Petito's death.

"We miss her so much," she said. "But we saw it as an opportunity to help other families. Again, I would reiterate that we'd have her back in a heartbeat because she is what's important."
Schmidt said that the lawsuit needs to bring justice.

"There are laws put in place to protect victims, and those laws were not followed, and we don't want this to happen to anybody else and it keeps on happening," she said. "They know it keeps happening, so we just want to stop it."

Jim Schmidt noted Petito's story resonated with people across the globe.
-----------------
The article above is fairly long and informative. It also has many references to other article about this tragedy.
Source --
 
Thanks @sds71 From the document:

"3. Gabby contacted her family to tell them that the couple had been fighting, that Brian had hit her, and that the police had been called. The family immediately responded by beginning to arrange for Gabby to fly home and to have her van shipped home, to separate her from Brian."

I don't remember that part. Quite opposite, in fact:


"Addressing reports of the (Moab) incident on Wednesday, Gabby's mother, Nichole Schmidt told DailyMail.com: '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.'"
Where is the evidence for #3? Were there ongoing attempts to encourage GP to separate from BL in the weeks between the Moab stop and her death? <modsnip>

But we only have MSM to rely on so maybe? GP sat in a hotel room for a week by herself in communication with at least her father. Was her family begging her to separate from BL while he was across the country in FL?

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, this is an interesting piece of information from the complaint:

"Gabby contacted her family to tell them that the couple had been fighting, that Brian had hit her, and that the police had been called. The family immediately responded by beginning to arrange for Gabby to fly home and to have her van shipped home, to separate her from Brian."
 
Thanks @sds71 From the document:

"3. Gabby contacted her family to tell them that the couple had been fighting, that Brian had hit her, and that the police had been called. The family immediately responded by beginning to arrange for Gabby to fly home and to have her van shipped home, to separate her from Brian."

I don't remember that part. Quite opposite, in fact:


"Addressing reports of the (Moab) incident on Wednesday, Gabby's mother, Nichole Schmidt told DailyMail.com: '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.'"
I think Gabby's mom made that statement right after the news came out about the Moab incident. The first reports were that Gabby was the perpetrator. I doubt she knew all the details in the police reports and the video cam footage hadn't been released yet.
 
Wow. Some new information to me here. Snipping for focus from
Petito v Moab Police Complaint

99. On that call, Gabby’s parents demanded that Gabby fly home to get away from Brian, offering to pay for her ride to Salt Lake City and her flight home. But upon learning that the police were involved, Gabby’s parents accepted Gabby’s assurances that she should continue her trip. Gabby’s parents relied to their detriment on the police officers involved to evaluate the situation and intervene as necessary to protect Gabby. But for the officers’ failure to investigate and follow Utah law, Gabby’s parents would have intervened to end the trip and bring Gabby home.

This doesn't make sense to me. GP's parents wanted GP to fly home when they found out about the altercation with BL, but when they learned that the police were involved, they accepted GP's assurances that she should continue her trip. Wow. I would think they would be even more worried and concerned knowing that LE were involved, and even have one of them fly out there to find out for themselves what was going on. I know that's what I would have done as her parent.
 
This doesn't make sense to me. GP's parents wanted GP to fly home when they found out about the altercation with BL, but when they learned that the police were involved, they accepted GP's assurances that she should continue her trip. Wow. I would think they would be even more worried and concerned knowing that LE were involved, and even have one of them fly out there to find out for themselves what was going on. I know that's what I would have done as her parent.
That doesn't make any sense to me either. I don't think I've ever heard a parent say "I knew my child would be in a safe situation because the police were called." I don't understand why the P's would think the Moab police were in a better position to evaluate their daughter's situation than they were.

The officers had never met the couple before. Family spent 2+ weeks with the couple in NY a few months before in June and early July. And even if the P's decided the Moab police should solely determine what to do on Aug 12, it's not as though the family thought G&B would stay in Moab.

The P's may very well believe what they are saying. That if something was wrong or could go wrong in the future, LE should have been able to tell and should have acted to prevent future harm, even weeks or months down the road. (I don't think that's realistic myself.)

But the claim comes across to me as an attempt to deflect blame that might come their way-- "Of course it's not our fault, we trusted the police" the way parents of a bullied young child might say "of course we trusted the school and the teachers." And if that's what it is, they may not even know they are deflecting (because they are also deflecting to avoid self-knowledge.) It may also be a self-serving statement so far as the lawsuit goes but that doesn't mean the parents don't consciously believe it.

I don't see how all these things could be true:
1. NS thought the Moab incident involved a meaningless fight tired travelers sometimes have.

2. The P's were so alarmed by the incident they began making plans for GP to fly home to NY & to have her van shipped home so all contact with BL was cut immediately.

3. They then decided-- perhaps within the same fairly short phone call-- the incident was nothing to worry about since the police had been called.

4. When they stopped hearing from GP in late August 2+ weeks after the Moab incident, their first thought was that the couple was traveling in an area without cell coverage. I don't think I'd have thought of death either-- after all, they'd known BL for years-- but I might have thought of jail and for more than one reason. And I'd definitely have thought of jail if I knew about Moab AND I thought LE would be proactive in jailing people to prevent possible future crimes from occurring.

5. When they later couldn't reach GP or BL, they've said their first thought was that something had happened to both of them. But so far as we know, the possibility they were in jail wasn't considered. Why, if they put so much faith in LE to handle their daughter's situation wasn't it considered that maybe LE somewhere had acted and jailed them? I guess it's possible, not likely IMO but possible, NS early on told LE the couple might be in jail but didn't say that publicly?

6. The P's didn't contact police for about 2 weeks after having no contact with GP. I realize GP was an adult. And they wouldn't have wanted to think something was wrong. And I realize it was hard to get LE to act because of jurisdiction issues, but no call was made for weeks even though up until the last week of August they said they'd been hearing from GP every day or almost every day (per the lawsuit against the L's.) And they knew police had been called because the couple was fighting 2 weeks earlier. Had calls from GP subsequent to the Moab incident convinced them all was well? That it was a meaningless fight? The P's could have talked to GP very privately when BL flew to FL 5 days after the Moab incident (Aug 17-23)

7. There was apparently no effort made by the P's to discuss the Aug 12 Moab incident with BL's parents right after it happened. That's not weird on its face IMO-- GP & BL were adults after all, not young teenagers--except in the lawsuit against the L's there seems to be an assumption the L's knew every move BL made. And per the current lawsuit, the P's had considered flying GP home and shipping her van home. Seems that would have left BL stranded somewhere out west, something his parents would have wanted to know.

8. Although the lawsuit against the L's claims GP's family had a "cordial" relationship with the L's, it appears no call was made to them until around Sept 10. At that time GP's family thought both GP and BL were missing and had thought that for many days.

It's all very odd.
JMO
 
Gabby Petito’s Family Sues Moab Police for $100M, Says ‘Domestic Abuser’ Cop Who Responded to Fateful Call Identified with Brian Laundrie
Nov 3rd, 2022
[...]
The lawsuit, filed Thursday morning, alleges four causes of action: (1) negligence, (2) negligent hiring and supervision, (3) survival, and (4) wrongful death, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by Law&Crime.

Survival actions are generally pressed on behalf of a decedent’s estate to compensate for the decedent’s own losses. Wrongful death actions are pressed by a decedent’s relatives as similar yet separate matters.

The lawsuit seeks damages “in excess” of $50 million on the first three counts and “in excess” of another $50 million on the fourth count.
[...]
 
In light of what we know now, I can't help but see BL's trip back to FL as 100% related to this incident and whatever other incidents that may have occurred that simply didn't end in an encounter with police.
 
That doesn't make any sense to me either. I don't think I've ever heard a parent say "I knew my child would be in a safe situation because the police were called." I don't understand why the P's would think the Moab police were in a better position to evaluate their daughter's situation than they were.

The officers had never met the couple before. Family spent 2+ weeks with the couple in NY a few months before in June and early July. And even if the P's decided the Moab police should solely determine what to do on Aug 12, it's not as though the family thought G&B would stay in Moab.

The P's may very well believe what they are saying. That if something was wrong or could go wrong in the future, LE should have been able to tell and should have acted to prevent future harm, even weeks or months down the road. (I don't think that's realistic myself.)

But the claim comes across to me as an attempt to deflect blame that might come their way-- "Of course it's not our fault, we trusted the police" the way parents of a bullied young child might say "of course we trusted the school and the teachers." And if that's what it is, they may not even know they are deflecting (because they are also deflecting to avoid self-knowledge.) It may also be a self-serving statement so far as the lawsuit goes but that doesn't mean the parents don't consciously believe it.

I don't see how all these things could be true:
1. NS thought the Moab incident involved a meaningless fight tired travelers sometimes have.

2. The P's were so alarmed by the incident they began making plans for GP to fly home to NY & to have her van shipped home so all contact with BL was cut immediately.

3. They then decided-- perhaps within the same fairly short phone call-- the incident was nothing to worry about since the police had been called.

4. When they stopped hearing from GP in late August 2+ weeks after the Moab incident, their first thought was that the couple was traveling in an area without cell coverage. I don't think I'd have thought of death either-- after all, they'd known BL for years-- but I might have thought of jail and for more than one reason. And I'd definitely have thought of jail if I knew about Moab AND I thought LE would be proactive in jailing people to prevent possible future crimes from occurring.

5. When they later couldn't reach GP or BL, they've said their first thought was that something had happened to both of them. But so far as we know, the possibility they were in jail wasn't considered. Why, if they put so much faith in LE to handle their daughter's situation wasn't it considered that maybe LE somewhere had acted and jailed them? I guess it's possible, not likely IMO but possible, NS early on told LE the couple might be in jail but didn't say that publicly?

6. The P's didn't contact police for about 2 weeks after having no contact with GP. I realize GP was an adult. And they wouldn't have wanted to think something was wrong. And I realize it was hard to get LE to act because of jurisdiction issues, but no call was made for weeks even though up until the last week of August they said they'd been hearing from GP every day or almost every day (per the lawsuit against the L's.) And they knew police had been called because the couple was fighting 2 weeks earlier. Had calls from GP subsequent to the Moab incident convinced them all was well? That it was a meaningless fight? The P's could have talked to GP very privately when BL flew to FL 5 days after the Moab incident (Aug 17-23)

7. There was apparently no effort made by the P's to discuss the Aug 12 Moab incident with BL's parents right after it happened. That's not weird on its face IMO-- GP & BL were adults after all, not young teenagers--except in the lawsuit against the L's there seems to be an assumption the L's knew every move BL made. And per the current lawsuit, the P's had considered flying GP home and shipping her van home. Seems that would have left BL stranded somewhere out west, something his parents would have wanted to know.

8. Although the lawsuit against the L's claims GP's family had a "cordial" relationship with the L's, it appears no call was made to them until around Sept 10. At that time GP's family thought both GP and BL were missing and had thought that for many days.

It's all very odd.
JMO
Great analysis. It's odd that her family thinks their versions are believable. Something is amiss either in the MSM accounts or in GP family's current story. I think it is the latter, which is a red flag because denying facts never pays.

The personal agency of GP & BL seems to be ignored in the current version. They were adults & in some ways the retelling dismisses that. I've never been a parent to a young adult but having a need for rescue/believing the parents are in some way ultimately responsible says something about these families, IMO. Maybe I just don't "get it."
JMHO
 
Total speculation on my part, but I think that there were an accelerating number of incidents that had started to make GP doubt whether she should continue on. She may have thought the time when he was in FL would help them both decompress and that they could reset and carry on when he returned. The events at lunch on Aug 27th may have sealed the deal for her. She may have told him that night that she was heading home, and that may have been what triggered his final, deadly attack.

It's also kind of eerie that his time in FL was described as having been needed so that he could move some personal items out of the house (or out of storage, depending on which article you believe). I believe he DID spend some of that time moving things. Moving Gabby's things into the garage or maybe even throwing a lot of them away. I think he knew how the trip would end.

MOO JMO IMHO
 
<snipped for focus>

The personal agency of GP & BL seems to be ignored in the current version. They were adults & in some ways the retelling dismisses that.

Agree completely, the lawsuit makes it sound like GP's parents expected that LE would be treating GP as if she were a minor, that LE would be acting in place of the parents (in loco parentis) which is not their role or appropriate as GP and BL were adults.
 
On that call, Gabby’s parents demanded that Gabby fly home to get away from Brian, offering to pay for her ride to Salt Lake City and her flight home. But upon learning that the police were involved, Gabby’s parents accepted Gabby’s assurances that she should continue her trip. Gabby’s parents relied to their detriment on the police officers involved to evaluate the situation and intervene as necessary to protect Gabby. But for the officers’
failure to investigate and follow Utah law, Gabby’s parents would have intervened to end the trip and bring Gabby home.

During Gabby's phone call to her parents they accepted the fact that she would continue her trip with Brian. Her parents decided to not intervene even though they knew LE would not separate the couple for very long.

They thought that it was okay for GP and BL to continue with their trip together. Looks like they agreed with LE to me. JMO.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
131
Guests online
1,884
Total visitors
2,015

Forum statistics

Threads
600,236
Messages
18,105,668
Members
230,992
Latest member
Bella257
Back
Top